Shorten's shifting statements on whether companies - rather than workers - paid for bulk false AWU memberships
Sunday, 21 June 2015
In the ALP machine numbers are everything. If you've got the numbers, you can do whatever you want.
It's a little bit fiddly to get someone to actually join a union. First up they have to want to join. The new member has to complete a union membership application, sign and submit it. They have to arrange a payment mechanism too - if their union dues are to be paid by payroll or bank account deduction that written authority needs to be signed and filed as well.
Much easier to get the bosses to pay and sort the details later.
In the AWU model, a boss was pressured into writing out a big cheque. The AWU then divided its income by the fee per person and claimed the number of members.
It's a bit like the Anglican Church deciding I'm no longer Catholic and putting my name on their list of members. Or maybe even Hizb ut-Tahrir could have a go at the Shorten method - Saudi Arabia would probably pay. But I'd be pretty angry, particularly if the organisation boosted its influence (and the career of its boss) by falsely claiming me as a member.
Remember what the AWU got for those false names? If you've got the numbers, you can do whatever you want. That includes deciding who gets preselected for Parliament - even who becomes PM.
It was a big issue back in 2002. Big enough to be investigated by the Cole Royal Commission. Bill Shorten had been associated with the AWU for 8 years by 2002 - and had been Victorian Secretary for 4 of those years (Victoria from 1998, he added national secretary in 2001). He should have known what the AWU was up to.
Shorten was crystal clear in his sworn evidence to the Cole Commission. The AWU did not have dodgy memberships. He wasn't aware of any "bulk" union membership deals with employers.
Well now, 13 years later, his memory has improved. Or he's modifying his position to take account of the publication in the media of his deals. Whatever the reason, his story has now changed - here's The Australian's report after Shorten's appearance on Insiders today.
Bill Shorten has conceded “it’s entirely possible” union fees were paid by an employer during his time leading the Australian Workers Union but rejected claims he put union bosses ahead of workers.
The Opposition Leader has used an interview on ABC’s Insiders to defend his record as national secretary in 2001-07 and head of the AWU’s Victorian branch between 1998-2006, declaring he was “proud of being a moderate trade union official”.
But Mr Shorten said it would be “foolish” to try and say categorically what happened on every individual transaction, acknowledging he couldn’t “go to every bit of evidence and every document which I don’t have in my possession”.
Asked if he accepted at some point companies paid union fees, Mr Shorten replied: “It’s entirely possible but what I don’t know is, was it the practice of the union as its preferred model? And furthermore, I don’t have at my hands all of the detail of all of the claims being put to me. But I am 100 per cent relaxed about my record.”
Mr Shorten said his “preference” was that employees pay their own union dues but that he’d “rather someone be in the union than not in the union”.
Mr Shorten's now reinvented himself as the palatable, moderate union leader who worked tirelessly for productivity gains. Which is a bit different from working tirelessly for the members.
Bill, lots of organisations have a preference that people become members. That's normal. What's not normal is to make the membership numbers up, or to make the decision to join on behalf of the unknowing new members - then pocket big cheques made up of other people's money.
You can modify your statements in the media to your hearts content. Changing the transcript from the Cole Commission might be a little more difficult.