It's difficult to understand why the Trade Union Royal Commission felt the need to volunteer any public comment at all last Friday night.   It owes us a full explanation.

It's worth looking at what the Commission did at this time last year.

On 31 October 2014 Senior Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar SC was expected to complete and hand over his submissions to the Commissioner.   We were advised of the timetable by media statement:

Media Release

29 October 2014

Commission outlines timetable for submissions

The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption has announced its timetable for submissions in response to its 2014 inquiries.

Written submissions by Counsel Assisting the Commission will be published online on Friday, 31 October 2014. Parties who have been granted authorisation to appear before the Commission will then have two weeks to lodge submissions in reply. Those submissions must be lodged by Friday, 14 November and will also be published online.

Anyone affected by those submissions will then have until Friday, 21 November to respond.

On 31 October 2014 we were advised as to the expected timing of the publication of those submissions.

True to its word the submissions appeared online and we published a few articles that Friday afternoon - as did The Australian, the ABC and others.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/10/royal-commission-publishes-counsel-assistings-final-submissions.html

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/10/royal-commission-asked-to-find-that-julia-eileen-gillard-was-the-beneficiary-of-funds-from-wilson.html

The submissions were comprehensive and self explanatory.   Media who wanted to write about them had to read them - the basic job of journalists.   There was no media statement to guide the media as to what was important/what wasn't - in other words there was no PR spin.

So what was the Commission thinking in summarising Counsel Assisting's submissions this year, rather than releasing them holus bolus?   Why the emphasis on Bill Shorten in all of the AWU matters canvassed in Friday's submission by Mr Stoljar?   Why is the Commission now in the business of decision what the media should focus on and what should go through to the keeper with the publication of the whole set of submissions today?

Counsel Assisting releases submissions on AWU

6 November 2015

The Royal Commission has released counsel assisting’s submissions on the AWU case studies in accordance with the timing outlined in the Practice Direction 16.

The submissions have been circulated to affected parties tonight through the Electronic Court Book and publicly released to the media. The documents will be published on the Commission’s website on Monday morning after 10am.

The submissions cover the following case studies:

1. Cleanevent, including Douglas Site Services

2. Thiess John Holland 
3. Paid education leave, namely ACI and Chiquita Mushrooms
4. Unibuilt
5. Winslow and miscellaneous membership issues
6. Downer EDI 

In very brief overview, counsel assisting have submitted that the Commissioner should find that a number of officials of the AWU and the AWU itself may have engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the falsification of invoices and the taking of commissions.

It is further submitted that a number of persons employed by major employers and employers themselves may have engaged in similar criminal conduct, by receiving and paying bogus invoices and paying commissions (see e.g. Chapter 3 – Thiess John Holland, paragraph 213; Chapter 5 – ACI, paragraph 118; Chapter 6 – Chiquita Mushrooms paragraph 85; Chapter 8 – Winslow Constructors, paragraph 44). 

Counsel assisting have submitted further that a number of officials of the AWU may have engaged in conduct in conflict of interest by causing the union to enter into lucrative side deals that were not disclosed to the members. 

There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct.

It strikes me as dangerous ground for the Commission.   I hope it explains today why it took this approach.   It should be in the business of being a Royal Commission with submissions that speak for themselves, rather than being delivered through the filter of a PR operative's media statement.