Amortiser has had a long career in the construction industry finance arena.

He is a senior specialist.  He understands construction projects and the way they're financed and managed.

Yesterday he sent us this comment.

When you understand how a construction project is managed and controlled, the statements by the Thiess executives at the Royal Commission are false and misleading. The payments were purported to be for "training purposes". The Thiess executives claimed to be deceived.

Each month of the project, the whole project is subject to review including the financial aspects and the project profit forecast. The payments to the AWUWRA were significant (in excess of $300,000) and would have been budgeted prior to commencement it added as a variation post commencement. Both stituations have documentation to support them.

We know that there was a meeting with Wilson, Ludwig, Albrecht and Jukes where the deal was done. Jukes and Wilson were left to sort out the details.

The idea that Thiess was deceived is nonsense. The project was completed months ahead of schedule. Any project training would stop at the end of the project yet payments for this "training" continued for months afterwards. To make such payments requires specific approval. The payments or costs post completion are defects and maintenance costs and claims that may have been in dispute and resolved later. None of this applied to these payments.

If the Royal Commission counsel understood how construction projects are controlled they would have quickly worked out that what they were being told was rubbish.

ENDS

During the course of the Trade Union Royal Commission I sent a copy of this interview to Senior Counsel Assisting, Jeremy Stoljar SC.

I explained Amortiser's background, including the company he'd worked for.

No reply.