The Kathy Jackson saga has been running for years now and along the way the Liberal Party has been happy to champion her statements and actions:
25 August 2011
Tony Abbott (Warringah,
Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition)
Kathy Jackson is a brave, decent woman, and she is speaking
up on behalf of 70,000 members. I refer the Prime Minister to her words:
… there's been
unauthorised use of credit cards, unauthorised expenditure that is not normal
union expenditure and we want answers … This union and our members require
answers …
25 Feb 2014
Christopher Pyne (Sturt,
Liberal Party, Minister for Education)
Kathy Jackson is a revolutionary, and Kathy Jackson will be
remembered as a lion of the union movement.
However, the Royal Commission Into Trade Union Governance and Corruption is now examining Ms. Jackson's alleged part in the rort of Health Services Union funds.
Excerpt from Royal Commission hearing transcript, 30 July 2014 at 10am:
Excerpt from Royal Commission hearing transcript, 30 July 2014 at 10am:
27 Ms Jackson gave evidence at the
Commission concerning
28 the NHDA on 19 June 2014. At that time, only a limited
29 number of documents concerning the NHDA
had become
30 available. Since the hearing on 19 June 2014, the
31 Commission has been able to obtain
further material
32 concerning the NHDA. In those circumstances, the
33 Commission considers it appropriate to
recall Ms Jackson
34 and to examine her further on this new
material as part of
35 its ongoing investigations into the NHDA.
36
37 The Commission's investigation into
the NHDA includes
38 the following topics: first, the circumstances in which
39 the NHDA was established and, in
particular, the
40 circumstances surrounding the receipt by
the Victoria No 3
41 Branch of $250,000 from the Peter
MacCallum Cancer
42 Institute in 2003 - specifically,
whether the said sum of
43 $250,000 comprised a windfall gain to
the branch or unpaid
44 backpay to union members working at the
Peter MacCallum
45 Cancer Institute or a reimbursement of
expenses paid or to
46 be paid from members' subscription
moneys.
1
Secondly, the intended purpose of
the NHDA and the
2 scope of authorisations given by the
Branch Committee of
3 Management to Ms Jackson for the
transfer of funds to the
4 NHDA.
5
6 Thirdly, the nature of the
expenditures made from the
7 NHDA between 2003 and 2013.
8
9 Some matters of procedure should be
noted at the
10 outset of today's hearing. The hearings into the HSU that
11 commenced on 16 June 2014 were, and the
hearing today will
12 be, conducted in accordance with
Practice Direction 1.
13 That practice direction provides, in
effect, that after a
14 witness has been examined by counsel
assisting, that
15 witness's evidence will be adjourned to
a later date for
16 any cross-examination. Practice Direction 1 makes
17 provisions for other interested persons
to provide
18 statements of intended evidence to the
Commission in
19 advance of the hearings being resumed.
20
21 Following the hearing on 19 June
2014, a number of
22 persons, in accordance with Practice
Direction 1, provided
23 statements of intended evidence to the
Commission. Today's
24 hearing is intended to provide those
persons with notice of
25 the further material now obtained by the
Commission and
26 Ms Jackson's further evidence.
27
28 A further purpose of today's
hearing is that other
29 persons who have not yet to date come
forward, but who may
30 have relevant information or evidence
concerning the NHDA,
31 will also have the opportunity to
consider the further
32 material and Ms Jackson's evidence in
respect of it. The
33 Commission encourages any such person to
come forward.
"I had no notice that I was going to be attacked today by senior counsel," she said, claiming an ambush. After two hours of heavy questioning where she was forced to admit previous important evidence had been wrong, Jackson abruptly asked the royal commission for access to a lawyer.
She got her wish – the inquiry was suspended for a month – but the fresh evidence unearthed by Stoljar and his colleagues suggests there is every chance she will ultimately be charged with criminal offences for the misappropriation of Health Services Union funds.
It would be a similar fate to that which befell the disgraced union leaders Michael Williamson and Craig Thomson, both of who were pursued by Jackson in her role as "whistleblower". Few call her that now, least of all her one-time friends in the Coalition, including Tony Abbott, who once dubbed her "heroic".
Jackson was forced to admit that important evidence she had given under oath at a previous hearing - concerning a $250,000 payment by Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre to her union during a $3.16-million dispute over back pay - was incorrect.
Now, her story changed to concede that there was no back pay to workers in the 2003 dispute and that the $250,000 was not a "windfall" to the union or "penalty" against the hospital as had been described.
Evidence showed it was to reimburse the union for expenses incurred in legal and staff costs. It is a key point. If there was no windfall or penalty, it can't be justified as anything but HSU members' money, if it ever could be otherwise.
Jackson's response to claims it was members money was simply "that's not how we saw it".
It is worth recounting what happened to that $250,000. It was transferred from the union and put in a bank account of which Jackson was sole signatory. She spent thousands from that account on herself - at David Jones, JB Hi-Fi, supermarkets and even a paediatric dentist.
She claims she had authorisation for that, though no records exist. It emerged on Wednesday that $50,000 of it went to her former husband, Jeff Jackson. As recently as June she had said she couldn't recall where that money had gone.
Stoljar did not buy her memory fail, telling her: "That's not credible evidence, is it, Ms Jackson."
Ms. Jackson set up the National Health Development Account [NHDA] described as an Unincorporated Association - a club or community organisation, not incorporated on 4 December 2003:
Full document is contained in M14.pdf
Other documents before the Royal Commission.
<
ReplyDeleteBut will the Royal Commission ask the questions ?
<
ReplyDeleteAll about Kathy Jackson via "Jacksonville" :
Link : http://www.independentaustralia.net/jacksonville