Fair Work Australia was set up by the Labor government when it deconstructed the IR legislation of the Howard and Keating governments. FWA has significant resources and is able to adjudicate multiple complex negotiations simultaneously.

Given the relatively simple case against Craig Thomson and Williamson, and the evidence at their disposal, the question that is the elephant in the room is whether FWA is incapable of resolving a simple case of fraud and larceny in 3 years, or whether political interference is delaying the case until it is no longer relevant?

In spite of no direct evidence, given that the FWA is not run by idiots, and the recent dirty tricks emanating from the PM's office, I find it difficult to believe that is that undue influence has not been exercised.

I invite anyone to show me where my understanding is flawed.

A simple case of fraud and larceny, you have the verdict before a trial.

Have to agree with you there 579.
SM, much like TA, sticks his foot in his mouth again.
Typical of 'kangaroo court' proponents and evidence of 'rose coloured' McCarthyism.
Betcha we can expect much much more of what others have commented; same old same old.
Nothing new here, SM still rocking in his stockings.

BM and 579,

I see literacy are not strong points for you. A murder trial does not assume a verdict, neither does "FWA is incapable of resolving a simple case of fraud and larceny" and neither does anything in my post.

The issue is the length of time that a relatively "simple" or uncomplicated case is taking to resolve.

Given the body of evidence publicly released the most likely verdict would be devastating to the incumbent government, and with the resources of FWA the length of this investigation is far from reasonable. And as Kathy Jackson, many Australians are reaching the conclusion that Labor is deliberately delaying the outcome.

SM, a murder trial does assume a verdict - guilty or innocent.

You wouldn't have a clue of its simplicity, or more likely, complexity.

You do nothing but shoot from the hip - like TA.

You, unlike TA, do it from the sidelines.

You have made up your mind without being directly involved.

You would make a terrible juror, SM - given your bias and predjudice.

You hang, draw and quarter without listening to evidence (you don't know it all).

You sir, are a disgrace to fair and equitable justice, whether guilty or not.

BM,

At this stage I see no evidence of any grey matter between your ears.

Your comments with responses:

SM, a murder trial does assume a verdict - guilty or innocent.
Nope, there is also hung jury and mistrial. Which is besides the point considering your charge of "kangaroo court".

You wouldn't have a clue of its simplicity, or more likely, complexity.
Wrong. There are only a few people involved, and the body of evidence is not voluminous, or ambiguous. Compared to other investigations, with dozens of witnesses and tonnes of documentation that have taken more than a year, it is extremely simple

You do nothing but shoot from the hip - like TA.
Yes with evidence as ammunition unlike you.

You, unlike TA, do it from the sidelines.
Your point?

You have made up your mind without being directly involved.
I believe those directly involved are up for fraud.
At least I have a mind to make up, and I use the available information.

You would make a terrible juror, SM - given your bias and predjudice.
Yes I am biased against Labor MPs Union leaders and other crooks.

You hang, draw and quarter without listening to evidence (you don't know it all).
I may not have seen all the evidence, but I have seen plenty.

You sir, are a disgrace to fair and equitable justice, whether guilty or not.
Then so are most of the Australian voters who call a spade a spade.
You are simply a disgrace.