The motive behind the 3+ year investigation into Craig Thomson's theft and corruption case begins to crystallize as yet another Union Crony is appointed to Labor's "independent" labour watchdog.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/accused-unionist-joins-fair-work-20120229-1u3bc.html

Compared to Electrical Trades Union New South Wales secretary Bernie Riordan's, alleged $1.8m self enrichment at the expense of his union, Thomson looks like an amateur.

The best thing Abbott should do would be to clear out the viper's nest by firing the lot.

SM are you saying this man is corrupt.
Can you tell us what you want to talk about.

Shadow Minister would not know Bernie if he fell over him.
Do not bite 579, no substance ever in the mutterings of this bloke.
Bernie is one of the union movements best, and will be in his new job.
He is no plant,such positions in past Industrial relations courts, always, got filled by former advocates for big business.
And ex union officials.

I'm with Shadow Minister on this one.Labor has huge corruption problems and they are not new."Whatever it takes has been their motto fro a long time."

579,

As per the age report, was being sued by his own union for pocketing the directors fees that as a full time employee of the ETU was meant to go to the union, as do most companies, to avoid a conflict of interest.

Hanging onto the money is a direct conflict of interest and is considered by most to be corrupt.

That we have this man of dubious morals appointed to a position of trust, merely because he is a union mate, is in itself corrupt.

This jobs for mates stacking of the FWA makes it far from independent.

Can you tell us what you want to talk about.
579,
I haven't a clue what this is all about but any explanation would be wasted on you, that much I know.

No case to answer. The FWA is made up of both union and business representatives. I know you would like to see all business representatives, and so would Toni, but that would not be fair. Your sensationalism is not worthy of a thread.

579,

Bollocks!

Please name the business representatives.

SM my impression is that as the claims have been withdrawn there is no real legal impediment to the appointment but it's a sign of a government that really does not care how it's appointments look.

The concept of innocent unless proven guilty seems to have mixed meanings around public figures (with some validity). Just because allegations have been raised does not mean that the accussed is guilty and I don't like the consequences when we start assuming otherwise.

Ironic with Qld Labor running such an dirty campaign against Campbell Newman based on allegations which the government didn't see fit to act on in an official capacity prior to the election.

R0bert

Robert,

The law suit has been withdrawn, not the claim. As it was a civil law suit there was never a legal obstacle only an ethical one, and labor has no problems with ethics.

Yes RObert, I don't think the muck raking by labor in QLD is doing them any good. Their rusted on nod their heads, but for the rest it just indicates how rotten their thinking.

A number have said that they can see that labor think Newman must operate that way, because they do. Tainted by their own brush another says.

They really do sound like they have nothing to say worth listening to.

Politics - I'm afraid I don't know too much about it. However, I suppose I'd describe myself as a conservative. Anyway, all that aside, I do know a little about crime per se.

And I can state unequivocally, as an investigator, you can thoroughly KNOW something, but you just can't PROVE it !

That said, we all know that it's incumbant upon the crown that it prove it's case to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt. And that is as it should be. Despite any of our personal prejudices or political aversions we may harbour against a person.

As one of the notable law lords told us '...it's better that a hundred
guilty men go free than an innocent man is punished...'.

Therefore, why shouldn't this ex-union official be appointed as a commissioner. After all, in the eyes of the law he's done nothing illegal that might render him unfit for such high office ?