579,
I am no expert in this field but putting together the comments
made on this subject it seems that the DPP need the information in a
particular format, known as a brief.
It does not matter how strong the evidence is it has to be in the
right format in the way it lays out the evidence.
They just don't want to do the law enforcement agencies work for them.
I gather from comments that is what the police do all the time.

Now any government body charged with presenting evidence for
prosecution must surely know that.

As Sen Brandis said they could either do it themselves or engage
solicitors to do it for them.

Very impartial and compliant no doubt. Lets hear what the DPP says.

579,

A brief of evidence is simple. It is a collection of the source documents upon which the conclusions of the report were based. i.e.:

Financial records of payments and receipts, and approvals with signatures.
Contractual documents,
Interview transcripts,

If FWA has done the investigation, then it should have access to all these documents and it should be a simple matter of collating them. A standard practise for most financial investigations.

"If FWA has done the investigation, then it should have access to all these documents and it should be a simple matter of collating them. A standard practise for most financial investigations."

I am sure that FWA knows how to compile a brief of evidence.

The problem is why should they. They do not have the authorization to take criminal matters to court.

They said that they had referred the report to the DPP for advice as to their next action should be.

FWA was very clear that they had not made any decisions in relation to criminal matters, as this is not their jobs. They have the task of dealing with civil matters and taking them the FWA court.

This part of the FWA act was created by Mr. Abbott and transferred to FWA.

There are many different agencies that FWA can refer to. State police, commonwealth police and many other agencies that deal with corporations etc.
What is obvious is that the matters are not open and shut, as the Opposition keeps saying.

What FWA is not there for, to provide Mr. Abbott with the trigger to achieve his obsession in becoming PM.

There are four people involved, not just Mr. Thompson.

There are much more serious charges against another person.

I cannot see the ACTU taking the action they did, on complaints that happened over five years ago, Their concerns have to be current, Mr. Thompson is no longer there, in case no one has noticed.

Mr. Thompson is entitled to the same treatment as everyone else, the presumption of innocence, which our justice system is based on. No ifs, no buts.

Flo,

The FWA was a creation of Juliar, and her alone. Its tribunal is supposed to investigate internal matters within unions, and the only reason to refer any thing to the DPP is to proceed with a prosecution.

Having spent $1m and 3 years all they had was a 1100 page opinion piece.

The requirements were simple, and if the FWA was not competent to do this then there are outside law firms that can do it for far far less than $1m. I believe that FWA is corrupt.

SM, you are wrong. Much if the act was lifted from the previous legislation. That part that states the power of the FWA definitely was.

Sorry, that is a fact.