I've just heard this for the first time today. I believe this alone could totally invalidate the Fair Work Australia report on Craig Thomson.

It's been revealed to the general public today (although not hidden from those in the know) that the deputy president of Fair Work Australia is Michael Lawler. Mr Lawler is the partner of the Health Services Union national secretary Kathy Jackson. Ms Jackson has been a major opponent and accuser against Craig Thomson.

If that itself is not enough, Ms Jackson today has now admitted that she had obviously talked with Mr Lawler about the Thomson issue.

Mr Lawler, himself personally, is not responsible for the FWA report on Craig Thomson ...... *BUT* he is the deputy president of FWA.

Why didn't the authorities have Mr Lawler stood down, during the making of the report, considering his relationship with Ms Jackson? It all brings into serious question the perception of independence and perception of integrity of the FWA Thomson report.

I believe this is scandalous, and serious questions need to be asked. I believe the report is now discredited. It's clear now, that the only place the truth will be proven regarding the allegations against Craig Thomson, is in a court of law. The court of law is what our freedoms are based on, and that is the way it should always be.

FP, this is not new, I read about it ages ago.
As most of the people in FWA are ex union people it would not be
surprising that everyone knows just about everyone.

All that you could expect is that the man involved would rule himself
out of any decision making. However I agree, it is not a good look and
reflects on the government for stacking FWA.

I agree. I also agree with Thompson's statements regarding the presumption of innocence and the abject failure of the Opposition to understand and honour that precept. I listened to his explanation and it has the ring of truth. So much time is taken up in parliament by this matter which should only be hammered out in the courts, that the place has lost almost all its credibility.

ybgirp, it is not as simple as saying he is presumed innocent.
It appears that only applies in a court trying a criminal charge.

It certainly does not apply in Parliament which has privilege anyway.
Someone said today that hacking cannot change the number that appears
on the account system even if another number is used to make the call.
So the charge should show on that person's account not Thompson's.

The telephone system should record the serial number of the phone not just the sim card number.

Who knows the truth with this sorry tale of poor behaviour?

But most watchers of this do recognise that 4 years to produce a report is a total wheeze, con, put up job, dodge and dodgy practice, and whatever other phrase anyone can think of to express total disbelief.

Still, given the SMH expose of the last ALP NSW government 'best practice' this is hardly a surprise, since the same political machinery is at the heart of it all.

Getting caught in Abbott and Pyne's rather shrill calls for lynch mobs to rule does none of us any good.

Defending the ALPs tardy and tawdry behaviour in pre-selections and post election behaviours is also a dangerous practice.

Let's leave it to the courts to decide Thompson's role, and here it seems Tony Windsor is the wisest head in the parliament, but we most certainly need a WW2 searchlight beam shone right into the depths of the Fairwork Retirement Home to winkle out all the 'restrictive work practices' they obviously engage in.

To all who are critical of the FWA report about the activities of MP Craig Thomson and the time it took.

I have a question. Who referred the allegations to FWA to investigate? Fraud allegations are usually directed to the police.

Another question. As FWA is the birthchild of the Labor party, do I add it to the list of stuff ups or Labor Lemons?