Prev
Next

Credit card Craig a problem Gillard doesn’t need

David Penberthy

by David Penberthy

16 Aug 05:50am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win - this is a caption

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

51

Schapelle has done her time - this is a caption

Schapelle has done her time

182

Do women need to know when to walk away? - this is a caption

Do women need to know when to walk away?

73

Filed under: Craig Thomson, Dobell, Julia Gillard, Labor Party, Unions

93 comments

It has become an article of faith in Australian politics that a background as a union official is an undesirable and unrepresentative form of life experience for anyone embarking on a career as an MP.

Tough crowd: Craig Thomson at Saturday's protest meeting. Photo: Daily Telegraph

Like any sweeping generalisation it is sometimes rubbish and sometimes true. There are plenty of former unionists in our Parliaments who have a sound knowledge of the industry their members worked in, a desire to see those industries prosper, and who were generally ambivalent towards industrial action, preferring to see negotiated outcomes which looked after the interests of both workers and employers. 

At the other end of the spectrum you find party careerists who relish the political power and lifestyle afforded by being a union official and use their position largely _ if not entirely _ as a springboard to land a seat.

The federal Labor member for the crucial Central Coast seat of Dobell, Craig Thomson, appears to occupy the later category. Thomson is the bloke who was accused of paying for the services of prostitutes on his union credit card – not for himself but his mates – including a payment of $2475 to an escort agency in 2005. That amount was billed back to the Health Services Union, effectively funded through the union dues of low-paid hospital orderlies.

Thomson initially took legal action against Fairfax for publishing the story. He subsequently abandoned the case, and admitted on radio that he had authorised the payment, albeit with the caveat that he wasn’t aware that it was being made to an escort agency. Maybe he thought Madam Flossie’s House of Tarts was a bakery.

Credible figures in the ALP have privately and publicly rebuked Thomson for his conduct. The Minister for Social Inclusion Tanya Plibersek said last week that ‘‘at the very least someone should have been much more careful about signing off on the credit cards” and that it was “completely inappropriate for companies, for unions, for any organisation using other people’s funds to buy the services of prostitutes.’‘

Mr Thomson is turning into an enduring problem for the Gillard Government, which obviously has no majority in its own right. The Prime Minister faces a three-year juggling act to maintain a fragile coalition of independent and Green MPs to keep a numerical lead over the Coalition. The dramas surrounding Mr Thomson are a reminder that all it takes is just one Labor MP to come a cropper and the Government could also be gone.

The latest scandal involving Thomson goes to decency and judgment rather than misuse of union funds. But it has given the Coalition new ammunition to increase the pressure on Thomson, in the hope that he can become such a liability for the Gillard Government that a by-election is required in his ultra-marginal Central Coast seat of Dobell.

Shouting at members of the public at a community forum in your electorate is not against the law. But it is pretty stupid when you are part of a government which in numerical terms is a day-to-day proposition.

Thomson is accused of starting a slanging match at the weekend with a female member of one of the most benign organisations on the face of the earth, the Salvation Army. It’s about as classy as getting into a fight with a nun. Thomson was attending a protest meeting against poker machine reform on the Central Coast on Saturday night, after which he clashed with its moderator, Salvation Army worker Louise Duff. Witnesses allege Thomson told Duff she was “a disgrace” and that he would “finish your career”, and that he would name her in the Parliament. They also claim Thomson was so angry that he shouted in Duff’s face, forcing her to wipe spittle from her cheeks.

Naively, Thomson has claimed the meeting was stacked. You have to wonder what he was expecting at a protest organised by a leagues club to protest against poker machine reform. And while Thomson disputes the version of events from witnesses, it is unusual that he offered an apology to Ms Duff for what transpired. It seems unlikely he would have said sorry if nothing unpleasant had taken place. He has also not denied that there was a dispute.

It reflects poorly on Thomson’s judgment, given his ongoing troubles over the brothel payments, that he would allow himself to get involved in a potentially menacing dispute with a Salvo, especially at a public forum where a whole stack of people don’t like him anyway.

Julia Gillard is backing Craig Thomson – not that she has any choice given the way the numbers stand – and Labor is saying behind the scenes that aspects of Saturday’s meeting have been exaggerated or beaten up by the Liberals out of their desperation to force a by-election. That may well be the case. But in the current climate, when you see the likes of former Labor minister John Kerin tearing up their ALP memberships in protest at what they regard as the bullying conduct of union bosses within the party, even the remotest display of bovver-boy conduct from the likes of Thomson is political poison.

As Julia Gillard continues her battle to appease the disparate supporters of her minority government, the last thing she needs is members of her own team piling on extra unnecessary pressure.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
371There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
300Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

93 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:58am | 16/08/11

      On the face of it, using a union credit card to pay for prostitutes seems a bad thing. But why, exactly, is it bad? Prostitutes are workers who provide a service by entertaining guests. Thomson says the payment was made for the benefit of others.

      Would it be wrong to use that credit card to pay for taking some guests to dinner at a restaurant? A restaurant, like a brothel, is a place where workers provide a service by entertaining guests.

      If Madam Flossie’s House of Tarts really was a bakery, would that make a difference?

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:27am | 16/08/11

      Eric, For once I agree with you.  We can get on a moralising high horse about unionists being customers of ladies of the night, and using members funds to pay for it.  However I personally cannot see the difference between that, and corporate executives paying for expensive holidays, restaurant meals, and ladies to come to the room and take dictation, with shareholders’ money.  But let’s face it, it’s convenient to take umbrage at idiots in the ALP at the present time.  It all helps the LNP reclaim it’s birthright ?  We all know our social system is a bit crook, and we’re supposed to turn a blind eye to corruption which is top to bottom in all organisations.

    • George (I don't have a credit card & I don't use p says:

      07:39am | 16/08/11

      @Erick

      Would you use your wife’s credit card (if they have one) to pay for prostitutes?

      or

      Would you use your ageing mum’s or dad’s credit card (if they have one) to pay for prostitutes?

      or

      Would you use your children’s credit card (if they have one) to pay for prostitutes?

      Better yet would you use your own coredit card to pay for prostitutes, afterall according to you “Prostitutes are workers who provide a service by entertaining guests” bring down unemployment eh!

    • Nigel says:

      08:01am | 16/08/11

      If it was a work provided credit card and the ‘tarts’ were for private use, then no, no difference, fraud is fraud.

    • TimB says:

      08:06am | 16/08/11

      I dunno Erick. That’s a little dubious. Such ‘entertainment’ expenses’ are usually claimed for events when there’s at least a chance of discussing business and whatnot. Something that can easily be done over a buisness dinner (or at a baker). In this case, it’d be a little harder. Unless there was a threesome involved smile .
      And I really don’t think that sort of excuse would fly in the corporate world (try it on your boss and see!). Besides which if it was really the case here Thompson would have said so.

      As it stands, he claims it was “someone else”, but won’t name who it was. All he will say is that said unnamed person had forged his signature and also paid the money back. Also, his mobile phone records apparently show him making calls to the escort agency.

      http://www.alpwatch.observationdeck.org/?p=975

      The whole explanation is fishy.

    • marley says:

      08:36am | 16/08/11

      @Erick - depends who the “others” were.  I’ve had some experience with expense accounts, having had one myself for years and having managed others who had them.  I’d say that, if you are a union boss hosting a dinner for important union contacts, you’re entitled to use the card to pay for the dinner.  But you should be able to identify who was at the dinner, and why entertaining them at your members’ expense was value for money. 

      If, on the other hand, you used the card to buy dinner for yourself and some of your fellow union mates, that’s an abuse.  An expense account/credit card isn’t a perk of the job, it’s a tool to help you with your job, and your boss/union members are entitled to know it’s being used as such.

      As for the brothel, well, I’d find that a bit hard to justify on business grounds.  And I don’t know whether the brothel was a legal one or not, which would make a difference as well.

    • acotrel says:

      08:48am | 16/08/11

      @Marley
      ‘As for the brothel, well, I’d find that a bit hard to justify on business grounds.  And I don’t know whether the brothel was a legal one or not, which would make a difference as well. ‘

      How long have you been in business?  You seem to be pretty naive about how many agreements are achieved.

    • brc says:

      08:59am | 16/08/11

      No, it makes no difference whether it was prostitutes or custard tarts.  You can’t just use union (or any other organisation) funds for your personal purposes.

      That it was for buying the services of prostitutes just makes it all the more odious for two reasons - the price, and the fact that the activity would be seen as immoral by a majority of the people who actually contributed the funds.

      Fraud in this manner is a crime, from the school P&C worker who writes themselves a cheque for an unauthorised tank of petrol, to the church leader who purchases themselves a new TV, to the carer who helps themselvesf to a new car using power of attorney.

      All non-profits of a certain size are audited for this exact reason - to stop people with access to funds abusing them.  Fraud is fraud.  That it was for sex workers is just even more insulting to the members who contributed their salary, thinking that it was going to help the union protect and help them, not send it’s boss on a bonking night.

    • Gladys says:

      09:07am | 16/08/11

      Quite right erick. But if you were to ask a Queensland health worker if they would like their union fees spent on tarts or to sort out the year long payroll problems in Queensland, I reckon they’d say they’d prefer it spent on helping them get a wage.

    • Erick says:

      09:12am | 16/08/11

      @Nigel - That’s pretty much my point. It doesn’t matter what the money was spent on - it’s whether or not it was an expense on behalf of the union.

      Personally I suspect it wasn’t, but this should be treated no differently from taking guests out to dinner on the company expense account.

    • marley says:

      10:09am | 16/08/11

      @acotrel - I’m not naive about how business is achieved.  I’m saying how hospitality and expense accounts ought to be managed.  For the good of the union members/company/government/shareholders that provide the funds.  Not for the good of the union execs/business execs/senior bureaucrats that happen to have access to them. 

      And if Craig and his mates can show that their paying someone (who?) to use a brothel resulted in a better deal for their members, I’ll be contrite.  I’ll also be bloody amazed.

    • Pricey says:

      10:14am | 16/08/11

      @ Acotrel and Erick.

      Bahhhhhaaaahhhhahahahaaa.

      You can’t be serious? This Craig character is a no more than a union croney, who has risen on the backs of those he knows, nothing else. The sooner he is gone the better. Good riddance I say!

      How can you possibly argue that paying for hookers as a form of entertainment is acceptable for any aspiring politician. “No principles” sound familiar!

    • TomZ says:

      11:14am | 16/08/11

      There are two things lacking in your analysis:

      1. The snouts in the trough factor. Most union members do not contribute dues to be squandered on restaraunts or “whatever it takes” to stitch up a deal or a job for themselves.

      2. The moral compass. I am surprised that Erick and acetrol don’t see the moral difference between having a dinner and going to a prostitute.

      It seems acetrol is prepared to go along with aything a Labor person does, whether it would be pedophilia, rape, prostitutes. Definitionally, everything a Labor person does is OK because he deludes himself that tribalism is the only game in town?

      However, I am surprised at Erick’s question that “If Madam Flossie’s House of Tarts really was a bakery, would that make a difference?” Yes it does Erick.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:38am | 16/08/11

      No different from the the usual Wall St practice of putting prostitutes on a card and listing it under a “conference” or “market research” account.

    • JR says:

      12:57pm | 16/08/11

      Surely you’re joking?

      I’m no prude, but shouldn’t the entertainment expenditure of the union be spent wisely for the benefit of the members?
      Eating out, drinking, etc, allow you to talk with others and push for your objectives.
      Paying for someone to visit a brothel, unless it was a group thing, doesn’t really allow for talking to discuss the finer points of workers rights.

      Then again I don’t think that a union sponsoring a NRL team is good use of union funds.
      Hence the reason I don’t bother with unions anymore.

    • progressivesunite says:

      01:12pm | 16/08/11

      Women are human beings, not bakery goods….

    • Tim says:

      01:38pm | 16/08/11

      Progressivesunite,
      “women are human beings not bakery goods…”

      Yes they are human beings selling a legal service and running a legal business. What do you have against this?

      What if Madam Flossie’s house of Tarts was a Cabaret show?

      The fact that they are prostitutes is immaterial to whether Thomson has done anything wrong.

    • jf says:

      02:04pm | 16/08/11

      Tim says:01:38pm | 16/08/11

      “The fact that they are prostitutes is immaterial to whether Thomson has done anything wrong.”

      Sure is. However, what is material is that he (a) used other people’s money for an inappropriate purpose, (b) abused and physically intimidated a member of the public, (c) used his position as a public servant to intimidate; (d) stands accused of misappropriating funds for his election campaign; (e) stands accused of attempting to inappropiately bribe a politician.

    • marley says:

      02:14pm | 16/08/11

      @Tim - if this was a licensed brothel, then I agree that the nature of the service provided shouldn’t be the deciding factor.  I understand, however, that the majority of brothels are not in fact licensed, so there could in fact be a legal issue.

      But the real question is whether the funds were spent by unionists on themselves, or on someone from whom they hoped to get a favourable hearing.  If the former, wrong;  if the latter, well, it does fall within the broader parameters of “business hospitality.”  Sleezy, but not necessarily wrong.

    • Karen from Qld says:

      03:20pm | 17/08/11

      It is a bad thing when the credit card you are using is not intended for that purpose. In fact it is called fraud. And yes if the credit card was used for any non union business then that is also fraud. So unless the person using the card was there for union business then a crime was indeed committed.

    • TimB says:

      06:21am | 16/08/11

      Good job Penbo. Never let it be said that the Punch doesn’t listen to its readers wink

      Something else not mentioned in the article though. Coastal Voice, the organization registered by Thompson, using union funds, supposedly as a aged care support service. Allegedely this was merely a front for his election campaign, as it did not file any tax returns for 4 years. The NSW Department of Fair trading is now asking for an explanation and threatening to deregister the organization.

      One has to wonder if Thompson would still be clinging onto his seat now if he wasn’t part of a minority government.

      Reply

    • jf says:

      07:13am | 16/08/11

      Deregister?

      If this is true (and it’s the first I’ve heard) he, and everyone associated with it, should be charged with any number of criminal charges associated with theft, embezzelment, tax fraud and more.

      It seems that the time has come for a broad ranging investigation (a Royal Commission perhaps) into the activities of the apparently benevolent organisations associated with political parties in particular the Unions and the industry super funds.

      The first question should be “how much money does the organisation take from their members (a real mystery in respect of industry super funds)?”.

      The second should be “where does it go? How much goes to executives, board members and associated hanger-onerers (it’s pretty easy to be not-for-profit when a whole lot of Labor mates have their hands out)?” “How much goes to the ALP and The Greens?” “What percentage is used directly for representing worker’s rights?” It is becoming increasingly apparent that money taken from members of unions and industry funds is being used to support the ALP (either directly or as a political scholarship), grafted to Labor mates as executive and/or board member remuneration, invested in inappropriate but politically expedient investment by numskulls with zero investment expertise and generally pissed up against a wall.

    • Knemon says:

      08:37am | 16/08/11

      ...talk about a storm in a tea cup, right up your alley TimB!

    • TimB says:

      08:45am | 16/08/11

      Potential for criminal charges is *not* a ‘storm in a tea cup’ Knemon.

      Sometimes I wonder about you.

    • nossy says:

      08:50am | 16/08/11

      @Knemon   - you cant blame TimB Knemon - as a member of the Liberal Party its Tims duty to see Dr No as PM and hes working hard on that - however the shewrd Gillard is more than a match for a dozen TimB’s hahahahah Love ya Timmy!

    • Knemon says:

      08:55am | 16/08/11

      “Sometimes I wonder about you” - That’s very nice of you TimB…I’m flattered.

      Now get back to work and stop worrying yourself with such minor matters. grin

    • Michael says:

      08:57am | 16/08/11

      TimB, what’s to wonder?

      Doubt left the building long ago.

    • Tim says:

      09:09am | 16/08/11

      TimB,
      the operative word there being “potential”.
      If the government didn’t have such a slender hold on power then this wouldn’t be an issue yet.
      I’ll wait to see the whole story before deciding on whether he should get the boot.

    • TimB says:

      09:39am | 16/08/11

      Tim, if they didn’t have such a slender hold on power, they would have booted him ages ago before he could embarrass them further- like he did on the weekend wink .

      I agree though, he shouldn’t be booted before anything has been proven. I don’t think I’ve said anywhere on this topic that he should be booted right now. That doesn’t mean that we should just ignore everything, the guy should be investigated thoroughly. Too many people are trying to play down the issue and bury it IMO. When you think about the possible result though, you understand their motivation.

      Michael, usually I think that (conflicting political views aside) Knemon is a pretty reasonable sort. Then something like this comes along and we get the whitewash attempt, so it makes me wonder.

    • Reggieman says:

      10:20am | 16/08/11

      Something else not mentioned is the allegations by the Mayor of Wyong that Thompson threatened to withdraw funding for a Youth Centre after the mayor accused the government of reneging on the construction of a promised health clinic at Warnervale. The mayor referred the threat to the ICAC. This joke of a member has to go. Goodbye Gillard!

    • TimB says:

      10:51am | 16/08/11

      Hadn’t heard that one Reggieman. Geeze what a charmer this guy is eh?

      Don’t worry Knemon, move along, nothing to see here wink

    • TomZ says:

      11:34am | 16/08/11

      Knemon and Nossy, was Peter Reith’s mobile phone thing a storm in a tea-cup? Who pays you two Labor flat-heads?

    • nossy says:

      01:10pm | 16/08/11

      @TomZ   - kisses Tommy - big effort there fella!  hhahaha

    • Knemon says:

      03:06pm | 16/08/11

      @ TomZ - Peter Reith was the Workplace Relations Minister at the time of his mobile phone scandal, he had been issued with a government mobile phone and tele-card which he then passed on to his son who then also passed it on to a flatmate and very soon there was a $50,000 phone bill, then after this sham, Reith had the audacity to claim for flights taken by his wife Julie to various destinations.

      The misuse of government supplied phones and the misappropriation of taxpayers’ funds is an entirely different matter to that of alleged misuse of party or union funds.

      Peter Reith was never sacked nor was he stood down as a government minister…so can you please explain why Craig Thomson should be treated differently for alleged misdemeanour’s that pale into insignificance when compared with that of Peter Reith’s indiscretions?

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      06:30am | 16/08/11

      “Thomson initially took legal action against Fairfax for publishing the story. He subsequently abandoned the case, and admitted on radio that he had authorised the payment”

      So he is a man of little integrity, and this latest outburst would only seek to confirm that.
      Bring on the by election.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:54am | 16/08/11

      Why are there two sides in the pokies debate?  I would have thought one side was completely unsustainable?  Pokies are damaging Australian society, why would anyone take the opposite case?

    • Pricey says:

      06:32am | 16/08/11

      More of the same. I bet members of the Labor Party must be feeling such pride right now.

      Reply

    • Kevin says:

      04:39pm | 16/08/11

      @ Pricey, read Knemon’s comment @ 03:08pm.
      Now tell me, were all you Lib members proud of Reith after his fraudulent efforts, which went unpunished?

    • jf says:

      05:50pm | 16/08/11

      Kevin says:04:39pm | 16/08/11
      . “Now tell me, were all you Lib members proud of Reith after his fraudulent efforts, which went unpunished? “

      So you agree that this guy should be punished.

    • Kevin says:

      06:09pm | 16/08/11

      jf says:05:50pm | 16/08/11


      So you agree that this guy should be punished.

      I don’t agree that the government should fall, when Libbers obviously held lower standards for their own members.

    • jf says:

      08:37am | 17/08/11

      Kevin says: 06:09pm | 16/08/11

      “I don’t agree that the government should fall, when Libbers obviously held lower standards for their own members.”

      So, “they did it first” is your excuse for this guy’s deplorable behaviour?

      Pathetic.

    • David S says:

      07:08am | 16/08/11

      It would be hard to find someone who so neatly fits the “union hack” stereotype. 
      Hopefully the lesson for both parties is being well connected in the back rooms does not necessarily make for a good politician interested in working towards good policy outcomes.
      Perhaps the hung parliament will ensure that future preselections never again serve up either poor performers, trough snouters, bench warmers or those with a questionable ethical past.
      You could name a hundred names from all sides; Mal Colston, Andrew Thompson, the list could go on and on and on.

      Reply

    • Jane says:

      07:28am | 16/08/11

      I used a work phone 30 years ago to make a sneaky call overseas. So that mean I can never go into politics? If it is a crime the police have had years to charge him, if not a crime then what is the issue? Sick of this type of nonsense, it was not taxpayers funds so why are we even bothered.

      Reply

    • Knemon says:

      08:45am | 16/08/11

      Why are we even bothered Jane?

      Because the conservatives are so desperate for a by-election / election they will scrape the bottom of any old barrel they can find. They realise that the longer this minority government stays in power the harder it will be for them to regain power.

    • brc says:

      09:03am | 16/08/11

      If it was a $2500 work call, I would expect that you would certainly would have had to a) pay it back and probably b) would have lost your job.  Theft is theft, and many, many people have lost their job for less.

      Look into the details - investigations are ongoing.  Police are not going to charge someone unless they have the evidence tied up.  It’s not over by a long shot.  Legal proceedings take time, and the defamation suit has hung over the case for a long time, which is why it is being talked about again now that he has admitted it was a hollow case.

      It’s admirable that Gillard supporters are lining up behind Thomson to try and prop him up, but if there was not a hung parliament, he would be gone already.

    • Terry says:

      09:27am | 16/08/11

      Jane it may not be taxpayer’s funds but as union member contributor it is my money and I take offence in it being used for personal satisfaction at a brothel.

    • jf says:

      11:05am | 16/08/11

      Jane says:07:28am | 16/08/11

      “I used a work phone 30 years ago to make a sneaky call overseas.”

      Whilst your use of that phone is potentially theft, it is a matter between you and your employer. Personally, as an employer I wouldn’t be too bothered. But, as it is, at the end of the day, my money that is being used, that is my perogative.

      As I feel confident that most union members are not paying dues so that some grub can get a root, then this is a serious matter.

    • Nick says:

      08:37am | 17/08/11

      “...why are we even bothered”. Jane if you were my employee and charged up a couple of jiggalos to the corporate card you would get the sack and have the matter referred to the police for fraud. It is a big deal. Not least to the union members.

    • BobM says:

      07:50am | 16/08/11

      I wonder what the voters in the seat of Dobell think of the government representative now? They must be just so happy that they are represented by someone with so little integrity.

      Reply

    • Eskimo says:

      08:19am | 16/08/11

      Wouldn’t FBT be payable on the services provided by Madam Flossie’s House of Tarts?

      Reply

    • nossy says:

      08:47am | 16/08/11

      Amusing that many think if Thomsen goes we automatically have a by-election not thinking that the shrewd Gillard hasnt even thought of this possibility and has already worked out a defence. Could be that at least 1 Lib could all of a sudden become an Independent! hahahha As Abbott once said Gillard has proven to be a ferocious opponent and shes not about to give up government easily to a 2nd rate hack like Abbott. My advice to the ladies of the Liberal Party on this blog is “dont count your chickens before they are hatched girls!”

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      08:58am | 16/08/11

      What *are* you talking about Nossy?

      If said mystery Lib was thinking of going independent, what’s stopping them from doing so now? Surely Julia would have tried to make this happen already to shore up her current precarious position.

      No-ones counting anything yet. Just looking at possibilities.

    • Michael says:

      09:02am | 16/08/11

      nossy, you mean don’t make any hasty predictions as they could be quite embarrassing when proven completely false and lacking any actual political insight what so ever? smile

    • marley says:

      09:05am | 16/08/11

      For my money, they’re both second rate hacks.

    • Honest union member says:

      09:23am | 16/08/11

      Spoken like a true labor/union supporter nossy. Your right, why should union officials, or indeed shop stewards not be able to do what they wish with union members money due’s. Once the member pays it up out of their wages it is no longer their’s so the lads can use it for themselves. As long as they keep pushing for more and more wage rises for us the members, who cares. The fact that we have a bit of corruption in the union movement has nothing to do with the public. To top that off nossy, always attack the opposition to take the heat off the labor union members. Keep up the good work nossy.

    • nossy says:

      09:23am | 16/08/11

      @marley - as I have said on many an occasion Marley - its sad this great country has Gillard and Abbott as their leader or potential leader - we deserve better!

    • fairsfair says:

      09:41am | 16/08/11

      took the words right out of my mouth Marley!

    • nossy says:

      09:46am | 16/08/11

      @Honest union member - have never been in a Union in my entire life fella - and we are not fooled by your blog name - Liberal Party Membership number please?  hahahahahhah

    • nossy says:

      09:49am | 16/08/11

      @TimB - now Timmy you posing as the voice of reason is just too much to take hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    • jf says:

      11:23am | 16/08/11

      Nossy

      Clear a few things up for me:

      (i) From your posts it seems that you think that it is ok to use other people’s money for purposes for which it was not intended including personal use.

      (ii) You seem to be saying that it is ok for a politician to abuse and physically threaten a member of the public. 

      (iii) You seem to be saying that it is ok for a politician to use their position to influence and/or threaten people.

      (iv) You seem to be saying that it is ok to use money purportedly for charitable purposes for political purposes.

      For there is no doubt that this grub has done the first three and stands accused of the fourth and you seem be saying that this is ok and should not be an issue. Is that the case?

      Also, why is it, in your opinion, referring to people as “ladies” and “girls” an insult?

    • nossy says:

      01:13pm | 16/08/11

      @ jf - NO to all fella.

    • jf says:

      01:49pm | 16/08/11

      nossy says:01:13pm | 16/08/11

      “@ jf - NO to all fella. “

      It certainly doesn’t seem that way from the way that you are attacking anyone who codemns that sort of behaviour.

      At best you seem to think that this sort of behaviour should be tolerated.

    • nossy says:

      02:04pm | 16/08/11

      @jf - time for a bex and a good lie down fella - you are frothing at the mouth!  Answer again for the dummies - NO!

    • jf says:

      03:05pm | 16/08/11

      nossy says:02:04pm | 16/08/11

      No frothing going on here. Just involved in a discussion of the poor behaviour of a grubby ALP MP and wondering at the moral fibre of someone who would justify or trivialise the behaviour of this bloke.

      So no old chum, I won’t.

      I’ll keep on making sure that I do my small part to ensure that as many people as possible understand just how bad this government is. Just what grubs constitute its members and executive. And just how much money is being stolen from union members, industry super fund members and taxpayers to fund the careers and beachfront properties of the ALP gang.

      You, on the other hand, seem to be prepared to tolerate any level of bullying, corruption and ineptitude from this mob and will justify any level of bad behaviour or mismanagement.

      What’s worse is that I get the feeling that you realise just how bad they are. For shame Nossy.

    • Karen from Qld says:

      03:04pm | 17/08/11

      If there was an alternate plan then the ALP would not be bailing out Mr Thomsen to the tune of $90.000

    • Pork says:

      08:53am | 16/08/11

      No question that these type of pollie are pretty crap.  But lets go look on the other side of the fence.  What did the Libs and Nats do before they got in?  You won’t be surprised to find a whole lot of non egalitarian, only for profit ‘businessmen.’  Some small time - who got into politics because their planning approval was rejected and they thought if they were in charge it’d get passed, some big time bankers, doctors, farmers, etc etc who wanted the rules made so they’d get taxed less and be able to get more.
      Lets judge the politician on what they do once they get there, not how they get there.  One of the great things about Australia is - unlike the USA where candidates have to prove that they are pure as the driven snow and more god fearing than the next guy - we know our pollies are on par with used car salesmen and regard them appropriately. 
      Lyndon Baines Johnson got to his ultimate goal of the US Presidency through all manner of means fair and foul.  But when he got there he got the Civil Rights legislation through both houses AND enforced it.  Perhaps the end can sometimes justify the means.
      Having said that, this current crop of parliamentarians has very little courage or vision to recommend them OR have them forgiven for their possibly flawed rise to power.

      Reply

    • cybacaT says:

      09:04am | 16/08/11

      I’m disappointed some here would even try to justify this behaviour which is wrong on every level.  The union bully-boy tactics may have helped him throw his weight around as a union official, and helped him get a Labor seat, but it doesn’t work when you start tackling charity workers.  Where’s Hinch when you need him?  Shame Thomson Shame.

      Reply

    • jgm says:

      09:12am | 16/08/11

      Frankly, if I did what he’s done I would be sacked.

      No ifs or buts. No legal challenges, no party backed funding to help me out.

      Just sacked.

      Reply

    • Matthew says:

      09:27am | 16/08/11

      Unless Im mistaken (and I am probably am) Louise Duff organised the meeting on behalf of the Clubs, not the Salvation Army. Its not like she was in uniform. You can’t have a go at someone because they might happen to be a member of a charity?? What a beat up. Why mention she did charity work for the Salvation Army? Was it tattooed on her forehead? And what was a charity worker doing organising a meeting on behalf of Clubs against the gambling act. I would think anyone in the Salvation Army would know first hand the effects on families of chronic gambling.

      The credit cards for prozzies sounds a bit suss though, though I don’t think the criminal is the one signing off on it, but the person using the credit card. Thomson hasn’t done anything illegal per see, unless more evidence comes to light, so I don’t see how there can be a by-election. Even if Gillard “sacked” Thompson (from whatever portfolio he held) or threw him out of the ALP, there still wouldn’t be a by-election, so its not like she is protecting the minority government. It doesn’t LOOK good, but you can’t force a byelection on that. I wish the media had more understanding on how our system works, especially if they are “political” reporters/commentators.

      Mary Jo Fisher’s (Lib dancing senator) is more likely to be ejected from her “seat” if she is charged and convicted of shoplifting. Wheres Tony Abbott up in arms about that?

      Reply

    • jf says:

      10:59am | 16/08/11

      Matthew says:09:27am | 16/08/11

      “You can’t have a go at someone because they might happen to be a member of a charity??

      A politician should be above abusing any member of the public with such venom that you spit on them even if they hold a politically inconvenient view. That she is a charity worker just makes it worse.

      To use your position as a politician to threaten someone’s career should be illegal.

    • AFR says:

      11:31am | 16/08/11

      I thought the Salvo connection was a tad strange - given they usually are so vocal against pokies (although it doesn’t stop their collectors wandering the pubs and clubs after work accepting donations on a Friday evening).

    • DaveM says:

      09:32am | 16/08/11

      “Like any sweeping generalisation it is sometimes rubbish and sometimes true.”
      Glad you added that bit. Thompson doesn’t represent the average Union official just like Scott Morrison doesnt represent the average Hill Songer and John Howard didn’t represent every local solicitor.
      The occupation our polies have prior to entering government obviously has some bearing on their outlook but a boofhead in any industry will still be a boofhead in government.
      The shame here is that the machine preselected a bloke with a cloud hanging over his head.

      Reply

    • Ian1 says:

      09:56am | 16/08/11

      Thank-you thepunch for finally bringing this issue some exposure.

      When I first heard of this, I was astounded.  Use of union funds on election campaigning without disclosing it to the AEC?  I am of the opinion this is electoral fraud.  If it is, the Member must relinquish his seat - I would imagine a criminal investigation would ensue too.

      For the ALP to spend $40,000 trying to bury the story - just to maintain their slippery and tenuous grip on power is a disgrace to democracy.

      Just like their silencing of and threats to Members who oppose the ‘binding’ caucus.  Like the Malaysia swap deal….

      Seems with thousands of angry voters descending on Canberra, all of whom have NO CONFIDENCE in this government, we may have a change of government sooner than most think.

      And it’s about time.

      Reply

    • Aussie Battler says:

      10:03am | 16/08/11

      It really boils down to the fact that it was a very unprofessional way to act.  In fact I would call it embarrassing to think that a person in his position can basically throw a tantrum in public and then deny it . With the amount of witnesses who saw it, why try and claim parts of it never happened?  Does not matter whether the bloke is Lib/Labor or who ever,it’s just outright wrong.  Unfortunately his actions do reflect back on his party.
      I give him credit for at least apologising to the lady, but it still should not have happened.

      Reply

    • Max, says:

      10:06am | 16/08/11

      Gillard has no other recourse to stay in power, she has to defend him.  A by-election will probably bring her government down.  Deliciously appropriate that an ex union official could bring her down when it was the union heavies that brought Rudd down.

      Reply

    • Against the Man says:

      02:17pm | 16/08/11

      Gillard defending crap? Sounds about right smile

    • Graham The Great says:

      10:36am | 16/08/11

      You should have gone last election fella!

      Reply

    • Kelly G says:

      10:53am | 16/08/11

      The Gillard government is in so much trouble anyway! The Malaysian Solution is a massive failure! Someone should set up a committee to investigate the high level of incompetence and tax dollar wastage by this feral federal government!

      Reply

    • Stockinbingal roo says:

      11:03am | 16/08/11

      I don’t like this article because it is based on heresay, I’ve heard others say that the “words” didn’t happen, but the writer has conveniently used this to reintroduce the credit card issue. The credit card thing is wrong, if I was a member I wouldn’t want my fees going to a brothel. The real interest in this story is what pressure, if any, this puts on the governmnet.

      Reply

    • Gary says:

      11:15am | 16/08/11

      @ Matthew says:09:27am | 16/08/11

      As soon asw I read the part about him (Thomson) shouting at this charity worker, spraying her with spittle etc, [wait.. a Sally Anne was really defending poker machines?]  I was reminded of recent TV footage I saw of that other well known retard, Barnaby Joyce… on stage at some kind of rally, megaphone in hand, addressing a protester on the floor, approx. 2 feet below him, 2 feet in front of him…  leaning forward and down, so the megaphone was right in the face of the protestor, screaming into said megaphone…..

      Reply

    • Kevin says:

      11:38am | 16/08/11

      I happen to have far more respect [and trust] for prostitutes than I do for priests, politicians or pedaphiles [catholic priests?].
      At the very least, you know where you stand with sex workers. They are far more honest in their transactions.

      Having recently watched ‘Gasland’, I was delighted to hear Abbot’s Friday comments re farmer’s rights… come Monday, and his reversal to ‘miner’s advocate’, I am once again disgusted with the cretin, and feel he is far more corrupt than Thomson could ever be.
      Why should he (Abbott) profit by the mistakes of somebody who will do far less harm to the country at large?

      Reply

    • Stockinbingal roo says:

      11:56am | 16/08/11

      His reponse was all over the shop and appeared to suggest he waits for the public reaction, then goes with the public. An interesting thing is that Anderson (former deputy Prime Minister and National) is the head of a gas mining company, now things are getting complicated for the LNP.

    • Steve says:

      01:16pm | 16/08/11

      So this story is about a union thug who graduates to the ALP and continues his thiggish behaviour as an elected ALP member.

      The thuggish behaviour is only a problem to a Labor sycophant like Penberthy when it might cause a Bielection in a hung parliament. Why isn’t this type of behavioour a concern to Penberthy on an ongoing basis?

      Reply

    • Blind Freddy says:

      04:10pm | 16/08/11

      This raises two important questions that need answering:

      If you get invited to a union “dinner” should you take condoms?

      And, did any of the female unionists ever get treated to an arvo of the Chippendales or similar? If not, why not?

      Reply

    • AFR says:

      06:27pm | 16/08/11

      Brothels supply their own.

    • Tony says:

      06:33pm | 16/08/11

      Free sex paid for the union members. I might joint the Labour party or at least a Union. Unfortunately this is what we get for paying our politicians peanuts. Monkeys.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      09:13pm | 16/08/11

      @$140,000 plus allowances, these are pretty expensive monkeys.

    • Don says:

      06:56pm | 16/08/11

      I agree with JR who saysJR says
      Surely you’re joking?
      I’m no prude, but shouldn’t the entertainment expenditure of the union be spent wisely for the benefit of the members?
      Another day, another drama, from a government which simply blunders from one disaster to the next. The worst part about it is we just can’t get rid of them.

      Reply

    • Ants Pants says:

      07:15pm | 16/08/11

      If that is regarded as a legitimate business expense, and the cost is to be claimed back then the names of the people the expensive was used on should be made public. Lets see many people try and claim this deduction in the future. This sort of wheeling and dealing should have ended in the 80’s. Maybe the next underbelly series should be based on union kingpins and the shady underworld they obviously still live in

      Reply

    • Spart says:

      07:49pm | 16/08/11

      People defending his right to spend members monies on entertaining are missing the point.

      He swears (in a stat. dec) that his signature was forged - then admits later that he signed the credit card dockets on behalf of another mysterious Union Member, who then repays the $15k.

      Repaying the $15k is an admission that the person knew they were not entitled to spend the Union monies in this manner, and the lieing about the signatures goes to the heart of the mans honesty.

      He needs to resign, and the Labor elders should disown the man.

      Reply

    • morrgo says:

      10:27am | 18/08/11

      I wonder if Mr Thomson also opposes gay marriage on grounds of traditional values.

      Reply

    • golfman484 says:

      06:55pm | 18/08/11

      I thought Australian Unions were meant to be for the benefit of members but it appears as though only the union boss’ *member* benefits wink

      Reply

    • Darcy Duggan says:

      09:50pm | 19/08/11

      Craig Thomson is a young novice.Always pay cash up front,and enter and leave brothels wearing a wide brimmed hat and dark sunglasses like Brian Burke,former WA premier and master of the con.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 07:23PM

@apiotrowski I feel your pain #workingtheweekend

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 07:21PM

@apiotrowski You sounded testy at 11. I can only imagine...

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

36

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

69

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed