Mark Latham received a call from Gillards office and ever since then has bagged the Royal Commission into Union Governance and corruption. What was said in that phone call? What was he promised? Did money change hands? For it is very obvious he is insulating Gillard from any adverse findings by trying to discredit the Commission. The documented proof of his position shows that he was very much in favour of cleaning out the Labor movement through an investigation into the unions a few years back but his position has since changed after that phone call. We need to know why. Read it in full here: MARK Latham has been writing inaccurate drivel on the Australian Workers Union matter for some time now. Fair enough, it is his right. But in recent times Latham has begun to slag off the standing of the royal commission into unions. My policy usually is to not criticise fellow commentators, but I won’t stand for this. The royal commission presents our only hope to rid this country of endemic corporatised union corruption, and I won’t stand by and watch anyone diminish it. For many years I have been speaking out against union corruption and business collusion. Threats, loss of business, a written warning from a previous employer and more have come my way. All this has done is force me to position myself into a spot where I feel independent, untouchable and bulletproof. Each column is a privilege, treated as though it is my last. It is only because I sit in a space beyond financial influence (proudly without the courtesy of a parliamentary pension), with no one to please and no one to disappoint, that I am able to speak so frankly. Once, Latham spoke like this and I admired him for it. Once, Latham was dead keen to deal with union corruption. Then something happened. I will tell you what that was and you can come to your own conclusions. Back in June 7, 2012, my debut column appeared in The Australian Financial Review. Latham’s next column referred to mine as a “stunning insight” into how unions had lost members but gained power and resources through “super-financing, training funds and contractor extortion”. He said “the greatest threat to economic growth and productivity is trade union muscle … the strength of their financial leverage and Labor factional control has given them a majority complex. This power imbalance must be addressed by an incoming Liberal government.” He said we should investigate the unions and “follow the money” because public exposure of scandal would “give the Coalition a powerful mandate for IR reform — bringing union governance into line with the corporate sector and bringing our workplace laws into line with our international competitors”. He said “Liberal Party ignorance has saved the union bosses from reform. Few people outside the ALP understand how the Labor movement works … liberalisers need to read and re-read Collier’s column.” Then someone from Julia Gillard’s office called the office to ask for Latham’s contact details. Now, Latham says the royal commission into unions — which is the only way we can do as he once urged (investigate, follow the money) — is a “comedy routine”, a “show about nothing”, with “ceremonial pretensions”, where you have to “stand and look deferential” when “the beak” (Dyson Heydon) appears to hear from witnesses who are “a parade of ageing Oompa Loompas”. Heydon sits “perched high on his bench” and plays “the role of Judge Vandelay — grey, Dickensian and utterly humourless, even when viewing the rustic clowns assembled before him”. The “rustic clowns” are people in the public gallery, “political fanatics”, a “worrying collection of social misfits and malcontents” who have “nothing better to do on a Monday morning than listen to claims about a union controversy from last century”. Latham, too, has nothing better to do with himself than sit around with fanatics and misfits scribbling about how they are fanatics and misfits. The effect of Latham discrediting the royal commission now is to insulate Gillard from any adverse finding it may make about her down the track. Who knows what the motivation for this behaviour is? Latham has bitten the hand of almost every media outlet that fed him and perhaps he is trying to build bridges back to the Labor Party by defending union corruption. Or perhaps he has been asked to run an agenda to protect Gillard. I really don’t know and I really don’t care. I just think it is a shame that the editorial team at The Australian Financial Review, people I have a lot of respect for, who knew of the phone call and must have noticed Latham’s change of heart since, allow him to use their publication to ridicule and denigrate the royal commission. This body, after all, is our only hope of cleaning up corrupt sections of the union movement and overcoming the obstacles to the Australian industrial relations reform agenda. Grace Collier is founder of Australian Dismissal Services. theaustralian.au/opinion/columnists/did-a-call-from-gillards-office-turn-latham-around/story-fnkdypbm-1226978032989
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 02:53:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015