Karnal wrote on May 24
th, 2012 at 2:33pm:
PoliticalReality wrote on May 24
th, 2012 at 1:54pm:
No one's claiming access to the Drivers License - only access to the number and you know what, I'm the Administrator and (identity) Verifying Officer of our company's Corporate Credit Cards and I DO have copies of every person's Drivers License who has one of those cards.
The number? When you're verifying your credit card, you need the plastic. The license was photo ID. A photocopy is not going to cut it.
I'm beginning the think you didn't read my wonderfully composed piece, you're assuming the merchant is reputable, know a lot reputable knock shops?
Quote:PoliticalReality wrote on May 24
th, 2012 at 1:54pm:
No doubt he's guilty of poor governance but most Unions are - they're not businesses run by professionals.
Unions file tax returns and require annual audits like any other business. How could they possibly ignore $500,000 of mistaken spending - or even $6000?
No1 You've already agree it's only $6000 of mistaken spending I would suspect you're being disengenuous to continue bringing up the $500k figure but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
Unions don't file Tax Returns because they're exempt from income tax, what they do is file Financial Returns to FWA.
The financial reports covering this period were filed, late, by KJ as she took over as National Secretary the moment Thomson was delcared elected to Parliament.
She didn't sign them though and this is what the FWA asserting against KJ relate to - late filing of unsigned Financial Returns
Quote:PoliticalReality wrote on May 24
th, 2012 at 1:54pm:
[quote author=0D273428272A460 link=1337824466/7#7 date=1337829080]
You as much as admit in your opening paragraph that the expenditure of the vast majority of the money is not an issue, this leaves us with $6k that's been misused and he has provided a defence on this - he doesn't need to prove it, he's not a police agengcy with investigative powers, he has no means to prove it and you know what? In this country you don't have to prove you're innocent - the authorities need to prove you're guilty
If he wants to defend his record, he needs to prove it. The very fact that he's in this position means that he needs to prove it. The standing of the government and the labour movement as a whole has been tarnished by it. Even more reason to prove it. The stakes are huge.
I'm not saying he's guilty of a crime. But do you really think that spending union money on a federal campaign is legit? Some of it maybe. After all, it was a campaign against Workchoices.
But half a million?
It's legit if the Executive and the Council think it is, and I assert that they did. $500k equates to about $6 a member, seems a small price to pay to have WorkChoice brought down - some would say a bargain.
Quote:It's not good enough to say that he didn't break the law. This is an example of unbelievable recklessness. Worse - it's blatant exploitation.
The union paid for a house in Sydney when he lived an hour and a half away on the Central Coast. The union paid for his wife's holidays. The union paid for his ridiculous annual salary, and he put every other living expense he incurred on his credit card.
But that wasn't enough. He got the nod to stand for a federal seat, and he put his campaign on the card as well.
And somewhere in the process, other things got whacked on - $6000 for prostitutes. And he approved it.
How can you possibly defend this? How can you say he doesn't need to prove anything?
Even the most rusted-on Labor hack understands he's been caught with his hand in the till and needs to go.
The Craig Thomson "affair" will go down in history as the Khemlani affair of the Gillard government.
Even the Khemlani loans affair was understandable. The Whitlam government needed foreign money during a recession to develop Australian resources.
Craig Thomson needed money - for what?
99% of the money in question was needed to destroy WorkChoices - you really think $6 a member was too high a price to pay?
Not me, and I guarantee not the people who were tasked with approving the expenditure
You raise good points, PR, and I'm glad you've corrected my understanding of unions and the whole process.
However, the fact that he spent union fees on his election campaign - and the hos - is corrupt.
Not from an ACAC point of view - but from a popular point of view.
He didn't need to fritter away $6 from each member to stop Workchoices. He didn't need to incur the costs he did. He had his nose deep in the trough, and who can blame KJ for not signing off on the expenses?
Forum
Pages: 
Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense (Read 5318 times)
