Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is clear from the various documents that I have referred to in the past that Mr Thomson appears to have had a personal vendetta against both then Mayor Eaton and Councillor Greg Best. I would remind the Senate that Mr Thomson sought to pressure CCGT to give his former wife a job back in March 2011. When this did not happen and after Councillor Best had gone on the local radio to criticise the Gillard government for its failure to deliver on its promised GP superclinic, Mr Thomson retaliated on 15 July 2011 with the text message threat of, 'Bye, bye, jobs incubator.'

Let us look at and note the terms of the council's decision. As I said, they now wish to proceed. There is now a concern about whether the Gillard Labor government will still make available that $2.8 million funding, and I call on the government to confirm that that funding is still available. Obviously it has now become a lot more urgent, and I am not surprised because of the high levels of youth unemployment in this area. But isn't it interesting—there were six councillors who voted for the motion and, lo and behold, who voted against the motion but the ALP councillors? The ALP councillors voted against the motion. Right until the end, they were doing Mr Thomson's dirty work in council.

I now turn to another matter. Since May this year, I have been seeking the public release of attachments to the Fair Work Australia report into the Health Services Union and Mr Thomson. Those documents are referred to in the report and there are actually eight, not seven, lever-arch folders of documents, as the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has refused to release publicly. I note the early morning raid on Mr Thomson's home last week. Given matters on foot with the New South Wales and Victorian police, we await the outcome of those matters. It is now more likely that the ALP will do everything possible to make sure that those documents are not released and therefore not scrutinised publicly, as they should be. I will stop here as I am precluded from disclosing what I have read.

Given that Fair Work Australia is now pursuing these matters in the Federal Court, and in light of what I have seen and read, I am amazed that Mr Thomson continues to profess his innocence. Under further scrutiny, the documents could, for example, shed light on the nature of each individual misuse of funds and whether Mr Thomson was alone or in the company of other union or ALP luminaries when the misuse occurred.

This brings me to Mr Thomson's legal costs. In speeches last year I repeatedly referred to the quarter of a million dollars paid by the ALP for his costs and the circumstances surrounding that. My assertions were never denied by any person opposite, by former Senator Arbib, who is alleged to have brokered that deal, nor by any other ALP figure.

I turn to who is paying Mr Thomson's legal fees now. We know that Mr Thomson twice failed to properly disclose interests in his register of interests, including in relation to his legal fees. His letter was carefully couched and only referred to a 'sum of money' being paid. He also states that he has an open account with Kalantzis Lawyers. His register of interest discloses that he has no interest in real estate and that his home at Bateau Bay is owned by his wife, although he also discloses that both he and his wife have a mortgage with SGE Credit Union.

So how is Mr Thomson paying for his legal fees? As a former litigation lawyer, I understand well that litigation is not cheap. Who is paying for Mr McArdle? Do his fees include the growing media appearances he is making, while taking the opportunity to attack Mr Abbott? Mr McArdle, the principal of McArdle Legal, appears to be the new lawyer. His website describes himself as:

… one of approximately forty lawyers in New South Wales accredited by the Law Society of New South Wales as a specialist in Employment and Industrial Law. Chris has been in legal practice since 1988 and prior to that, served as a Commissioner of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales.

I am sure he doesn't come cheap, despite Steve Lewis, in his article on 26 October, describing Mr McArdle as having:

… a long pedigree with the labour movement, starting his working life as federal industrial organiser with the Australian Workers Union in the 1970s.

The question that needs to be answered is whether the ALP is still paying for Mr Thomson's legal fees in some backdoor way. Is there some arrangement with Mr McArdle that should be properly disclosed?

On the last occasion I referred to the rehabilitation of Mr Thomson and the increased presence of ministers visiting Dobell. I note that the ALP has deferred pre-selection in Dobell. Indeed, I understand that Mr Thomson is interested in standing for ALP pre-selection and has apparently told people in the ALP that he wants to run. I understand that this is the reason it has been left open. How else can one account for this sudden interest in high-profile ALP visits to Dobell to support a man who has had a whole series of findings made against him by Fair Work Australia which are now the subject of Federal Court proceedings; who is supposedly no longer welcome in the ALP caucus; whom the Prime Minister has supposedly distanced herself from; and who is the subject of investigations by both the NSW and Victorian police?

Is this just part of the plan to keep him in the tent or does Mr Thomson think he can ride out the storm and stand for pre-selection again next year? Given this man's history to date, I would call on the ALP to rule out ever pre-selecting Mr Thomson. Or is that Mr Thomson knows more than he is publically disclosing—that the protection racket is working both ways? Could the ALP be afraid that if he is not looked after he may disclose information which could be highly damaging and embarrassing to the party and to individuals? Only time will tell, but it is getting, in the words of Alice in Wonderland, 'curiouser and curiouser'.