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

Today I rise once again to make comments in relation to the member for Dobell. Given the proceedings currently on foot, I will not comment on the specifics of the154 charges he is currently defending. Mr Thomson is entitled to his day in court. The resolution of these matters will provide long overdue closure to the low-paid members of the HSU.

What I find amazing about the arrest of Mr Thomson the other day is that it could have come as a surprise to anyone. For those of us who have been prosecuting issues pertinent to Mr Thomson for over two years, his arrest by the Victorian police hardly came as a bolt from the blue.

In Mark Kenny's article entitled 'Surprise arrest catches Labor off guard,' he writes:

The surprise arrest of the beleaguered former Labor MP Craig Thomson on Thursday sent shockwaves through a government which was just coming to terms with its brave new world of a hyper-extended election campaign.

Or this comment in the Daily Telegraph on 1 February:

Labor MPs reacted with horror upon hearing of the charges laid against Mr Thomson, who received more than $300,000 in legal assistance from the NSW ALP as he fought the fraud allegations.

And this classic comment from a seasoned old timer who surely has seen it all before. Simon Crean on Radio National Breakfast with Fran Kelly on 4 February explains how 'after a mere five years, the completely unexpected happened'. As Cut & Paste writes: After a mere five years, the completely unexpected happened:

FRAN Kelly: What do you think? The timing of this? Is it clever or clumsy?

Simon Crean: I think it would have been clever had it not been for the intervention of the unexpected, the Craig Thomson arrest. I mean, think about it, Fran. What you do is you come into the New Year, the first major speech the Prime Minister makes at the Press Club is to announce the election date. A date which was not unexpected by anyone who follows this … the logic then of a reshuffle immediately after that … would have made perfectly logical sense if it hadn't been for the chaos that was created by the Craig Thomson thing. Now, no one knew that was coming, so if you look dispassionately and objectively at this I think you can see, I can certainly see, the logic in it and … it can be perfectly explained.

Surely Mr Thomson's former ALP colleagues must have had some sense of what could happen.

What rock, Mr Crean, have you been living under? Clearly he has missed the many reports since 2009 on this matter. Does he not read the Herald Sun in his state of Victoria? Clearly he missed the many stories last week which carried speculation of the laying of charges. Or perhaps Mr Crean belongs to the very small band—and diminishing band if the Rudd challenge rumours are true—who still believe the absolute drivel that Ms Gillard mouths about the member for Dobell. Like this one on 16 August 2011:

I have complete confidence in the member for Dobell. I think he is doing a fine job representing the people of his constituency. I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long, long time to come.

The day after:

I have complete confidence in the member for Dobell.

On 18 August 2011:

I have full confidence in the member for Dobell.

Or 22 August 2011:

Yes, I do have full confidence in the member for Dobell.

Then on 19 March 2012:

I have expressed my full confidence in the member for Dobell and I continue to do so.

But on the day of the arrest all she could muster was: 'All I know is there are media reports.' As the editorial in the Daily Telegraph of 1 February states:

The Prime Minister, who claims to have had no advance knowledge of Thomson's arrest, and whose interest in proceedings is apparently limited to advice about media reports, now says that the Thomson case is "a matter for police".

…   …   …

Another line may have been crossed here—a line of credibility.

It is just like Ms Gillard's hypocrisy in her support of Peter Slipper. It was all very well to rant and rave with confected outrage about alleged misogyny when she was defending one of the vilest episodes of misogynistic conduct by the former Speaker—all at the same time as she was running a protection racket for the member for Dobell. Then along came Tim Mathieson with his own brand of humour. What happened to the Prime Minister's threat of calling it when she saw sexist and misogynistic conduct? There was deafening silence when Mr Mathieson made his comments at the Lodge. Where was the outrage from the quota girls? Where was the chorus of the feminist brigade? Not a peep out of them. Just imagine if Tony Abbott had made such comments. He would have been politically hung, drawn and quartered. The whole episode demonstrates just what a sham that whole set campaign against the Leader of the Opposition has been. But then Ms Gillard has had a somewhat unfortunate track record. Bruce Wilson and the whole AWU slush fund scandal is a telling story of her flawed judgement. We await with interest the next episodes of this ongoing saga.

So let me return to the matter at hand and focus now on the financial circumstances of the member for Dobell. On 22 August 2011 I first raised the payment of Mr Thomson's legal fees and that former senator Mark Arbib had brokered the deal. Interestingly, Mr Thomson was eventually forced to update his register of interests on 9 May 2012 to disclose that the New South Wales branch of the ALP had assisted him with his legal expenses up to 29 April of that year. But he never disclosed the actual amount. I referred to reports like that of the Herald Sun of 1 February this year entitled 'PM's poll gamble rocked by scandal: Thomson's bill may lead to bankruptcy'. It said:

CRAIG Thomson could go bankrupt as a result of legal bills to defend himself against criminal charges, as well as potential fines and repayments from ongoing civil actions, threatening his position in Parliament.

The article referred to 'the embattled MP … facing a bill of more than $1 million for his civil and criminal legal fights' with Fair Work Australia, given the Fair Work Australia civil claim in the Federal Court that could cost him a quarter of a million dollars in fines. The article further detailed that the Health Services Union national president, Chris Brown, was preparing to file a civil case to recover more than $200,000 allegedly misappropriated by Mr Thomson. Then, of course, the Herald Sun also reported on 1 February:

… in a further setback for Mr Thomson, NSW police confirmed that he remained a "person of interest" in relation to Strikeforce Carnarvon. That investigation has already led to multiple charges being laid against former Labor powerbroker and union boss Michael Williamson.

As the Sydney Morning Herald correctly states on 1 February, it remains unclear how Mr Thomson will meet his new costs after the Labor Party said it would no longer foot the bill.

Mr Thomson's register of interests filed on 20 October 2010 discloses that his residence at Bateau Bay is owned by his spouse, Ms Arnold. The register also shows that he and his wife have a mortgage with SGE Credit Union and that he has savings and superannuation accounts.

According to an ABC report of 11 May last year, there was a raid by the Victorian police at the offices of the SGE Credit Union in Sydney as part of the ongoing HSU investigations. It said that the SGE Credit Union assisted many health sector union members with financial needs and that Mr Williamson had been a board member until April. I remind the Senate of an article by Samantha Maiden of 20 May 2012 entitled 'Craig Thomson says he did not help his wife Zoe Arnold dodge stamp duty when buying the home he lives in.' The article states:

Craig Thomson claims he was not the de facto partner of wife Zoe Arnold in February 2009 when she bought the family's current home and claimed a government stamp duty exemption—even though Ms Arnold was pregnant with his child.

Ms Arnold avoided $15,000 in stamp duty through a first home owner's scheme on the Bateau Bay, NSW home.

The scheme forbids a home owner to claim the stamp duty exemption if they have a spouse or de facto who has previously owned property. The First Home Plus scheme provided stamp duty exemptions for homes under $500,000 in NSW.

He maintains the de facto relationship began after Ms Arnold bought the property. Transfer documents were signed by Ms Arnold on February 20, 2009. Five days later, Mr Thomson changed his electoral enrolment to the Bateau Bay address.

I also note that Ms Arnold submitted a development application on 27 July 2011 to the local council for alterations and additions to and decks for the Bateau Bay property, with an estimated value of $101,000. An update of Mr Thomson's register of interests file on 28 September 2012 discloses that he had taken out a mortgage with Bankwest.

On its face, it hardly demonstrates a couple flush with funds. Accordingly, it raises two pertinent questions: is Mr Thomson now paying his own legal fees? Or are they still being paid by the ALP, perhaps from some secret slush fund? As we know, slush funds appear to be flourishing in ALP circles. We all know about Ms Gillard's former boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, his former associate, Mr Blewitt, and the AWU slush fund. We know about the CFMEU and ETU. These are the ones we know about; I am sure this is only the tip of a very rotten iceberg.

As an aside, it is clear Mr Thomson is taking more of an active role in his own defence after fronting the Wyong court to represent himself in seeking bail. Perhaps it is simply a cost-saving exercise. Given the high stakes involved here, with a desperate Prime Minister clinging onto power by a thread, it is not surprising that Ms Gillard made her announcement of the election date of 14 September. The Daily Telegraph article of 1 February entitled 'Early call avoids one-seat poll loss' says it all:

By calling the date for the election almost eight months out, the government has reserved itself a trump card that could prevent a by-election bloodbath in the event that an MP quits before the general poll.

Should Craig Thomson become bankrupt, Peter Slipper choose to retire to save his pension, or a retiring MP quit before the election, there is no constitutional obligation to hold a by-election.

It would be up to the discretion of Speaker Anna Burke to determine whether a by-election would be held in the months leading up to a general election.

The article tells us what the ALP Speaker would do.

One Labor MP said yesterday the discretion of the Speaker could be used to save the party from a humiliation on the scale of the Bass by-election of 1975 when the Whitlam government suffered a 16 per cent swing.

A spokesman for Ms Burke is quoted:

The Speaker would give consideration to the circumstances at the time.

I bet she would! And then this clanger:

A spokesman for Ms Gillard said she had not considered potential by-elections when she decided to announce a 14 September election.

Does the Prime Minister honestly think that, given her track record, anyone really believes her?

On recent visits to Dobell and in discussions with locals it has become clear to me that despite Mr Thomson well and truly being AWOL from his electoral duties, the ALP was leaving preselection for Dobell open. Why? To string Mr Thomson along and play into the Gillard line of confidence in the working he was doing as the member for Dobell.

As the Sydney Morning Herald article of 5 February reports:

In his first media interview since last Thursday's dramatic move by NSW police to arrest him, Mr Thomson told Fairfax Media he believed the ALP has delayed preselection in his NSW seat in part to allow him time to mount a legal defence, with a view that he may yet represent the party in this year's federal election.

His chat to party officials referred to in the article was fascinating if he still thinks he can run for the ALP. Interestingly, the article also said, 'Labor has ruled out any short-term comeback by Craig Thomson …' but Labor is yet to preselect for Dobell as acknowledged by national secretary George Wright, despite the article quoting him as saying, '… we will be selecting a new Labor candidate.' Clearly, this was not made clear to Mr Thomson in his chat with party officials. As I have previously said, is this part of the plan to keep Mr Thomson on side or does Mr Thomson seriously think he can ride out the storm and stand for preselection for the ALP in the long term? Given his history to date, Mr Wright should rule out ever preselecting Mr Thomson, not just in the short term. Clearly Mr Thomson harbours dreams of a comeback. Could the ALP be afraid that if he is not kept in the tent he will talk and if he talks it may be even more damaging and embarrassing to the ALP and to former colleagues? I believe that, given the history of deception surrounding the payment of Mr Thomson's legal bills in the past, every division of the Australian Labor Party, every ALP associated entity and, in particular, every ALP affiliated trade union should rule out paying for the legal bills Mr Thomson is now accruing.