The untouchable truths that blind

THE priorities of the ABC and much of the ­Fairfax media have been clarified by their response to the trade union royal commission.

The most urgent is to ­protect the Left. The principal goal is to protect former prime minister Julia Gillard from any fallout, the secondary task is to protect the Labor Party and current leader Bill ­Shorten, and the third is to mount a defence (if at all possible) of the trade union movement which permitted corruption to flourish. One of the first to begin running interference for ­Gillard was Fairfax’s Jason Koutsoukis, writing in The Sunday Age on September 9, 2007. According to Koutsoukis, he was handed a file on Gillard (and a glass of red wine) by someone in a ­Howard government ­ministerial suite. Whoever handed the “fat manila folder” to Koutsoukis was incredibly naive. The Fairfax reporter didn’t investigate the material. Writing: “The main impression I got from the file was that Gillard was an ­extreme leftist committed to establishing something akin to a Marxist state if Labor ever won government.” He devoted 1201 words to explain why Gillard was a model leader and a great ally to the then opposition ­leader and soon-to-be prime minister Kevin Rudd. “Another anti-Gillard theme of late,” he wrote, “is that she and Rudd have had a major falling out and that Gillard has been shut-out of Labor’s policymaking team. “There is no doubt that the two have had a rocky ­relationship in the past, but there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of that now.” Koutsoukis did mention “the one skeleton in Gillard’s closet is the allegation — first raised under parliamentary privilege in 1995 by former Kennett minister Phil Gude — that Gillard’s one-time partner Bruce ­Wilson, a former secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union, was under investigation by the National Crime Authority and Victoria Police over the misappropriation of union funds”. And that the “union funds were used to renovate Gillard’s house and buy her some personal items” he reported Gillard’s claim that the allegations were “totally untrue” and those who repeated them were “lying cowards”. “There has also not been a single document produced to support any of the claims, or any statement made outside parliament to that effect either,” said Koutsoukis. We now know, courtesy of the recorded interview Gillard had with partners at her former law firm Slater & Gordon, that she could not be sure where the money for her renovation came from. The ABC, under its ­self-­described editor-in-chief Mark Scott, flatly refused to run any news stories about the investigations launched by the Victorian police into Gillard’s former boyfriend and her role in providing legal advice for the ­establishment of a slush fund which was later shown to be the vehicle for his ­corrupt behaviour, the AWU Workplace ­Reform Association. ABC Insiders’ host Barrie Cassidy, and his Left-leaning guests, rejected any discussion of the ongoing case, and would not brook any ­criticism of the ABC’s failure to report on the matter. Other ABC figures ­continuing to run interference for Gillard include Melbourne radio host Jon Faine and the Sydney radio host Linda Mottram. On Tuesday last week, Faine laboriously read on- air a lengthy statement by Bruce Wilson, which ­included some claims that he had allegedly been ­offered $200,000 by veteran union lawyer Harry Nowicki to fabricate ­material implicating Gillard in the AWU Reform Association scam. Two days later royal commissioner Dyson Heydon said flatly: “I would reject those paragraphs as irrelevant.” The ABC’s Faine was at it again this week with another attack on Harry Nowicki based on a 2011 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal reprimand against the Melbourne lawyer. Nowicki had admitted swearing to an affidavit without properly reading and investigating the ­material attached, which ­related to how his firm had divided a settlement it won for a woman injured in a car accident. “That’s about as bad a finding short of getting struck off that a solicitor can have,” Faine said, branding the decision as “extraordinary stuff”. In reality, a reprimand is possibly the least finding that could have been made given that both parties agreed to the facts and ­indeed made joint submissions as to disposition ­including penalties and submitted consent orders for the tribunal to consider. A reading of the VCAT ­decision shows deputy ­president Michael Macnamara actually wondered whether Nowicki’s failure to ­adequately probe the ­affidavit prepared by his ­office really amounted to professional misconduct. “I think it is a relatively finely balanced issue and one on which minds might differ,” he said. Faine, a former lawyer, was reprimanded by ABC management last year ­following interviews he ­conducted with broadcaster Michael Smith and Age ­editor-at-large Mark Baker about the case. And he deserves another whack for his attempts to impugn the commission’s witness. On Thursday, the ABC’s Mottram let Ten News’ Paul Bongiorno claim the union royal commission “was set up with high political motivation to embarrass the Labor Party as much as possible in the full knowledge that Bill Shorten of course was a very high-profile leader of the AWU — a union which was specifically mentioned in the terms of reference”. Bongiorno needs reminding that HSU whistleblower Kathy Jackson played a ­significant role in the ­convictions of former ALP national president Michael Williamson and former Labor MP Craig Thomson. To claim that the royal commission is a witch hunt is a slur on those brave ­individuals prepared to stand up to union bullies. WHAT HANSON-YOUNG DIDN’T TELL THE AFGHANS SENATOR Sarah Hanson-Young cemented her role as a rolled-gold goose with her truly fulsome (offensive to good taste, especially as being excessive; overdone or gross) welcome to a parliamentary delegation from Afghanistan this week. Barely had Labor senator John Hogg, the president of the senate, welcomed the Afghans to the gallery on the floor of the senate on Wednesday afternoon before Hanson-Young breached protocol and standing orders and rushed across to offer her greetings. “I remind honourable senators that it is disorderly to be in that part of the chamber,” Senator Hogg told her. Despite being told to resume her seat, she continued to gush at the guests. If only they had known that had Hanson-Young and her Green colleagues had their way, Afghanistan would be in the Taliban hands. If only they had known that if the Greens had been successful in their attempts to block the Allied intervention in Afghanistan, the execution of Afghan women in the Kabul soccer stadium by stoning or firing squad would be a regular crowd pleaser. Hanson-Young’s adolescent posturing may have been designed to distract from being embarrassingly reminded that this week is Refugee Week, and that had her party had its way, hundreds of people would have drowned at sea. Fortunately, no illegal people-smuggler clients have reached Australia for six months. The leader of the Afghan parliamentary delegation, Ikram Sayed, was exceedingly polite to Hanson-Young. Had he been aware that more than 1000 people were lost at sea when the Labor government’s policies she and the Greens supported were being followed, he might not have been as tactful. While the Afghans might have been bemused by Hanson-Young, Senator Hogg was not quite as understanding. He returned to the immature senator’s behaviour at the end of Question Time and reminded her of a previous ruling by former senate president Paul Calvert that it is “not in order for senators to approach distinguished guests in the chamber”, and that the rule applies to “all visitors in the galleries on the floor of the chamber at all times”. Hanson-Young should grow up if she wants to join the adults.