Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair

Timeline

This article will be in a state of some flux for a while. I'll move material in the existing lead into a text (rather than table) timeline format. Although this is part of a wider affair involving the HSU, it appears more and more likely that it is Craig Thomson's part which will prove more important in a political sense, given the need to convince the other independents to support him. We also need a current event note on the top - I'll dig one up in a moment. --Pete (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC) So tempted to use the "current disaster" template! Which is what it is for the whole nation, really, given that it strikes deep into the heart of worker collective representation, not to mention the ongoing crisis of confidence in Parliament. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC) I have "timelined" the material ported over from the CT article. The next step is to look at the FWA report, which has extremely detailed descriptions and documents on the relevant events. Following this, I shall add in the events of the past few days, which continue the spate of front page stories. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter. There was a problem with the citation for April 6, 2009. I wasn't sure what that source you were trying to cite was but it was showing as an error in the ref list. The date is mentioned in the Nassios report so I just changed the cite to that for now. Feel free to change it to whatever you want. Also, at the end of the sentence under 26 March 2010, there's a "(43)"...I had no idea what that meant. Cheers, Sarah 13:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Page 43 of the report. It would be handy if I could just use one ref and qualify it inline by the page number - the chronology in the report goes for over 40 pages!!! Thanks for the help, I'm working on this but it's a little daunting given the wealth of material, the changing status and the massive media interest and opinions. But it's important to tell the story accurately as a ready reference. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair Work Australia report

I'm moving steadily through the report. It's kind of depressing, reading it. Nassios has identified a great number of specific failings of Craig Thomson, rather than the most sensational reported in the media, such as payments for travel for non-HSU members, or payments to football clubs, or train hire which go well beyond his approval to spend money on general administration, or failure to manage the union office efficiently. When pressed by Nassios, Thomson fails to give any specific responses, provide details or identify individuals. Nassios, in comparison, provides forensic details. Pages of them. Chapters and annexes of lists and amounts and dates. Thomson promises reports and investigations which never eventuate. There's no oversight or approval for hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenditure and he just runs the finances into the ground. It's appalling.

However, I'm sticking to events and statements which are identifiable both in the report and in media reports. This is not an article on the FWA report, or Craig Thomson in general, but on the political scandal, and on that point there seems to be a lot of media opinion (and from labor insiders) that this if it doesn't sink Gillard entirely, will be a serious iceberg to deal with.

As for writing the article, there is a huge variety of major news stories to use as sources. This isn't some scuffle of infighting in some minor union, this is seen by the media as a big thing, and it has generated front page stories for three years now. This is already a Watergate-level scandal. --Pete (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to Parliament

I watched the speech and found it carefully crafted, based around the legitimate concept that depriving the voters of an electorate of their representation without some due process would be improper. The pressure on he and his family is undoubtedly heavy, but I think it a bit unfair to blame media and Opposition for events that occurred entirely within the union and ALP before he entered Parliament. He spent comparatively little time on the specific allegations and provided few details. I think that they were pretty much all denied or refuted before the day was out. I was particularly struck by his claim that photo-id would not be specifically recorded, and yet this is exactly what occurs in brothels and escort agencies. Merridy Eastman, in her book There's a Bear in There (and He Wants Swedish), describes the process of checking photo-ID and recording it (in green ink, no less), while Andrew Bolt prints excerpts from the bank's operating manual which instructs users to check ID and record the details. It is standard practice. Bolt also highlights three examples of calls to escort agencies made from rooms where Thomson only booked the one room for himself, rather than the block bookings he claims he made. The political impact of the speech in the context of this article on the affair is two-fold - he (and Gillard) survived the day, but the production of details that can be checked stirs the "Inspector Clouseaus" of the press gallery into further action and further front page news stories, which naturally increases the impact on the saga and this article. --Pete (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC) "I watched the speech too, and noted he gave what was a confession on some issues. He didn't directly state it, but he highlighted that the union was a mess before he assumed office and he worked to improve things. It may be inferred he did not improve them enough, but that is a defence and a confession. One does not know how it will end, but it is clear that he is under intense pressure and his 'support' from the ALP is not benefitting him. DDB (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who seriously suggests using Andrew Bolt as a reliable source is unfit to edit this article; there are numerous distortions of fact already present in this article, which violates Wikipedia BLP. For example, the Wikipedia editor who wrote that Thomson was 'forced out' of the ALP, when the ABC article referenced by the editor clearly states that Thomson's ALP membership was 'suspended', and that Thomson himself requested for his membership to be suspended. 121.216.230.139 (talk)

The issue is sensitive at the moment, and subject to BLP protocols. We should source everything. I'd like to see a balanced coverage on this, consistent with NPOV. Removing sources because you don't agree with them is not the best course of action here - we have an absolute smorgasbord of sources and if an editor feels that one view is predominating, add one from a different point of view. However, I strongly caution against using blogs as sources when we have mainstream media sources. Unless there is a good reason to use a minor source, such as the one publishing an email from Craig Thomson stating that he was "very happy" with the settlement. There currently seem to be about four POVs in general currency - that of the ALP, Coalition, media and Craig Thomson. We're not here to crucify the guy, nor whitewash him, but to tell the story of the political scandal which is filling the front pages. I might note that according to the various online polls, the percentage of respondents supporting/believing Craig Thomson is about 10%, so he's very much an extreme or fringe POV here.

What's the significance of the "Thompson/Thomson" spelling? Thomson himself isn't disputing that it was his credit card being used, presumably the issuer misspelt his name, which seems to be an extremely common error. --Pete (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The misspelled name on the credit card used to make the imprint on the franking slip allegedly sourced from "Keywed" indicates it is a blatant forgery. Craig Thomson disputes he was at the brothel and thus disputes he signed that fraudulent franking slip. I am uncertain if you lack the intelligence, or the integrity, or both, to avoid presenting this obviously tainted exhibit as a reliable source in Wikipedia. The only reason you would present it is to support and further the Liberal-National Party's defamation campaign. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the two Andrew Bolt articles to which the anon editor above takes such exception to, one of them consists almost entirely of Thomson's misleading email to Labor colleagues, in which he claims he was "very happy" with "settlements" of defamation actions launched against HSU and Fairfax. In point of fact he withdrew both claims after considerable legal expense and received no money, no retraction, no apology. Fairfax continued to print the allegations against Thomson on the basis that they were factual and was borne out by the Fair Work Australia report. This is critical to what makes this affair a political scandal - the Sydney Morning Herald printed some damning allegations, the story became front page news and Thomson's bluster and the ALP's attempts to hose the thing down add to the general interest, providing the twin elements of personal involvement, with Craig Thomson and his troubles one focus, and the survival of the unpopular Gillard government the other.

The second Bolt article second Bolt article rebuts claims made in Thomson's speech to Parliament, contrasting Thomson's statements with the evidence provided by Fair Work Australia and others. While Thomson's speech was made under Parliamentary privilege (and has itself spawned yet another inquiry), it is not exempt from scrutiny and rebuttal.

Who says the purported email on Bolt's blog is genuinely from Craig Thomson MP? Where are the message headers for that purported email? Given Andrew Bolt's established court record for reckless dishonestly, blatant libel, and sloppy, unprofessional research, any so-called evidence from Bolt must be held to the strictest standards of proof, or be deleted per BLP. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

While BLP must be observed, and any unsourced negative information swiftly removed, this does not apply to sourced statements. NPOV provides for presentation of diverse and contradictory views, and we may certainly give any views in support of Thomson due prominence. However, with public credibility in Thomson's statements running at 5-10%,[1] his views should be treated as a minority or fringe opinion.

Regarding the wording of how Thomson came to leave the ALP, there is a conflict here.[2] A great many sources state that he was "forced out of the ALP"[3][4], or that Prime Minister Gillard "dumped" Thomson. Thomson claims he stood aside voluntarily, while Gillard claims it was her decision. Given that the PM has announced that Thomson will not be the ALP candidate for Dobell at the next election, we may again give due credence to the conflicting claims.

I appreciate that the Thomson affair is a major ongoing political scandal and that Thomson himself is being treated as a political football by competing interests, but removing reliable sources is not the way to report on the affair. We should use sources to present all sides, and if an editor is upset by the material provided by one good source, find another that provides a different view. We have an enormous range of sources at the moment. --Pete (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt's writings are "a major ongoing political scandal". That is his job. He is paid by conservative media outlets to pander to the pre-existing ignorance and bigotry of their audience. In his last brush with the law it was also highlighted by the judge that his interest in truth is much lower than his interest in satisfying his audience. If we're looking for a neutral POV here, we should go nowhere near Bolt. It's never his goal. Oh, any source with the word "blog" in its url should also be an instantaneous "keep away" warning for Wikipedia editors. Given that there are so many sources available, it will be easy to avoid Bolt, and we must. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm concerned about blogs pretending to be mainstream media, such as those running on Wordpress through some unknown URL. I'm less concerned about mainstream media pretending to be blogs, such as Bolt's. It's opinion sponsored by a reliable source, every bit as much as Michelle Grattan or Paul Kelly or the ABC's The Drum. We can and should take all opinion with a grain of salt, but when the readership is in the millions, we can give those opinions a bit more weight. And as you point out, satisfying the audience is what it's all about. Neutral point of view, as you should know, is not about finding an unbiased impartial source, so much as giving due weight to diverse reliable sources. Just because we don't personally agree with a statement or we don't like its author or we don't like their political leanings when commenting on a political case, those are not good reasons to disregard that source in favour of something that tells a different story. Why I like Bolt as a source in the two examples given is that he doesn't put his opinion into the pieces so much as he lays out the facts, exposing and rebutting the claims made by Thomson, and he does it in an efficient economical way. If we can find some source supporting Thomson's view, or better still rebutting Bolt with facts rather than opinion, then we should include that. But I'm not seeing a real lot on that side of the ledger. I'm seeing opinion and emotion and smoke and spurious arguments. Gillard and her henchmen are quite right to point out that Parliament is not a court, not a judge and jury. If votes to suspend members were acceptable, then she could convert her minority government into a majority in an afternoon's work. But when she is asked to explain what line had been crossed when she forced Thomson out of the ALP, then she is silent. She acted as judge and jury in that respect, and it's not just Tony Abbot making that point, it's every experienced political commentator. Wikipedia is telling the story of a major Australian political scandal here, not just in the sense that it will very likely end Gillard's career as Prime Minister, but in the sense that it is striking at the very existence of the union movement in that the union fees of members are being mis-spent. Whether it was Thomson who spent thousands on prostitutes or not, the money was still spent and apparently supported all the way to the top. Trying to put a spin on this thing is pointless when every day, on tv, radio, the front pages of the big papers, the fresh revelations come flowing in with the tide. And there's one big wave with Michael Williamson's name on it rolling steadily into the beach. --Pete (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I laugh at your view that Bolt uses facts alone. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not my view. I'd like for you to be serious. Please. This is a serious matter, and we should treat it as such. --Pete (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if you personally think that Bolt is a terrific journalist, a wise editor, taking this seriously, would realise that using him as a source is ALWAYS going to be controversial. It's just best to avoid him. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. It's wrong. This is not an article about me, nor you, nor Andrew Bolt. Nor about Craig Thomson per se. It's about the political scandal, which is controversial to begin with. That's the whole point. If it were boring and uncontroversial, there wouldn't be an article. What I'm seeing is an argument directed at removing an excellent source because you and others don't like what he has to say. I'm guessing that if we removed every source that says what you don't want to hear, we'd have no controversy and no article.

Where I'm having difficulty, and where you could maybe help, is in finding good sources that say good things about Craig Thomson. My feeling is that he's been about as good a local member as anyone else, he's being used as a political football and he's being placed in a difficult, if not impossible position. But I'm not finding good sources for these opinions. Nor can I find any mainstream source that says his claims are credible. I don't think he's suicidal - in my experience the people who are fair dinkum about it don't send out warnings - but he's clearly under a lot of stress. I'm also looking to reduce the timeline to a series of dot points and expand the various aspects of the thing into sections.

I've given my reasons for liking those Bolt articles - not because I agree with his opinions, nor that I think he's a terrific political journalist - I would put Grattan and Kelly into that bucket long before Bolt - but because he provides a good pointer to Thomson's email claiming he was "very happy" with the defamation "settlement", and he concisely and authoritatively demolishes some of Thomson's statements in his recent speech. Find other journalists who give the same factual material and we can lose Bolt. --Pete (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt isn't a reliable source. The courts have determined that Bolt is a reckless liar, racist, and defamer and his nonsense could never be called a reliable source. 121.216.230.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion does not mesh with Wikipedia's article on Andrew Bolt, which provides a balanced view. Please follow wikiprocedure if you have valid concerns. Deleting information because you do not like the content or the author is not good practice. Feel free to insert material consistent with WP:RS and WP:NPOV if you feel the article is slanted unfairly. I've restored the links you removed from my comments above, citing BLP problems. They are just links, not statements, and on reviewing the articles, they are well-sourced. BLP policy is strict, as it should be, but when negative statements have good sources, they are not to be removed just because they are negative. I note that this article was raised on the BLP noticeboard and discussion lapsed when i asked for specific details to be presented for discussion. If anyone has any valid BLP problems, then discuss them by all means. This is a sensitive issue, but I observe that Thomson's own opinion seems to be very much a fringe position, and putting it forward as unchallenged truth is a bit like letting the conspiracy theorists write the Apollo Program article. --Pete (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Skyring alias Pete, your ongoing attempts to use court-condemned racist and libeler Andrew Bolt - see http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html - as a 'reliable source' means I can no longer assume good faith with you. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Bolt is paid to write extreme, largely right wing material. He has said so himself. He NEVER writes positive stuff about anything to do with the ALP. You simply must know that. Stop pushing this POV bullshit. Stick to simple, known facts. Avoid opinion pieces. If the simple facts without Bolt bias don't match your POV, maybe your POV is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Journalists are paid - that's their job. What, specifically, don't you like about the information, apart from the author? As I've mentioned earlier, we would be unwise to accept Bolt's opinions, but the facts and material he unearths are good sources. --Pete (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You know his aims. You must also rationally realise that he won't use a balanced selection of balanced sources. Please give up on this biased campaign of yours. Bolt is paid to be biased. You're not. That you choose to show such a politically one sided view here gives no credence to your claims to be trying to create a balanced article. Recognise that your own opinion (which, of course, you're entitled to), is not middle of the road, and should therefore not be reflected in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Bolt is balanced or not, so long as we are. What statements made in the article, for which Bolt is used as a source, are problematic? --Pete (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Just don't continue to act so dumb as to even want to use Bolt as a source. It's simply not smart. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have anything specific to discuss? About this article, in particular? --Pete (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its standards on what are reliable sources and what are not. Bolt is not. Find another source for your content. It's as simple as that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read most of what Bolt has printed since 1998, and cannot find the hyperbole many here refer to. Putting aside the inflation of a court case findings, it is usually possible to examine Bolt's references and justifications. He, like any good journalist provides them. It is valid to refer to an opinion of Bolt without calling it fact. I would welcome references to anything that Bolt has done that justifies the wild claims others put here, but please send them to me, and don't waste space on this page about the Craig Thomson affair. Unlike Bolt, Thomson does not justify himself and apparently made effort to remove material which might exonerate him of public suspicion of immoral behaviour. DDB (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)DDB (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User 121.216.230.139

This user has anonymously and selectively removed edits for no valid editorial reason. It is apparent that the new edits break npov rules and should be reversed. It is possible the user is Craig Thomson himself, or a paid ALP supporter with a vested interest. DDB (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Ddball|DDB

This user has objected to the removal of biased materials and poorly sourced defamation for no valid editorial reason. It is apparent that the old edits break npov rules and should have been reversed. It is possible the user is Tony Abbott himself, or a paid Liberal National Party supporter with a vested interest. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My suspicions have proven to be correct; the editor User:Ddball|DDB is David Daniel Ball, a member of the Liberal Party. [5] Thus Ball has a vested political interest in defaming Mr Thomson for the benefit of his party. Ball should have recused himself from editing this article due to a blatant WP:COI.