John Howard has finally admitted to conspiring with Christopher Corrigan to bust the Maritime Union of Australia in 1998, Paddy Crumlin, the union's National Secretary said today.







Mr Crumlin said Mr Howard’s memoir Lazarus Rising, which devotes a 15-page chapter to the dispute, was the first time the former prime minister has admitted to an official meeting with Patrick’s Chris Corrigan prior to the lock-out on the wharves.

Mr Crumlin said the major admission came on page 292 of his book, where he states that he and Peter Reith met Mr Corrigan in Howard’s office in Canberra ‘during the latter half of 1997’.

“Until now, Howard had only admitted to one official meeting with Corrigan, which Reith has claimed was on 29 April 1998, on the eve of the High Court hearing that upheld the Federal Court finding that there was an arguable case of unlawful conspiracy,” Mr Crumlin said.

“This fresh disclosure also means that Howard misled parliament.

“The chapter is full of unsupported allegations about the waterfront and the union, many of which can be shown to be completely untrue. His ongoing falsification of the co-operative reform process that occurred under the Hawke Labor government, for example, is risible.  

“But even where Howard reveals new information, he raises more questions than he answers.

“On page 294, for example, he says that no-one in his government knew about the Dubai training operation and that Reith was advised and publicly announced that Corrigan was not involved.

“In the next paragraph, Howard writes that ‘Dubai told me that Corrigan was serious about reform’.
How then did Howard know that Corrigan was involved?

“Until now, no-one in Howard’s government has admitted to knowing about Corrigan’s involvement in the Dubai debacle before Corrigan himself publicly confessed two months later, in February 1998.

“Howard also admits that one of the government’s consultants apparently knew about the Dubai operation. This could only refer to Stephen Webster, who was seconded from Pratt Industries to
provide advice on waterfront reform.”

Mr Crumlin said the 82-page Webster report was submitted to the Howard government in October
1997 and has remained confidential.        
He called on the Gillard government to release the Webster report to clear the air.

“This fresh disclosure also means that Howard misled parliament.

_____________

this freemason howard will be delt with by the LAW.

misleading parliament,we may see this criminal go to gaol

at pentridge.

it_is_the_light wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 3:49pm:

“This fresh disclosure also means that Howard misled parliament. _____________ this freemason howard will be delt with by the LAW. misleading parliament,we may see this criminal go to gaol at pentridge.

HEVENS NO NOT PENTRIDGE

;D ;D ;D

Howard may very well go to Pentridge, but that'd only be to buy an apartment, being that there is no jail there anymore.

Howard's agenda was always to break the unions. He succeeded.
You won't hear boo about his illegal operations now, we're way too apathetic for that.

Amadd wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 4:42pm:

H oward's agenda was always to break the unions. He succeeded. You won't hear boo about his illegal operations now, we're way too apathetic for that.

not to mention glad that he succeeded.

The sleazy little toad. He will get what's coming to him in due course. All dogs have their day. No offence to bow wow dogs, they're cute.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 5:16pm:

The sleazy little toad. He will get what's coming to him in due course. All dogs have their day. No offence to bow wow dogs, they're cute.

One of the most important contributions Howard has made to national life is to make people like you apoplectic. That gives him a free pass for an awaful lot of sins.

Quote:

One of the most important contributions Howard has made to national life is to make people like you apoplectic. That gives him a free pass for an awaful lot of sins.

Really? That's an interesting way of looking at things.
So if you help a little old lady across the road, you then have a credit to snatch the handbag of the next little old lady you see?

I assure you that Howard is hopelessly into the red for getting us involved in the Iraq war (lickie lickie).
And I'd assume that a lot of Iraqis would feel an understandable amount of rage towards Australians for our part in conjuring such a naive, or sinister (take your pick), PM.
We really do need to take responsibility for that dasdardly evil man. He was the fault of a starry eyed generation of twits, who hopefully now know better. ..but the next generation won't of course.


I don't care nearly as much about Howard's union (democracy) breaking agenda here in Australia compared to what he was/is party to in Iraq.
If Howard wants to prove his legacy, he should launch his book in Iraq. You don't just walk away from something like that and launch a book far away from the crime in order to make a few more selfish bux.

No doubt, this was also the opinion of the shoe thrower who did his best to show some solidarity with the Iraqis during the Howard interview with Tony Jones.
Howard (the coward) must have balls the size a nit's nat's nut.

Back to the unions:
If you think it's such an honourable exploit to help secure magnanimous profits to greedy banks and the like, then I'll go with your one disallusioned democratic vote.
But it's one vote and one vote only. The majority cast their vote for very different causes.

Soren wrote on Oct 29^th, 2010 at 6:10pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 29th, 2010 at 5:16pm: The sleazy little toad. He will get what's coming to him in due course. All dogs have their day. No offence to bow wow dogs, they're cute. One of the most important contributions Howard has made to national life is to make people like you apoplectic. That gives him a free pass for an awaful lot of sins.

Ah! so that's why he got away with the war crimes, he has a huge stack of get out of gaol cards? He made a lot of people angry, that's why he got voted out so convincingly. If we consider your twisted notion he must be almost saint-worthy.

There are reasons why he managed to serve four consecutive terms as PM.

Hlysnan wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

There are reasons why he managed to serve four consecutive terms as PM.

Very few of them honourable!

Equitist wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 8:24am:

Hlysnan wrote on Oct 30th, 2010 at 8:05am: There are reasons why he managed to serve four consecutive terms as PM. Very few of them honourable!

All with honour unlike the current back stabbing  B I T C H

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

I'm not that concerned with what Gillard has done so far. I don't like her NBN, her aid promises to foreign countries and the "burying" of workchoices, but that's about it. In fact, I think she should be made a national hero after getting rid of that traitor.

bwood1946 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 8:39am:

Equitist wrote on Oct 30th, 2010 at 8:24am: Hlysnan wrote on Oct 30th, 2010 at 8:05am: There are reasons why he managed to serve four consecutive terms as PM. Very few of them honourable! All with honour unlike the current back stabbing  B I T C H >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Somehow, Woody, methinks that those of your ilk would still be bi@tching about Gillard's ascension, no matter how gradual and/or public her tilt at the leadership was...

::)

The maritime union might as well be a mafia. They held australia's economy to ransom to line their own pockets. When an 'evil multinational' like microsoft does it, people don't hold back. But because it is a union protecting the right of a small clique of lazy, overpaid, theiving wharfies, people think they can do no wrong.

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 9:11am:

The maritime union might as well be a mafia. They held australia's economy to ransom to line their own pockets. When an 'evil multinational' like microsoft does it, people don't hold back. But because it is a union protecting the right of a small clique of lazy, overpaid, theiving wharfies, people think they can do no wrong.

You got that right.

Equitist wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 8:52am:

no matter how gradual and/or public her tilt at the leadership was...

It was a gradual as an about-face.

Amadd wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 5:10am:

Quote: One of the most important contributions Howard has made to national life is to make people like you apoplectic. That gives him a free pass for an awaful lot of sins. Really? That's an interesting way of looking at things. So if you help a little old lady across the road, you then have a credit to snatch the handbag of the next little old lady you see?

Not quite. Help a little old lady across the road - bollock the unions for free.


Quote:

I assure you that Howard is hopelessly into the red for getting us involved in the Iraq war (lickie lickie). And I'd assume that a lot of Iraqis would feel an understandable amount of rage towards Australians for our part in conjuring such a naive, or sinister (take your pick), PM. We really do need to take responsibility for that dasdardly evil man. He was the fault of a starry eyed generation of twits, who hopefully now know better. ..but the next generation won't of course. I don't care nearly as much about Howard's union (democracy) breaking agenda here in Australia compared to what he was/is party to in Iraq. If Howard wants to prove his legacy, he should launch his book in Iraq. You don't just walk away from something like that and launch a book far away from the crime in order to make a few more selfish bux.

An awful lot of outraged Iraqis are desperate to get to this despicable country. Surely shome mishtate.

It is one of Howard's enduring positives that he acted on the very, very honourable political principle of  'You can't be an 80% friend". Being part of the broad western alliance against Saddam and the Taliban was absolutely the right thing to do. Under Labor we would have acted as shamefully as the Spanish.  


Quote:

No doubt, this was also the opinion of the shoe thrower who did his best to show some solidarity with the Iraqis during the Howard interview with Tony Jones. Howard (the coward) must have balls the size a nit's nat's nut.

To think that a dreadlocked bozo who throws like a girl has ANYTHING to recommend him (let alone be regarded as a voice for others)  is a step too far - unless he speak for other dreadlocked girlie bozos in which case, what' new (exept you, of course, who is neither dreadliocked, I hope, nor a bozo.) I am not necessarily trying to be personal here, Amadd, just trying to make the broad point that applauding every d!ickhead who is playing to the gallery is not a policy I recommend in the long run.



Quote:

Back to the unions: If you think it's such an honourable exploit to help secure magnanimous profits to greedy banks and the like, then I'll go with your one disallusioned democratic vote. But it's one vote and one vote only. The majority cast their vote for very different causes.

Debating the unions is important. I fully accept that they are necessary, have a very important role, very important, and that historically they have been a force for good.

I also maintaing that very often, because of their organisational ability and the masses of low IQ armies at their beck and call, they have been utter, utter bastards. That they are not democratic but feudal goes without saying.

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 9:11am:

The maritime union might as well be a mafia. They held australia's economy to ransom to line their own pockets. When an 'evil multinational' like microsoft does it, people don't hold back. But because it is a union protecting the right of a small clique of lazy, overpaid, theiving wharfies, people think they can do no wrong.

The changes on the waterfront were done in the manner they were for political gain.

The changes could have and should have been managed in the normal manner and not driven by a government trying to show how tough they were in the lead up to an election.

It was just a different version of children overboard, the Tampa or the electorally unsuccessful NT intervention.

Come down hard on a minority group in an election year in order to snare the red neck / anti union / racist vote.

Very dissapointed by how well it worked.

I agree with Freediver.
I love all things Maritime, but the Union! Erk, thats another kettle of fish.
Howard only stayed in for a record number of terms due to the 'lack of' opposition ...something which is why people are fed up with both Lib and ALP altogether. He also dished Costello, just for his own personal fame and record of being the 'longest serving'. Thats all we will remember him for ...the longest serving, nothing else.
The flaw with Howard was that he tried turning Australia into another 'Political Power Nation' ...which isn't really the future of this country, which is why he was always up against the Unions.
But hey, two wrongs not making a right here Liberals and the Eureka Unions.

Quote:

Come down hard on a minority group in an election year in order to snare the red neck / anti union / racist vote.

Yes, he should have come down on progressives instead.

Too bad union heads aren't cracked like they were in the 1930s.

Funny how so many are please by any chance to attack unions but do not seem concerned about a PM illegally conspiring against workers for personal political gain.

I think Liberals and the Unions are gonna have a big stoush,
possibly our Civil War?
With the Unions waving the Eureka Stockade Flag (you know, the one started by North Americans), wonder who the Libs are gonna get?
The Rebel Bikers with their Confederate Flag? The are looking towards doing some serious PR work of late ;D

Which leaves the ALP?
...that might be an Independence thing? ;)

Dnarever wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 6:13pm:

Funny how so many are please by any chance to attack unions but do not seem concerned about a PM illegally conspiring against workers for personal political gain.

We'd feel your pain if the unions weren't such utter bastards and weren't oncerned, above all else, about their own political gain.

Soren wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 30th, 2010 at 6:13pm: Funny how so many are please by any chance to attack unions but do not seem concerned about a PM illegally conspiring against workers for personal political gain. We'd feel your pain if the unions weren't such utter bastards and weren't oncerned, above all else, about their own political gain.

I would think in this case the unions response was reasonable and moderate considering that the employee’s workplace was invaded in the early hours by a security force wearing balaclavas with attack dogs.

This action was a disgrace and the people who conspired to produce the unnecessary event should have been serving time. Right up to and including the PM.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 6:13pm:

Funny how so many are please by any chance to attack unions but do not seem concerned about a PM illegally conspiring against workers for personal political gain.

We haven`t forgotten how the low life unions deposed an elected Prime Minister.

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 9:11am:

The maritime union might as well be a mafia. They held australia's economy to ransom to line their own pockets. When an 'evil multinational' like microsoft does it, people don't hold back. But because it is a union protecting the right of a small clique of lazy, overpaid, theiving wharfies, people think they can do no wrong.

Interesting. So people don't hold back against Microsoft? Or the corporations
that 'they' were holding to ransom? They must really be hurting yeah?
If your suggesting that the money the maritime "mafia" skimmed is
in any way comparable to the money Microsoft has reaped from its despicable practices... mate, your dreaming.

I'd much prefer the corrupt wharfies giving the corporations some stick then Mr Howard telling me how it should be.