topic Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why? in Community Spirit

A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

i-need-a-martini — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:54:47 GMT

Is this really necessary given that it is a criminal matter?

Like how much does a Royal Commission cost? $400million? $600million?

And why is it that the Liberal Party are forever making the excuse that the 'public' have concerns and this is the reason they have to do something? ("Senator Brandis confirmed...it would be "irresponsible for the government not to respond in an appropriate way" to public concerns."). What concerns? I think the public is more concerned about the secrecy regarding the governments handling of the asylum seekers yet they don't think THOSE public concerns are important.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/royal-commission-into-union-corruption-confirmed-20140209-329dr.html

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

spotweldersfriend — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:08:13 GMT

Well they are the party of the 50's after all.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

donnashuggy — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:09:51 GMT

Why don't they do something that benefits our safety.......like truck drivers taking drugs and driving ridiculous hours causing accidents.............

Obviously the LNP have plenty of money to waste.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

pct001wine — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:15:20 GMT

Lol - more Champagne being uncorked in chambers across Australia. Royal Commissions like this (what a quaint anachronism, "Royal", forever hanging off the coat-tails of Mother England) are the refuge of a government with no direction, no ideas and an ideological desire to screw the working class.

The public should be outraged at this blatant waste of taxpayers money. It would be better spent aimed at the big end of town, where one shonky boardroom decision would equate to 3000 Norm Gallaghers getting a baksheesh roof for his holiday home.

Get rid of shonks ? Yes. Wherever they are.

I wonder how much "public concern" came from people like Rinehart ? I suppose she is a taxpayer (just)

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

boris1gary — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:21:40 GMT

it's just another witch hunt designed to destroy our Trade Unions, how about the corruption in the NSW Liberal Govt, they are up to their necks in it..........

below are just a few examples of these weasles

from the SMH and IA

Kent Johns has been replaced as Sutherland Shire mayor following damaging allegations raised by the Herald concerning special favours awarded to developers with Liberal Party connections.

Councillor Johns decided not to contest the mayoral ballot which was held on Monday night.

He also pulled out of the Liberal Party preselection contest for the state seat of Miranda.

On the 14th of June, it was reported that Pearce was giving out jobs to his mates.

Ray Whitten, an ex-vice president of Pearce’s Liberal Party branch and a member of the very small “Friends of Greg Pearce” group, was appointed to be deputy chair of the new Safety, Return to Work and Support board — an $80,000 job. Pearce also elected Mr Whitten to the Workcover Authority of NSW and Motor Accidents Authority boards in 2011.

Then there’s Gavin Bell, the CEO of Pearce's old law firm Freehills, who was appointed to the Return to Work Safely board. Pearce appointed his secretary's husband Kim Garling as the WorkCover Independent Review Officer last year — a $300,000 job.

Not to mention Geoffrey Levy, also from Freehills, being appointed to run the government's property utilisation task-force. Mr Levy chairs a company called Cromwell Property who won a tender to buy $405 million worth of property he recommended the government should sell. Big bucks, even by Eddie Obeid standards.

What has emerged recently is more shocking than all these events, if that is possible.

Pearce’s Deputy Chief of Staff Natalie Ward has been forced to quit her job.

The problem with Ward is her husband, David Begg, is a lobbyist with a firm called PremierState.

The following is on their website under the title “Our People”:

'PremierState was founded by former NSW Cabinet Minister, Michael Photios and David Begg, Managing Director of David Begg & Associates and a former member of the Liberal Party State Executive. Michael and David are joined by a small team of talented professionals who bring a breadth of knowledge and experience across a range of industries.'

PremierState is the lobby firm for insurance giants Suncorp and Allianz.

It has been revealed that last year Ward and Begg were guests of Suncorp at the Melbourne Cup. This occurred while Ward’s boss, Greg Pearce, was looking at changes to Compulsory Third Party Insurance.

The reforms to green slip insurance, put forward by Mr Pearce, would save insurance companies millions of dollars. Coincidence I’m sure.

The proposals were designed to limit the medical expenses insurance to which companies are exposed. This means despite an increase in the price of your green slip, your level of coverage would plummet.

As a result of this controversy, the proposed changes have not passed through parliament. The project has been taken from Pearce and given to Andrew Constance.

There was recently a pathetic News Limited article, complete with a posed picture of Ward and Begg, complaining about the roads and politicians.

The Daily Telegraph painted them as ordinary citizens who are angry at politicians for the state of the roads. Nowhere in the article did it say Ward was a senior staffer of the finance minister, or that Begg is a political lobbyist who has spent time on the Liberal State Executive.

It’s easy to understand why people don’t trust News Limited.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

spotweldersfriend — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:33:43 GMT

Only people with two eyes don't trust News Ltd.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

i-need-a-martini — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:35:50 GMT

And no-one has yet to notice that the allegations (and at this point they are only allegations) came from a report by the ABC. Ahh the irony...

What I fail to understand is how they can start a Royal Commission when even the police haven't even scratched the surface of their investgation? What if the allegations aren't 100% true? What is the corruption isn't as wide spread as the ABC believes it to be?

Of course Shortens suggestion is best

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

icyfroth — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:42:07 GMT

"A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?"

Possibly for the same reason we need an "independent investigation" into the conduct of the Australian Navy in light of the recent burnt hands debacle.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

i-need-a-martini — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:52:12 GMT

Agreed Icy.

But an investigation is all the union allegations require at this stage. A criminal and industry investigation which is exactly what Shorten is recommending.

Suggesting a Royal Commission so prematurely is the equivelent of suggesting that we need a Royal Commission into Navy brutality on the basis of some yet to be investigated allegations.

Makes absolutely no sense.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

freakiness — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 01:29:01 GMT

@i-need-a-martini wrote:
Agreed Icy.

But an investigation is all the union allegations require at this stage. A criminal and industry investigation which is exactly what Shorten is recommending.

Suggesting a Royal Commission so prematurely is the equivelent of suggesting that we need a Royal Commission into Navy brutality on the basis of some yet to be investigated allegations.

Makes absolutely no sense.

It makes perfect sense to those on the loony side. It is all about killing off Labor and painting all about Labor as criminal.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

boris1gary — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 01:32:23 GMT

@icyfroth wrote:
"A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?"

Possibly for the same reason we need an "independent investigation" into the conduct of the Australian Navy in light of the recent burnt hands debacle.

froth, so you agree that we need an independent investigation into the conduct of the australian navy and claims made by asylum seekers, excellent.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

boris1gary — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 01:34:34 GMT

@spotweldersfriend wrote:
Well they are the party of the 50's after all.

yes but without the stylish clothes.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

punch*drunk — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:05:08 GMT

The unions should be welcoming the Royal Commission. If, like they claim, there is no corruption, they have nothing to fear and it will put an end to the speculation and rumours that abound re using bikies as standover men, taking bribes etc.

Or is this about something else?

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

boris1gary — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:09:57 GMT

@punch*drunk wrote:
The unions should be welcoming the Royal Commission. If, like they claim, there is no corruption, they have nothing to fear and it will put an end to the speculation and rumours that abound re using bikies as standover men, taking bribes etc.

Or is this about something else?

rumours will always abound, surely the oppositions proposal would be a lot cheaper - after all the slogan in a suit PM keeps telling us there's no money in the kitty.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

freakiness — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:12:43 GMT

@punch*drunk wrote:
The unions should be welcoming the Royal Commission. If, like they claim, there is no corruption, they have nothing to fear and it will put an end to the speculation and rumours that abound re using bikies as standover men, taking bribes etc.

Or is this about something else?

It's about constantly linking unions with corruption and criminality to instill the belief that all union people, therefore all Labor people, are not to be trusted criminals.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

spotweldersfriend — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:23:54 GMT

I sincerely hope they call a Royal Commission to investigate the need for so many Royal Commissions.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

punch*drunk — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:29:38 GMT

@freakiness wrote:
@punch*drunk wrote:
The unions should be welcoming the Royal Commission. If, like they claim, there is no corruption, they have nothing to fear and it will put an end to the speculation and rumours that abound re using bikies as standover men, taking bribes etc.

Or is this about something else?

It's about constantly linking unions with corruption and criminality to instill the belief that all union people, therefore all Labor people, are not to be trusted criminals.

But if none of thats true then the result will be a win for the unions.....wont it?

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

boris1gary — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:32:05 GMT

@spotweldersfriend wrote:
I sincerely hope they call a Royal Commission to investigate the need for so many Royal Commissions.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah

punchdrunk, I think below clearly explains why a royal commission into so called union corruption is unnecessary and a waste of money.........

When is it appropriate to establish a royal commission?

Although established by the Executive, a fundamental characteristic of a royal commission is the independence of the inquiry from the government. This is important to ensure public confidence in such investigations, particularly when the inquiry involves maladministration of the government.

However, given the continuing popularity of royal commissions as a response to a variety of issues in Australia, it is a matter of concern that the legitimacy of such inquiries may diminish if royal commissions are established too frequently. To maintain the legitimacy and authority of royal commissions, there must be a clear distinction between cases where royal commissions will be preferable and those where other forms of official inquiry might be more suitable. Royal commissions are always expensive, as is demonstrated by the commitment to the Royal Commission in this year's Budget. It is clear that royal commissions should only be convened to address issues of extremely substantial public importance, where no lesser form of public inquiry would be appropriate. The extensive powers under the Act exist to enable the investigation of particularly serious issues that cannot suitably be investigated by another mechanism and these need to be recognised to justify the high costs involved.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

freakiness — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:34:52 GMT

@punch*drunk wrote:
@freakiness wrote:
@punch*drunk wrote:
The unions should be welcoming the Royal Commission. If, like they claim, there is no corruption, they have nothing to fear and it will put an end to the speculation and rumours that abound re using bikies as standover men, taking bribes etc.

Or is this about something else?

It's about constantly linking unions with corruption and criminality to instill the belief that all union people, therefore all Labor people, are not to be trusted criminals.
But if none of thats true then the result will be a win for the unions.....wont it?

No it won't because it's about perceptions not fact.

If people keep hearing every day that the unions and all union people are corrupt they believe it. The findings of the Royal Commission won't erase all the mud that's been smeared along the way.

The Rupochracy will report anti union messages regardess of the actual hearing events and will blame other factors and call the commission a toothlesss tiger when ever union people are cleared of wrong doing.

Re: A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

spotweldersfriend — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:36:27 GMT

I wonder if it will be like the AWB royal commission i.e very narrow terms of reference.