A Royal Commission into Union corruption? Why?

[i-need-a-martini]

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-confirm...

[i-need-a-martini]

Or that the government won't even allow an inquiry in the Navys teatment of asylum seekers.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/morrison-denies-inquiry-into-burns-allegations...

[poddster]

The money saved from not pandering to unlawful immigrants whould cover the cost 10 fold

[icyfroth]

---

@boris1gary wrote:

---

@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.

---

Why excellent, gary?

[cherry*135]

Have the LNP budgeted for the cost of this Royal Commission in the 2013-2014 budget? If not, how can they justify the cost? 

[boris1gary]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@boris1gary wrote:

---

@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.

---

Why excellent, gary?

---

excellent because i have taken your post to mean that you support an independent investigation into asylum seeker claims re: the navy, i was under the impression that you didn't - obviously i was under the wrong impression.

[freakiness]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Have the LNP budgeted for the cost of this Royal Commission in the 2013-2014 budget? If not, how can they justify the cost? 

---

They might close down the institutional child abuse inquiry an have a union one instead. 

[boris1gary]

---

@spotweldersfriend wrote:
No comment in boris1gary's post on the current N.S.W government, monman?

---

largess - according to monman

[boris1gary]

freaki, I think we can rest assured that workers, the unemployed and people on the disability pension will be paying for it - all the savings they will get from stealing money out of our pockets........

some more from the Slogan in a suit

Mr Abbott said he did not like the term ''middle class welfare''. While some considered family tax benefit A middle class welfare, Mr Abbott said he preferred to call it ''a tax cut for families with kids''. (The Age)

meaning middle class welfare will not be touched, only the unemployed and those on a Disabilty pension.

The Coalition promised before the election not to make any legislative changes to the Fair Work Act, but the submission comes as a further sign that the federal government is prepared to back a push by business to reduce operating costs.

In its submission, the Australian Hotels Association said greater flexibility was needed in regard to part-time work and penalty rates.

''The current provisions are extremely inflexible for both the employee and employer,'' the AHA said.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions argues there is no evidence penalty rates are having a negative impact on employment or profits. (The Age)

goodbye penalty rates - those that still get them

This from Hockeysick - ?????????

 ''Governments are very bad at picking winners - losers are very good at picking governments,'' he said. (the Age)

Seriously - this is from Hockey speaking about the virtues of privatising everything.

more on Slogans IR onslaught

No, the government's performance here is for the electorate.

In this respect, the SPC decision is really chapter two. Chapter one came last week when Employment Minister Eric Abetz warned Australia risked "something akin to a wages explosion of the pre-Accord era when unsustainable wage growth simply pushed thousands of Australians out of work". As it happens, actual wage growth is the lowest we've ever seen, but Abetz wasn't talking about money. He was taking aim at conditions: too much leave and the like, making businesses less profitable.

Abetz's evidence was thin, which is probably why economists broadly dismissed his claims. He drew on a few examples from the car-making and resources industries, which represent the extremes of our two-speed economy and not an economy-wide trend of over-generosity.

But that is the portrait of our economy the government is urging on us: one where it is workers' conditions negotiated collectively with employers that cost jobs, and not the bigger underlying economic conditions such as the strength of our currency or our exposure to a global marketplace that often reciprocates with more protectionist measures than we afford ourselves.

(The Age)

as expected the budget pain the Govt keeps banging on about will be painful for those who have the least, while the rich will remain very comfortable indeed.

[icyfroth]

---

@boris1gary wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@boris1gary wrote:

---

@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.

---

Why excellent, gary?

---

excellent because i have taken your post to mean that you support an independent investigation into asylum seeker claims re: the navy, i was under the impression that you didn't - obviously i was under the wrong impression.

---

ok. given that you've assumed incorrectly and were under the wrong impression (by your own admission), why would it be excellent if I was in agreeance as per your first assumption?

[boris1gary]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@boris1gary wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@boris1gary wrote:

---

@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.

---

Why excellent, gary?

---

excellent because i have taken your post to mean that you support an independent investigation into asylum seeker claims re: the navy, i was under the impression that you didn't - obviously i was under the wrong impression.

---

ok. given that you've assumed incorrectly and were under the wrong impression (by your own admission), why would it be excellent if I was in agreeance as per your first assumption?

---

so you don't agree with the need for either.............??????????????