Incoming Employment Minister Eric Abetz pledges to stamp out union corruption
ABC – 29 minutes ago..

Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott's new employment minister, Tasmanian Senator Eric Abetz, says one of his first priorities will be stamping out union corruption.

Senator Abetz was yesterday named in Mr Abbott's Cabinet, awarded the portfolio of Employment, Assisting the PM on the Public Service.

He says one of his first ports of call as employment minister will be to launch "an attack on corruption in the trade union movement".

Senator Abetz says the Coalition's policy to raise penalties for union corruption, in line with the corporate sector, has been welcomed by union leaders including Australian Workers' Union boss Paul Howes.

"We want to establish the Registered Organisations Commission to ensure that some of the corruption we have seen in the Health Services Union etc is not allowed to occur again," he said.

"We have a penalty regime in that area which we're suggesting should be exactly the same for company directors.

"If you as a company director rip off shareholders, you face the risk of five years jail or $320,000 worth of fines.

"If you're a trade union official and rip off your members, you face a $10,000 fine.

"We don't think that there is any material difference or any moral difference between a company director ripping off shareholders and a union boss ripping off members, so we believe the penalty regime should be enhanced.

"This is not an attack on the trade union movement, it is an attack on corruption in the trade union movement." Senator Abetz says union leaders have told him the policy will enhance the reputation of trade unions.

Abetz says Coalition has mandate to implement its policies He says the incoming government is clear about its industrial relations policy during the election, and he says the Coalition has won the right to implement it.

"The Coalition set out a very comprehensive policy that Tony Abbott and I launched four months before the election," he said.

"It was very clear for every body to read, 38 pages of detailed policy and during the election neither Labor nor some more extreme elements of the trade union movement were able to lay a glove on our policy.

"We believe we have a mandate for our policy, we will seek to implement our policy.

"Given that Labor and the union movement were unable to campaign against it, I would trust that they would give us the opportunity to implement the mandate." Senator Abetz says he will also enact Coalition policy by resurrecting the Australian Building and Construction Commission, first established under the Howard government.

"The re-introduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission is vitally important to ensure we get the rule of law again on our building sites," he said.

Senator Abetz is also the Coalition's leader in the Senate.

He says the appointment is the greatest privilege of his political career.

Senator Abetz says it has been more than three decades since a Tasmanian last held the position.

"I was reminded that the last Tasmanian to hold that position was a distinguished Labor Senator Ken Wreidt in 1975, and before that Sir Denham Henty from my side of politics, so it's been a long time between drinks for Tasmanian senators," he said.

Way to go!!!

more token pandering to the elite with little substance by the libs  ... lots of fancy words which will do little and cost lots.

Abez is going to stop union corruption ?, I think he may be taking on more that they can chew ??

But its nice to know that somebody just might like to crack down on corrupt unionists who feel that they can take away union dues from workers who think its going into the union cause but ends up as free money to spend on prostitutes


its the union way,  :D :D :D

All corruption should be investigated including union corruption so Im all for Mrs Erica Betz looking into it   ;D

A shame that corporate corruption will be allowed to run rampant.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 9:25am:

All corruption should be investigated including union corruption so Im all for Mrs Erica Betz looking into it   ;D

Dont be sooo naive, you might be underestimating the power the union still wields within the labor party, even if its to protect there interest in corrupting, adelcrow

stryder wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:25am: All corruption should be investigated including union corruption so Im all for Mrs Erica Betz looking into it   ;D Dont be sooo naive, you might be underestimating the power the union still wields within the labor party, even if its to protect there interest in corrupting, adelcrow

There is no place for corruption or for the unions in modern politics so you'll get no argument from me.
I am a supporter of workers unions, professional unions and business unions but I am no supporter of any of them influencing politics.
I assume Mrs Erica Betz is not only going to go after the Unions representing the working poor but she will also go after business and professional associations (unions).

adelcrow wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

stryder wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:33am: adelcrow wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:25am: All corruption should be investigated including union corruption so Im all for Mrs Erica Betz looking into it   ;D Dont be sooo naive, you might be underestimating the power the union still wields within the labor party, even if its to protect there interest in corrupting, adelcrow There is no place for corruption or for the unions in modern politics so you'll get no argument from me. I am a supporter of workers unions, professional unions and business unions but I am no supporter of any of them influencing politics. I assume Mrs Erica Betz is not only going to go after the Unions representing the working poor but she will also go after business and professional associations (unions).

Like she went after Godwin grech.  Seriously though, Unions have been tainted over decades.  If Erica has the gonads to take them on and force change, then all the luck to him

"If you as a company director rip off shareholders, you face the risk of five years jail or $320,000 worth of fines.

"If you're a trade union official and rip off your members, you face a $10,000 fine.

Have seen plenty of company directors, accountants etc dealt with by the courts but not many union leaders.

Vic wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 9:44am:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:39am: stryder wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:33am: adelcrow wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:25am: All corruption should be investigated including union corruption so Im all for Mrs Erica Betz looking into it   ;D Dont be sooo naive, you might be underestimating the power the union still wields within the labor party, even if its to protect there interest in corrupting, adelcrow There is no place for corruption or for the unions in modern politics so you'll get no argument from me. I am a supporter of workers unions, professional unions and business unions but I am no supporter of any of them influencing politics. I assume Mrs Erica Betz is not only going to go after the Unions representing the working poor but she will also go after business and professional associations (unions). Like she went after Godwin grech.  Seriously though, Unions have been tainted over decades.  If Erica has the gonads to take them on and force change, then all the luck to him

I agree with bigvicfella, the unions have evolved too much as a political entity within the labor party that its damaging its brand as well.

Abetz is a fool if he thinks harsher penalties will stamp out corruption. If that were so, there would be no thieving accountants, lawyers or businessmen.

It is up to the unions themselves to implement stricter checks on spending by officials and regular audits to ensure any wrongdoing is nipped in the bud quickly.

Abetz. ;D ;D ;D

Almost as good as Cormann. ;D 

Doesn't he enjoy beastiality with Bernadi?

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

Arbetz is a fool if he thinks harsher penalties will stamp out corruption. If that were so, there would be no thieving accountants, lawyers or businessmen. It is up to the unions themselves to implement stricter checks on spending by officials and regular audits to ensure any wrongdoing is nipped in the bud quickly.

LOL, Pete wants the fox in charge of the hen house – who’d-a-thunk-it!!!! ::) ::)

A stupid statement implying all union officials are corrupt.

It is up to the unions themselves to implement stricter checks on spending by officials and regular audits to ensure any wrongdoing is nipped in the bud quickly.

Your statement implies that you think unions ought not be subject to the same rules of corporate law & behaviour which apply generally to incorporated bodies.
I don't think you mean that.

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 3:21pm:

It is up to the unions themselves to implement stricter checks on spending by officials and regular audits to ensure any wrongdoing is nipped in the bud quickly. Your statement implies that you think unions ought not be subject to the same rules of corporate law & behaviour which apply generally to incorporated bodies. I don't think you mean that.

I don't know enough about Australian corporate law to comment.

Bam wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 9:27am:

A shame that corporate corruption will be allowed to run rampant.

THAT'S what you got out of the OP???  I think your extreme bias (as well as your bad temper) are showing.

Im happy to see corruption cracked down on anyone!

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

Abetz is a fool if he thinks harsher penalties will stamp out corruption. If that were so, there would be no thieving accountants, lawyers or businessmen. It is up to the unions themselves to implement stricter checks on spending by officials and regular audits to ensure any wrongdoing is nipped in the bud quickly.

And those theiving ones you mention get jail time, deregistering and huge fines.  Somehow the unions are outside the control of ASIC and as a result dont have the same penalties applied.

I dont think this is unfair.  Bring them under the umbrella and let ASIC deal with them, as well as criminal proceedings if there is someone not right going on.

Oh no... next year is 2014... that's EXACTLY 80 years after 1934!

I can see the parallels now....

It'll be like the Night Of The Long Knives all over again... or Part 2... or the sequel... or a remake....

There'll be Obersturmbannfuhrer Abetz playing the role of the entire SS hierarchy against the rough and undisciplined boot boys the SA played by the various union bods.

There'll be midnight door knocks, black Mercedes, Abetz in his black uniform and shiny black riding boots... crop in hand...

Raus! Raus! Union goons! Raus! Raus!

truckloads of union members off to the camps...

ok, prob not camps... maybe to watch the 5th at Randwick.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:27am: A shame that corporate corruption will be allowed to run rampant. THAT'S what you got out of the OP???

It's in the DNA of the Coalition to go soft on corporate wrongdoing whenever they are in power. To do otherwise would imperil their main source of donations.


Quote:

I think your extreme bias (as well as your bad temper) are showing.

Your psychological projection is fooling no-one.

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 9:46am:

"If you as a company director rip off shareholders, you face the risk of five years jail or $320,000 worth of fines. "If you're a trade union official and rip off your members, you face a $10,000 fine. Have seen plenty of company directors, accountants etc dealt with by the courts but not many union leaders.

I'm not opposed in principle to consistency, but consistency is not a one-way street.

Company directors can earn a lot more than union officials. This is probably why they are fined a lot more. How many union officials have million-dollar salaries? How many company directors or CEOs?

If the maximum fine in both cases was six months' salary plus repayment of all monies taken fraudulently, that would be entirely consistent.

Other consistent measures would be a ban on holding similar positions of responsibility for a similar length of time and jail terms of similar length.

Bam wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 9:27am:

A shame that corporate corruption will be allowed to run rampant.

What do you mean "allow to run rampant"??

The law?

Bam wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 3:53pm: Bam wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:27am: A shame that corporate corruption will be allowed to run rampant. THAT'S what you got out of the OP??? It's in the DNA of the Coalition to go soft on corporate wrongdoing whenever they are in power. To do otherwise would imperil their main source of donations. Quote: I think your extreme bias (as well as your bad temper) are showing. Your psychological projection is fooling no-one.

Prove those claims, pebbles.  or be proven to be a liar.

(and of course labor never goes soft on unions because of their donations...)

Bam wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:46am: "If you as a company director rip off shareholders, you face the risk of five years jail or $320,000 worth of fines. "If you're a trade union official and rip off your members, you face a $10,000 fine. Have seen plenty of company directors, accountants etc dealt with by the courts but not many union leaders. I'm not opposed in principle to consistency, but consistency is not a one-way street. Company directors can earn a lot more than union officials. This is probably why they are fined a lot more. How many union officials have million-dollar salaries? How many company directors or CEOs? If the maximum fine in both cases was six months' salary plus repayment of all monies taken fraudulently, that would be entirely consistent. Other consistent measures would be a ban on holding similar positions of responsibility for a similar length of time and jail terms of similar length.

as a company director myself I earn far far less than a union official and yet are subject to those same penalties.  Why should unions be legally not subject to the same penalties?  NO REASON AT ALL.  After all, courts do take into account the circumstances that apply regarding income and assets and the nature of the crime.  but they are currently no able to fine unions like all other organisations.

Finally, this will change.

Shaping up like a standard Liberal government.

Attack Unions - the unemployed the Public service, employment, IR, Builders, Pensions, superannuation, education etc.

Nothing new from them here, seen it all before.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:27am: A shame that corporate corruption will be allowed to run rampant. What do you mean "allow to run rampant"?? The law?

"allow to run rampant"??

Always has always will.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 18^th, 2013 at 9:24am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 7:03pm: Bam wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:27am: A shame that corporate corruption will be allowed to run rampant. What do you mean "allow to run rampant"?? The law? "allow to run rampant"?? Always has always will.

You may or may not be aware that there is a 'corruption index' that is calculated annually around the globe and Australia usually ranks 3rd or 4th BEST.

Not quite in keeping with your 'rampant corruption' beliefs.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2013 at 9:19am:

Bam wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 5:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:46am: "If you as a company director rip off shareholders, you face the risk of five years jail or $320,000 worth of fines. "If you're a trade union official and rip off your members, you face a $10,000 fine. Have seen plenty of company directors, accountants etc dealt with by the courts but not many union leaders. I'm not opposed in principle to consistency, but consistency is not a one-way street. Company directors can earn a lot more than union officials. This is probably why they are fined a lot more. How many union officials have million-dollar salaries? How many company directors or CEOs? If the maximum fine in both cases was six months' salary plus repayment of all monies taken fraudulently, that would be entirely consistent. Other consistent measures would be a ban on holding similar positions of responsibility for a similar length of time and jail terms of similar length. as a company director myself I earn far far less than a union official and yet are subject to those same penalties.  Why should unions be legally not subject to the same penalties?  NO REASON AT ALL.  After all, courts do take into account the circumstances that apply regarding income and assets and the nature of the crime.  but they are currently no able to fine unions like all other organisations. Finally, this will change.

You are a sole operator business who uses a company as the vehicle for his legal trading status.

Dont pull the "as a company director I earn less" crap.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 18th, 2013 at 9:24am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 7:03pm: Bam wrote on Sep 17th, 2013 at 9:27am: A shame that corporate corruption will be allowed to run rampant. What do you mean "allow to run rampant"?? The law? "allow to run rampant"?? Always has always will. You may or may not be aware that there is a 'corruption index' that is calculated annually around the globe and Australia usually ranks 3rd or 4th BEST. Not quite in keeping with your 'rampant corruption' beliefs.

That's of course if you believe the corruption index. My union (TWU) are a pack of criminals.