Here's my gripe with this.

If LIBs had announced these measures then Labor will say it's union bashing. But it's okay for Labor to announce it

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-07/labor-proposes-changes-to-tackle-union-misconduct/7005712

Federal Labor will today announce a suite of measures aimed at improving union governance, with tougher penalties for criminal offences and more protections for whistleblowers on the cards.

The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption has uncovered misconduct in a number of unions, and is due to report by the end of the month.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten told ABC's Insider's program on Sunday that he would be announcing the new standards.

"There has been some evidence come out around the [Health Services Union] and one or two other unions, which to my way of thinking means we need to talk about improving governance," he said.

Labor's plan includes:
[list bull-redarrow]

boosting powers for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to investigate breaches of the Fair Work Act;

doubling the maximum penalties for criminal offences;

increasing the size of the Fair Work Commission, with $4.5 million in extra funding;

lowering the threshold at which election donations must be declared from $13,000 to $1,000;

giving union whistleblowers the same protections that exist in the public sector.

Labor's workplace relations spokesman Brendan O'Connor said the changes would help prevent rorting by dishonest officials.

"We want to see strong, effective and honest unions representing working people in this country and so if there are — and we know there are a few — [unions] that have done the wrong thing, we need to detect that early," he said.

In a joint statement from Mr Shorten, Mr O'Connor and Labor MP Mark Dreyfus, the Opposition also pledged to "support unions in their transition to a modern movement, which continues to advocate for nation changing reforms".

The proposed changes would also see a mandatory rotation of auditors every five years and penalties of up to 12-month jail sentences for "auditors failing to do their job".

There you go, you got something useful from your $80m party–political witch hunt.

Hopefully Labor will go after companies, business unions and the like after the next election. And investigate the corruption around the NBN/MTM!!!

What do you think they will find JM?

Maqqa wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 12:15am:

What do you think they will find JM?

The exact same that the trade unions royal commission found. Just on a much larger scale.

Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:34am:

Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year.

Why wouldnt the coalition support this?

Maqqa wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 12:15am:

What do you think they will find JM?

Corruption, theft, tax dodging, illegal donations to the Libs, trading while insolvent, failure to pay entitlements to employees, failure to provide a safe workplace and so on.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:34am:

Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year.

If he announces it then it has already been accepted by caucus.

As to the next election, the way the Libs are stuffing up the economy, the way Turncoat’s honeymoon is ending, abbott is whiteanting it is anybodys to win.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:13am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:34am: Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year. If he announces it then it has already been accepted by caucus. As to the next election, the way the Libs are stuffing up the economy, the way Turncoat’s honeymoon is ending, abbott is whiteanting it is anybodys to win.

Stuffing up the economy? You mean that recession that has been just around the corner since Sept. 2013?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:19am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:13am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:34am: Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year. If he announces it then it has already been accepted by caucus. As to the next election, the way the Libs are stuffing up the economy, the way Turncoat’s honeymoon is ending, abbott is whiteanting it is anybodys to win. Stuffing up the economy? You mean that recession that has been just around the corner since Sept. 2013?

Idiot tony was working very hard to get us there, luckily his party saw some common sense.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:19am: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:13am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:34am: Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year. If he announces it then it has already been accepted by caucus. As to the next election, the way the Libs are stuffing up the economy, the way Turncoat’s honeymoon is ending, abbott is whiteanting it is anybodys to win. Stuffing up the economy? You mean that recession that has been just around the corner since Sept. 2013? Idiot tony was working very hard to get us there, luckily his partner saw some common sense.

It almost seems as though you WANT to see us in a recession. Surely you're not that vindictive and stupid?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:30am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:19am: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:13am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:34am: Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year. If he announces it then it has already been accepted by caucus. As to the next election, the way the Libs are stuffing up the economy, the way Turncoat’s honeymoon is ending, abbott is whiteanting it is anybodys to win. Stuffing up the economy? You mean that recession that has been just around the corner since Sept. 2013? Idiot tony was working very hard to get us there, luckily his partner saw some common sense. It almost seems as though you WANT to see us in a recession. Surely you're not that vindictive and stupid?

I do?  I said luckily the lib party stopped idiot tony from getting us there.  Surly any comprehension would lead to the conclusion im happy the idiot who was destroying our economy is now gone, ie im happy we arent in a recession.  How did your comprehension lead you so astray?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:32am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:30am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:19am: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:13am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:34am: Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year. If he announces it then it has already been accepted by caucus. As to the next election, the way the Libs are stuffing up the economy, the way Turncoat’s honeymoon is ending, abbott is whiteanting it is anybodys to win. Stuffing up the economy? You mean that recession that has been just around the corner since Sept. 2013? Idiot tony was working very hard to get us there, luckily his partner saw some common sense. It almost seems as though you WANT to see us in a recession. Surely you're not that vindictive and stupid? I do?  I said luckily the lib party stopped idiot tony from getting us there.  Surly any comprehension would lead to the conclusion im happy the idiot who was destroying our economy is now gone, ie im happy we arent in a recession.  How did your comprehension lead you so astray?

Sure, sure. Every time the figures come in showing growth, I can just hear the groan of disappointment in your voice.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:34am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:32am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:30am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:19am: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:13am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:34am: Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year. If he announces it then it has already been accepted by caucus. As to the next election, the way the Libs are stuffing up the economy, the way Turncoat’s honeymoon is ending, abbott is whiteanting it is anybodys to win. Stuffing up the economy? You mean that recession that has been just around the corner since Sept. 2013? Idiot tony was working very hard to get us there, luckily his partner saw some common sense. It almost seems as though you WANT to see us in a recession. Surely you're not that vindictive and stupid? I do?  I said luckily the lib party stopped idiot tony from getting us there.  Surly any comprehension would lead to the conclusion im happy the idiot who was destroying our economy is now gone, ie im happy we arent in a recession.  How did your comprehension lead you so astray? Sure, sure. Every time the figures come in showing growth, I can just hear the groan of disappointment in your voice.

I havent commented on those threads? Just like i dont comment on polls.  Given the figures have only a portion to do with politics and are not a true indicator of government performance.   Unless you believe in big government?

The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:47am:

The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second.

Whats the lib policy? Or nat policy?  I forget whos running the show these days...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:48am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. Whats the lib policy? Or nat policy?  I forget whos running the show these days...

Neither. It's my opinion.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:48am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. Whats the lib policy? Or nat policy?  I forget whos running the show these days... Neither. It's my opinion.

Neither parties are in government?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:58am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:48am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. Whats the lib policy? Or nat policy?  I forget whos running the show these days... Neither. It's my opinion. Neither parties are in government?

I see you overdosed on stupid pills this morning.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:49pm:

Labor's plan includes: [list bull-redarrow] boosting powers for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to investigate breaches of the Fair Work Act; doubling the maximum penalties for criminal offences; increasing the size of the Fair Work Commission, with $4.5 million in extra funding; lowering the threshold at which election donations must be declared from $13,000 to $1,000; giving union whistleblowers the same protections that exist in the public sector.

[list bull-bluecheck]

boosting powers for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to investigate breaches of the Fair Work Act;
*
If they are not careful they could catch many businesses out.

*

doubling the maximum penalties for criminal offences;
*
OK

*

increasing the size of the Fair Work Commission, with $4.5 million in extra funding;
*
The conservatives typically do not support funding their rhetoric.

*

lowering the threshold at which election donations must be declared from $13,000 to $1,000;
*
Yep good idea
*

giving union whistleblowers the same protections that exist in the public sector.


All whistle blowers should be protected across the board. In my view it is not acceptable to protect corruption in the private sector while trying to stamp it out on the government sector and Unions. Corruption should not be protected anywhere.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:56pm:

There you go, you got something useful from your $80m party–political witch hunt. Hopefully Labor will go after companies, business unions and the like after the next election. And investigate the corruption around the NBN/MTM!!!

They could catch themselves out with the NBN - I doubt the early part they played themselves was completely squeaky clean.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:29am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:58am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:48am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. Whats the lib policy? Or nat policy?  I forget whos running the show these days... Neither. It's my opinion. Neither parties are in government? I see you overdosed on stupid pills this morning.

The pount is why are you being critical about a labor policy when the parties in government dont even have a policy!  Theyve instigated a multi million dollar commission, and have nothing prepared to act on its findings!  Surely by now the lib/nats can have some policy framework?  Or was if all yet another big waste of money by the "economy savers"?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:19am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:13am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:34am: Shortarse will never get it past the Labor caucus. He can promote this as Labor policy because he knows he won't win the next election and will then be dumped by the ALP. The new leader will then quietly scrap this policy. Its all about minimising the damage next year. If he announces it then it has already been accepted by caucus. As to the next election, the way the Libs are stuffing up the economy, the way Turncoat’s honeymoon is ending, abbott is whiteanting it is anybodys to win. Stuffing up the economy? You mean that recession that has been just around the corner since Sept. 2013?

Growth at 2.5%, stagnant wage growth means the economy is static at best, declining more likely, there is nowhere near enough growth to give everyone who wants wants one a job.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 5:47am:

The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second.

You are sounding rather desperate there!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:05am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. You are sounding rather desperate there!

Unions spending $100M helping the ALP to win the 2007 election proves AP's point

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/business-has-a-few-choice-words-on-union-ads/2007/04/22/1177180483958.html

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:53am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 6:29am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:58am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:48am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. Whats the lib policy? Or nat policy?  I forget whos running the show these days... Neither. It's my opinion. Neither parties are in government? I see you overdosed on stupid pills this morning. The pount is why are you being critical about a labor policy when the parties in government dont even have a policy!  Theyve instigated a multi million dollar commission, and have nothing prepared to act on its findings!  Surely by now the lib/nats can have some policy framework?  Or was if all yet another big waste of money by the "economy savers"?

So you think they should have a plan ready to go BEFORE the Royal Commission publishes its findings? That's not putting the cart before the horse much now, is it? Gawd, why are you so stupid?

Maqqa wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 7:05am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. You are sounding rather desperate there! Unions spending $100M helping the ALP to win the 2007 election proves AP's point http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/business-has-a-few-choice-words-on-union-ads/2007/04/22/1177180483958.html

Which Gillard paid back to the Unions with taxpayer funds under the guise of "training". Rudd did the exact same thing. Illegal? Probably.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 6:53am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 6:29am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:58am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:48am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. Whats the lib policy? Or nat policy?  I forget whos running the show these days... Neither. It's my opinion. Neither parties are in government? I see you overdosed on stupid pills this morning. The pount is why are you being critical about a labor policy when the parties in government dont even have a policy!  Theyve instigated a multi million dollar commission, and have nothing prepared to act on its findings!  Surely by now the lib/nats can have some policy framework?  Or was if all yet another big waste of money by the "economy savers"? So you think they should have a plan ready to go BEFORE the Royal Commission publishes its findings? That's not putting the cart before the horse much now, is it? Gawd, why are you so stupid?

The royal commission has given then reports already.  Surely they have SOME ideas? No?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:40am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 9:51am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 6:53am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 6:29am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:58am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:48am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. Whats the lib policy? Or nat policy?  I forget whos running the show these days... Neither. It's my opinion. Neither parties are in government? I see you overdosed on stupid pills this morning. The pount is why are you being critical about a labor policy when the parties in government dont even have a policy!  Theyve instigated a multi million dollar commission, and have nothing prepared to act on its findings!  Surely by now the lib/nats can have some policy framework?  Or was if all yet another big waste of money by the "economy savers"? So you think they should have a plan ready to go BEFORE the Royal Commission publishes its findings? That's not putting the cart before the horse much now, is it? Gawd, why are you so stupid? The royal commission has given then reports already.  Surely they have SOME ideas? No?

So you want the government to pre-empt the RC?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 11:04am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:40am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 9:51am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 6:53am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 6:29am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:58am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:57am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:48am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. Whats the lib policy? Or nat policy?  I forget whos running the show these days... Neither. It's my opinion. Neither parties are in government? I see you overdosed on stupid pills this morning. The pount is why are you being critical about a labor policy when the parties in government dont even have a policy!  Theyve instigated a multi million dollar commission, and have nothing prepared to act on its findings!  Surely by now the lib/nats can have some policy framework?  Or was if all yet another big waste of money by the "economy savers"? So you think they should have a plan ready to go BEFORE the Royal Commission publishes its findings? That's not putting the cart before the horse much now, is it? Gawd, why are you so stupid? The royal commission has given then reports already.  Surely they have SOME ideas? No? So you want the government to pre-empt the RC?

They have reports from the rc.  Gardly preemptive

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 9:52am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 7:59am: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 7:05am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 5:47am: The truth is that Shorten will never do anything about this. He relies on the Unions entirely for his political clout within the ALP. No doubt the Unions would be pissed-off by this proposal and there'd be a massive revolt against it. He'd lose all political support and it'd never become law under a Labor government. Shorten is a Unionist first, politician second. You are sounding rather desperate there! Unions spending $100M helping the ALP to win the 2007 election proves AP's point http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/business-has-a-few-choice-words-on-union-ads/2007/04/22/1177180483958.html Which Gillard paid back to the Unions with taxpayer funds under the guise of "training". Rudd did the exact same thing. Illegal? Probably.

That is your opinion but when Labor implements this policy in 2017 then I think much bigger fish will also be caught.

Two people charged with blackmail, I guess the witch hunt had to have something concrete for all the money wasted on it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:56pm:

There you go, you got something useful from your $80m party–political witch hunt. Hopefully Labor will go after companies, business unions and the like after the next election. And investigate the corruption around the NBN/MTM!!!

Good ideas, but they don't go far enough. We also need fundamental reforms of political donations to ensure that the political decision makers remain at arms' length of donors at all times. Not only must we stamp out corporate corruption, we must also eliminate the structures that allow corporate corruption to take place.

Shorten is seen as a union boss

The person that took over from him is being taken to court

What credibility do you think Shorten has in implementing this?

This is like allowing Syria to self inspect it's nuclear facility and taking their word for it

Shorten/Syria can pinkie swear all it wants but no one will believe them

Bam wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:06pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 11:56pm: There you go, you got something useful from your $80m party–political witch hunt. Hopefully Labor will go after companies, business unions and the like after the next election. And investigate the corruption around the NBN/MTM!!! Good ideas, but they don't go far enough. We also need fundamental reforms of political donations to ensure that the political decision makers remain at arms' length of donors at all times. Not only must we stamp out corporate corruption, we must also eliminate the structures that allow corporate corruption to take place.

True, no argument from me.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:43am:

lowering the threshold at which election donations must be declared from $13,000 to $1,000;

is this limited to unions or is it everyone?

Everyone. Howard raised the disclosure amount IIRC.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 9:21pm:

Everyone. Howard raised the disclosure amount IIRC.

If it's everyone the libs will never support this bill.

John Smith wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 9:34pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 9:21pm: Everyone. Howard raised the disclosure amount IIRC. If it's everyone the libs will never support this bill.

Be interesting to hear the arguments opposing it .

John Smith wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 6:43am: lowering the threshold at which election donations must be declared from $13,000 to $1,000; is this limited to unions or is it everyone?

The rules seem to apply to fair work - I doubt anyone other than Unions hold elections that would be financed.

Maybe the limit should be zero. The union could give each contestant $500 for their campaign.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 11:04am:

So you want the government to pre-empt the RC?

Labor are not in government but do seem to be leading the way with constructive policy direction.

John Smith wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 9:34pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 9:21pm: Everyone. Howard raised the disclosure amount IIRC. If it's everyone the libs will never support this bill.

Yep higher probability of the sun not coming up in the morning that the libs limiting disclosure on political donations.

Last NSW election they the Libs fund raising body was caught out improperly financing their campaign with hundreds of thousands of dollars hidden from disclosure and from non allowed categories.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:56pm:

There you go, you got something useful from your $80m party–political witch hunt. Hopefully Labor will go after companies, business unions and the like after the next election. And investigate the corruption around the NBN/MTM!!!

the Royal has exposed the companies that are ALLEGED to have PAID backdoor protection money..

however a few people on here have claimed those in charge never took anything... ::) ::)

its a WITCH HUNT..dont forget...

so if someone didnt receive how could someone else be found guilty???>.

guilty of what pray?????


what will happen to these companies I dont know maybe the TAX DEPT will be taking a closer look at them...

if someone blackmails you into coughing up thousands.....what are you guilty of??? ... are you as corrupt as them??>....I dont think I have seen anyone charged with paying blackmail..???????>...

Dnarever wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:13am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 9:34pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 9:21pm: Everyone. Howard raised the disclosure amount IIRC. If it's everyone the libs will never support this bill. Yep higher probability of the sun not coming up in the morning that the libs limiting disclosure on political donations. Last NSW election they the Libs fund raising body was caught out improperly financing their campaign with hundreds of thousands of dollars hidden from disclosure and from non allowed categories.

if Labor get in they will have all the independents on side.. so the Libs will have no choice....

and neither they should...

and donations to pol parties shouldnt be TAX DEDUCTIBLE either..

its a kind of money laundering.. in a way....