Quote:

Parliament passing specific legislation against particular individuals? That would be the greatest overreach of parliamentary power against specific people since Menzies tried to ban the Communist Party (this attempt failed because it was unconstitutional). Once someone is named in this way, it's not possible to remove one's name except by hoping the legislation is repealed. That's a gross breach of the separation of powers. Such power against individuals belongs to the courts, not the Parliament.

If we're going to have any legislation like this, it should be framed in general terms. For example, the legislation could specify that anyone with criminal convictions could not be a senior officer in a union, a director of a company, etc. As long as the legislation was even-handed - the same rules applied to unions, companies, churches, political parties or any other organisation - it would be reasonable and stand constitutional scrutiny.

[quote author=The_Grappler link=1451591727/113#113 date=1451744767]

Fer Chrissakes, cods - the charges against Lomax were dropped... got that?[/quote]

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/john-lomax-knew-of-claims-cfmeus-fihi-k...



yeah a real sweetheart of a guy!!!!

right up your street....

as you well knwo.. or maybe you dont..

for the police to act they have to have someone stand up in court and poin t the finger..

have a little read of this guy and ask yourself... would you risk everything..knowing full well he has almost an army out there backing him up?????>..

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:


"The trade union royal commission's top lawyer has found Labor leader Bill Shorten did not engage in any criminal or unlawlul conduct following an exhaustive investigation into his conduct during his years with the Australian Workers Union."

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/industrial-relations/bill-shorten-cleared-by-roya...

A glorified parking inspector from the Blue Mountains knows better though.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:




you dont get the point. if the best you can do is to say he didnt do anything illegal then you know you are in trouble.  it wasnt illegal to misrepresent his members and do side-deals with companies.  but it damned sure was unethical and a breach of the job he was paid to do.  but no, it wasnt illegal - perhaps the most damning indictment of all.

Bam wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:48pm:


The keyword is "OFFICER".

This word is defined in the Fair Work Act as well as Corporations Act

OFFICER is a general term describing anyone who represent the organisation

The term is further identified in RECOMMENDATION 25

So are wrong when you assume it's relating to "particular individuals"

RECOMMENDATION 60 further says "disqualifying those officers"

This disqualification is common with officers of Superannuation Funds, companies and Trusteeship.

The old confuse them with meaningless waffle technique.

Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons

Parliament are identifying the persons who happen to be union officers.

Parliament do not have the right to declare Superannuation officers or anyone else and unsuitable people to hold their position and disqualify them.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 9:51pm:


You are just as bad as Bam

Understand the definition of the word "OFFICER" before replying

I am simply referencing the word "OFFICER" and the disqualification criteria of "OFFICER" in each of those areas

I've never said the government appoints an OFFICER

Even the knowledge pool required is millimetres deep - both you are out of your depth here