Australian Politics Forum - Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform

Back to OzPolitic.com

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11

Send Topic

Print

Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform (Read 6808 times)

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #120 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:24am

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

Quote:

Recommendation 60
For the purpose of seeking to combat the culture of disregard for the law within the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, consideration be given to the enactment of special legislation disqualifying those officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons from holding office in any registered organisation or branch for a specified period.

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 Once someone is named in this way, it's not possible to remove one's name except by hoping the legislation is repealed.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.

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.

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85583
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #121 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 1:34pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:24am:

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

Quote:

Recommendation 60
For the purpose of seeking to combat the culture of disregard for the law within the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, consideration be given to the enactment of special legislation disqualifying those officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons from holding office in any registered organisation or branch for a specified period.

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.

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.

But he addressed the idea specifically at Union people - nobody else - on the basis of some entirely unestablished "culture of disregard for the law".

Without all the charges being upheld against a significant number of Unionists, there is no "culture of disregard for the law" - only lawbreaking by the few.

Nothing new there.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85583
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #122 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 1:37pm

cods wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:12am:

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

Downe at Ye Olde Can Garoo Court:-

"Docket number 14573 Yer 'Onnah' - people v Lomax on a charge of over-enthusiastic negotiation.... "

"How do you plead, Mr Lomax"

"Not Guilty".

"I agree - this case has no merit... next case....

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?????>.. Angry

Angry

Angry

Angry

Doesn't matter what is represented in the media about his character - the charges against him have been dropped, dead, buried, cremated, staked through the heart and silver bullet shot, and will ever after rise no more...

You are dealing here with Zombie Charges, cods - they are dead but according to The Word of Cods they are still alive....

Are you suggesting the Lomax Army stood over the Federal Police?

Jesus God - this gets more hirsute by the moment......

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

red baron

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 10204
Blue Mountains
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #123 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm

Getting Bill Shorten to sort out the problems in Trade Union movement, is like asking a pyromaniac to put out a fire in your house.

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.

I am deeply suspicious of Malcolm Turnbull's 'secret agenda' for the average worker and there has never been a time when the Labor Party needed a champion to fight Turnbull tooth and nail on many issues involving workers.

However....Bill Shorten is not that man.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 140073
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #124 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm

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

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.

"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.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38874
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #125 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:14pm

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

Getting Bill Shorten to sort out the problems in Trade Union movement, is like asking a pyromaniac to put out a fire in your house.

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.

I am deeply suspicious of Malcolm Turnbull's 'secret agenda' for the average worker and there has never been a time when the Labor Party needed a champion to fight Turnbull tooth and nail on many issues involving workers.

However....Bill Shorten is not that man.

Shorten was highly professionally interrogated for two days......under compulsion to answer............and, not a glove laid on him......and you call that 'squeaking through.' Come on, Mr Barron, there is a real World out here.

As to how he walked out unscathed.....well, it may come as a total surprise to you, but that is what happens with innocent people, and it is supposed to happen with innocent people.

You have a real problem with credentialled Umpires don't you, always preferring your own point of view no matter how shallow and ill-informed that is? What about Gillard. Did she too 'squeak out?'

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #126 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm

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

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

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.

"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.

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.

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 140073
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #127 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

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

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

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.

"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.

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.

"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."

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85583
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #128 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

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

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

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.

"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.

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.

So it's legal for any politician to claim cost of living etc, but being unethical has nothing to do with it? So legality is the yardstick by which we judge legitimacy of an act?

Wonder why laws are always changing......

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59447
Here
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #129 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 9:51pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:24am:

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

Quote:

Recommendation 60
For the purpose of seeking to combat the culture of disregard for the law within the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, consideration be given to the enactment of special legislation disqualifying those officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons from holding office in any registered organisation or branch for a specified period.

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.

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.

« Last Edit: Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 9:56pm by Dnarever »

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #130 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 10:36pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:24am:

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

Quote:

Recommendation 60
For the purpose of seeking to combat the culture of disregard for the law within the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, consideration be given to the enactment of special legislation disqualifying those officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons from holding office in any registered organisation or branch for a specified period.

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.

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.

That's irrelevant. The keywords here are "those officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons" ...

I'll say it again since you seem to be a little slow in understanding this.

The Federal Parliament has no constitutional right to declare particular people guilty and then impose sanctions based on that declaration. See the High Court case Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951).

Declaration of guilt is the function of the courts, not Parliament. This is one aspect of the separation of powers.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #131 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:16pm

FFS Bam

Now you are introducing the words "particular people". There's nowhere in the recommendation or legislation that mentioned "particular people"

Read my post again and refer to the relevant legislation I quoted as well as Recommendation 25 before replying

Understand the definition of "OFFICER" before replying

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #132 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:20pm

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

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.

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

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59447
Here
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #133 - Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:12am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:16pm:

for goodness sake Bam

Now you are introducing the words "particular people". There's nowhere in the recommendation or legislation that mentioned "particular people"

Read my post again and refer to the relevant legislation I quoted as well as Recommendation 25 before replying

Understand the definition of "OFFICER" before replying

"Now you are introducing the words "particular people". There's nowhere in the recommendation or legislation that mentioned "particular people"

"persons" is the term used in the recommendation - it means the same thing.

You are still waffling - focusing on the word officer is meaningless and knowing what an officer means in the corporations act only damages your silly argument.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59447
Here
Gender: male

male

Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Reply #134 - Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:13am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:20pm:

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

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.

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

In terms of being in the pool Macca you will have no need of a towel not even for your toes.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge