The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
Agree with the above.
Regards the second point, to reinforce your point, using pressure on an organisation to force change assumes to things inter alia: that the organisation is agnistic about the leadership it has and that it has the ability to force change. An example of this is international economic sanctions: what worked on Iran cannot work on DPRK because one has elections, the other doesn't. One has a merchant middle class, the other doesn't. One has an educated society with pluralistic views, the other has a hermit society brainwashed to believe the govt/leader.
Sometimes pressuring an organisation to overthrow the leadership can create resentment within the target population that in turn becomes nationalistic and supports the leadership with their own sacrifice. I don't think an LNP policy of deregulation would have the desired impact on what is already a very militant union.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
^ exactly @johnny, and the LNP's ongoing commitment to Howard's royal commission (how long has that been now?) only exacerbates the problem. It pushes the us vs them mentality. Now I'm not defending Setka's actions and agree it's a strong sign of poor form, but perhaps if any of us had been under that kind of scrutiny and threat (this royal commission has amazing powers of investigation and punishment) for a similar period of time we may be able to understand the pressure that is having on his family life. Again I'm not defending him or the post, but I do question the validity and longevity of the royal commission.
scblack
Leucocholic
The Financial Services sector is still facing the enormous pressure of a Royal Commission, as we speak. And it had been threatened by Labor for Years before it happened. Did we see the CEO of Westpac, NAB, CBA, ANZ or AMP tweeting shit like this with their children? They did not stoop to this sort of "poor form".
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
...you seem to have missed the part where I wasn't defending the guy, but hey you can slant it however suits your needs. If it helps you out I love Chairman Mao and Uncle Ho....
The issue I have is with the ongoing nature of this stuff. The Howard royal commission, the ongoing special commissioner, and the more recent inquiries. There was also the Hawks era inquiry (you'd think they might learn?) that ended the BCF. How long has the financial sector inquiry you refer to been going on?
scblack
Leucocholic
You must have a one-eyed view of such inquiries.
Lets list a few Financial Services Inquiries from recent times:
- Campbell Inquiry 1981
- Wallis Report 1997
- David Murray Inquiry 2014
- Productivity Commission Inquiry 2017
- Royal Commission 2018.
Yeh, you'd think people might learn huh? Do you have an issue with the ongoing nature of these ones?
No, their utterly horrendous form came before the (current) Royal Commission.
BCF are still going strong up here, part of the Supacheap group.
The inquiry is a wasted effort like most. Same as the spotlight on Shorten. Those in the know are aware of the history but proving anything is another matter unless someone is thrown under the bus from the inside.
Oddjob
Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
True it's not in the constitution, but that's not what you said... Aside from our national affiliation with international convention there are a number of acts of parliament that provide for it, such as the fair work and anti discrimination jobs.
Who'd have thought I was more into fishing than building? I'm going to sit here for an hour type BLF in until my phone knows me better...
Given that I'm not old enough to have lived through the horror of these early not royal commission inquiry and report I have had to resort to google...now I know the internet doesn't hold all of the knowledge that has ever existed, but the Campbell Report barely rates a mention. When the most trivial of historical events is deemed worthy of a Wikipedia page it makes one wonder. Of course I can request a copy to read at my library...short of waiting for that I could only find vague information regarding it. This seems to have been the trigger for deregulation of the banking industry and floating of the Australian dollar, hardly bad things. Wallis is reported to have lead to the creation of a regulator separate to the Reserve Bank, seems a bit circular but that is how we roll. More recently Murray (interesting choice there given he was a long time industry power player...could you imagine if a union official had been in charge of one of the royal commissions? also found a smh article where hockey accused him of bullying the NSW minister in the 80s) seems to have been about modernising our financial system to catch up. The producvity commission is a constant...these things, while probably inconvenient, don't seem to have been about breaking up any bank and take away their ability to exist. Was the existence of any bank under threat during these reviews? Were the executives under threat of imprisonment or punitive fines? I can't find any information about that. Were these individual reviews or were they one continuous event? These are genuine questions, I can't find any meat.
It is difficult to separate the Howard royal commission and resultant special commission, it was about 10 years of continuous investigation. Bringing this to an end was a significant component of the (you'll love this...) kevin07 campaign. There was specific focus on the commissioner's power to force people to give evidence (compulsory examination power).
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Rode the Trance to work yesterday which is my route through the rocky trails of Red Hill and then I come through Parliament House dodging the pollies in their comcars. Saw this little protest going which was a fun start to my day.
Obviously I wouldn't comment on the politics of the subject matter, but I do love living in a country where this sort of thing is generally considered normal. The cops standing around looking something between bored and amused, chatting to the journos who looked about the same. All good natured in atmosphere and pretty chilled.
In the US there would probably be guns and aggro and arrests and general unhappiness....
Obviously I wouldn't comment on the politics of the subject matter, but I do love living in a country where this sort of thing is generally considered normal. The cops standing around looking something between bored and amused, chatting to the journos who looked about the same. All good natured in atmosphere and pretty chilled.
In the US there would probably be guns and aggro and arrests and general unhappiness....
scblack
Leucocholic
A few interesting things to take from this:
- The fact you rate the importance of an inquiry by whether it generates a Wikipedia page. Quite a funny one that.
- Murray leading a financial inquiry. Would you prefer a plumber to run a financial inquiry? As you said this one was looking to improve financial services efficiency. Could you possibly imagine a union-led inquiry that came up with productivity improvements? Nah - neither could I.
- I find the question about whether any executives were under threat of imprisonment or punitive fines a pointer to an "us and them" type of mentality. Of course they were - if anything was found sufficiently illegal of course that can be prosecuted. "Under threat" - that's an interesting way to put an inquiry. I guess if they were not doing anything illegal they had nothing to worry about did they? Hahaha.
- Calling the Howard commission and resulting one recently a "continuous event". That's just laughable. Its funny how some people think.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
I see you don't have any answers to my questions and are attempting to switch it up? No worries. I'll not bother replying to your easily dismissed assertions.
Dutton is looking good.
Oddjob
Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
Umm I don't think it's any secret that the regulation and prosecution of white collar crime in Australia/US/OECD/everywhere is a joke.
Funnily enough I know people who work for ASIC and APRA and all the regulatory failings coming out in the Hayne Royal Commission were entirely predictable given the level of resourcing.
The golden age of micro-economic reform occurred with the Hawke/Keating Labor govt working hand in hand with the ACTU. We've since seen fuck all reform since 2000 when the GST was introduced.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Binaural
Eats Squid
The interesting thing here is that these sorts of regulatory failings require a royal commission to discover.
It sounds as if ASIC/APRA need additional funding, but that the federal government is unwilling. There's a similar vibe in the US, where strangling funding to the IRA is a conservative theme despite the obvious implications for revenue - the irresistible refrain of "starve the beast".
It sounds as if ASIC/APRA need additional funding, but that the federal government is unwilling. There's a similar vibe in the US, where strangling funding to the IRA is a conservative theme despite the obvious implications for revenue - the irresistible refrain of "starve the beast".
scblack
Leucocholic
I would say that most of the failings being reported to the Hayne Royal Commission are not regulatory failings at all. They are OPERATIONAL matters by and large. Things like cold calling by insurance companies. A regulator could not police that, unless self-reported. APRA basically has nothing to do with operational matters at all, more financial security.
Have you been through a APRA Prudential Review, in real life? I have done many, along with years of APRA and ASIC lodgements. The APRA review process is pretty comprehensive and I would think that the financial health as managed by APRA is very good. People losing their entire regulated investments is quite rare.
Yes, since the GST policy reform has been a vacuum.
Ultra Lord
Hurts. Requires Money. And is nerdy.
Viva la revolución comrades!
SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION! THE TIME OF THE PROLETARIAT IS NOW!