Graic Gabtar posted:

O...K...

And always attributed to Cartoon because he is a massive fan of the concept or posted photos of his own?

Vladimir Poutine posted:

Ha... the search function actually works and I found this ancient thread. Click here for The Grid

Goes for several pages, is amazing.

Anidav posted:

Auspol was once an eternal battleground with Count Chocula and IWC kings of the battleground.

gay picnic defence posted:

Anyone know what the new 'anti union corruption' laws to come out of the royal commission are? It'd be funny if the ALP passed them with amendments so they apply to businesses and lobby groups too but they'll probably just roll over and wave them through unchanged.

Vladimir Poutine posted:

Does anyone have a link to that YouTube video that Webdog made of Count Chocula and IWC as Marvin the Martian and Daffy Duck?

Vladimir Poutine posted:

Does anyone have a link to that YouTube video that Webdog made of Count Chocula and IWC as Marvin the Martian and Daffy Duck?

Ler posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ft2nNLfwQw

open24hours posted:

They say they want to bring back the BCC. By the end of the year they'll probably control the Senate so Labor won't be able to do anything anyway.

quote:

He was an innocent witness to a minor scuffle, but he was interrogated for hours. The law forbids him from telling his story, and we cannot name him nor show his face. This is happening in Australia. Andrew West reports.

THE bystander was a mild-mannered academic from the University of Melbourne. Passing a building site on the Yarra's south bank, he witnessed a confrontation between a union official and a building manager. No punches were thrown but the two men pushed each other and grabbed at each other's shirts.

But agents of the federal building industry watchdog soon tracked the witness down and hauled him in for several hours of secret questioning, under powers that rival those of Australia's national security services.

The man cannot be named and cannot discuss the details of his interrogation for fear of imprisonment. Building unions say the innocent citizen's experience proves the Australian Building and Construction Commission is out of control, wielding powers greater than the police and equal to those of anti-terrorism bodies such as ASIO.

A spokeswoman for the commission confirmed it was the first time a bystander, not connected with a building company or a union, has been subjected to these powers. The legislation gives the commission the authority to question people - with or without a lawyer present - and overrides the right to silence. Witnesses cannot reveal the contents of the interview, even to their spouses, and risk up to six months in jail if they breach the law.

When contacted by the Herald, the witness declined to answer questions about his experience, saying only: "The laws governing

the building industry are not part of a country I want to live in. The powers are not in line with community expectations."

Professor Andrew Stewart, a former dean of Flinders University's law school and international expert in labour law, called the commission's powers "extraordinary, analogous to those of ASIO". "Ordinarily, under our laws, you have certain rights not to answer questions," he said. "You have privileges against self-incrimination. But these rights do not exist when you are being interviewed by the ABCC. That an innocent member of the public can get caught up in these powers simply increases the concerns."

Another legal expert, Professor Ron McCallum of the University of Sydney, calls some of the commission's powers "similar to aspects of the terrorism laws".

The commission's chief, John Lloyd, prefers to liken his agency's powers to those of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or the Tax Office. He would not comment on this case but confirmed: "The legislation makes it clear that any person can be asked to attend to answer questions. We have to believe there is reasonable grounds for the witness to have either evidence or documents relevant to the investigation. But, yes, there is no restriction on the person or people we can issue a notice against."

Mr Lloyd initially insisted that co-operation with the commission was voluntary but conceded his agency could compel witnesses to attend interviews. He also defended the secrecy provisions for interviews. "The person who conducts the interview is entitled to give direction about the private nature of the process," he said.

The Howard government set up the commission after the 2001 Cole inquiry heard claims of corruption and violence in the building industry. No charges were ever brought against any union official as a result of the inquiry. Labor has agreed to scrap the commission by 2010, but the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union wants the Rudd Government to immediately trim its powers. Its national secretary, Dave Noonan, said: "The ABCC's star chamber represents the worst excesses of the current industrial laws, which the Australian people voted against. We don't think the Government should wait two more years to do something about this."

The commission's 2007 annual report says its 135 investigators questioned 52 people, including 16 without legal representation, in the previous 12 months. Of those interrogated, 47 were union officials or employees.

In the Melbourne case the witness saw the scuffle between a manager from Bovis Lend Lease and a union organiser. Mr Noonan says the manager had tried to interfere in an offsite meeting of workers. The organiser and the manager shoved each other but did not exchange blows. Almost four months later, police are yet to lay charges against either man.

quote:

The commission's chief, John Lloyd, prefers to liken his agency's powers to those of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or the Tax Office.

quote:

If we require access to your locked storage facility, we will give you an opportunity to open the facility before we use force. If force is warranted, we will first consider alternative ways to open the facility, including:

searching for a key
engaging a locksmith to open the lock
breaking open the locked facility (with permission from a senior officer).

Although we will use the minimum force needed to open the facility, damage may result in some cases. We may not be liable for damage if you have the means to open the facility and were given reasonable opportunity to do so. If we damage a locked facility and the occupier had not denied our request to unlock it, we will arrange for its repair.

If you wish to claim that documents contained in the facility are covered by legal professional privilege, the accountants' concession or the concession for corporate board documents on tax compliance risk, we will allow you a reasonable amount of time to make that claim. In these cases, we will generally remain on your premises and continue to seek access to the remaining documents.

Cartoon posted:

I'm sure he 'prefers' this. What he doesn't tell you is the ATO's powers are drat near absolute. Better to ask what an ATO inspector's warrant doesn't allow them to do.

https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Access,-accountability-and-reporting/In-detail/Our-approach-to-information-gathering/?page=45


Yeah sorry John that isn't making me feel very reassured at all.

Cartoon posted:

I'm sure he 'prefers' this. What he doesn't tell you is the ATO's powers are drat near absolute. Better to ask what an ATO inspector's warrant doesn't allow them to do.

https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Access,-accountability-and-reporting/In-detail/Our-approach-to-information-gathering/?page=45


Yeah sorry John that isn't making me feel very reassured at all.

oTHi posted:

I haven't heard of anyone misusing the ATO authority in such a blatant way though, unless I've missed something? I'll admit I don't scrutinise the news for Tax Office agents.

Birdstrike posted:

I was interrogating someone this morning

BlindSite posted:

I was told by a friend of mine who works at the ATO it wasn't unheard of a few years ago for the police to seek out the ATOs help in some instances where they couldn't get a warrant to search a premises. Pretty much they'd ask the ATO for help who'd send an official request for police presence at their "investigation" and the police would circumvent the law. I don't know if this is still the case because it was over ten years ago but yeah the ATO can pretty much do what they want.

Ler posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ft2nNLfwQw

wayne curr posted:

happy new years it's 2016 where's the new loving thread?
Oh wait
everyone's off having a life and won't read this until late in the morning

El Scotch posted:

Oi, is the World still there in 2016? Those of us still in 2015 want to know.

Graic Gabtar posted:

Unfortunately yes.

You Am I posted:

The 1990/91 cabinet papers have been released.

Pretty well Keating hated Hawke and Hawke seemed to ignore that

gay picnic defence posted:

It'll be interesting to the the cabinet papers from the Abbott years

Vladimir Poutine posted:

Graic Gabtar posted:

Time for a new thread? A new year and all that poo poo? You all still drunk?

Birb Katter posted:

It's probably a combination of too drunk, too hungover and / or still out so phone posting. No one has claimed the thread if you want to do it.

ewe2 posted:

Check the age of entitlement, get off your arse and do it yourself.

Graic Gabtar posted:

There's usually a queue of people lining up.

I am decidedly unfunny and can't write for poo poo but I might knock out something later tonight.