Anidav posted:

Labor can run with a lot of things, I'm waiting to see what it is because the Coalition's line of attack is obvious. Especially if you have public footage of Shorten, Rudd and Gillard in Court.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

On the other hand Anidav

Bent Wookiee posted:

Probably opening myself up to ridicule, but here we go:

Last election we had the following third-party senators voted in:
2/6 in NSW, TAS, VIC, WA (8/24)
1/6 in QLD
3/6 in SA

Assuming voting makeup follows similar lines, with double the senate spots up for grabs, we should see double those numbers:

4/12 in NSW, TAS, VIC, WA (16/48)
2/12 in QLD
6/12 in SA

Coming to a total of 24.

Commence destroying of my lovely math and assumptions!

quote:

Dio Wang aims to create 'national Icac' by amending building watchdog bill

Senator says a federal corruption body would focus not just on unions but public officials, politicians and white-collar crime

Dio Wang

Monday 1 February 2016 17.11 AEDT Last modified on Monday 1 February 2016 17.13 AEDT

The Palmer United Party senator Dio Wang will attempt to amend the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) bill to create a national corruption body, similar to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (Icac).

The Turnbull government will present a bill to reinstate the ABCC as its first piece of legislation this year when parliament resumes on Tuesday.

The Senate blocked the legislation last year but the employment minister, Michaelia Cash, is hoping to use the secret sixth volume of the Trade Union Royal Commission report to convince senate crossbenchers to support the building industry watchdog.

Labor and the Greens will not have access to the confidential briefings, which, according to the government, must remain secret to protect witnesses named in the report.

But Wang is in the process of drafting an amendment to broaden the legislation to create a federal corruption commission, although he has yet to discuss the proposal with the government.

“Obviously the current situation with the building and construction industry is quite daunting given that the royal commission has made some serious findings,” Wang told Guardian Australia.

“But also there is corruption anywhere and everywhere so a national Icac would be a really good authority to deal with it.”

He said the ABCC approach was too narrow and there was a need for a federal corruption body to focus not just on unions but on public officials, politicians and white-collar crime.

“Given the royal commission has done its work and the government has had two or three years talking about this issue, I think it’s the right time,” he said. “We have enough momentum to talk about a national Icac now.”

The government needs six of the eight senate crossbenchers to pass the ABCC bill. If it is rejected again by the Senate, it provides another potential trigger for a double-dissolution election.

Asked whether the government would consider using the issue for a double dissolution, Cash said: “That is a thing that the PM would obviously need to authorise himself but certainly we have said we will take both of these policies to the next election whether that be sooner or later. We are prepared to go back to the Australian people as we did in 2013.”

The independent senator John Madigan also called on the Turnbull government to take a broader approach to corruption but would not comment on the federal corruption commission proposal until he had seen more details.

“When constituents approach me complaining of corruption, unfair practices and unconscionable conduct their complaints inevitably relate to their treatment at the hands of banks, financial planners, lawyers, accountants, valuers, doctors, builders, major supermarket chains or government departments,” he said.

“Not once has a constituent approached me to complain that they were ripped off by their union, yet this seems to be the government’s exclusive focus.”

Madigan said that illegal activities needed to be “stamped out” but criticised the Turnbull government’s approach as having “more than a whiff of ideology about it”.

He said if the government’s ABCC bill was aimed at corruption across the board he would sign up tomorrow.

“It is not just a happy coincidence for the Coalition that [Dyson] Heydon’s report appeared at the beginning of an election year,” he said.

“This gives it ammunition to, firstly, pressure the Senate to pass anti-union laws it previously rejected and, secondly, to fight an election campaign on this issue against an opponent it hopes will be sullied through its association with the union movement.”

The independent senator Jacqui Lambie told the ABC she would not support the ABCC bill while the government was considering making cuts to Medicare.

And the Liberal Democratic senator David Leyonhjelm wants to place an eight-year sunset clause on the legislation so it does not stay on the statute books indefinitely.

When the Greens tried to introduce a bill to establish a federal commission against corruption in 2014, Coalition senators argued the current multi-agency approach was sufficient to fight corruption while Labor senators argued that it was “premature”.

At the federal Labor conference last year, a former party vice-president, Tony Sheldon, who is the national secretary of the Transport Workers Union, included a motion for a federal Icac but it was taken down at the last minute.

At that time, the shadow special minister of state, Gary Gray, echoed the Coalition by saying the existing agencies were already working.

Bent Wookiee posted:

Probably opening myself up to ridicule, but here we go:

Last election we had the following third-party senators voted in:
2/6 in NSW, TAS, VIC, WA (8/24)
1/6 in QLD
3/6 in SA

Assuming voting makeup follows similar lines, with double the senate spots up for grabs, we should see double those numbers:

4/12 in NSW, TAS, VIC, WA (16/48)
2/12 in QLD
6/12 in SA

Coming to a total of 24.

Commence destroying of my lovely math and assumptions!

BlindSite posted:

Palmer becoming a ruin has only increased the LNP base whereas the emergence of the Greens as an actual accepted option is only detracting from Labors.

asio posted:

I wouldn't be so certain about greens/labor. Last number I heard was only about 18% of greens votes follow htv cards (which usually recommend alp at 2).

Nam Taf posted:

Not a free market libertarian by any stretch but there are certainly some instances where outsourcing can yield efficiencies and deliver an overall-better result.

The company I work for operates a fleet of 50 machines. Around the world, there are several thousand of these machines. Many of the operators of these machines have decided to outsource the process of data gathering and predictive maintenance analysis to the manufacturer, as whilst we may be able to see a loose trend with 50 machines' worth of data, the manufacturer can see far more precise trends with many thousands of machines' data. We would never have access to the data from other operators but through this arrangement we can gain an indirect advantage from it. Instead, our maintenance team becomes more focused on executing tasks advised by the manufacturer than spending much of their time attempting to nail down fault finding with insufficient information.

To this extent, it makes sense to outsource that particular operation because it yields better results for us as it achieves something we otherwise could not.

On the other hand, many outsourcing attempts go to poo poo in many ways but the metrics used to measure 'success' are rigged from the start to show a success and thus people are given bonuses.

Birdstrike posted:

Crikey posted:

Two aspects of Turnbull's double dissolution ploy are worth noting. First, the ABCC bill, which Turnbull labelled "a critical economic reform", is likely only to lead to higher levels of workplace injuries and fatalities in the construction industry, as happened under the ABCC in the Howard years. Moreover, construction sector productivity surged after the gutting of the ABCC by Labor, and construction industry wages growth trails other sectors of the economy. The ABCC also has extraordinary, security agency-level powers to target anyone in the community.

Crikey 3/02/2016 posted:

Does construction need a watchdog with security agency powers?

Bernard Keane | Feb 03, 2016 12:51PM

The evidence justifying the draconian powers of the proposed re-established Australian Building and Construction Commission is thin on the ground, despite the government's claims.

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 (No. 2), reintroduced yesterday by the government, is a remarkable assault on some of the most basic rights Australians take for granted: the right to silence, the right to legal representation, the right against self-incrimination, the right to tell someone you've been interrogated against your will by overreaching bureaucrats. All of these are aimed at one union, the CFMEU, although the ABCC's reach will extend to other sectors like transport and manufacturing. And as we know from past experience, the ABCC in its former Howard-era incarnation is ready to use those powers, even against people with no role or interest in the construction industry who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Worse, some of its powers were exercised illegally.

This suite of powers, which is comparable in impact to the counter-terrorism powers wielded by security agencies in the so-called War on Terror, are justified by the government and employers on the basis claims of lawlessness and thuggery in the construction industry. But more specifically, it's about lifting the productivity of the construction industry - after all, that's the name of the bill. The explanatory memorandum for the current bill states:

"While the ABCC existed, the performance of the building and construction sector improved. For example, industry productivity improved, Australian consumers were better off and there was a significant reduction in days lost through industrial action."

You'd expect there to be a strong basis of evidence for giving draconian powers to such a body above and beyond the normal powers of Commonwealth and state police forces and courts, as well as the current Building Inspectorate within Fair Work Australia, which has specific powers of access and information-gathering. After all, those who want to reduce our rights should bear the burden of demonstrating why it is necessary. So how does the evidence for the need for such additional powers for a new ABCC stack up?

On industrial action, it's impossible to confirm the government's claims using independent data from the ABS. Its industry-specific industrial disputation data only goes back to 2008. We do know that, overall, the current level of industrial disputation is at historic lows, but that doesn't tell us much about construction. The original ABCC was established in 2005 and abolished in 2012, although its period of operation as a specifically anti-CFMEU entity finished in 2010, when Coalition favourite and industrial relations hardliner John Lloyd was replaced with Leigh Johns, under whom the ABCC began showing interest in other problems like sham contracting and tax avoidance rather than singlemindedly pursuing the CFMEU.

Then in opposition, the Coalition accused Labor of "neutering" the ABCC; Johns was attacked by Senator Eric Abetz for being a former ALP member. Johns has since been accused by former ABCC executive, current Building Inspectorate head and likely head of a new ABCC, Nigel Hadgkiss, of doing deals with the CFMEU. In 2011, Lloyd also attacked his successor, accusing him of deflecting the ABCC from its core mission in favour of pursuing "trendy issues" like sham contracting.

What we do know from the ABS data is that the average annual level of days lost per thousand employees in the construction industry increased significantly from 2008 to 2012 - but then fell back to near previous levels in 2013 and 2014. So far this year the level of days lost is well below mining — although mining is another area of CFMEU presence. But overall, days lost per thousand employees in construction is around six times the level of the overall economy.

So whether the level of disputes has gone up or not, construction does have more industrial disputation - although the CFMEU would argue that's because it's one of Australia's most dangerous industries. Safe Work Australia data shows construction is the third most dangerous industry, after agriculture and transport. Moreover, as Safe Work data also shows, under Howard's ABCC, workplace fatalities in the construction industry rose significantly, but they fell again once the ABCC was "neutered", reflecting how the Lloyd-era ABCC's goal was to gut the CFMEU rather than protect workers.



What about productivity? Fortunately we can turn to the Productivity Commission's 2014 study of the construction industry as part of its exhaustive report on infrastructure (the relevant volume is here). Here, the government story comes a cropper. The PC found:

"Productivity growth in the Australian construction sector has ebbed and flowed over the last 30 years. There was a significant increase in labour and multifactor productivity from 1994-95 to 2012-13. However, most of the improvement was concentrated in relatively short bursts spanning just a few years, including most recently in 2011-12."

That doesn't fit at all with the government's claims - particularly given productivity surged after the ABCC was "neutered" and distracted by "trendy" issues from 2010. The PC also noted that Australia fared well in international comparisons, although getting like-for-like data was difficult and more work was needed. But what evidence there is fits poorly with the government narrative:



What about costs? Employer groups and business are continually lamenting how construction in Australia is expensive compared internationally. The PC found evidence:

"There have been some recent significant increases in input costs, particularly labour and fuel costs … International comparisons of costs between Australia and counterpart countries are largely inconclusive, but do not support some recent claims (such as those made in BCA 2013) of very large cost differentials."

That "BCA 2013" reference, by the way, is to a report that Crikey demolished when the Business Council published it a couple of years ago. But the PC also noted that more recent data show softer labour market conditions that would reduce labour cost pressures in the industry. And ABS wage price index data reflects this: in the three years to the September quarter 2015, private construction industry wage costs slowed significantly from previous years and grew more slowly than wages in manufacturing, retailing, real estate and education - in fact, construction industry wages grew marginally below the average across all sectors.

So construction industry wage costs aren't growing any faster than the rest of the economy despite claims about CFMEU thugging employers, and productivity surged after the "neutering" of the ABCC. Only on industrial disputation do the stats back the "rogue union" line, but given the high stakes in terms of workplace injury and fatality - and the fact that the restoration of the ABCC may result in a rise in workplace deaths - that may reflect unsafe workplaces as much as union militancy.

It's on such weak foundations that the Coalition is launching a major attack on civil liberties and targeting one organisation. Evidence-based policy it isn't.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2016/02/03/does-construction-need-a-watchdog-with-security-agency-powers/

Cartoon posted:

Prison privatisations.

Along with this being terrible economics it is another example of quasi judicial powers being given to private companies. This can not end well. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-20/nsw-jails-private-prison-operators-ohn-morony-windsor/7261300 On ABC radio the minister said that it was a way to check if the private sector could do better.

hyperbowl posted:

Doesn't WA have a private prison for exactly this purpose? It was a few years ago that I looked into it, but I remember it being a single prison trial. Obviously there's a huge incentive to succeed. If it works then the whole sector will get privatised and it's easy to take the results to bigger states. But the best results they could manage were that is didn't cost any more and didn't perform worse on whatever other metrics they were using than the other lovely prisons. If things had gotten better there's no way Elliot would have failed to mention it.

quote:

In mid-March ALP support is 50.5% (up 3.5%) cf. L-NP 49.5% (down 3.5%) on a two-party preferred basis. If a Federal Election were held now the election would be too close to call.
Primary support for the L-NP is 40% (down 3%) with ALP at 33% (up 3.5%). Support for the Greens is up 1% to 14%, Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) 4% (down 1%), 18% in South Australia), Katter’s Australian Party is 1% (unchanged), Palmer United Party is 0% (down 0.5%) and Independents/ Others are at 8% (unchanged).

GoldStandardConure posted:

Its a trial prison, owned by the State Government but run and managed by Serco. Acacia Prison.

From the few chats I have had with the assistant director of Acacia it seems to be managed pretty decently as far as prisons go, with the exception of their repeated gently caress ups with prisoner transport resulting in escapees.

I imagine the only reason its run in any decent way at all is because its not fully privatized but a test prison, and the moment the state decides to privatize it (and other prisons) fully is when service goes to complete poo poo at the prisoners expense.

Serco can't manage a loving hospital, thats for sure. Service at Fiona Stanly Hospital is loving terrible.

quote:

The Department’s main Annual Report should provide an outline of the relative costs of different prisons, not merely an average cost across the whole system.

The Department should progress variations to the Acacia Prison Maintenance Agreement so that performance expectations are clear to all stakeholders, and contractor performance can be more effectively managed.

Acacia should ensure the detention unit is adequately staffed at all times and that staff adhere to operational procedures.

Acacia should immediately purchase a sufficient number of computers to meet the needs of adult literacy and numeracy students as well as external and business students.

Dynamic security had dropped back and custodial staff were spending too much time in offices and not interacting out in the units. Without a strong physical presence in the units, the risk of bullying, standover tactics and fighting increases.
For such a large prison, the number of computers available for prisoner use was far too low.
A new external store and training kitchen were built as part of the expansion and completed before schedule. However, the buildings remained empty.
Operational staff felt that communication from management had slipped.

Negligent posted:

For some reason people really resent an early election

Negligent posted:

For some reason people really resent an early election

Doctor Spaceman posted:

People don't like things being done for naked political gain.

Mr Chips posted:

or it's just the case that several weeks of pre-DD bullshit, plus 7ish weeks of actual campaign, is going to poo poo everyone right off.

Cartoon posted:

The bit I've bolded is the part I've become insanely curious about. Over the last 30+ years of deliberate outsourcing and numerous business cases and bonuses you'd think finding examples would be easy peasy and it is certainly not.

Cartoon posted:

I've previously accepted that this may be one of the few positive examples but it was too soon to tell. It's probably still too soon to tell.

Recoome posted:

I am home from the stand up for Safe Schools rally in Brisbane. Write up soon maybe??

Cleretic posted:

And I'm home from the one in Melbourne. I'm not gonna write anything up, but suffice to say it was big, pretty amazing, and I'm going to come out to my best friends tonight even if it may be a bad idea because I think if I don't ride the energy off that I'll never tell them.