InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Reader contributions

Your views: on contract disclosure, the bin tax and union deregistration

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on Government contract secrecy, paying the bin tax, and going after unions but not banks.

Print article

Price of silence

Commenting on the story: Funding dispute erupts over domestic violence service

Again, the details of the contract which is at the point of dispute can not be disclosed because of a commercial confidentiality agreement.

This is pure financial deception as once the tender has been let there is no reason not to disclose the contract price, other than to cover up something which is politically embarrassing or discriminative. – Bill Hollingsworth

More fees, less money

Commenting on the story: Councils to raise rates and stink over Budget bin tax

An extra $15 per household is steep, and I am a single owner-occupier on low income, with mortgage.

I compost all I can at home, green bin goes out quarterly or less, yellow lidded bin goes out bi-monthly, and blue lid general waste would take at least a year to fill.

I pick up rubbish around the streets near work in North Adelaide and near home, and at the beach or parks or anywhere where I park my car each weekday, if  not on the bus.

How is this increase in fee applicable across the board I wonder, but also understand it’s probably far too difficult to regulate.

I understand what’s being said re building industry passing on the cost, and illegal dumping due to fees for accessing legal disposal; I’ve filled my car boot with rubbish from the creek in the Montacute Valley.

So I guess I’ll be staying close to home more often as fees go up for so many things in life. – Joanne McEntee

What about the banks?

Commenting on the story: Morrison Government aiming to deregister construction  union

If the basis of the change to laws is to enable deregistering the CFMEU, then what has happened to the findings of the Banking Royal Commission?

Egregiously illegal activity and so far no change to laws or to funding to agencies to enforce laws.

Accepting that some members of the CFMEU have engaged in illegal acts is not a reason to draft laws to outlaw the whole organisation.

This is an attack, consistent with Liberal Conservative politics over the last two decades, on unionism and in turn the Labor Party.

It should be condemned because having a duopoly in politics is bad; enough having a monopoly is tending towards dictatorship.

Outlawing an organisation on the basis of the behaviour of some of its members is going down the same path; it’s selective, re banks for example, but let’s also consider federal politicians behaviour re travel allowances.

Unions came into being for a purpose. To a degree at least some of that purpose has gone or changed, but they are still key to providing safe workplaces and somewhat fair wages. Again, compare federal politicians’ recent wage increase with Australia-wide wage stagnation. Mark Dudart

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.

Make a comment View comment guidelines

Local News Matters

Media diversity is under threat in Australia – nowhere more so than in South Australia. The state needs more than one voice to guide it forward and you can help with a donation of any size to InDaily. Your contribution goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. Please click below to help  InDaily continue to uncover the facts.

Contribute here
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article