Confusion reigns

I must admit to great confusion caused by our political masters.
In the matter of the Royal Commission into Unions’ Corruption the crime seems to be that commercial interests bribed union officials. I easily understand that if I offer a bribe to a policemen and it is accepted he/she will be charged with bribery as would I for offering it – this premise is accepted.
So why are commercial interests fronting the Royal Commission in Melbourne not charged with offering a bribe as should they be and as should the acceptor. Surely there is not one law for bribery – the acceptor and not for the offeror.
I would not like to think (tongue in cheek) that this Royal Commission is indeed a political stunt to “get the Unions”.
Another matter leading to confusion is the Slipper affair. Why wasn’t his offer to reimburse the amount of less than $1000 for his mnisuse of government car/charge cards when around the same time it seemed that almost every Coalition Member of Parliament had agreed to repay misused “entitlements” – everybody from the then-PM down. Makes you wonder doesn’t? Was it another case of what’s good for one lot of MPs is not good for anybody else.
And the final cause of my confusion? The term “The Honourable” for MPs. This is really quite ironic…even more so when I think that the media has not taken up any of these points.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s