Australian Politics General...

[wayneL]

Too soon Tones.

It's an idea for which a time may well come. Other countries have this policy, Israel, Greece(AFAIK) and Switzerland are to that immediately come to mind.

Prediction: if this sort of policy is ever enacted, it will be Labor which implements it, but only after people like our Tones float it out.

BTW, I am ideologically agin it, but just saying how I see things possibly happening.

 

[SirRumpole]

Too soon Tones.

It's an idea for which a time may well come. Other countries have this policy, Israel, Greece(AFAIK) and Switzerland are to that immediately come to mind.

Prediction: if this sort of policy is ever enacted, it will be Labor which implements it, but only after people like our Tones float it out.

BTW, I am ideologically agin it, but just saying how I see things possibly happening.

Considering Whitlam abolished it, I don't think it's in Labor's DNA to bring it back.

It's always been Liberal policy, get the lazy Lefties off their @rses and maybe out of the way permanently.

All the Liberals called up would be officers of course.

 

[PZ99]

Hehe.... when it comes to defence most so called "National Service" will be elite level cyber warfare.

For that you need a truck load of training and that's not going to happen when you de-regulate university fees which was the ultimate panacea for the Abbott Govt along with cancelling the dole for under 30's and blowing out the pension age to 70.

This is just Abbott being a tool again.

 

[Smurf1976]

NDIS is going to be an endless vacuum cleaner of money.

The idea's well intentioned. Trouble is, there's far too many middlemen clipping the ticket.

It's one thing to have taxpayers footing the bill to provide whatever service to someone who's disabled.

It's another thing entirely when two thirds of the money's going not to providing the service to the disabled person but rather, it's going to fund some middleman's world trip and mansion.

 

[SirRumpole]

The idea's well intentioned. Trouble is, there's far too many middlemen clipping the ticket.

It's one thing to have taxpayers footing the bill to provide whatever service to someone who's disabled.

It's another thing entirely when two thirds of the money's going not to providing the service to the disabled person but rather, it's going to fund some middleman's world trip and mansion.

Another trouble ls that 'disability' has a wide definition. Is having poor eyesight a disability ? Why shouldn't the taxpayer pay for peoples glasses ? There is a responsibility to ensure that the money goes to people who most need it, which unfortunately means a lot of oversight which means more public servants for compliance.

 

[Smurf1976]

which unfortunately means a lot of oversight which means more public servants for compliance.

Employing public servants to oversee things doesn't bother me within reason. There's a cost but it's a known, fixed cost of wages, offices and so on.

It's when someone whacks a huge mark-up on everything that it's a bottomless pit of problems. When every $1 spent on service delivery yields $2 in profit for the middleman, there's an incentive to spend as much as possible. There's no point buying something for $50 when you can buy it for $150 and make three times the margin on it.

Health isn't the only industry with this basic problem.

 

[sptrawler]

Just when I thought Tony Abott could not come with any more dumb ideas. according to the Evil Murdoch Empire

yeah , compulsory National service.
Worked so well last time, so many of my nasho contemporaries completely screwed by their nasho experience in Vietnam.
Moron.
Mick

If we become a republic, I would say it will be introduced for sure.

 

[sptrawler]

As I was saying in August, anti corruption commissions as they stand, are just another pseudo Govt Dept, taking the pizz IMO.
They just seem to be there to just give legitimacy to poor conduct. They are supposed to be there to investigate corrupt behaviour and hold the Govt accountable, yet they are hamstrung by the Govt being able to decide how it is done.

IBAC chief wanted Andrews corruption probe to be heard in public

Operation Daintree, an integrity investigation into a government payment to a union, was held behind closed doors. The head of IBAC says it would have been “preferable” for it to be open

www.theage.com.au

Victoria’s anti-corruption chief Robert Redlich says a secret investigation that involved Premier Daniel Andrews being interviewed over his promised $3.4 million payments to a union ought to have been held in public.

But laws restricting the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s power to question witnesses publicly meant Operation Daintree and the premier’s role in it remained confidential until some details were reported by The Age last week.
Asked if IBAC should have openly questioned witnesses in Operation Daintree, Redlich said: “All things being equal, it would have been preferable if those matters had been capable of being explored in public.”
“There will always be questions about whether or not, if one holds a public hearing, there is a sufficiently grave risk that reputations will be unfairly damaged. One shouldn’t engage in a public hearing unless one is satisfied that that is not going to occur and, similarly, it is not going to result in unfair damage to a witness’ welfare.

“But I think in both of those cases [Operation Watts, which focused on sacked Labor minister Adem Somyurek, and Operation Daintree], it would have been better had we been able to conduct a public hearing.”

Under laws introduced by the Andrews government in 2019, IBAC is required to have reasonable grounds to believe “serious or systemic corrupt conduct” has taken place before it holds a public hearing. This barrier came on top of the requirement in the legislation for “exceptional circumstances”.

 

[mullokintyre]

As I was saying in August, anti corruption commissions as they stand, are just another pseudo Govt Dept, taking the pizz IMO.
They just seem to be there to just give legitimacy to poor conduct. They are supposed to be there to investigate corrupt behaviour and hold the Govt accountable, yet they are hamstrung by the Govt being able to decide how it is done.

Under laws introduced by the Andrews government in 2019, IBAC is required to have reasonable grounds to believe “serious or systemic corrupt conduct” has taken place before it holds a public hearing. This barrier came on top of the requirement in the legislation for “exceptional circumstances”.

it seems that most governments seem to think that corruption only applies to others.
Back in 2015, the Barnett coalition government made some alterations to the legislation to effectively exempt themselves from the CCC.
from The West

State MPs have granted themselves immunity from investigation by the Corruption and Crime Commission to enjoy special status as the only public officers not subject to its extraordinary powers, according to the watchdog’s chief.

In a sensational speech to Curtin University this month, CCC Commissioner John McKechnie declared a Barnett government overhaul of its Act in 2015 effectively meant Parliament would deal with offending MPs in-house.

“The consequence is that the commission has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of serious misconduct in respect of all public officers except members of Parliament,” he said.


During the speech delivered during the caretaker period on March 7, Mr McKechnie, a senior Supreme Court judge and director of public prosecutions before taking the helm of the CCC in April 2015, said the CCC’s original remit included politicians.

Under its original model, if the CCC received a complaint about an MP it would refer it to the Speaker or President who would notify the relevant procedure and privileges committee, which would send it back to the CCC for investigation.

But under the 2015 structural reform aimed primarily at transferring low-level misconduct from the CCC to the Public Sector Commission, Parliament “reaffirmed exclusive jurisdiction over its own”.

He said MPs were protected from scrutiny unless Parliament made a referral to a privileges committee, which lacked the CCC’s full suite of powers, including covert operations.

the latest version of a national IBAc has the usual exemptions for mates clause.

From Australian parliament legislation

Various Acts passed by the Parliament have excluded ‘an official of a registered industrial organisation’ from the definition of a ‘public official’ or a ‘Commonwealth public official’. These Acts have included the Criminal Code Act 1995 (see the Dictionary at the Schedule to the Criminal Code) and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (section 69). Further, the Revised Explanatory Memorandum to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018, which was passed during the Coalition Government’s term, acknowledged and did not seek to alter the exclusion of ‘an official of a registered industrial organisation’ from the definition of a ‘Commonwealth public official’ in the Dictionary to the Criminal Code.[49]

Noting the Shadow Attorney-General’s criticism, it appears an implication of the proposed exclusion in subclause 12(3) of the NACC Bill is that if a public official has engaged in conduct that adversely affects the honest or impartial exercise of a union official’s powers under the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, then that conduct of the public official in relation to the union official is not ‘corrupt conduct’ as defined in paragraph 8(1)(a) of the NACC Bill. Similarly, as the union official is not a staff member of a Commonwealth agency as defined in subclause 12(3) (noting that they may come within the definition of staff member in subclause 12(1) if they are, for example, a contracted service provider under a Commonwealth contract) and, therefore, absent relevant additional factors, not a public official as defined in clause 10, it appears that paragraphs 8(1)(b)–(e) also do not apply to them.

So union officials are exempt.
At last count there were about 1.4 mnillion union members in OZ, and the number is falling.
According to the ATO there is just a tad over 1.1 million members of SMSF funds.
If the rates of change stay the same , Within the next ten to fifteen years, the numbers in SMASF will overtake Union mmebers.
Will the SMSF members have the same clout in society?
I doubt it.
Mick

 

[basilio]

$1.8 billion Robodebt bill ‘accidentally’ sent to Scott Morrison

A letter asking for a payment of $1.8 billion to cover the compensation costs of Robodebt victims has accidentally been sent to former PM Scott Morrison. Despite the ‘administration’ error, he will still need to pay the bill.

In a statement today, a spokesperson from the Government refused to apologise to Morrison, saying the debt notices were automatically generated based on a complex mathematical algorithm that was out of their hands. “This has got nothing to do with us. The machine works out where to send these letters, and once they’re sent we can’t retract them. Payment will be required within 60 days, or further fines will apply”.

To avoid the payment, the onus will be on Morrison to prove that he is not responsible for the bill, which experts say will not be possible.

$1.8 billion Robodebt bill ‘accidentally’ sent to Scott Morrison

“Sorry, it was a system error, but you will still be required to pay it”

www.theshovel.com.au

"THIS IS A JOKE..." ( perhaps ?)

 

[sptrawler]

With a new Government, the floods don't seem to be as political as they were last time. ?
Lismore in March.

Scott Morrison circus fails to impress Lismore, a town that has lost everything

The prime minister is met with anger and protest on his visit to the flood-ravaged NSW town, and doesn’t stop to shake hands

www.theguardian.com

Lismore in November.

Lismore residents sleeping rough after floods plead for help

9now.nine.com.au

Record flooding at Condobolin set to worsen, third person feared swept away in floodwaters

Police are searching for a third person feared swept away in floodwaters at Eugowra with one person already found dead and the search continuing for another, as inland NSW's flood crisis continues.

www.abc.net.au

Can't wait to see a more balanced bushfire season.

 

[mullokintyre]

Ahh, the greens, ya just know that almost anything they come up with will be totally impractical, fail to achieve what they aimed for, and will cost someone (else) a lot of money.
From ABC News

Would knowing how long a mobile phone lasts change your mind about buying it?

Key points:​

• The proposal would mandate minimum life expectancy on electronic items
• The Greens say consumers have a right to know the information
• Retailers are opposed to the idea

South Australia's Greens party thinks it will.

The party is introducing legislation making it mandatory for retailers to display a minimum product "life span" for electrical items. It would apply to any appliance with a non-removable battery or an electrical plug.

"What this legislation would do is provide a best-before date for electrical products, which I think consumers would welcome," Greens MLC Robert Simms told the ABC.

"Consumers have a right to that information. If an item has got a life span of only one or two years, then that should be disclosed to the purchaser at the time of the purchase."

Mr Simms said the legislation would encourage people to buy more durable products, reduce waste and prevent companies using so-called "planned obsolescence" to drive sales.

He said manufacturers would be expected to supply the life span information about their products.

"The manufacturers know how long their products are likely to last. They should make that information available to retailers," he said.

Firstly, everything from Mobile phones to calculators are not even manufactured in Australia, much less South Australia. So exactly how much clout do they think they have over manufacturers?
Secondly, unless they can convince all other states or the feds to go along with the idea, South Australia will lose out on business as consumers just buy from interstate retailers. They will also lose out on GST, payroll tax, and whatever else moves out of the state.
Thirdly, how are they going to enforce the legislation on overseas manufacturers, shift the blame to importers?
They know they have a snowflakes chance in hell of ever getting these things implemented, so they don't have to make any of their pronouncements practical or even possible.
The ultimate virtue signallers.
Mick

 

[orr]

Heavy booking of the prayer room down in Canberra at the moment by the elected members of the Hillsong district.
One of gods little rewards.

 

[Smurf1976]

Ahh, the greens, ya just know that almost anything they come up with will be totally impractical, fail to achieve what they aimed for, and will cost someone (else) a lot of money.
From ABC News

Firstly, everything from Mobile phones to calculators are not even manufactured in Australia, much less South Australia. So exactly how much clout do they think they have over manufacturers?
Secondly, unless they can convince all other states or the feds to go along with the idea, South Australia will lose out on business as consumers just buy from interstate retailers. They will also lose out on GST, payroll tax, and whatever else moves out of the state.
Thirdly, how are they going to enforce the legislation on overseas manufacturers, shift the blame to importers?
They know they have a snowflakes chance in hell of ever getting these things implemented, so they don't have to make any of their pronouncements practical or even possible.
The ultimate virtue signallers.
Mick

It's actually worse because what will happen in any business situation, and by that I'm referring to businesses using the devices eg a computer in an office, is that in order to meet WHS requirements they'll simply throw out anything "out of date".

And so it becomes a maximum usable life in practice. If computer monitors are labelled as (say) 2 year life then no business owner in their right mind will risk having a monitor over 2 years old on the premises lest something bad happens, someone gets hurt, and they're left standing there in court trying to explain why they hadn't replaced the monitor they knew was out of date.

That's not being sarcastic, it's exactly what most large corporates would do and for that matter the more legally focused smaller businesses will feel compelled to do the same. End result = far more products needing to be manufactured and far more waste created, a loss for everyone but especially the environment.

I'm not joking there to be clear.

 

[sptrawler]

Looks like the case is coming to a conclusion.

Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer casts doubt on Brittany Higgins’ credibility during closing arguments in court

The ACT supreme court trial of Lehrmann is in its final stages, with the jury set to begin deliberations later on Wednesday

www.theguardian.com

Interesting development in the Higgins Vs Lehrmann trail today.

Bruce Lehrmann sexual assault charge expected to be dropped

The second trial had been pencilled in for early in 2023. The ACT Director of Public Prosecutions will make an announcement on Friday morning.

www.watoday.com.au

The second trial of Bruce Lehrmann, the man accused of sexually assaulting Brittany Higgins, is expected to be abandoned and the charges dropped, reportedly because of new evidence concerning the impact on Higgins’ mental health.
Shane Drumgold, the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, is reportedly ready to use his prosecutorial discretion to announce that the charges will be dropped against former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann and the trial will not proceed, according to News.com.au.
This masthead has independently confirmed that Drumgold is expected to announce on Friday morning that the second trial will not proceed.
Drumgold’s office released a short statement to the media on Thursday afternoon.

“I wish to advise that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC, will be making a media statement tomorrow morning (Friday 2 December 2022) at 10.00am, regarding the matter of R v Lehrmann,” the email said.

“Mr Drumgold will read a short pre-prepared statement and will not be taking questions.”

 

[mullokintyre]

It was always going to end thus.
Higgins has been used by the media, the I hate all things conservative brigade, her current boyfriend, the ACT DPP, the legal profession, and probably a few others I can't think of.
Now that the trial is over , we are starting to see some of the things come out that were never included as evidence in the trial.
The ACT police are now saying that they recommended against prosecution as it was unlikely to succeed, and reckon the decision was a purely political one. The police had concerns with Ms Higgins about inconsistencies in disclosure, her reluctance to hand over phones, and then her deleting things from her mobile before eventually handing them over.
We will never now the truth of this matter, and both of them will have difficulties for some time, and one has to ask what has been achieved by all this apart from two lives ruined, but lawyers making a lot of money,
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

.
We will never now the truth of this matter, and both of them will have difficulties for some time, and one has to ask what has been achieved by all this apart from two lives ruined, but lawyers making a lot of money,
Mick

Also a coupe of media personalities did o.k out of it, as I said in the early stages, it is going to end badly for all concerned.
Bruce Lehrmann's career is ruined and no doubt he will be chasing compensation, Higgins career will also suffer one would think, I wonder if the book offer is still current , it is just one big mess.

 

[SirRumpole]

Also a coupe of media personalities did o.k out of it, as I said in the early stages, it is going to end badly for all concerned.
Bruce Lehrmann's career is ruined and no doubt he will be chasing compensation, Higgins career will also suffer one would think, I wonder if the book offer is still current , it is just one big mess.

Very sad for Brittany.

Apparently she has been subject to a lot of vile social media comments.

Maybe social media should have to follow the same standards as MSM when it comes to commenting on court cases.

 

[sptrawler]

Very sad for Brittany.

Apparently she has been subject to a lot of vile social media comments.

Maybe social media should have to follow the same standards as MSM when it comes to commenting on court cases.

It is sad for both of them, they will both carry the scars of a public hearing, with no finality or closure.
It shouldn't have been so public and probably a judge only hearing, so that the proceedings could have been kept quite and the verdict reached.
The media making it a national circus, even before the trail started didn't help, but that's what the media does.
It certainly sounds as though someone gave Brittany some encouragement, without explaining the downsides, it was always going to be a difficult case when two people are inebriated and trying to recall events and timelines.
Hopefully those who drove Brittany to the issues she has now, feel suitably ashamed IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

It is sad for both of them, they will both carry the scars of a public hearing, with no finality or closure.
It shouldn't have been so public and probably a judge only hearing, so that the proceedings could have been kept quite and the verdict reached.
The media making it a national circus, even before the trail started didn't help, but that's what the media does.
It certainly sounds as though someone gave Brittany some encouragement, without explaining the downsides, it was always going to be a difficult case when two people are inebriated and trying to recall events and timelines.
Hopefully those who drove Brittany to the issues she has now, feel suitably ashamed IMO.

Judge only trials seem to be the way to go, there are some poor souls on juries who have no idea what is going on.