Australian Politics General...

wayneL said:

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.

Click to expand...

mullokintyre said:

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

Click to expand...

Smurf1976 said:

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.

Click to expand...

SirRumpole said:

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

Click to expand...

mullokintyre said:

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

Click to expand...

sptrawler said:

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”.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

mullokintyre said:

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

Click to expand...

sptrawler said:

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

Click to expand...

mullokintyre said:

.
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

Click to expand...

sptrawler said:

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.

Click to expand...

SirRumpole said:

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.

Click to expand...

sptrawler said:

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.

Click to expand...