Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Australian Politics General...

Jump to new
Just to tie off the Brittany Higgins case, in today's media, just shows how sad the whole saga is and such a shame it was media fodder.
Meanwhile the media circus moves on. :thumbsdown:

Higgins's lawyers intend to launch court action against at least one MP​

Lawyers for former political staffer Brittany Higgins intend to launch legal action against at least one Liberal minister in relation to her alleged rape inside Parliament House in 2019.

On Friday, prosecutors abandoned the criminal case against Bruce Lehrmann out of concern for Ms Higgins's health.


Former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann is “broke”, and was kicked off the dole during the trial because he was unable to meet Centrelink’s mutual obligation requirements while staying in Canberra.

Mr Lehrmann, who previously earned as much as $200,000 as a senior adviser when he was just 24, has been unemployed since the allegations broke in 2021.

He has however been “cutting wood” for a mate’s dad in Tasmania and searching for work and is now preparing to consider civil remedies in part to pay his legal bills.
 
SirRumpole said:
Meanwhile, back on policy.. Just wondering what others here think about "The Voice" ?

I have a nasty feeling that it could be a bureaucratic nightmare that could impose itself on virtually every decision of government, Federal, State and local and could hamstring the normal processes of decision making.

And, if in the interests of the wider community, The Voice doesn't get what it wants then there will be the usual allegations of racism and how indigenous people are being continually repressed.

It could be a focal point for division rather than unity if it's not handled properly.

Maybe Jacinta Price has it right.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Why are you so concerned about a talent show on Channel 7.
is it because the proud Kuku Yalanji woman Jessica Mauboy is one of the Judges?
Mick
 
A bit long winded, but a barristers take on the circus, somebody had to say it and at last someone has.

www.smh.com.au

Don’t judge the legal system for sorry saga of the Lehrmann trial

This is a lamentable example of what happens to the justice system when the principles of prudence, discretion and sobriety of judgment are set aside in favour of publicity, politics and rank ideology.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
The events surrounding the criminal allegations made by Brittany Higgins against Bruce Lehrmann are a lamentable example of what happens to the justice system when the principles of prudence, discretion and sobriety of judgment are set aside in favour of publicity, politics and rank ideology.

From the start of this sorry affair, people who should have known better have inserted themselves into the fray, usually to the great detriment of both parties. You would hope that with the conclusion of proceedings against Lehrmann, who has always maintained his innocence, this practice would have slowed. If anything, it has quickened. All the while, Higgins has suffered a serious decline in her mental health in circumstances that can only be described as tragic.
Consider the remarks of ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold, SC. On announcing the charge against Lehrmann was to be dropped, Drumgold praised the “bravery, grace and dignity” of Higgins, and asked that she be given time “to heal” after facing “a level of personal attack that I’ve not seen in over 20 years of doing this work”.
While this may be true, there is a serious question as to whether it is appropriate for a DPP, who has a duty to the administration of justice rather than to individual complainants, to make public remarks of this kind. Drumgold said nothing of the presumption of innocence or whether Lehrmann may also need time “to heal”. Nor should he have. And that is the point.

And what of the substance of Drumgold’s observations? Has he ever seen a sexual assault complainant consciously eschew the protection of anonymity that is legally available to every sexual assault complainant in ACT criminal proceedings? If the answer is “no”, or “only on a very limited number of occasions”, Drumgold’s placement of Higgins’ experience on a spectrum of 20 years of practice is meaningless.
Loading
The fact is there was nothing normal about the Lehrmann trial, which occurred under a glare of unceasing publicity. Such matters are invariably tried in conditions of anonymity, which is a statutory right afforded to the complainant.
There have been other public servants whose conduct in relation to these matters has been questionable. Scott Morrison’s notorious parliamentary apology to Higgins plumbed a new depth. Whatever political advantage Morrison perceived, the potential prejudice that could have been occasioned to a fair trial by a person of the prime minister’s stature in making a comment of this kind, before a jury was even empanelled, is impossible to miss.
This occurred against the backdrop of alleged “political interference” in the investigation stage of the Lehrmann case, according to the ACT police manager of criminal investigations, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller (who says he would not have charged Lehrmann, but the decision was apparently taken out of his hands). This chilling allegation by a senior AFP officer warrants a full accounting of the “political interference” being referred to, particularly given the implicitly political context in which the trial unfolded.
And what of Tanya Plibersek? On the day of Drumgold’s announcement, she published the following comment on social media: “Survivors of sexual assault know that convicting perpetrators is the exception, not the rule. This has to change.”
Loading
There is enough plausible deniability in this comment to avoid the imputation that she was referring directly to Higgins and Lehrmann, but only just. And there is enough ambiguity in the comment to delight a receptive crowd without the inconvenience of condescending to a serious policy discussion.
Is she calling for law reform? If so, what precisely is she suggesting given the strong procedural protections that are now offered to sexual assault complainants in criminal prosecutions? Perhaps an erosion of the criminal standard of proof which has been the cornerstone of civilised society for centuries? As a minister of the Crown, Plibersek might humour the public by explaining exactly what she meant.
Perhaps at the same time she might also use her public reach to explain that, aside from the legal availability of anonymity to all sexual assault complainants, such persons may never need to set foot in a courtroom at all – as a statutory starting point, such evidence is given from a remote witness facility.

And before we grant an audience to ambiguous calls for “change”, the public ought to be reminded that Higgins’ experience is not the experience of sexual assault complainants generally. This is not to suggest that Higgins wasn’t perfectly entitled to take the course she took, but the public must be informed that Higgins’ name was only ever published because she specifically chose to approach the media with her allegation.
The broader point is this – superficial public utterances by persons in high office do not advance the administration of justice in any respect, and usually have the opposite effect. They do not set a foundation for legitimate discussions of law reform, which has occurred in this area by quantum leaps over recent decades in any event. Instead, they perpetuate outmoded stereotypes of our justice system and perhaps deter victims from coming forward. And there is apparently no consequence to any of it.
Lisa Wilkinson puts at risk a criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court – and what institutional consequence have we seen for her?
Drumgold lauds the “bravery” of a person whose allegation remains unproven, immediately following the execution of his duty as a detached Crown prosecutor – and what becomes of that?

Higgins delivers a speech on the courthouse steps impugning the criminal justice system while a prosecution is on foot in which she is the complainant – who makes the decision as to whether she will be prosecuted for contempt; Drumgold?
Morrison uses parliamentary privilege ahead of a highly publicised criminal trial – where is the consequence for that?
And cabinet minister Plibersek speaks of “survivors” and “perpetrators” before the din of Drumgold’s press conference has even died down.
A rot has taken hold at the core of our institutions. But it has nothing to do with the state of the law, and everything to do with the fealty of our public officials to the time-honoured principles upon which our society was built. Worse, there appears to be a total lack of consequence and accountability when there may be cause to investigate whether those principles have been hung out to dry. If you want to talk about change, that would be an excellent place to start.
 
Higgins case is a bit fishy.
She told some lies and wouldn't produce a phone that potentially had recoverable data on it.

Lehrmann meanwhile hasn't said anything and allegedly has form.

I'm glad the court rules on evidence as this was a tough case.
 
1670241048448.png


The politics.
Brittany Higgins is seen to be having fun with labour Luminaries at the MArch4Justice.
Mick
 
sptrawler said:
A rot has taken hold at the core of our institutions. But it has nothing to do with the state of the law, and everything to do with the fealty of our public officials to the time-honoured principles upon which our society was built. Worse, there appears to be a total lack of consequence and accountability when there may be cause to investigate whether those principles have been hung out to dry. If you want to talk about change, that would be an excellent place to start.
Click to expand...
This applies to a lot of things unfortunately.

Whilst this relates to a legal case, the same could be said for everything from transport planning in the cities to water management in the regions to housing to energy to banking.

None of this stuff should be exciting or interesting to the general public, indeed if it ever does get exciting and of mainstream interest then that's because something has gone drastically wrong. It's stuff that happens out of sight with rather boring things being done, investigated and so on. It only properly gets a mention when there's some major decision to announce and that's not a regular occurrence.

All our institutions are at least somewhat compromised and degraded at this point. Even the ones that really should be well beyond being interfered with such as courts and universities are under serious pressure.

For those with an interest in any particular area it's easy to think that it only affects that area. It's easy to think that it's only about the media and court trials or it's only about banking standards or it's only about the power grid or it's only about universities and censorship. And so on. In truth it's all of them, all have been meddled with and compromised in some way. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
It's stuff that happens out of sight with rather boring things being done, investigated and so on. It only properly gets a mention when there's some major decision to announce and that's not a regular occurrence.
Click to expand...

Yes, like residential buildings suddenly developing cracks and becoming uninhabitable.

That only came to light in one or two buildings, but how many more are out there ?
 
SirRumpole said:
Yes, like residential buildings suddenly developing cracks and becoming uninhabitable.

That only came to light in one or two buildings, but how many more are out there ?
Click to expand...
Yes what the hell has happened with all that, now those issues are the issues the general public get useful information from, that helps them make better choices.
Unless it was built by a politician, the media don't give a $hit, why haven't any of them followed up on that Opal towers and the other multi story buildings that had faults.
Too hard easier just to make up a political issue then run with it until circulation drops then start up another one, wash rinse repeat.
Life was so much better when politicians just quietly got on with running the country and if the plebs were doing o.k life was good, if not the Govt got flipped.
Now we have to have every political toilet break, every political comment made in the Chinese press, every politician that passes wind in parliament get about three days coverage FFS.
We don't have smart enough journalists to run 30 minute a day news, without the ridiculous 24/7 $hit, they are trying to call news.:mad:

Just thought I would google opal towers news, this is what came up: 23/07/2021.
www.smh.com.au

Watchdog orders more defects to be fixed in Sydney’s Opal Tower

The orders were issued after inspectors found incorrectly fitted shades on the tower’s facade and fire-safety problems.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

Wouldn't you think the ABC, publicly funded, could bother their ar$e to keep the public informed?
Obviously that doesn't fit the narrative, must have been built by a left wing building company, or the damage might only be on the right. ?
Maybe nobody from the elite areas bought into Opal Towers.
My rant for the week, thanks for the ammo @SirRumpole . :xyxthumbs
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, the Greens once more demonstrate a level of hypocrisy that only a politician can espouse.
From the evil Murdoch Empire
The Greens have accepted a significant donation from a pastoral company backed by one of South Africa’s richest men, despite saying they “don’t take donations from big corporations” and that “billionaires have too much power over politicians”.

Rallen Australia Pty Ltd and its property arm Amanzi Property Group Pty Ltd donated a total of $29,000 to the Greens last financial year.

Rallen Australia has been fighting efforts to develop the onshore gas industry in the Northern Territory since it purchased five NT cattle stations worth more than $140m between 2018 and 2020.

The donations were made just months before Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young used her position as chair of a Senate committee to accuse gas company Tamboran Resources of trying to threaten and intimidate Rallen. Senator Hanson-Young told Sky News she was unaware of the donations when she questioned Tamboran Resources managing director Joel Riddle about this issue at the committee’s hearing on October 10.

“I was not aware, nor were my staff aware, of these donations until today,” she said.
Click to expand...
Yeah right. SHY goes into to bat for a South African millionaire in the senate hearings, but of course was unawre that his company had donated $29,000 to the greens. Why on earth would a pastoral company that wanted to explore for gas be giving money to the greens unless there was some quid pro quo?
And why would the greens seek to defend someone who was wanting to develop NT gas?
As usual, just follow the money.
Mick
 
mullokintyre said:
Meanwhile, the Greens once more demonstrate a level of hypocrisy that only a politician can espouse.
From the evil Murdoch Empire

Yeah right. SHY goes into to bat for a South African millionaire in the senate hearings, but of course was unawre that his company had donated $29,000 to the greens. Why on earth would a pastoral company that wanted to explore for gas be giving money to the greens unless there was some quid pro quo?
And why would the greens seek to defend someone who was wanting to develop NT gas?
As usual, just follow the money.
Mick
Click to expand...

And we thought that the Greens were Snow White. :cool:
 
The greens continue to come up with some brilliant ideas.
from
One of the arguments put forward is that 16 year olds pay tax.
Corporations and other non human entities also pay tax, but they do not get the right to vote.
But leaving that aside, I am not sure how many 16 year olds actually pay tax , but if we accept the premise that paying tax allows one to vote, then does the opposite apply?
Namely if people do not pay taxes, should they be allowed to vote?
just putting it out there.
Mick
 
mullokintyre said:
The greens continue to come up with some brilliant ideas.
from
One of the arguments put forward is that 16 year olds pay tax.
Corporations and other non human entities also pay tax, but they do not get the right to vote.
But leaving that aside, I am not sure how many 16 year olds actually pay tax , but if we accept the premise that paying tax allows one to vote, then does the opposite apply?
Namely if people do not pay taxes, should they be allowed to vote?
just putting it out there.
Mick
Click to expand...

Some good points there... I guess it's fair to say that whenever someone purchases goods/services they're paying tax so that would cover the vast majority of the population... if that's supposed to be the main attribute for voting rights. (Or in this case Lefts lol)

I don't see any difference between 16 and 18 when it comes to awareness of current affairs.

On one hand the Greens will push for 16 if they feel that will attract more Green votes :)
One the other hand someone who was 17 last year can't vote again until they're 20.

I would go for voluntary voting for over 16's and compulsory voting after 18 as a compromise :2twocents
 

Similar threads

SirRumpole
Effects of the US election on the Australian economy and politics
Replies
2
Views
179
SirRumpole
SirRumpole
Garpal Gumnut
US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
5K
divs4ever
divs4ever
Dona Ferentes
LPGD - Loftus Peak Global Disruption Fund (mFund)
Replies
0
Views
215
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
farmerge
Lawyers
Replies
16
Views
907
wayneL
wayneL
mullokintyre
Examples of stupidity of government at all levels
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
mullokintyre
mullokintyre
Top