katlington posted:

Just curious, am I the only auspol poster who actually lives in rural australia? Exurbs dont count.


e: lol david johnstons sincere regrets. Is there any memeber of the lnp not a human sized piece of poo poo? (no)

Les Affaires posted:

They don't really need to provide alternative policies at this point, I don't think it's anything to do with caution. Why would you publish policies at this point in the term of the government and give them something to attack?

Mr Chips posted:

Has any opposition gone to an election with a detailed policy since Fightback? That piece of poo poo was hundreds of pages long, detailing exactly how poors would be hosed over.

Mad Katter posted:

http://www.taste.com.au/recipes/26518/tim+tam+tarts+with+raspberries+and+tim+tam+soil

Not my photo, mine are still in the fridge.

Murodese posted:

Honestly can't tell if you're talking about Uber or the Taxi industry.

Palmersaurus posted:

Ruh Roh

GP co-payment 'back to the drawing board' as Government seeks to knock off 'barnacles'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-26/gp-copayment-back-to-drawing-board/5918890

quote:

Yesterday's sentencing outcome for the whistleblower who revealed Frances Abbott's scholarship shows just how petty the case was. It also shows how much we need a Commonwealth anti-corruption body, writes Michael Bradley

Freya Newman hasn't suffered quite as much as Alfred Dreyfus, but the notoriety of her name has similarly transcended the actual significance of her legal case and become a cause célèbre for freedom fighters of all stripes.

Both those flying the standard of our right to privacy, and the advocates of our right to know, are busily flogging poor Freya's remaining personal dignity to death.

You know when an issue has gone into fantasy overdrive when Christopher Pyne chooses to tweet about it, as he did yesterday. Does the sentencing decision of a NSW Local Court magistrate warrant the personal intervention of the Federal Minister for Education? Apparently so.

For all the grand declaiming, the reality is that Freya is a victim of politics. Had her crime not embarrassed the Prime Minister, she would never have been charged. Nor would she now be receiving favourable comparisons with Joan of Arc from the large number of members of Team Australia who actually hate the team captain.

Time for some dispassionate analysis. First, the facts. The Whitehouse Institute is a private tertiary body. It awarded Frances Abbott, the then opposition leader's daughter, a scholarship which saved her family more than $60,000 in fees. The scholarship was not advertised and its existence was never made public. The Institute insists it was offered on the basis of academic merit but has offered nothing to substantiate this claim. The Institute's chairman was a substantial donor to the Liberal Party, and has confirmed that he "probably" recommended Ms Abbott for the scholarship.

It smells pretty bad, as some senior staff members at the Institute thought. Freya Newman was 20 years old and a junior part time employee. She was told by more senior staff where she could access information regarding the scholarship in the Institute's computer system, and encouraged to do so using another staff member's log in details. She did it, and then she resigned.

The Institute wanted to press charges, and Ms Newman was charged under s308H(1) of the Crimes Act with obtaining unauthorised access to restricted data held in a computer. The maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment. Ms Newman promptly pleaded guilty. The prosecution accepted that her offence was at the lowest end of the range of severity. The magistrate decided that the fair result was to record no conviction, but with a two-year good behaviour bond attached. Ms Newman's youth, and her altruistic motivation, appear to have been significant factors in the magistrate's mind. Any harsher outcome would have been ridiculous.

Freya Newman leaves court after being handed a good behaviour bond.
PHOTO: Freya Newman leaves court after being handed a good behaviour bond. (Twitter: triplejHack)
The case does raise important questions. It has been pointed out that, had the Institute been a public university, Ms Newman would most likely have been protected by whistleblower laws. Given that the Prime Minister's family obtained a substantial financial benefit from the scholarship, was there not a legitimate public interest in the disclosure? Should there be any difference if the alleged giving of favours comes from a private entity rather than a public one? Therefore, should not Freya Newman be lauded as a heroine rather than charged with a crime?

This is a very difficult question. The Whitehouse Institute is a private entity and is entitled to privacy. It is not in the same position as a government body or publicly funded organisation. If it wants to give away scholarships in a manner which undermines its pretensions to integrity, it can do so. That isn't a crime; it's just grubby.

However, there is a valid public interest in knowing what happened here, because corporate sector lobbying is a cancer on democratic politics and because we're entitled to know if our Prime Minister is being compromised.

If the problem is stated as being that, absent Freya Newman's actions, we'd never have found out about this, then the short answer is this: actually, the reason we didn't know about it is that the Prime Minister failed to comply with his parliamentary disclosure obligations. He is supposed to disclose financial benefits, and he has not explained why he didn't disclose the scholarship. The disclosure requirement exists to ensure any perceived risks of influence are exposed, with the subsidiary benefit that insiders with knowledge won't face Ms Newman's moral and legal dilemma.

But, he didn't disclose it and the dilemma arose. Where then is the correct balance between private rights and the public interest? It's not that what Ms Newman did shouldn't be a crime. Certainly it should only be a minor offence unless there are serious aggravating factors. The sentencing outcome underlines how petty this was.

Part of the answer has been loudly shouted lately by our chief law officer, Attorney General George Brandis. On the unrelated topic of the jailing of journalists for disclosing ASIO operations, he has been going on about how the Director of Public Prosecutions is obliged to consider the public interest before launching any prosecution. The same principle applies to all prosecuting authorities.

It's certainly arguable that the prosecutorial discretion ought to have been exercised in Freya Newman's case to recognise that she was collateral damage in a much larger war and that there was no public interest in inflicting more punishment on her than she had already suffered.

And there's another answer. If the Prime Minister had been a NSW parliamentarian, ICAC would have had jurisdiction to investigate. An anonymous tip-off would have sufficed and ICAC's coercive powers would have done the rest.

In the end, that's what the Freya Newman case really means: we badly need an anti-corruption body in the Commonwealth sphere, with all the powers of ICAC and the ability to protect whistleblowers no matter where they work.

Michael Bradley is the managing partner of Marque Lawyers, a boutique Sydney law firm. View his full profile here.

Halo14 posted:

Anidav posted:

It's kinda weird how Labor is afraid of the "Fightback" effect. I mean any version of a policy booklet they spit out will always gently caress the poors far less than the Coalition and will be drastically better than that low budget "Real Solutions" book bullshit Abbott did.

katlington posted:

Just curious, am I the only auspol poster who actually lives in rural australia? Exurbs dont count.


e: lol david johnstons sincere regrets. Is there any memeber of the lnp not a human sized piece of poo poo? (no)

quote:

Some explanatory context about the lack of an indictment in Ferguson: while grand juries are nominally one of the checks on executive power, with the prosecutors only able to indict someone if they can convince a grand jury, this hasn't really been the case in decades, if ever. In the famous words of Sol Wachtler, former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, district attornies have so much influence over grand juries that they could get them to "indict a ham sandwich" if they wanted.

This is because grand jury proceedings are rather one-sided: there is generally no judge involved, nor any defense, but rather the prosecutor simply presents whatever evidence he or she chooses, and has to convince the grand jury that there is "probable cause" that the person committed a crime, i.e. that a reasonable (ordinary) jury could conceivably convict. If this seems like a rather low bar to you, you're right: quite a few people have argued that grand juries are a complete waste of time, and only half of US states still use them. (The federal government is required to by the fifth amendment; no common-law jurisdiction outside the US still bothers)

In those places which still use them, their main remaining function is to provide plausible deniability to prosecutors who don't wish to pursue a case: just like you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich by only showing one story, you could get a grand jury to refuse to indict Freddy Krueger by showing them enough evidence to make the legitimacy of the state's case unclear.

That's not a common use for grand juries -- prosecutors generally have better things to do with their time than look for plausible deniability. (In the federal courts in 2010, for example, grand juries refused to indict 11 times, out of about 162,000 cases. Given that a prosecutor can generally guess when they don't even have a good enough case to indict, you can assume that those eleven each decided to have the grand jury be the one to say no, instead of them, for a reason)

What this means is that when you're trying to interpret the news and understand what a grand jury verdict means, you can basically take it to be a summary of the prosecutor's decision to prosecute or not to prosecute the case, rather than the verdict of an independent panel. 

(The analysis below notes that, in high-profile cases, there's another important reason that a grand jury may not indict, which is that the prosecutor feels that the case isn't strong enough to actually push through, but nonetheless feels political pressure to try anyway. That's not likely to be the case with today's news, as county prosecutor Bob McCulloch took the rather unusual step of having Darren Wilson, the prospective defendant, testify before the grand jury for several hours. Prosecutors who actually want an indictment generally don't invite the defendant to give their side of the story at length, as this is not considered conducive to getting the desired variety of ham sandwich. So it's fairly safe to read today's headline as "McCulloch decides not to prosecute Wilson," and interpret that as you will.)

If you want to read about the grand jury system in the US, as good a place to start as any is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States

PaletteSwappedNinja posted:

By "far less" do you mean "almost identically"?


I'm currently living in the Riverina and will be for the foreseeable future. It'd be really great if I died in my sleep.

Halo14 posted:

If only Freya Newman could have tipped off ICAC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-26/bradley-if-only-freya-newman-could-have-tipped-off-icac/5918514

HookShot posted:

I sort of consider myself as having lived in rural Australia when I was in northern NSW.

I know it wasn't strictly rural, but when you have gone out to help with the cows multiple times, I think that starts to count.


edit: also I technically lived in a stable, so...

quote:

Defence Minister says he 'wouldn't trust' Australian Submarine Corporation to build a canoe

Defence Minister David Johnston has warned he would not trust the Government-owned defence builder, the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC), to build a canoe.

Senator Johnston launched the scathing attack on the ASC in the Senate during a debate about where Australia's next submarine fleet should be built.

The Government is under pressure to build Australia's next fleet of submarines locally, rather than opt for an overseas design.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has since released a statement saying the ASC plays a vital role in supporting the Royal Australian Navy.

But the ASC does not have the confidence of Senator Johnston.

"You wonder why I'm worried about ASC and what they're delivering to the Australian taxpayer, you wonder why I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe?" he said.

Senator Johnston said the ASC was at least $350 million over budget in building three air warfare destroyer ships.

"I'm being conservative, it's probably more than $600 million, but because the data is bad, I can't tell you," he said.

"ASC was delivering no submarines in 2009 for $1 billion."

Mr Abbott's statement said the ASC had changed its submarine maintenance program and had exceeded the Navy's target for submarine readiness over the past year.

"This has improved the availability of our Collins Class fleet to defend our national interests," the statement said.

"Whilst ASC has had challenges meeting the Government’s cost and schedule expectations of the Air Warfare Destroyer programme, we are working closely with ASC on a reform strategy to improve shipyard performance and productivity.

"It is early days, but the Government is confident that ASC and its partners will successfully turn the corner on this important build."

Australian Submarine Corporation worker 'disgusted' by comments

An ASC worker said he was disgusted by Senator Johnston's comments.

Pipe fitter Andrew Daniels said the Adelaide workers would never compromise on safety.

"We're being trashed. When I go home to my family and this guy is telling me I'm useless ... I don't feel useless and that's pretty gutting to 3,000 workers in South Australia and Western Australia," he said.

"It's not a great feeling to have your Defence Minister, you're out there doing your best job for the country and he's trashing you."

SA Defence Industries Minister Martin Hamilton-Smith said Senator Johnston's comments made clear the Federal Government was planning to break its promise to build the next generation of submarines in Adelaide.

"We are outraged as a State Government and I think it is a clear signal that the promise to build 12 submarines in South Australia was disingenuous at best, some would say a lie," he said.

Earlier this month ASC general manager Stuart Wiley said it would cost between $18 billion and $24 billion to build 12 submarines in Adelaide.

The Federal Government had suggested it would cost up to $80 billion.

The Coalition's Commission of Audit recommended it consider privatising the ASC.

webmeister posted:

Haven't seen this posted yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liU9NjuItYQ

katlington posted:

Just curious, am I the only auspol poster who actually lives in rural australia? Exurbs dont count.

quote:

Uber is ‘dangerous and illegal’, Cabcharge head claims

CABCHARGE chairman Russell Balding has lashed out at ride-sharing service Uber and urged governments to crack down on the company and its drivers.

Mr Balding says he has written to all state premiers and Prime Minister Tony Abbott raising safety and tax concerns about Uber, particularly its lower-end UberX service.

“Uber is dangerous, unsupervised and ... illegal,” he told shareholders at the company’s annual general meeting this morning.

“Governments need to do something about it.”

Mr Balding said Uber, which is growing in popularity in Australia, was “threatening the livelihood” of thousands of taxi drivers.

Founded in the US, Uber is a system that is disrupting the established taxi industry, depriving companies such as Cabcharge of revenue.

It allows consumers to bypass licenced taxi schemes, using a smartphone application to book and pay for trips in private cars. Users can also arrange to share rides with other commuters.

Mr Balding said Uber paid no tax in Australia and the structure of the service made it difficult for governments to track the money earned by its drivers.

“Uber is an offshore entity that does not pay any tax here,” he said.

“It also appears to facilitate tax avoidance.”

UberX allows motorists, who do not need to be accredited, to use their own cars to pick up passengers who book using the mobile application.

Victoria’s Taxi Services Commission issued a “cease and desist” letter to the company in early November, while the New South Wales and Queensland governments have fined UberX drivers.

An Uber spokeswoman dismissed Mr Balding’s claims as “scaremongering”, and said the company complied with all applicable tax laws.

UberX had also created 1100 new jobs in Australia in the past month, she said.

“We are confident that policy makers will see these claims for what they are ... and make their decisions based on what is best for consumers, not incumbent industries,” she said.

Separately, Mr Balding said Cabcharge continued to face regulatory challenges, with New South Wales following Victoria’s lead in reducing the commission it can charge on taxi fares paid by passengers using credit and debit cards.

Cabcharge’s net profit dropped more than 7 per cent in the year to June after the State Government halved the surcharge on card service fees to 5 per cent in February.

NSW will follow suit in December, with Cabcharge estimating the move will cost it about $14 million.

Mr Balding said Cabcharge had prepared for the move and was confident of increasing its market share this year.

Cabcharge shares were up 1.7 per cent early this afternoon.

AAP

quote:

Cabcharge director Rodney Gilmour quits hours before AGM

Cabcharge director Rodney Gilmour has headed off an embarrassing vote against his appointment five months ago by resigning a few hours before the company's annual general meeting on Wednesday.

Chairman Russell Balding appointed Mr Gilmour in June as an independent director.

But investors were certain to vote him out again today because he was consultant to Cabcharge for two years until April and has been a close colleague of Mr Balding since 2006.

He was previously employed at Sydney Airport where Mr Balding was CEO from 2006 to 2011. Mr Gilmour was general manager of corporate affairs, planning and human resources at Sydney Airport from 2004 to 2011.

The move follows strong criticism by the Australian Shareholder Association and proxy adviser Ownership Matters of Mr Gilmour's appointment and the long tenure and conflicts of interest of other board members.

Ownership Matters head Dean Paatsch has told FairFax Media there had also been no disclosure of what Mr Gilmour had been paid when he was a consultant.

He also said deputy chairman Neill Ford is not independent because he is CEO of the Queensland arm of Yellow Cabs, which has received $3.7 million over the past two financial years from Cabcharge. In addition, Mr Ford has been on the Cabcharge board for 18 years, but still has no shares in the company.

The new ASX corporate governance guidelines say after a director has been on a board for more than 10 years, the board should regularly assess whether they are too close to management.

Mr Paatsch said the board also has very little payments or technology experience, which is important given the number of online start ups challenging it such as Uber, Ingogo and GoCatch.

Its voting advice said "there is a pressing need for renewal and refreshment of the Cabcharge board and such renewal and refreshment would ideally be facilitated through the appointment of new, independent ­non-executive directors".

The Australian Shareholders Association has made the same criticisms of Mr Gilmour. It has gone further, however, and said it will vote to spill the board should Cabcharge's remuneration report get a fourth consecutive "strike" at its AGM.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/cabcharge-director-rodney-gilmour-quits-hours-before-agm-20141126-11u222.html#ixzz3K9DodS68

You Am I posted:

Sounds like the start of the Monty Python "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch

webmeister posted:

Haven't seen this posted yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liU9NjuItYQ

HookShot posted:

I've never seen that one.

I've actually seen an embarassingly low amount of Monty Python stuff.

facebook turd posted:

Is there any proof other than NEWMAN's word that she was aware of this corruption before searching through the daughters personal information. That one piece of information there is the decider in this debate for me. If she was aware of it before searching then she should have gone through the appropriate complaint channels/media. For all we know she was just snooping on ABBOTT's daughter for shits and giggles and happened across it.

PaletteSwappedNinja posted:

I'm currently living in the Riverina and will be for the foreseeable future. It'd be really great if I died in my sleep.

adamantium|wang posted:

Oh bloody hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

Palmersaurus posted:

I saw a cow once

Implants posted:

Cmon now mate, this is a fair country, you gotta play the ball, not the man. Unless the man happens to be a woman, in which case go nuts!