Australian Politics: The Albanese Times

[arthwollipot]

Meanwhile...

Pauline Hanson ordered to pay $250,000 damages for defaming Brian Burston

Quote:

Former sentaor launched the defamation suit in 2020 over what he said were false claims of sexual harassment made on TV, social media and via text


The One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, will have to pay $250,000 in damages after defaming former senator Brian Burston on the Today Show by falsely claiming he sexually abused a female staffer in his parliamentary office.

In the federal court on Wednesday, Justice Robert Bromwich ordered Hanson pay the penalties after “seriously damaging” Burston’s reputation on the Nine Network.

As well as incorrectly stating that Burston sexually abused a female colleague, Hanson also falsely claimed he had assaulted One Nation chief of staff, James Ashby, without provocation in the great hall of parliament, the judge found.

“I find that both the fourth imputation and the sixth imputation were seriously damaging to Mr Burston’s reputation, being broadcast on a nationally broadcast television program watched by over 290,000 people at the time,” Bromwich said. “They were both false.”

Wow, it's almost like publicly lying about someone has consequences.

[arthwollipot]

It's Budget Week. Again.

Why are we having a fourth budget in two years?

Quote:

You'd be forgiven for thinking that Australia has had more budgets in the last few years than I've had hot dinners.

In just two years, we've had three, and the federal government is about to hand down another one on Tuesday.

Budgets are typically delivered in May — so why have so many been handed down recently?

Let's take a closer look...

[Wildy]

They really need to scrap the stage 3 cuts.

[arthwollipot]

More on the budget:

The Coalition scoffed at the idea of a wellbeing budget. But Australians want Jim Chalmers to deliver

Quote:

The approach labelled ‘hippy economics’ is one that experts and the public are crying out for


When Jim Chalmers announced in July that his first budget would include options to measure community wellbeing – rather than just measuring GDP – it didn’t take a genius to predict some of the media coverage.

The young, lefty treasurer, in an ashram with a yoga mat and some kombucha, limbering up for his next downward dog.

The approach that’s been labelled by some as “hippy economics” is actually an idea that experts and the public are crying out for.

Edited by jimbob:

snip for rule 4

If you move beyond pure economics and focus on politics, a wellbeing budget is an even better idea for a new government.

[lionking]

Something sensible from the Nationals Littleproud. Time to discuss nuclear power. I know it won’t happen, but it should.

[arthwollipot]

We haven't been talking about this much in this thread, but this story just keeps on getting twists and turns. Last week the jury reported that they were unable to come to a decision. Now they've all been discharged.

Jury discharged in trial of Bruce Lehrmann, who was accused of raping Brittany Higgins

Quote:

The jury in the rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann has been discharged without a verdict after a juror admitted to accessing information that was not presented as evidence in court.

Mr Lehrmann was accused of raping his then-colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House after a night out drinking in March 2019.

He pleaded not guilty and said no sexual activity occurred between the pair.

The trial ran for 12 days and saw 29 witnesses take the stand, including Liberal senators Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

We haven't been talking about this much in this thread, but this story just keeps on getting twists and turns. Last week the jury reported that they were unable to come to a decision. Now they've all been discharged.

Jury discharged in trial of Bruce Lehrmann, who was accused of raping Brittany Higgins

Given the circumstances, it’s almost certain there will be a re-trial. If it was a matter of the jury not able to make a decision, it could be argued that the the case is over, but a juror access information improperly changes things completely, particularly if that juror was the standout.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lionking

Given the circumstances, it’s almost certain there will be a re-trial. If it was a matter of the jury not able to make a decision, it could be argued that the the case is over, but a juror access information improperly changes things completely, particularly if that juror was the standout.

Indeed.

Fun fact: the time I did jury duty, on our second trial we were dismissed because it turned out that the accused had attacked a friend of one of the jurors and stabbed him in the neck with a screwdriver.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Indeed.

Fun fact: the time I did jury duty, on our second trial we were dismissed because it turned out that the accused had attacked a friend of one of the jurors and stabbed him in the neck with a screwdriver.

Didn't the juror mention this? Or did s/he only realise during the trial?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Didn't the juror mention this? Or did s/he only realise during the trial?

Only realised during the trial that the defendant was that guy. Reported it immediately, of course, because that was the right thing to do.

Pity, because I had wanted to find out where he had stashed the gun.

[arthwollipot]

Oh come on! This was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Juror who was responsible for Bruce Lehrmann mistrial brought three academic papers into jury room

Quote:

A juror, whose personal research ended the ACT Supreme Court trial of Bruce Lehrmann, had three academic papers about sexual assault in his possession in the jury room.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Oh come on! This was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Juror who was responsible for Bruce Lehrmann mistrial brought three academic papers into jury room

If this trial was in NSW, the juror would have been charged. No such law in the ACT. There should be.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lionking

If this trial was in NSW, the juror would have been charged. No such law in the ACT. There should be.

I think so too.

[Wildy]

Higgins has been referred to the AFP over her comment she made after the mistrial.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Higgins has been referred to the AFP over her comment she made after the mistrial.

Lehrmann’s lawyers are getting desperate. Higgins made the correct and obvious statement that the alleged rapist gave no evidence (which is, unfortunately, his right) yet she was subject to two days of cross examination about things like whether she wore underwear or not that evening.

As I said earlier, the corrupt juror walks, yet Higgins may face charges. State and federal governments have made claims that rape victims are given great support and consideration during investigations and trials. Doesn’t look like it. The fact that Lehrmann can sit silent while scribbling in his notebook while Higgins is cross examined as if she was the guilty party disgusts me. The silence and duplicity of Lehrmann’s employers as well.

[arthwollipot]

Absolutely. This whole situation has been a **** show. If the government wants to give the impression that they take sexual assault seriously, this is not the way to do it.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lionking

The fact that Lehrmann can sit silent while scribbling in his notebook while Higgins is cross examined as if she was the guilty party disgusts me.

The right to silence (as is the burden of proof on the prosecution) is essential for justice. Otherwise, an accused person could be forced to testify against themselves and found guilty simply because a skillful prosecutor can trip up the accused without providing any evidence.

Of course, Higgins should not be prosecuted simply because she complained about this.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Of course, Higgins should not be prosecuted simply because she complained about this.

I completely agree with you on this.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The right to silence (as is the burden of proof on the prosecution) is essential for justice. Otherwise, an accused person could be forced to testify against themselves and found guilty simply because a skillful prosecutor can trip up the accused without providing any evidence.

Of course, Higgins should not be prosecuted simply because she complained about this.

Please stop telling me things I already know. I acknowledged this in my post. I still do not agree with it. Criminal trials are meant to be adversarial. It’s hard for that to happen if one side refuses to testify.

But this is the subject for another thread.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lionking

Please stop telling me things I already know. I acknowledged this in my post. I still do not agree with it. Criminal trials are meant to be adversarial. It’s hard for that to happen if one side refuses to testify.

But this is the subject for another thread.

You actually argued against the right to silence. We have enough innocent people in prisons without reversing the burden of proof.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Higgins has been referred to the AFP over her comment she made after the mistrial.

Isn't there a criminal offence of wasting police time?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Isn't there a criminal offence of wasting police time?

Not in the ACT.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The right to silence (as is the burden of proof on the prosecution) is essential for justice. Otherwise, an accused person could be forced to testify against themselves and found guilty simply because a skillful prosecutor can trip up the accused without providing any evidence.

Of course, Higgins should not be prosecuted simply because she complained about this.

But the defendant should be put on the stand and cross examined. Let the jury decixe whether they are guilty or not.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by lionking

Not in the ACT.

That's just stupid.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

But the defendant should be put on the stand and cross examined. Let the jury decixe whether they are guilty or not.

Why should we reverse a legal principle that has stood for centuries? Just because you are sympathetic to Higgins?

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why should we reverse a legal principle that has stood for centuries? Just because you are sympathetic to Higgins?

Let them take the stand and verbalise their unwillingness to offer a testimony in their own defence. It doesn't impact their rights and it will also balance the fact that the injured party is subject to far more scrutiny than the euspected offender.

[catsmate]

I fail to see a significant risk, in most civilised jurisdictions, from requiring an accused person to testify; they have representation and most judges are quite careful over the treatment of witnesses.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Let them take the stand and verbalise their unwillingness to offer a testimony in their own defence. It doesn't impact their rights and it will also balance the fact that the injured party is subject to far more scrutiny than the euspected offender.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I recall you posting that people sometimes misinterpret you. When a laughing dog is all you have to offer, it’s no wonder you are misinterpreted.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lionking

I recall you posting that people sometimes misinterpret you. When a laughing dog is all you have to offer, it’s no wonder you are misinterpreted.

Sometimes a laughing dog is the most appropriate response when dealing with such a silly claim.

Face it, the reasoning is that the victim is a pretty girl therefore the accused should have no rights whatsoever. Let's just move straight on to the sentencing hearing.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Sometimes a laughing dog is the most appropriate response when dealing with such a silly claim.

Face it, the reasoning is that the victim is a pretty girl therefore the accused should have no rights whatsoever. Let's just move straight on to the sentencing hearing.

That is not how I interpret it at all. You know that there some legal processes where people are compelled to testify (from memory Royal Commissions and some Anti-Corruption commissions). GF is saying that the defendant should give evidence in a rape trial, which is almost always “he said, she said”. I understand and sympathise with his opinion.

So, off you go. Throw a laughing dog at me.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lionking

GF is saying that the defendant should give evidence in a rape trial, which is almost always “he said, she said”. I understand and sympathise with his opinion.

I see no reason to reverse the burden of proof as you wish to. It has been a long standing legal principle that in criminal trials the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to prove their innocence nor should they be prevented from facing their accusers.

Even with this limitation, too many innocent people still get found "guilty" and sentenced.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I see no reason to reverse the burden of proof as you wish to. It has been a long standing legal principle that in criminal trials the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to prove their innocence nor should they be prevented from facing their accusers.

Even with this limitation, too many innocent people still get found "guilty" and sentenced.

Of course I understand that. I also believe that where cases rely almost entirely on the credibility of a victim or a defendant, it is at least arguable that a defendant, who has been charged after a due process, should be compelled to say something. I do not find that argument laughable.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lionking

Of course I understand that. I also believe that where cases rely almost entirely on the credibility of a victim or a defendant, it is at least arguable that a defendant, who has been charged after a due process, should be compelled to say something. I do not find that argument laughable.

The laughable part was the claim that it wouldn't impact on the rights of the accused.

The sole motivation for compelling an accused to testify is to make it easier to convict which is quite an impact on their rights.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by lionking

That is not how I interpret it at all. You know that there some legal processes where people are compelled to testify (from memory Royal Commissions and some Anti-Corruption commissions). GF is saying that the defendant should give evidence in a rape trial, which is almost always “he said, she said”. I understand and sympathise with his opinion.

So, off you go. Throw a laughing dog at me.

I'm not even saying that. I'm just advocating that the defendant should have to take the stand in their own trial. If they want to parrot "no comment" to everything, well the jury can come to their own conclusions.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

I'm not even saying that. I'm just advocating that the defendant should have to take the stand in their own trial. If they want to parrot "no comment" to everything, well the jury can come to their own conclusions.

Thanks for clarifying.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

I'm not even saying that. I'm just advocating that the defendant should have to take the stand in their own trial. If they want to parrot "no comment" to everything, well the jury can come to their own conclusions.

This is a ridiculous compromise and you have suggested it for one reason and one reason only - to make it easier to secure a conviction without the inconvenient requirement of needing evidence.

Attitudes like yours are the reason that we must vigorously oppose and watering down of the rights of the accused. Far be it for me to make a "slippery slope" argument but once the principle exists that the rights of the accused are negotiable, there will be constant calls for the rights to be watered down even further every time there is an "unfair" acquittal.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is a ridiculous compromise and you have suggested it for one reason and one reason only - to make it easier to secure a conviction without the inconvenient requirement of needing evidence.

Attitudes like yours are the reason that we must vigorously oppose and watering down of the rights of the accused. Far be it for me to make a "slippery slope" argument but once the principle exists that the rights of the accused are negotiable, there will be constant calls for the rights to be watered down even further every time there is an "unfair" acquittal.

Can you please get back to the Albanese years? Yes I know I’ve been involved in this derail.

[arthwollipot]

The Greens are suggesting a four-day work week again. Otherwise it's not that interesting. Parliament isn't sitting so we don't have that excitement. Unless you're interested in this:

Number of underperforming super funds reduced and fees cut under Coalition reforms, thinktank finds

Quote:

Grattan Institute urges Albanese government to retain strict criteria and annual performance tests

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The Greens are suggesting a four-day work week again.

From what I have seen, this could have positive impacts on productivity but don't expect to see it happen any time soon. The coalition would never go for it and Labor would be too scared of a negative coalition campaign to try it.

Incidentally, with the worst of the pandemic behind us, we see state Premiers urging workers to get out of their homes and travel back to the city to work. Classic vertical thinking.