Australian Politics
Bruce Lehrman was not guilty but the Federal government was?
The litigation stemming from the accusation of rape levelled at Bruce Lehrman by Brittany Higgins is still very much ongoing but I think a major anomaly in the matter needs to be highlighted
Allegations of rape do not normally go to trial unless the police foresee a substantial probability of a conviction resulting. The police did not see sufficient grounds to proceed in the case of the Higgins allegations. But as a result of political pressure, an attempt was made to prosecute Lehrman. So the evidence for the allegation was weak from the beginning. The prosecution failed without a verdict being rendered so Lehrman continued to benefit from an assumption of innocence.
In the absence of a guilty verdict in the matter, one would have thought that all possibilty of a damages claim would be lost. There is nothing that you could sue Bruce Lehrman for. So how could Higgins get a payout for her allegations? How could she get a payout for something that did not happen?
She did get a payout and she did so by suing the government. Apparently, the government could be guilty even if the respondent in the rape claim was not.
That is a very strange set of circumstances. How could the government be guilty when the alleged rape at the centre of the matter had not been proven to take place?
But the government was simply a much softer touch. They did not ask for evidence of anything. An accusation alone was enough for them to throw taxpayer money at Ms Higgins without further enquiry.
And note that the payout was broken down so that only a small amount was for legal expenses. Most of the payment was for losses and damages alleged suffered by Higgins, something for which we have her word only.
So the payout was clearly an abuse of justice. If a mere accusation is enough to inspire a government payout, why do we have courts at all?
The Albanese government paid Brittany Higgins more than $2.4m compensation in a settlement that relied entirely upon the former Liberal staffer’s version of events, despite contrary versions from key witnesses who were excluded from a single-day mediation of her claim.
Lawyers described both the amount and the speed of the settlement – finalised just days after Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial was abandoned in the ACT Supreme Court – as “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”.
The deed of settlement between Ms Higgins and the commonwealth was released on Thursday in the defamation trial brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson over Ms Higgins’ allegation on The Project that she was raped by him in Parliament House in 2019, after her lawyers successfully asked that personal medical information be excluded.
Justice Michael Lee, presiding over the trial, had earlier stated there was “a disparity between the evidence (Ms Higgins) gave in these proceedings and the truth of the matter”, which made the settlement deed “substantially relevant”.
The document shows that the commonwealth did not admit it had breached its duty of care to Ms Higgins when it paid her the multimillion-dollar settlement, contrary to claims she made to the court earlier this week.
The document reveals that the federal government ensured it was released from any future claims by Ms Higgins but left former Liberal ministers Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash open to further legal action by the former staffer, a carve-out clause that was not fully communicated to either of the two senators.
Ms Higgins testified on Tuesday that “the commonwealth admitted that they breached their duty of care and that they didn’t go through proper processes, so that’s actually why they settled with me”.
However, the deed of settlement – dated December 13, 2022 – expressly states that the parties have agreed to resolve all claims between them “without any admissions of liability”.
The one-day mediation took place 10 days after ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold announced he would not be proceeding with a retrial of rape charges against Mr Lehrmann due to Ms Higgins’ fragile mental health.
The deed shows that the total amount paid to Ms Higgins was $2.445m, not $2.3m as the former staffer stated in the Federal Court on Tuesday.
Ms Higgins received $1.48m for loss of earning capacity for 40 years; $400,000 for hurt, distress and humiliation; $220,000 for medical expenses; $100,000 for “past and future domestic assistance”; and $245,000 for legal costs.
************************************************
Our lost leaders
Albo thought he could lead but is now crippled -- both politically and psychologically -- by his huge blunder with the "Voice"
We are living through an age of extreme populism, meaning the mainstream political class rarely has the courage of its convictions. If indeed there still are convictions among modern leaders. The recipe for political success these days is dictated by winning, little more.
When politics shifted from a calling to a vocation, it professionalised, so that entering parliament became little different to entering the workforce.
That’s the benign loss of conviction we see domestically.
Overseas the rise and rise of populism is manifesting in far more scary ways. Perhaps we should be grateful.
Finding ways to secure three more years in office rather than putting policy passion first is now the key performance indicator Australian mainstream politicians judge themselves by. Which is why I’m not entirely critical of Anthony Albanese’s decision to seek a voice to parliament via constitutional reform.
Sure, the campaign was poorly crafted and badly argued, and the need to enshrine such change was questionable in the first place. But at least he was prepared to have a crack, in a policy area he believes in, in a political climate in which change is becoming harder to achieve.
Unfortunately, the lesson learnt in failure is that political reward for effort is questionable, meaning further passion in policy is unlikely. Subsequently, pursuing constitutional reform to become a republic has been ruled out, even though becoming a republic is part of Labor’s policy platform. Even though the Prime Minister appointed an Assistant Minister for the Republic.
What republic? What advocacy for a republic? What agenda or timeline to one day become a republic? As embarrassing as this executive position now is, it will be even more embarrassing if it’s not junked at the next reshuffle.
When populism always trumps ideological or policy convictions the mantra from political leaders becomes “I am your leader, let me follow you”, rather than displays of leadership enacting unpopular but necessary reforms. Political scientists have studied representation and leadership theory for decades. The form of leadership we increasingly are seeing today fits within the delegate model: elected politicians simply reflecting the will of their community rather than seeking to shape it.
Which to a certain extent is fine for local MPs championing their constituencies; parish-pump politicians looking to secure local funding for roads and community halls or outcomes for individual voters who seek their assistance.
But much more is needed when it comes to executive government. The trustee model of representation essentially calls on political leaders to do what they believe is in the best interests of voters, even if it’s not always the popular course of action.
Eighteenth century conservative philosopher Edmund Burke championed such leadership. It resulted in a very short political career when he announced such intentions shortly after election to the British House of Commons. He was voted out at the next election.
While there is rarely virtue in putting principles ahead of pragmatism all the time, it’s important for politicians to retain some policy integrity along the way.
Political leaders, having been briefed by their bureaucracy on the various needs of the nation, should determine that major reforms are necessary and worth the political risk, even if voters aren’t necessarily equipped to automatically agree. Especially if the recommendations from the bureaucracy fit within their party’s ideological platform and their own values.
It is the job of politicians to win the argument championing necessary reforms. That skill is waning. To be sure, ideological reforms have long been championed in this way, such as when British prime minister Margaret Thatcher pushed her economic agenda in the 1980s, proclaiming: “Yes, the medicine is harsh, but the patient requires it in order to live.” Her concern was Britain’s declining economy and international standing. Thatcher’s turn of phrase was reserved for her cabinet because in politics such frank proclamations rarely are well received.
Modern politicking and “gotcha” journalism work against the ability for politicians to make unpopular decisions. The contest of ideas that ideological differences generate naturally adds to the difficulty of enacting policies. But it has become worse than that. Pragmatism now dictates how oppositions calibrate what they choose to support and oppose more so than ideological differences do.
You can’t blame politicians for opposing what their convictions disagree with, but what about when opposition is dictated by nothing more than political advantage?
Plenty within the commentariat are quick to level this accusation at Peter Dutton, for example, because of his opposition to the voice. I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment; his convictions led him to that position when opposing the voice was decidedly unpopular, as those same commentators were quick to report. But there are other examples where the Coalition is led by populism in opposition rather than ideology. This transformation has become so entrenched that convictions seem to entail little more than kowtowing to the mob. They have become intertwined with populism.
The catch-22 for anyone who supports heady reforms (economic or social) as we count down to the next election in the coming 12 months is that the government doesn’t have policy courage, burnt by the voice campaign.
Meanwhile, the opposition is unlikely to support necessary but unpopular reforms because it sees political advantage in wedging Labor, even if the government finds a policy backbone.
Gone are the days of Paul Keating and Bob Hawke doing what’s right but unpopular. Also gone are the days when the Coalition in opposition puts the national interest above political advantage, as John Howard did in the 1980s, backing many of Keating’s micro-economic ideas against the urgings of Liberal Party strategists.
Thirty years on, everyone knows the Australian federation is broken structurally and in need of reform, but no one in a position of political power is prepared to risk doing something about it. This isn’t an ideological debate, yet it still isn’t on the political agenda.
The same goes for the need to institute wholesale tax reforms. Instead, what we get are piecemeal changes at best, such as the stages one, two and three income tax cuts, unconnected from adjustments to wealth, consumption and rent tax reforms.
Who in mainstream politics will risk their career by bucking the trend – to lead, rather than follow?
***********************************************
Back to School Warning on Forced Marriage of Students
Our charming Muslim population I guess
Australian school communities are being urged to watch out for signs of forced marriage and raise the alarm if they suspect a student is in danger.
Teachers and classmates are often best placed to spot human trafficking, according to Australian Federal Police.
A family history of leaving education early, being uneasy about an upcoming family holiday, concerns about marrying at a young age and being worried about physical or psychological violence are common signs to look out for, the force said.
Red flags also include control outside the home, such as surveillance, having limited control over finances or life decisions and restricted communications.
Commander Helen Schneider said most reported victims are young women and girls but it can also affect men and boys.
“Forced marriage is not limited to any cultural group, religion or ethnicity,” Commander Schneider said.
“Anyone can be a victim of forced marriage, regardless of their age, gender or sexual orientation.”
Police define the crime as person entering marriage due to coercion, threats, deception or without fully consenting due to factors like mental capacity or age.
It’s been a crime in Australia since 2013 and applies to legal, cultural or religious ceremonies here and overseas.
Federal police received 340 reports of human trafficking, including forced marriage and sexual servitude, in 2022/23.
That’s a 15.6 percent increase on the previous 12 months, with Commander Schneider describing the rise as encouraging considering it’s thought to be under reported.
“Disrupting human trafficking represents an excellent outcome, unlike other crime types where we focus on prosecution,” she explained.
“Instead of prosecuting a forced marriage, if we can prevent it from occurring in the first place, then it’s a positive outcome for would-be victims and investigators.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/back-to-school-warning-on-forced-marriage-of-students-5570258
*************************************************More anti-car policies from Greens
Brisbane could be harder for drivers but easier for cyclists and pedestrians under a sweeping proposal by the Greens to "de-prioritise" cars in favour of people.
The Streets for People Plan includes 100 "traffic-calming projects" designed to slow or reduce the number of cars in Brisbane's neighbourhoods.
As part of the plan, the party has vowed to spend $500 million over the next four years on 200 pedestrian crossings, 35 kilometres of bike lanes and 200km of footpaths.
Brisbane LNP deputy mayor Krista Adams said Brisbane drivers should be "very concerned" about the possibility of the Greens getting into power.
She said the party's "radical agenda" would mean higher taxes and less funding for road infrastructure.
"This latest attack on motorists by the Greens' self-declared anarchist candidate is further proof that anyone who owns a car in Brisbane should be terrified about a Green/Labor coalition of chaos running City Hall," Cr Adams said.
"This reckless and costly plan will cause widespread traffic chaos and force Brisbane households to pay higher rates and rents."
Plan to end 'car-centrism'
Greens mayoral candidate Jonathan Sriranganathan said his party's plan would put pedestrians first and free families from car dependency.
Mr Sriranganathan, a longstanding critic of "car-centrism", said the major parties had prioritised wider roads and more cars at the expense of everybody else.
He said Brisbane's walking and cycling network was full of gaps, which meant pedestrians had to "live in fear" because of the car-centric city planning.
"If you wouldn't feel safe letting your child walk or ride to school, that shows our active transport infrastructure isn't up to scratch," Mr Sriranganathan said.
"Wherever you go in the world, the most popular and pleasant neighbourhoods are the ones where cars are de-prioritised … we want Brisbane streets to serve as vibrant public spaces where active transport comes first."
Close calls
Greens Paddington candidate Seal Chong Wah said her ward was neither safe nor convenient for pedestrians.
Ms Wah said she'd been told by Paddington locals about close calls with traffic, particularly those with limited mobility.
The Brisbane mum said she witnessed the issue firsthand, when two students narrowly avoided being hit by a large four-wheeled drive at Rosalie Village.
"One of the very first acts of the new LNP councillor was to cancel a vital pedestrian crossing project at Rosalie Village," Ms Wah said.
"Rosalie Village is a beautiful community hub packed with local businesses, cafes and restaurants, but everyone knows it's not safe for pedestrians."
The plan also includes protected bike lanes on 15 high-priority corridors and lower speed limits on certain residential streets.
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment