Murodese posted:

There's some good stuff in Hockey's speech, such as this gem:


$540 x inflation since 1994 (70.4%) = $920

hmmmmmmm

quote:

In real terms, average equivalised disposable household income did not show any significant change between 2009-10 ($894) and 2011-12 ($918). In 2007-08 there was a break in series due to the improvements in measuring income introduced in that cycle. Adjusting for the break in series the net increase between 1994-95 and 2011-12 was 49%.

Contra Duck posted:

Yeah here's the ABS's take on it from 2013:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6523.0Main+Features22011-12?OpenDocument


Some interesting other figures in that paper too. I especially like the income equality tables that show our Gini coefficient reaching a low point in 1996 before rising to a huge peak in 2007. Wonder what happened between those years?

Contra Duck posted:

Some interesting other figures in that paper too. I especially like the income equality tables that show our Gini coefficient reaching a low point in 1996 before rising to a huge peak in 2007. Wonder what happened between those years?

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Maybe everyone can get jobs checking up on whether everyone else is applying to forty jobs a month?

Cartoon posted:

Which doesn't work out very well, for Centerlink when you show proof that you did go to them. The whole system is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time, sham farce etc. Also as a small business owner I resent your remark. I'm only an arsehole part time.

Cleretic posted:

Yeeeeah, gently caress that one. My sisters aren't terribly fantastic role models for anything, given one's a high school dropout and the other worked at Pizza Hut for nearly a decade until moving away, but both of them agreed on one thing: No fast food jobs, no retail jobs.

monolithburger posted:

This is the thread to bitch about being unemployed, right?

Gough Suppressant posted:

People should actually be forced to work these types of lovely job at some time in their life because that might make them realise that the people working them are not actually subhuman filth and shouldn't be treated as such

Ian Winthorpe III posted:

I'll consider their arguments, empathize with their circumstances and respond accordingly. Abiding rigidly to a sentiment like 'When women are speaking, shut the gently caress up and listen' is a recipe for placing a fool like Gina Reinhart upon a large ute-shaped pedestal.

Gough Suppressant posted:

Also IWC is basically the prime example of why anyone who argues that tone is an indicator of quality of idea is a loving dickhead(also probably a tory fuckhead because tone arguments are used almost exclusively to protect an established status quo)

Bent Wookiee posted:

I'm looking at spraying some money at some charities before the end of the financial year. Can anyone suggest some decent Australian charities that are worthy of my mulah, or what to steer clear of?

The shortlist is currently the Greens and Mission Australia. Mission seem to do good work, and despite being Christian-based, and unlike the Salvos, aren't actively petitioning against abortion, gay marriage or euthanasia.

Haters Objector posted:

What if doing fun things is what makes life worth living and you don't want to buy a house 50km out of the city because that's the only place you can afford to buy without tithing 50% of your pay to the bank for the next 30 years?

Haters Objector posted:

WebDog posted:

Yup, show up around 6.30-7, drink and moan.

Mr Chips posted:

Stop bludging and get a job. Once you get that minimum wage job licking toilet bowls, enjoy paying more tax than I do thanks to my negatively geared investment properties and novated car lease and private hospital cover rebates.

Gough Suppressant posted:

People should actually be forced to work these types of lovely job at some time in their life because that might make them realise that the people working them are not actually subhuman filth and shouldn't be treated as such

Senor Tron posted:

The intent is you apply at supermarkets and fast food and anything like that.

euler posted:

Fast food doesn't hire anyone over 20 because they'd have to pay minimum wage, instead of a percentage of it.

Night Shade posted:

With the budget cuts to centrelink? Not likely. Unless they decide to retask the green army.

Chris Pynes Knob posted:

do you get your filipino slave labour to write cover letters for you too

or just mash the submit button?


i get filipinos to write my GBS posts for me as well, I pay them by the number of emptyquotes i get

Chris Pynes Knob posted:

i get filipinos to write my GBS posts for me as well, I pay them by the number of emptyquotes i get

KennyTheFish posted:

Is it the place in rundle mall?

Message from the Vice-Chancellor: Federal budget update posted:

Dear students,

I write to update you on our work on the higher education reforms proposed by the Australian Government in its budget.

First, I should respond to an unfortunate aspect of the higher education debate as it has been conducted in the media. Some universities and other commentators have claimed that older universities with excellent research capacity are not just elite, but elitist. In reality, nothing is further from the truth. It is true that some of some of our students have privileged backgrounds, but it is also true that most of our domestic offers go to applicants from middle-income suburbs. We are a place for the finest minds wherever they live.

The University of Sydney was founded on the principle that academic merit alone, regardless of religious beliefs or social class, would be the test for admission. In the 1880s we were among the first universities in the world to admit women on the same basis as men. Our founders recognised the power of education to change society and we hold that belief just as strongly today. It is with these beliefs in mind that we approach any change in the policy and funding environment.

Second, since my last email I have been active in the media arguing for several measures to be fairer. I have restated my support for fee deregulation, because those with the ability to pay should not be subsidised by those who cannot. Universities are also better able to balance quality and access than government bureaucrats. I have also argued strongly for a more generous scholarship regime to ensure that those from middle-income families, not just those from formally identified disadvantaged groups, continue to see a University of Sydney education as an attainable goal. You can read more about my views in this Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece.

Third, we have also, privately and publicly, lobbied the government to look at the terms of the proposed loan scheme with the aim of making it more affordable. You will be aware that the government has proposed reducing the income level at which students must start to repay their loans, changing when they must start repayments, and adjusting the basis for calculating interest on their loans. I am very concerned about the impact of the repayment threshold on our students’ capacity to take on important, but lower-paying jobs, and also on women.

Fourth, we have urged the government to drop its plans to deregulate fees for students studying higher degrees by research. Given we are not sure what the impact of fee deregulation will be on demand, we are very concerned about the impact of these changes on higher degrees by research, in particular on Australia’s capacity to produce a world-class research workforce.

I have reason to believe that the government is taking these concerns seriously, though we are unlikely to see any movement in the government’s position before the relevant legislation goes to the Senate in July.

Fifth, in the meantime, we are discussing the principles that might govern our response to fee deregulation and the $65 million cut in funding that the government’s budget imposes. I will be in touch over the next few weeks to outline how this conversation will be continued with the University community, including arrangements for consultation with the student representative organisations. One thing is clear: if we are to have new fee arrangements for 2016, we need to be in a position to announce those arrangements before the January 2015 Open Day. Any other timetable would be unfair to prospective students.

I will continue to keep you informed about our efforts to influence these reforms, and our actions to ensure we are ready for whatever emerges from the Australian Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Michael Spence
Vice-Chancellor and Principal

quote:

MARK COLVIN: The man who ran the corruption inquiry that transformed Queensland has described Campbell Newman's Government as "megalomaniacs".

Tony Fitzgerald, QC, was reacting to the Government's appointment of chief magistrate Tim Carmody as the state's new chief justice.

Mr Fitzgerald describes the Government as "people whose ambitions exceed their ability". And he says they're prepared to damage even fundamental institutions like the Supreme Court and cast doubt on fundamental principles like the independence of the judiciary.

Tim Carmody was only appointed chief magistrate last September, and in the meantime he's caused controversy by backing a number of the Premier's political initiatives, such as the anti bikie laws. That's led to questions about the separation of powers.

Stephanie Smail reports.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: Tim Carmody's elevation to chief justice ends months of rumour and speculation about who would win the job.

Queensland's Premier Campbell Newman has described Judge Carmody as a self-made man with plenty of legal and life experience.

CAMPBELL NEWMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, Tim Carmody has the credentials, has the CV, has the life experience, has the expertise in the law and is the leader our court system and our legal system needs in this state.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: The 58-year-old is a former police officer who became a barrister in 1982. He served as counsel assisting to the Fitzgerald inquiry into corruption in the late 1980s and is a former Queensland crime commissioner and Family Court Judge.

But the appointment has met staunch criticism from some of Queensland's top legal minds, including Tony Fitzgerald himself.

In a statement Mr Fitzgerald writes: "It's deeply troubling that the megalomaniacs currently holding power in Queensland are prepared to damage even fundamental institutions like the Supreme Court and cast doubt on fundamental principles like the independence of the judiciary."

The state's former solicitor-general, Walter Sofronoff, is also critical. He claims Judge Carmody showed support for the Newman Government's tough anti-bikie laws and argues his appointment could be seen as a reward for apparent political loyalty.

The new chief justice has rejected those assertions.

TIM CARMODY: I am fiercely independent. If my views happen to coincide with the Government's views, that's pure coincidence.

There will be many times when I disagree with the Government's position, but again, that's irrelevant to the job I'm doing. And I have the training and the long experience to be able to put aside my personal views to do the job that's required in the public interest.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: Tim Carmody only took on the role of chief magistrate last year, but he argues he can and will do the job of chief justice, despite some opinions he shouldn't.

TIM CARMODY: It's as bad to be biased against a government as it is for a government. No judge should be biased either way.

We uphold the rule of law. That includes respect for government's right to make the laws. Whether they're popular, perceived to be right or wrong, is irrelevant to us. We make laws according to principle, not private opinion.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: George Fryberg is a former Queensland Supreme Court judge. He says he hasn't seen any evidence of political bias. But he claims Judge Carmody lacks the experience, work ethic and intelligence that are needed for the top job.

GEORGE FRYBERG: For the chief justice, you need qualities like a very powerful intellectual ability. Tim's quite bright, but I don't think he's in the league that is required for chief justice.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: Justice Fryberg says it's highly unusual to make a chief magistrate a chief justice, and he hasn't been done anywhere in Australia for about 50 years. A supreme court judge is usually picked for the position.

He says it looks like the Queensland Government is trying to make a political point.

GEORGE FRYBERG: The Newman Government seems to have developed a siege mentality regarding the legal profession, and they want to demonstrate that their political power runs to appointing whom they choose, not necessarily someone regarded as appropriate by lawyers, judges or anybody else.

Much the same thing happened 20 or 30 years ago when Joh Bjelke-Petersen wanted to appoint Judge Andrews of the District Court to be chief justice when the obvious appointment was Justice Douglas, the senior judge on the Supreme Court.

That led to a huge controversy where the attorney of the day wouldn't support the premier.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: But Campbell Newman says he's confident with his decision.

CAMPBELL NEWMAN: This bloke is the right bloke to take our courts forward for the next 10 years. He will be an inspirational leader. I know he'll take on the mantle from chief justice Paul de Jersey, and he will lead the courts effectively. And I think importantly he will inspire Queenslanders because they will see that they can do as he has done.

MARK COLVIN: Queensland's Premier Campbell Newman ending Stephanie Smail's report.

Lid posted:

Queensland

quote:

IT IS one of the great virtues of this country that we can usually take for granted the great principles upon which our State and Commonwealth governments stand. The separation of powers and the rule of law usually need not be discussed very much, except among lawyers, and that is a good thing for, when that is so, it means the system is working.

Under our system of responsible, representative constitutional government, the judiciary is one arm of government together with the executive and the legislature. Its integrity, independence and continued existence is guaranteed by the Australian Constitution itself. That the judges are appointed by the Executive is a historical fact but it cannot alter the fundamental proposition that the Supreme Court cannot, must never, be the tool of the Executive or must not even be suspected of being so.

That is why the choice of leader of the Supreme Court is so important. The Chief Justice of Queensland is the leader of one of the three branches of government: the branch which keeps a check upon the legislature and the executive, which may have to decide controversies between a citizen and the executive government.

There can, in the nature of things, only be less than a handful of truly qualified candidates for the position of leader of one of the three arms of government.

In living memory in Queensland there has not been such a controversy about the appointment of a new Chief Justice of Queensland as there has been recently. In the past, the choice of a replacement for a retiring Chief Justice has always been swiftly announced.

The delay in appointment has had a number of regrettable consequences. One of them is that it is believed among the profession that some persons have been lobbying very hard. Whether or not that is true, the circulation of such rumours demeans the Court and its members and infects the process of appointment. It could have been avoided by a prompt announcement.

During the delay in appointment, there has also been the opportunity for those so inclined, in media articles and perhaps elsewhere, to advance as a candidate for appointment a person who is not qualified and who, by his recent actions, has very much disqualified himself.

Beginning with a small article in The Australian in May, the tipping of Chief Magistrate Tim Carmody as the next Chief Justice of Queensland has continued until the lead article in Monday’s The Courier-Mail proposing him as the leading candidate.

This is very disturbing for two reasons.

The first reason is this. Some judges, including heads of jurisdiction, can spend a whole career without having their words printed in the media. Not so Judge Carmody. In October 2013, the Attorney General had just sponsored a new law which made it an offence for members of any association which the Attorney General had “declared” to be a “criminal organisation” to be together in public. Within a month of his appointment, Judge Carmody emailed his fellow magistrates to inform them that “membership of a gang prone to resort to violence as a dispute resolution method can increase the risk of future dangerousness to the point of unacceptability and disqualify an applicant from bail even if there is no flight or other risk.” The Courier Mail reported that the Attorney General “strongly supported” this email. Within a month of publishing that direction, Judge Carmody issued another direction, this time ensuring that bail applications by all persons charged with offences when it is alleged (not proven) that the defendant “is or has any time been a participant in criminal organisation” must be heard in Brisbane. Although the direction was said to have as its object the need to ensure that the hearing is “ready to proceed as fairly as possible without needless delay”, it meant that bail applications from around the State had to be heard in a particular courtroom in Brisbane, the one in which Judge Carmody normally presided. It was therefore widely reported that the direction meant that all such applications would only be heard by Judge Carmody or a magistrate of whom he approved although the statute, that is the law itself, conferred jurisdiction upon every single magistrate to hear bail applications. The Bar Association, understandably, condemned this direction.

Then, in the course of hearing certain bail applications concerning alleged members of a bikie gang, Judge Carmody observed that “it seems there is a new sheriff in town with a low or zero tolerance for criminals and their activities”. This, most unfortunately, if unintentionally, echoed the headline of a story in The Courier-Mail two days earlier entitled “No excuses, it’s straight to jail if Sheriff Bleijie gets his way with judges”. It may well have seemed then, to an observer, that Sheriff Bleijie “got his way” with at least one judge.

If this was not bad enough, in January 2014, on the occasion of the swearing in of two new magistrates, Judge Carmody took the opportunity to lecture other judges not to “meddle in the administration of enacted laws by the executive and departments of state”. This, one would think, was actually the central function of a court, the duty of which is to inquire into the legality of government action when required by a litigant so to do.

Finally, during the controversy surrounding the Attorney General’s breach of confidence concerning discussions he had had with the President of the Court of Appeal, Judge Carmody, alone of the more than a hundred judges and magistrates in the State, “released a statement” to the media to support the politician who had appointed him, Mr Bleijie, to whom he now gave his unqualified and public support – the support of a sitting judge for a politician involved in a political squabble.

The conduct of Judge Carmody in these respects has been viewed with dismay by many members of the profession and, to my knowledge, by several judges. Whatever motives Judge Carmody might have had for saying these things, the consequence is that his impartiality as between citizen and government has been called into question. He is now seen by many reasonable people as political. Yet one vital hallmark of a Supreme Court judge, of any judge, is impartiality and this requires an absolute abstention from politics.

Moreover, the position of Chief Justice requires a lawyer of long experience at the peak of the profession, who commands the general respect of his or her peers and of the wider profession and, very importantly, who has the respect of the judges of the Supreme Court itself. Very few men or women could claim to have any of these qualities let alone all of them. By way of current example, Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, was one of the most talented junior barristers of his day, rightly took silk early and, at the date of his appointment as Chief Justice, had had the benefit of a large practice at the Bar and many, many years as a judge.

Judge Carmody can claim very limited experience to fit him for the role of leadership of the Supreme Court. He became a barrister in 1982. He was appointed to the public service position of Queensland’s Crime Commissioner in 1998. He became a senior counsel after 17 years as a junior barrister and while still Crime Commissioner in 1999. When that position was abolished, he became a judge of the Family Court in 2003. He did not stay on that Court for long. He left that court, just short of five years after his appointment, in 2008 and returned to private practice.

In July, 2012, three months after the election in 2012, Mr Carmody was appointed to chair a commission of inquiry into child protection and presented his report to the government a year later on 1 July 2013. Two and a half months later, Mr Carmody was appointed and sworn in as a District Court Judge and as Chief Magistrate of Queensland. He has never sat as a District Court judge but began his new role as a magistrate.

He is, therefore, a barrister who spent about 16 years as a junior. He was a Crime Commissioner for a very few years and a Family Court Judge for a very few years. He practised as a silk for only a few years. He has never held a position of leadership at the Bar. And he has been a magistrate, albeit the Chief Magistrate, for less than one year.

Opinions among lawyers and judges will always differ about the relative merits of particular candidates for this office. But two things are always clear when such candidates are discussed. A truly suitable Chief Justice must have long experience and successful experience in practice. And he or she must have the confidence of the Court and the profession. There are serving judges of the Supreme Court who satisfy these requirements. But Judge Carmody does not.

Tim Carmody is a very personable and likeable man. I first met him in the late 70s when he would brief me in Public Defence work. We enjoyed our work together, at least, I did. He has many friends at the Bar. The role of Chief Magistrate is an important one and it was one which Judge Carmody was qualified to undertake. There was no criticism or dissension within the profession concerning his appointment when it was made.

But neither that appointment nor his earlier experience qualifies him for the role of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland. That involves no disparagement of Judge Carmody since very few people do have the necessary qualities to fill the office and, in my respectful opinion, at present each of them is a current Supreme Court judge.

Moreover, as a result of his own actions, Judge Carmody’s appointment from Chief Magistrate to the highest judicial office in the State may be seen by many reasonable people as a reward for apparent political loyalty rather than on merit and, therefore, as a corrosion of the impartiality and independence of the Supreme Court and the public’s confidence in it.

Since the Attorney General does not have the insight to do so, Judge Carmody should himself quell this present unfortunate and unhealthy speculation about him by stating forthrightly that he would not accept an appointment to the office of Chief Justice if it were offered to him. He would, thereby, instantly gain the respect of his colleagues, including me.

quote:

I have restated my support for fee deregulation, because those with the ability to pay should not be subsidised by those who cannot.

quote:

Universities are also better able to balance quality and access than government bureaucrats. I have also argued strongly for a more generous scholarship regime to ensure that those from middle-income families, not just those from formally identified disadvantaged groups, continue to see a University of Sydney education as an attainable goal.

Nibbles141 posted:

I wouldn't be surprised if the plan was to gently caress up a % of under 30's then go "welp, getting a job is hard, we better slash the minimum wage and conditions so more jobs open up".

Vahtooch posted:

So I couldn't really find a decent answer for this, but a few pages ago the GFC came up with the standard Australian's response to why we survived it being "Howard left us a surplus" to which someone said was wrong. I get the whole thing with Labor's stimulus package and how good all that was, but what can I use in an argument against someone for saying Howard didn't really help?