Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'research'

Tag Archives: research

Once was lost but…

How convenient is this for Gillard and Labor?

A FILE detailing Julia Gillard’s role in helping set up a union slush fund from which her former boyfriend stole hundreds of thousands of dollars has disappeared.

Law firm Slater & Gordon yesterday said it could find no documents relating to the work done by Ms Gillard — a former salaried partner of the firm — in establishing the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association in 1992.

Police believe the association was used by Ms Gillard’s former boyfriend and senior AWU official Bruce Wilson to steal more than $400,000, including about $100,000 which helped fund the purchase of a Fitzroy unit bought with Ms Gillard’s professional assistance.

Slater & Gordon managing director Andrew Grech told The Age last night that the firm had not been able to locate any documents relating to the controversial transaction.
‘‘We have not been able to identify any such documents following extensive searches of our archival records,’’ Mr Grech said.

‘‘If there are such documents, we don’t have them. They could have been misplaced, or lost. I simply don’t know.’’

Gee if I did not know better I would have to think that maybe someone is protecting a certain ranga’s arse by misplacing an embarrassing file in the office shredder….
Oh the joys of Labor in power….

Cheers Comrades

Three strikes and you will be named! Name and shame child offenders proposed in Queensland

Although I am not a Christian I do believe in social redemption and when it comes to juveniles who commit crimes I am as ready as anyone to give them a shot at turning around their lives and hopefully becoming worthwhile citizens who make our a better society. However how many times should we be willing to allow juveniles the benefit of anonymity when they have faced the courts?  Frankly does anyone think that the chances of someone who has offended often enough to serve five periods of detention  before they reach their majority actually turning their behaviour around   are  very high?  Sadly I don’t think that the chances are measurable. to be honest.

So I am entirely unimpressed by the so called “civil liberties” arguments put against the naming of juvenile repeat offenders when they come before the courts. Its time that the bleeding hearts stop thinking that there is no such thing as a “bad” child. There certainly are individuals who begin their criminal careers at an early age and they are destined to a life of crime and that they will be immune to any attempts to “reform” them. Now while I readily admit that these individuals may well come from situations of abuse and social despair but there has to be a point at which society’s need to be protected from their aberrant and abhorrent behaviour out weighs the very small possibility that they may be redeemed.

  It may be arbitrary but “three strikes and you will be named”  seems to be a place to start. If a young offender commits two crimes that result in periods of detention then their next offence should lose them any right to have their names and images suppressed.

Cheers Comrades


It probably won’t surprise anyone that our learned friend has come out fighting for the right of juveniles to be treated very softly by the courts even when they are clearly repeat offenders

Here’s their latest effort:

Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie wants all juvenile offenders to be publicly named when they attend court, unless a judge orders otherwise.

Currently children can only be identified when a judge deems the case warrants naming.

Wait, what? Does Bleijie not understand that the reason for emphasising rehabilitation over deterrence with young people is that their brains aren’t fully formed and the clear evidence is that deterrence is far less effective than programs to redirect their lives? That giving them a criminal history early on simply prevents them from ever having a hope of doing something else with their lives?

Any realist would not make the mistake of thinking that someone who has established a pattern of repeated offending by the time they are an adolescent is extremely unlikely  to be reformable or that they will ever do anything else with their lives. Our learned friend think that even with a chance of them being rehabilitated at an immeasurably low level we should still pretend that they can be “saved” ? Name them and then if they keep their noses clean for a decade then let them “forget” about their record as we do here in Queensland.

Mr Bleijie says most children who appear in court are repeat offenders and naming them could force them to take responsibility for their actions.

“A lot of young repeat offenders who know that the reporters and journalists can’t report names, come out of court smiling and living among their communities and the communities ought to have a right to know,” he said.

“And also if there’s a little bit of community pressure put on these young people, perhaps it will actually deter these young people from committing these crimes in the future.”

Actually, you blithering idiot, that’s exactly the way to turn young, impressionable people into lifelong criminals. Young people committing crimes are more likely to respond to severe censure by defiantly identifying with criminal peers. It takes maturity to learn to evaluate risk properly and it takes maturity to persevere through difficult circumstances.

I think the person who is blithering here is our learned friend if he really thinks that a juvenile who has been repeatedly  before the courts and had several spells in juvenile detention has not already become a lifelong criminal. Further the fact that they have repeatedly failed to respond to the modest ” censure” of the juvenile justice system should tell him that his preferred option is not working for those repeat offenders .

Completely destroying a kid’s life if they don’t make decisions like a rational adult is incredibly counterproductive.

How many chances does he want to give these young  toe rags? Surely its good sense to draw a line at a certain number of times that these offenders should be treated with leniency when they come before the courts? A clear expectation that they have to show at least some improvement in their behaviour before they are given the metaphorical slap on the wrist for any  subsequent offence? our learned friend surely can be so naive that he believes that every one of these repeat offenders can be reformed?

First Robert Clark in Victoria, now Bleijie in Queensland. What is it with right-wing Attorneys-General and a pigheaded bloody-minded determination to stomp about in a field they clearly barely understand, dismantling systems that have been developed for a good reason, refusing to listen to experts and making matters worse?

Ah maybe there is a clue here in his conclusion; its his arrogance that anyone from outside the lawyers club should dare to have an opinion about justice and the role of the law in our society. One does not have to be a lawyer to understand that just because there is a “good reason” for a particular system it does not mean that it actaully works. The idea of treating the so called “children” as if they are redeemable when they have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren’t  is leftist  driven nonsense of the worst kind. But then what do you expect from our learned friend?

Tell Julia what you think of the ALP

The ALP want to know what its “members and supporters” think about it and to that end they are running a survey:

click to tell Julia what you think about our oldest political party

Of course as I get their email I did the survey….
Cheers Comrades

Tony Abbott doing what Labor should have done in the firstplace

There is much to praise in this announcement from Tony Abbott…

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott addresses the Institute of Public Affairs at the Grand Hyatt in Melbourne. Picture: Stuart Mcevoy Source: The Australian

Citing the adverse findings made by Fair Work Australia against the HSU’s Victorian branch, Mr Abbott says if the offences had occurred in a company with directors, the offenders would have been exposed to criminal penalties including personal fines of up to $200,000 and up to five years’ imprisonment.

Under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, individuals face lesser civil penalties of up to $2200.

In an address to the Victorian Liberal state council, Mr Abbott will assert his plan is about greater transparency, accountability and “protecting the interests of low-paid union members”.

“Australian workers who join trade unions deserve to know that their membership fees are being used for proper purposes,” he will tell Liberal Party delegates.

“The worst aspect of the HSU scandal is that 70,000 low-paid workers have had their hard-earned money misspent by union officials on political campaigns and escort services. Why shouldn’t the low-paid members of unions be afforded the same protections as shareholders?”

Under the Coalition proposal, the penalties i8n the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 would be the same as those in the Corporations Act 2001.

The Coalition intends to change the guidelines on financial disclosure and reporting so “they align more closely with those applicable to companies and that required by the ASX corporate governance rules”.


Sadly there is also good reason to be sad that it takes the coalition to do what the Labor party should have done to protect the interests of workers when it comes to the misuse of union funds as exemplified by the allegations against Craig Thompson

Cheers Comrades

Craig Thomson, Julia Gillard’s tainted love?

Yesterday I compared the Craig Thomson affair to Cancer and if I can extend the analogy just a little  further  a little I would suggest that it is a terminal cancer, not only will it be be end for the member for Dobell  but it is  certainly causing serious damage to the greater body of the Government party. No matter how much of the Radiotherapy of government spin is applied to this cancer the tumour just keeps dividing and growing and making itself more prominent.

click for source

Of course a far more healthy patient that the Gillard Government would have long ago excised the cancer while it was still small enough to be removed without killing the patient, but Gillard does not lead a healthy party. hers is a government that has been on life support since it got its collective bums on the treasury benches and there is no prospect of the machine that goes ping being unnecessary any time soon. Of course Conservatives like me can bathe in the Schadenfreude of this government’s woes but we should all be rather saddened that a bad government continues to do damage to the nation because its cancer treatment is managing to keep the tumour at bay even as the rot spreads further and further through the the Party’s root system. What I keep thinking is when are the hard heads in the party’s immune system going to realise that if the party is to survive beyond the term of this government that the tumour has to be excised?

Cheers Comrades

%d bloggers like this: