OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[The Silverdale Phantom]

That's our TSP.
Geez I think I've just found a home

Our ship is still WT forum.

The crew of the Mary Celeste.

Our beloved Captain @macnaz hasn’t come out of his cabin for many seasons.

Just growling and other strange inhuman noises coming from within, no one is game to knock on his door!

 

[Gronk]

yes, I genuinely don't know. I'm probably leaning more towards not being named. I can't see any public interest in most cases, apart from that the public is interested.

This is the media release from the QLD Attorney General. LINK

There seems to be a need to do this to encourage victims to come forward, as up to 65% of sexual assaults go unreported because of how the "system" works against the victims.

Queensland Government updates justice legislation, removing prohibition on naming alleged sex offenders​

Published Wednesday, 13 September, 2023 at 03:59 PM
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence
The Honourable Yvette D'Ath

• Significant reforms have been passed by State Parliament to strengthen and update Queensland’s courts, tribunals and justice system.
• Changes include allowing alleged offenders to be named prior to committal for prescribed sexual offences, as recommended by the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce.
• Other changes provide for better recognition of the loss of an unborn child due to criminal conduct.

Laws allowing the public naming of people charged with rape and other prescribed sexual offences in Queensland were passed in State Parliament today.
The reforms, contained in the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, were among other legislative amendments to modernise and strengthen Queensland’s laws relating to the operation of courts and tribunals and the justice system.
The key measure will remove restrictions in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (CLSO Act), which currently prohibit reporting of the identity of accused rapists and defendants charged with other prescribed sexual offences prior to committal.
A prescribed sexual offence includes rape, attempt to commit rape, assault with intent to commit rape and sexual assault.
When the laws commence on 3 October 2023, those accused of these sexual offences will be treated the same as individuals charged with any other offence, with details about their identity able to be published, except where it would identify or tend to lead to the identification of the complainant.
Under the new laws, the defendant, their alleged victim(s) or the prosecution can apply to a Queensland court for a non-publication order.
When deciding such applications, the court must consider various matters including any submissions made or views expressed by or on behalf of the alleged victim.
Accredited media entities will have a right of appearance on any application and the court will take reasonable steps to notify them when an application is made.
The reform brings Queensland more closely into line with all other Australian jurisdictions, other than the Northern Territory and is in direct response to a recommendation from the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce.
The new laws also amend the Criminal Code, the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the Youth Justice Act 1992, and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 – as part of a Queensland Government commitment to better recognise the loss of an unborn child due to criminal conduct.
These amendments include a requirement for the courts to treat the death of an unborn child as an aggravating factor during sentencing and will also improve support for families.
The reforms will also clarify provisions relating to qualifications for and disqualification of Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations to provide further protections for members of the community.

Quotes attributable to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Yvette D’Ath:

“The interest of victims is at the forefront of these new reforms.
“Rape and sexual assault are some of the most underreported criminal offences in Australia and we want to support victims to come forward and hold perpetrators to account.
“Under the new laws, those accused of prescribed sexual offences, including rape, will be treated the same as any other individual charged with an offence in Queensland.
“This was a recommendation of the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce and will bring Queensland’s laws in line with most other states and territories.
"We hope that by modernising these laws, even more victim-survivors will be encouraged to report their experience to police.
“Work is currently underway to finalise a guide which will be available prior to commencement, to assist journalists and media organisations when they report on sexual violence matters before the courts.”
“The legislation passed today will also update several laws where the Queensland Government has made a commitment to the community – including recognition of the death of an unborn child due to the actions of an offender,” she said.
“This will ensure courts treat such tragic deaths as an aggravating factor during sentencing.
“The Palaszczuk Government will continue to look at how we can further strengthen our justice system so it will hold offenders accountable and increase the transparency of sentencing decisions to meet community expectations."

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Im not sure there is a direct connection between naming the accused and helping victims. Maybe it’s more of a public policy.

And from time to time I work in the area, so I can speak from experience.

Often the alleged victims want safety, support and justice. Not have their legal affairs paraded in public.

The police systems can be cumbersome and uninviting. Culture factors too.

And the reality is that an ADVO is an order, it does not protect women from a crazed f**kwit.

We need more resources into changing the mind set of assholes as well.

We also need a whole of community condemnation of violence. All violence.

 

[Gronk]

Im not sure there is a direct connection between naming the accused and helping victims. Maybe it’s more of a public policy.

And from time to time I work in the area, so I can speak from experience.

Often the alleged victims want safety, support and justice. Not have their legal affairs paraded in public.

The police systems can be cumbersome and uninviting. Culture factors too.

And the reality is that an ADVO is an order, it does not protect women from a crazed f**kwit.

We need more resources into changing the mind set of assholes as well.

We also need a whole of community condemnation of violence. All violence.

Yep. This is the minister's introduction of the bill

The bill also includes amendments to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 which remove the prohibition on identification of an adult defendant charged with a prescribed sexual offence prior to finalisation of committal proceedings. These amendments are made in response to the government’s commitment to implement recommendation 83 of the second report of the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce. The task force, led by the Hon. Margaret McMurdo AO, concluded that there was no justification for the law to treat defendants who are charged with a prescribed sexual offence differently to those who are charged with any other criminal offence. Under the current law, only defendants charged with rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to rape or sexual assault have their identity protected before committal. Other accused, even alleged murderers, defendants accused of indecently assaulting a child and accused drug traffickers, do not have this protection.

The amendments in the bill mean that there will no longer be a distinction between those prescribed sexual offences and other offences. The amendments will mean that a defendant charged with rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to rape or sexual assault will be able to be identified before committal. This distinction in the current law between these prescribed sexual offences and all other offences is based, in part, on a rape myth. It is based on the idea that the complainant for one of these sexual offences is somehow less reliable than a complainant for any other offence and that a magistrate must scrutinise the complaint before a defendant can be identified. These amendments ensure that the criminal justice system does not continue to perpetuate this outdated rape myth and will ensure that complainants for prescribed sexual offences are treated with the same dignity as complainants for all other offences.

The amendments also align Queensland with almost all other jurisdictions in Australia which permit identification of a defendant during committal proceedings. The amendments also promote open justice, which is fundamental to the administration of justice. The task force heard that victims are reluctant to report sexual offences to police and that conviction rates for these offences are alarmingly low. The task force said that increased media reporting of sexual offences in a trauma informed way can result in more victims coming forward to report sexual offences. The task force said that, if handled sensitively, accurate public reporting may also contribute to positive community discussions about gender-based violence, challenge stereotypes and reduce the level of secrecy and stigma involved. Removing barriers to reporting is essential if we are to hold perpetrators to account. We must lift the veil of secrecy and shame for victims of sexual offences.

The amendments also provide that where there are grounds to do so, the court can make a non-publication order. The court can only make a non-publication order where it is necessary on three grounds: to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice; to prevent undue hardship or distress to a witness or complainant; or to protect the safety of any person. The possibility of reputational damage to a defendant will not be a ground upon which a non-publication order can be made.

An application for a non-publication order can be brought by the defendant, the victim or the prosecution. The court has to take into account a broad range of circumstances in considering whether to make the non-publication order. Regardless of who makes the application, the court will be required to consider the view of the victim about identifying the defendant. This is in keeping with the recommendation made by the task force and ensures victims are given a voice when these applications are heard.

To ensure open justice is promoted, the amendments also provide a right of appearance to accredited media entities or any other person who the court considers has sufficient interest in the question of whether the non-publication order should be made. The media has an important role to play in open justice. They serve the public and ensure people know what is happening in the courts. These amendments help them to play that role.

Defendants charged with a prescribed sexual offence will be able to be identified, when the amendments commence, irrespective of when they were charged. That approach provides for the greatest clarity and is most consistent with the underlying policy intent of the amendments to promote open justice and consistency with other offences

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Yep. This is the minister's introduction of the bill

The bill also includes amendments to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 which remove the prohibition on identification of an adult defendant charged with a prescribed sexual offence prior to finalisation of committal proceedings. These amendments are made in response to the government’s commitment to implement recommendation 83 of the second report of the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce. The task force, led by the Hon. Margaret McMurdo AO, concluded that there was no justification for the law to treat defendants who are charged with a prescribed sexual offence differently to those who are charged with any other criminal offence. Under the current law, only defendants charged with rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to rape or sexual assault have their identity protected before committal. Other accused, even alleged murderers, defendants accused of indecently assaulting a child and accused drug traffickers, do not have this protection.

The amendments in the bill mean that there will no longer be a distinction between those prescribed sexual offences and other offences. The amendments will mean that a defendant charged with rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to rape or sexual assault will be able to be identified before committal. This distinction in the current law between these prescribed sexual offences and all other offences is based, in part, on a rape myth. It is based on the idea that the complainant for one of these sexual offences is somehow less reliable than a complainant for any other offence and that a magistrate must scrutinise the complaint before a defendant can be identified. These amendments ensure that the criminal justice system does not continue to perpetuate this outdated rape myth and will ensure that complainants for prescribed sexual offences are treated with the same dignity as complainants for all other offences.

The amendments also align Queensland with almost all other jurisdictions in Australia which permit identification of a defendant during committal proceedings. The amendments also promote open justice, which is fundamental to the administration of justice. The task force heard that victims are reluctant to report sexual offences to police and that conviction rates for these offences are alarmingly low. The task force said that increased media reporting of sexual offences in a trauma informed way can result in more victims coming forward to report sexual offences. The task force said that, if handled sensitively, accurate public reporting may also contribute to positive community discussions about gender-based violence, challenge stereotypes and reduce the level of secrecy and stigma involved. Removing barriers to reporting is essential if we are to hold perpetrators to account. We must lift the veil of secrecy and shame for victims of sexual offences.

The amendments also provide that where there are grounds to do so, the court can make a non-publication order. The court can only make a non-publication order where it is necessary on three grounds: to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice; to prevent undue hardship or distress to a witness or complainant; or to protect the safety of any person. The possibility of reputational damage to a defendant will not be a ground upon which a non-publication order can be made.

An application for a non-publication order can be brought by the defendant, the victim or the prosecution. The court has to take into account a broad range of circumstances in considering whether to make the non-publication order. Regardless of who makes the application, the court will be required to consider the view of the victim about identifying the defendant. This is in keeping with the recommendation made by the task force and ensures victims are given a voice when these applications are heard.

To ensure open justice is promoted, the amendments also provide a right of appearance to accredited media entities or any other person who the court considers has sufficient interest in the question of whether the non-publication order should be made. The media has an important role to play in open justice. They serve the public and ensure people know what is happening in the courts. These amendments help them to play that role.

Defendants charged with a prescribed sexual offence will be able to be identified, when the amendments commence, irrespective of when they were charged. That approach provides for the greatest clarity and is most consistent with the underlying policy intent of the amendments to promote open justice and consistency with other offences

I don’t know who they get to write this complete and utter rubbish.

It’s really hard work getting through it.

 

[Twizzle]

That's our TSP.
Geez I think I've just found a home

omg, not another one

 

[Twizzle]

I think it sucks how the accuser can remain anonymous but the accused can be named and shamed subject to trial by media or the general public.

We've seen the damage its done to innocent people and their careers.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

omg, not another one

Kindly compose yourself or we will have to report you!

Plenty more meat for the grinder to visit from tigers LU.

 

[Gronk]

Now they give a crap.


Ms Price had also called for an audit of the billions of dollars being spent on programs for Indigenous Australians and closing the gap after Labor’s Voice to Parliament was rejected by Australians during Saturday’s referendum.

Jacinta Price’s push for royal commission into Indigenous child abuse rejected

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has reacted to the news her motion calling on the Albanese government to hold a royal commission into Indigenous child sexual abuse has been voted down.

www.skynews.com.au

Well not that much.

‘More flip-flops than a thong factory': Albanese blasts Dutton on referendum backflip

Anthony Albanese has taken aim at Peter Dutton’s consistency over party policy after the Leader of the Opposition backflipped on his pledge for a second referendum.

www.skynews.com.au

 

[the phantom menace]

'More flip-flops than a thing factory' - love it

 

[JokerEel]

Now they give a crap.


Ms Price had also called for an audit of the billions of dollars being spent on programs for Indigenous Australians and closing the gap after Labor’s Voice to Parliament was rejected by Australians during Saturday’s referendum.

Jacinta Price’s push for royal commission into Indigenous child abuse rejected

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has reacted to the news her motion calling on the Albanese government to hold a royal commission into Indigenous child sexual abuse has been voted down.

www.skynews.com.au

Well not that much.

‘More flip-flops than a thong factory': Albanese blasts Dutton on referendum backflip

Anthony Albanese has taken aim at Peter Dutton’s consistency over party policy after the Leader of the Opposition backflipped on his pledge for a second referendum.

www.skynews.com.au

Wonder why Labor shot down Prices calls for enquiries...

 

[strider]

In my neck of the woods there is a very high profile pollie facing some pretty serious sexual charges, he's going about his work as if nothing has happened. He even got re-elected in the last state election, which I find incredible.

so this pollie is already outed? .... or did you just out him? ... lol

 

[bazza]

I remember spending a week in an apartment in Potts Point 15 years ago and seeing Craig McLachlan shopping at woolies. Mrs didn't even notice him.

yeah - used to see him at Coles when I lived in the area
didn't care much for buttoning up his shirt

 

[bazza]

so this pollie is already outed? .... or did you just out him? ... lol

If the pollie is the member for Kiami his current charges are well known - and were known at the time of his re-election

 

[Gronk]

Wonder why Labor shot down Prices calls for enquiries...

Because he's trolling. Fought against he Voice and now pokes fun by teasing about enacting things that the Voice could have done effectively.

A government spokesperson told Guardian Australia that “Peter Dutton is more interested in playing politics than finding solutions”.

“After nearly a decade under the former Coalition government, the National Audit Office found previous compliance systems were clearly deficient,” the spokesperson said of the NIAA audit.

“Strong governance and accountability are vital to ensuring delivery of high quality services and better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.”

The spokesperson noted the NIAA had accepted and is implementing the audit’s recommendations, while the minister for Indigenous Australians had asked it “to establish an integrity branch to prevent and detect fraud and compliance issues”.

Peter Dutton fails to find support for audit of government’s Indigenous spending

Australia will repeat the mistakes of the past if government Indigenous expenditure is not audited, says opposition leader

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Lois O’Donahue set me straight once about funding for indigenous people.

If anyone is interested, let me know and I will post her remarks to me here.

Lowitja O'Donoghue - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Soren Lorenson]

so this pollie is already outed? .... or did you just out him? ... lol

Nah, it was very out.

 

[Gronk]

Ahhh, I get it now. There are two merkins. One merkin is the Toowoomba alumni chap, the other is a Ch7 female personality. Wow the Ch7 woman has been accused of some stuff.

 

[JokerEel]

Because he's trolling. Fought against he Voice and now pokes fun by teasing about enacting things that the Voice could have done effectively.

A government spokesperson told Guardian Australia that “Peter Dutton is more interested in playing politics than finding solutions”.

“After nearly a decade under the former Coalition government, the National Audit Office found previous compliance systems were clearly deficient,” the spokesperson said of the NIAA audit.

“Strong governance and accountability are vital to ensuring delivery of high quality services and better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.”

The spokesperson noted the NIAA had accepted and is implementing the audit’s recommendations, while the minister for Indigenous Australians had asked it “to establish an integrity branch to prevent and detect fraud and compliance issues”.

Peter Dutton fails to find support for audit of government’s Indigenous spending

Australia will repeat the mistakes of the past if government Indigenous expenditure is not audited, says opposition leader

www.theguardian.com

read that article...

You need to add the few paragraphs above the quote you posted about wasting money ..


Thorpe doesn't want an audit as she is most likely getting a good handout from it.

Albo is playing politics more than Voldemort by not actually doing anything..

 

[Gronk]

What's Dutton got to do with Labor turning down Prices request?!

Well actually it was with Labor, the Greens and David Pocock who opposed in the Senate.

I'm not sure what you don't get. The Coalition hatched a plan to push for an audit of government spending on Indigenous Australians. It didn't get the numbers. Which he knew, just so he could rant. ...

^^^^ “the prime minister says he doesn’t believe in a royal commission, doesn’t believe in an audit”, arguing that stance means “we’ll continue to repeat the same mistakes of the past”.

Wedge politics 101. Just another afternoon in parliament.