Refugees

[Marty_d]

So the Government has now settled a class action from Manus Island detainees for $70 mill.

 

At the moment there's around 1,300 people in the class action, so deducting 25% for lawyers fees, your tax dollar has now gone to giving $40,000 cash to each person (on average). In my opinion, fully justified and probably entirely inadequate for years of baseless imprisonment.

 

Add that to the cost of building the facilities, the price of hiring security companies whose moral compass seems to point south, and bribes to other countries to take the refugees we don't want.

 

So even on economic grounds - far less the human cost - anyone still think off-shore detention is a good idea?

 

 

[Marty_d]

You don't really think the policy is about saving lives, do you Peter?

 

If it was about saving lives, all they have to do is provide a secure and safe ferry service for the asylum seekers. In one stroke it drops the bottom out of the illegal people smuggling trade, and no one drowns.

 

 

[Yenn]

Wow. That is nearly as much as the same sex marriage plebiscite.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Yenn

 

Yes, about the same!, small group wants everything, |& it's us poor suckers that have to pay extra tax, to subsidize their way of life.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

YennYes, about the same!, small group wants everything, |& it's us poor suckers that have to pay extra tax, to subsidize their way of life.

 

spacesailor

Who are you talking about? Politicians? The Church lobby?

 

 

[octave]

small group wants everything

re the plebiscite, the small group, in this case, is the conservatives. They are the ones willing to waste millions to delay the inevitable. SSM folks don't want a plebiscite, they want the pollies to just get on with it. I guess the good news is that if this government does not change the law then it will become an election issue, I wonder how well that will turn out for the coalition?

 

 

[storchy neil]

Political idiots voting on ssm my vote was wasted had I known he would vote for ssm he would not have got my vote or 18 others that I know off neil

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Back to the original topic, my concern over all of this is how the governments seem to devolve themselves from any responsibility of treatment of those incarcerated by contracting out management of these prisons to private enterprise. In the UK, G4S was uncovered by Panorama (sort of 4 corners on the ABC) showing video footage of G4s employees physically abusing refugees at what must be a processing centre. Of course the Home Office's response is that they didn;t know about it as it was the private contractor. But, they are simply avoiding their responsibility to exercise adequate oversight of their contractors to ensure they are performing appropriately.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Jerry, that is the very reason I have total contempt for our government. We pay our taxes so they will look after OUR assets and OUR interests. Then they systematically divest themselves of responsibility by privatising all those assets. Frequently to dodgy arms length mates. And then when it turns to crap, hide behind the feeble excuse "oh, we didn't know, but we'll set up a committee to look into it".

 

It isnt only the refugee camps. Worse still we also end up with our essential services such as power and drinking water etc being run to maximise proft which translates to minimum maintenance. So we can expect higher prices and poorer quality, but still pay plenty of tax.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I'd like to see an independent analysis of the personal wealth of our leaders. I don't begrudge them their salary (which many earn) but that income would not explain the massive wealth some have on leaving politics.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Not this black duck dont care how money they have won't make up for brain power and decision making

 

If some of em were powering me car wouldn't take it out of garage neil

 

 

[Yenn]

Looking into their finances could be interesting. One ex PM was just about bankrupt i believe when he had a divorce and now he is rolling in it.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Red, you're sounding a bit leftie. You're complaining about obscene salaries but that is exactly how capitalism works. One charges as much as the market will stand. That isn't just applied to buying groceries, drinking water or electricity. It applies also to wages (particularly at the top of the food chain). Unfortunately the system is not connected to morality or ethics, as evidenced by the large number of CEO's and pollies who are happily taking home OBSCENE amounts of money and hidden perks.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think I know what OK is getting at - if we look at Turnbull, form memory he graduated a lawyer from Oxford and asa junior barrister in England, took on some case he was expected to lose against well established and top QCs and won. It was cited in our English Law course when we were doing the doctrine of precedent (at least I think it was turnbull). He then went into investment banking, where even as a lawyer, in those days, one could earn a hefty salary and the bonuses were eyewatering - which is why when the GFC came and investment banks were in for a rough ride - there was little money left in the pot to sustain them). ISTR he was a founding partner/exec of Macquarie - not sure. I may have it totally wrong.. but his wealth was amassed long before he entered politics.

 

The law should be that a pollie cannot get involved in spending the public purse on projects or contracts that involve the sector they worked in or sectors of major clients they serviced. That would knock most of them out of the legal, accounting, media and financial services public spending activities. Then after they finish parliament, they should not be able to work for or derive financial benefit from any company that they were directly or indirectly involved in or associated with awarding any contract either as a prime or sub contractor for 10 years (exception - standard interest available to anyone on standard products from investment companies and banks - so no fancy bespoke or traded products). They shouldn't be allowed to provide or take on debt from them, nor any preferential shares - and the jury is out on common shares - again for 10 years. They should be banned from taking any other financial interest in them, including financial instruments that reference them for the same period time. Nor can they be a supplier to them, either. And all of the above should apply to any company within the group of companies, wholly or partly that company belongs to (maybe a company that has a de minimis interest could be exempted). That may clean things up a bit.

 

 

[spacesailor]

The LAW should be:

 

That they retire on the same pension, they think ordinary pensioner's can "survive" on.

 

Wow wouldn't we get a super pay increase next week!. LoL

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I think I know what OK is getting at - if we look at Turnbull, form memory he graduated a lawyer from Oxford and asa junior barrister in England, took on some case he was expected to lose against well established and top QCs and won. It was cited in our English Law course when we were doing the doctrine of precedent (at least I think it was turnbull). He then went into investment banking, where even as a lawyer, in those days, one could earn a hefty salary and the bonuses were eyewatering - which is why when the GFC came and investment banks were in for a rough ride - there was little money left in the pot to sustain them). ISTR he was a founding partner/exec of Macquarie - not sure. I may have it totally wrong.. but his wealth was amassed long before he entered politics.

The law should be that a pollie cannot get involved in spending the public purse on projects or contracts that involve the sector they worked in or sectors of major clients they serviced. That would knock most of them out of the legal, accounting, media and financial services public spending activities. Then after they finish parliament, they should not be able to work for or derive financial benefit from any company that they were directly or indirectly involved in or associated with awarding any contract either as a prime or sub contractor for 10 years (exception - standard interest available to anyone on standard products from investment companies and banks - so no fancy bespoke or traded products). They shouldn't be allowed to provide or take on debt from them, nor any preferential shares - and the jury is out on common shares - again for 10 years. They should be banned from taking any other financial interest in them, including financial instruments that reference them for the same period time. Nor can they be a supplier to them, either. And all of the above should apply to any company within the group of companies, wholly or partly that company belongs to (maybe a company that has a de minimis interest could be exempted). That may clean things up a bit.

Jerry I agree with your sentiments, but your post uses too many words...perhaps I'm too lazy to take it all in.

 

As we increase the complexity of the rules, lawyers always find ways around them.

 

Our legal system has served us well, but it has served the rip-off classes better. Maybe we should just use the pub test; a but like in Iran, where cases are decided more on the spirit of the law rather than on the letter of the law.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Who needs what some of these earn? Sure, the PM earns just over half a million, other members less. But then they get travel allowances, electorate allowances, and can claim for offices, family travel, and other perks, The PM's salary alone is 7 times what my wife and I combined are expected to live on. Heads of business, like the Australia Post CEO who finished up recently, are much worse. Similarly, CEO's of the banks, earning between 4 and 9 mill pa., plus bonuses and retirement benefits. $4 mill is over 126 times our combined pension.

I like the "ten times" rule - that no-one in the company / government / whatever gets paid more than 10 times more than anyone else in the same organisation.

 

So if the lowest cleaner gets $40,000, the CEO can't be paid more than $400,000.

 

Leaves plenty of room for ambition, climbing the corporate ladder, etc - but cuts out the ridiculous inequality rampant in business.