| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| I lost my train of thought. I can't guess. Tell me. Who are you talking about? |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | member34258 wrote: | Amen Slanger.
The Prime Minister has invited all previous leaders of our nation to the sorry ceremony next week.
Guess which racist is not going? |
point scoring from Rudd, I guess? |
The telepathic link is working well David. 
I notice that Rudd is going to make the apology during parliament so that Parliamentart Privildge will be invoked, preventing it being used for any compensation claim. Also that apparently every state and territory government has already made an apology that obviously didn't do much good.
I do empathise with what the Aborignals have been through and if this apology helps everyone to be able to move forward then do it; mean it; and lets get on with fixing things that are broken for all Australians. |
Why would he need to score points off Howard, he's already being repudiated by his own party without Rudd needing to worry about it. Former Prime Ministers are being invited in their capacity as former heads of government. I would have thought the significance of their being present might have been obvious, but perhaps not for those that would still rather use any excuse possible to shit can the whole idea of an apology.
Stui, do you have any understanding about what parliamentary privalege is or means? It has absolutely nothing to do with making an apology and has no bearing on whether or not an apology can be used in any case for compensation. |
I do have an understanding of it. Pollies can say things under Parliamentary Privilge without fear of litigation that if they repeated outside could have them sued.
I read an article about it recently by a lawyer and the explanation was that if the apology is done under parliamentary privilige, no court can use it as an admission of responsibility in a comp claim.
I'm sure that's a very rudimentary explanation and doesn't even consider the reason for it's existance but that's how I understand it.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | member34258 wrote: | Amen Slanger.
The Prime Minister has invited all previous leaders of our nation to the sorry ceremony next week.
Guess which racist is not going? |
point scoring from Rudd, I guess? |
The telepathic link is working well David.
I notice that Rudd is going to make the apology during parliament so that Parliamentart Privildge will be invoked, preventing it being used for any compensation claim. Also that apparently every state and territory government has already made an apology that obviously didn't do much good.
I do empathise with what the Aborignals have been through and if this apology helps everyone to be able to move forward then do it; mean it; and lets get on with fixing things that are broken for all Australians. |
Why would he need to score points off Howard, he's already being repudiated by his own party without Rudd needing to worry about it. Former Prime Ministers are being invited in their capacity as former heads of government. I would have thought the significance of their being present might have been obvious, but perhaps not for those that would still rather use any excuse possible to shit can the whole idea of an apology.
Stui, do you have any understanding about what parliamentary privalege is or means? It has absolutely nothing to do with making an apology and has no bearing on whether or not an apology can be used in any case for compensation. |
Anything you say or do in Parliament cannot be used in court...
that is why they act like school children during question time.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
point scoring from Rudd, I guess? |
Ummm.......I don't think Rudd has even mentioned the racist not showing up. Plenty of others have.
Your becoming somewhat of an apologist for a man who doesn't think he needs to apologize for anything David. |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
I notice that Rudd is going to make the apology during parliament so that Parliamentart Privildge will be invoked, preventing it being used for any compensation claim. Also that apparently every state and territory government has already made an apology that obviously didn't do much good.
|
The parliament is the right and proper place for an apology delivered on behalf of the Parliament that set up the policy in the first place.
The state governments apologies do not carry the weight of an apology from the highest form of government in the land.
This is one small step towards repairing 200 years of damage. But it is an important step that needs to be done. In fact it needed to be done decades ago. |
|
|
|
|
Zakal
One Game, One Club, One Jumper
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| member34258 wrote: | Amen Slanger.
The Prime Minister has invited all previous leaders of our nation to the sorry ceremony next week.
Guess which racist is not going? |
Bob Hawke?
Paul Keating?
Hawke will be there Tuesday...but not available to attend Wednesday.
So out of our last 3 PMs...none have confirmed attendance.
Edit: Sorry i should clarify that, Paul Keatings office said his schedule was still being finalised for next week. |
|
|
|
|
Zakal
One Game, One Club, One Jumper
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| bwphantom wrote: | | I have no problem with the 'Sorry issue'. But please when it has been done can we all move ahead and forge a new future together as Australians? |
Nope, 'fraid not.
Its a bit of a shitty apology, and noone likes getting a conditional apology. Who knows, maybe it'll be just what the doctor ordered.
....but i'd put money on Feb 13 not being the end of the Sorry issue. |
|
|
|
|
bwphantom 
It's Better to Burn Out Than to Fade Away
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Location: Brisbane QLD
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yes Zakal that is the sad reality.
_________________
All this may be summed up in one word - CHARACTER - and if that is not worth developing, nothing is.
Jock McHale |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My understanding of how privilege applies was that while it protects individual members (such as in the Heffernen/Kirby case) it would not apply in the case of Rudd making a statement on behalf of government. George Williams who is one of Australia's foremost constitutional experts has said in a recent article it would apply though, although no more details were provided. Apologies Stui 
That being said it would be politically impossible for the government to admit liability through an apology in parliament and then to deny liability in court. |
|
|
|
|
Dale61
You can't have manslaughter without laughter.
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Location: /home/room/chair
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Here's a different take on this whole sorry issue.
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2008/02/09/11177_news.html
Aboriginal man says sorry for driving offences
| Quote: | "IF it's good enough for the Government to say sorry and then walk away, I would like to say I'm sorry too,'' Aboriginal activist Glen Atkinson yesterday told Geelong Magistrate Ron Saines.
"I ask the court not to incarcerate me on these matters for the simple reason I've been incarcerated since I was 18-months-old.'' |
This is the same guy who has refused to accept white man law, and has threatened to sue the Government the day after the Sorry announcement.
He does not acknowledge the white man's law, but is more than happy to accept white man's money?
You can't have it both ways.
_________________
Whale
Oil
Beef
Hooked |
|
|
|
|
Zakal
One Game, One Club, One Jumper
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | My understanding of how privilege applies was that while it protects individual members (such as in the Heffernen/Kirby case) it would not apply in the case of Rudd making a statement on behalf of government. George Williams who is one of Australia's foremost constitutional experts has said in a recent article it would apply though, although no more details were provided. Apologies Stui
That being said it would be politically impossible for the government to admit liability through an apology in parliament and then to deny liability in court. |
Well in a way. This is one of the conditions of the apology...effectively that it doesn't give rise to liability that will result in compensation.
Its not technically an apology, however so named, in a legal sense. Its an 'expression of regret'. As such the Government would be being consistent to "apologise" and then reinforce their denial of liability that results in compensation in court.
Im not saying they are morally justified, and im not saying this construction the government THINKS they have put on their apology is actually the correct legal take on the issue...but from what they have said, thats how they intend the "apology" to work.
As for the political consequences of it though...i would daresay a lot less of the Australian public would support en masse lawsuits resulting in massive compensation payouts, followed by claims for 50 years of interest, than those that currently support an apology.
I dont think the whole apology issue is such a massive issue in the publics minds that its a matter of "Apology or broke" (in the Tokyo fashion)....Howard was elected to 3 terms and he was pretty clear about his stance on the issue. Surely that says something about the 'importance' placed on it by the 'majority' of the public. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| That George is some hero. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CrazyAboutDaisy wrote: | [quote="Jock McPie"]sorry. what am i apologising for? did i read correctly that there are up to 50 conditions attached to the sorry. i thought apologies are unconditional or is this a carey type apology?[/quote]
Yep...50 conditions attached.
I really dont see why our current government need to apoligize.If any apoligie is fortcoming it should be from the remaining living members of the government who put the actions in question into play. |
I don't think that's possible. |
|
|
|
|
Dale61
You can't have manslaughter without laughter.
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Location: /home/room/chair
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Remembering my time in Darwin, will I get an apology from the aboriginals that verbally abused me, assaulted and bashed me, robbed me, etc, for doing them a favour when I was a cabbie?
Nah, I didn't think so!
_________________
Whale
Oil
Beef
Hooked |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jock and CAD where did you read about there being 50 conditions attached to the apology? Would be very interested to know because even most Labor MPs are yet to see a finalised version of the text that will form the basis of the apology. The text was nowhere near finalized when you first made the claim Jock. What did you base it on? |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
