Is the Australian Government Sorry Now?

[Andy #24]

Exactly. If there was a class action, it would be irrelevant whether the Government had said sorry or not. It would be decided by the courts on the facts.

As for worrying about lawyers benefiting, there are enough issues in the courts keeping them happy as it is. One more won't make much difference.

It's a question of what is right.

No, " No win No pay" deals for a percentage of the take are much more lucrative if you can engineer it so a win is likely in advance - lots of money for minimal time put in. They would happily drop the time consuming ones.

As I have said in another thread, I have seen situations where law firms have discouraged workers from pursuing treatment and recovery to try to get bigger payouts for permanent disablement. They should work to ensure prompt early treatment is provided because recovery and return to the workforce is usually worth a lot more to the worker in the long run.

And no, I am not of the "force them back to work" ilk. I have done two reports for insurers in the last week as an independent expert saying the worker is being rushed inappropriately.

Like I said before Pysber, can't take a percentage in SA. You might want to check the preffessional conduct rules in other states.

[am Bays]

*Bump*

An interesting read but as I said on p3 one individuals benefit doesn't mean it helped all indiginous Australian's when they were removed from their family - or that the experiences were right.

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/11/27/18545_ntnews.html

[am Bays]

Will the Psuedo intellegencia who howled down Mal Brough and John Howard on their intervention polcies raise their voices in objection to this plan....

http://www.theage.com.au/national/macklin-cites-camp-horrors-20090524-bji5.html

FWIW as I said back then when the Howard governemnt announced its plan three years ago following the NT Government's report on abuse in Aboriginal Communities that Territory labor sat on its hands about. These camps and communities need direct help to improve the health, well-being and safety of its residents whilst at the same time encouraging their cultural health.

Having seen the camps first hand you don't know how bad they are until you se them.

[Sojourner]

Why has it taken so long for Labor to deal with this issue? How can they let people live in that squalor and be exposed to those levels of abuse and just sit back and do nothing at all - except to critisize John Howard for attempting to do what they now want to do???

[Gozu]

I haven't clicked on that link but does the article mention the Brough/Howard government scam off 99 year leases for those people?

[Sojourner]

I haven't clicked on that link but does the article mention the Brough/Howard government scam off 99 year leases for those people?

Strawman?

[mick]

You got it Sojourner

[Gozu]

I haven't clicked on that link but does the article mention the Brough/Howard government scam off 99 year leases for those people?

Strawman?

The strawman is the Libs giving a rats arse about poor Aboriginal people. Clearly some people swallowed it. 99 year leases my friend, what absolute low life scumbags.

[Psyber]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/559 ... r-changes/

Keating slams proposed super changes
May 26, 2009, 6:25 am
AAP © [Enlarge photo]

Former prime minister Paul Keating and former ACTU boss Bill Kelty have warned the federal government not to raise the superannuation qualifying age to 67.

Mr Keating and Mr Kelty jointly designed Australia's superannuation system in the 1980s.
Mr Keating introduced the scheme as treasurer and later extended it as prime minister.

At present, workers can draw their superannuation between 55 and 60, depending on when they were born, but the government is considering a recommendation from the Henry tax inquiry to align the super access age with the new retirement age of 67 by 2023.

Mr Kelty told Fairfax newspapers matching the access age with the proposed higher pension age in the federal budget would "destroy the scheme as we know it" and make super a tax rather than a benefit for workers.

Mr Keating said it was not unreasonable for the public pension age to rise as longevity increases, "but privately paid-for superannuation is altogether a different thing. "Superannuation was and is designed as a privately provided complement to the 'tier one' public pension," he said. "Were superannuation to be seen simply as some kind of substitute for the public pension, then the essence of it, the salary sacrifice in it, would be pointless.
"This is why the superannuation access age is already lower than the pension age of 65.

"It should stay as it is. It provides people with flexibility. They can buy an annuity income and perhaps also do some part-time work."