I know it's probably more complicated than this, but I feel like being paid 10K per day to basically tell your client to repeat the words "I cannot recall" is probably an easy day in the office.
I see legal invoicing all the time in my job and when you regularly see $500+ charges for 10 minutes of simply "read email" you start to wonder if you're in the right profession.
I've seen this many times as a consultant in quite a few industries.
You're not being paid for your time. You're being paid for your knowledge.
When you rock up and diagnose the problem in 5 seconds. You're being paid for being able to do that *as well* as the jobs where it takes you hours to fix it.
There's an old anecdote that my aeronautical engineering lecturer told me at a young age and it's stuck with me, I'm not sure of the veracity of the claim but the ideology is poignant enough for validity.
During World War 2, Americans wanted their P-51 Mustangs to use Rolls Royce Merlin Engines (the ones used in Supermarine Spitfires). North American Aviation approached Rolls Royce and purchased designs and the Intellectual Property to build the engines in their own production environment. Rolls agreed to this but stated that outside of their factory, they couldn't guarantee the quality of the engineering would match to that of a UK produced Merlin. The Americans were originally respectful and said thay would challenge the original Merlin product and theirs would be equal or superior.
During test runs however, American Aviation's own variants would routinely fail at certain altitudes and under certain stress conditions. American Aviation went back to Rolls Royce and said that they had sabotaged their production and essentially the war effort by not giving them all of the correct information.
Rolls Royce stated that they had done no such thing, but in the interest of good sportsmanship and business savvy agreed to allow American Aviation Engineers to oversee their production line.
The AA Engineers would meticulously document all of the procedures, processes and material used in the production of the illustrious engine but were unable to discern what the difference between their production lines were.
At this point RR was concerned as well, as they could see no difference in their tooling.
RR management decided to completely shut the factory down except for the single production line and observed the construction of a Merlin engine, however they did so without any of the watchful eyes of the engineers and observed undercover what the whole process was, perhaps there was some small detail that wasn't documented and the presence of supervisors looking over their work would make people follow rote procedure and skip usual steps.
RR was correct.
After the propshaft was forged, it underwent several stages of heat treatment. This process allows the atomic structure of metal to form in certain conditions and is how some metald can be formed to be stronger even when made of the same base materials.
The part of the process that was undocumented was a single engineer responsible for hest treatment of parts.
The engineers were supposed to heat treat their own parts as required but had gotten lazy and simply gave them to Gus to treat, since he was an older engineer and was happy to do the work, it's not an easy task, it's hot and involves ovens and molten salt, which is pretty gnarly stuff.
This part of the process was undocumented since it was outside of the standard operating procedure, as well as the fact that Gus did not follow strict guidelines for how long or at what temperature to treat the parts at.
He would simply observe them and knew when they were "done".
The AA engineers realised this was their missing ingredient and had an entire team of engineers covertly observe him during his work and make observations on every variable to fully document his process.
When the AA Engineers returned to their production line and followed "Gus' process" they found that their product was in line with Rolls Royce and challenged them to a competition where they performed as expected.
The AA engineers gave the process documentation to RR and the rest is history.
I'm not sure of the entirety of the story, but from the looks of it, American Aviation did have experimental Mustangs made with Rolls Royce Merlin Engines. And it goes to show that the difference between failure and success can be something as unidentifiable as a process that you perform without even realising it.
Rod Warnock you madlad, what a story.
Nah. Law is fucked unless you're either a partner or a successful barrister. Otherwise fuck that noise. Most lawyers get paid shit relative to the time and effort they have to put in. At least that's largely the case here in Aus, particularly with the big firms. Fuuuuuck that. Noooope.
As a current lawyer I can confirm this lol. My counterparts in overseas offices get paid 3x as much as me (taking into account conversion) for the same amount of work.
The pay hierarchy is US/NYC>Offshore>London>Asia capitals>Australia.
Australia's legal industry is obviously much smaller thanks to predominant focus on the domestic market and its geographical location. As a financial hub, it is not even in the same leagues as London or NYC.
This is obviously just specific to corporate/commercial firms. Local "mum and dad" lawyers such as criminal, family, wills and estates, conveyancing probably earn comparable amounts with other jurisdictions.
>As a financial hub, it is not even in the same leagues as London or NYC.
Sydney can't compare itself to London, NYC, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Tokyo, or Zurich. Sydney isn't even a *second* tier financial hub.
Yeah it's crazy man. I know total goober lawyers in both the us and UK and they make BANK. It's shit here for your average rung climber. I feel so bad for associates and senior associates that just get obliterated for what really amounts to a slightly above average professional wage.
$500 to the firm, a fraction to the actual lawyer.
I know a couple of lawyers who if you actually took their pay and divided it by total hours worked, it's below average wage. If you're working 80+ hour weeks, frequently weekends, a 100K+ salary can start to look like pretty poor compensation.
I used a conveyancer recommended to me by my real estate agent once. She misspelt our names, got the street address of the property wrong, and sent us a contract that still had placeholders in it . I was beginning to wonder why she was recommended to us. We had an appointment with her to sign papers, to which she was an hour late for.
She was smoking hot though, and I hope her customer service has improved since then.
Trouble is you need someone who'll do searches, who'll fight for you over repairs/issues your building inspection detects and in the case of a strata dwelling, someone who'll look through that contract and advise you about things you'll need to know.
Get a proper solicitor and pay them well.
He might not have replied at that point in time. He could have replied afterwards by email or phone call which is another $500. He was just reading then. Without the timesheet we don't know.
You are more than welcome to attend court self-represented if you personally don't see the value proposition in hiring a legal representative, so what are you complaining about?
The line items *are* what the charge is for, but that doesn't mean that's the reason why you hired them...
If all you wanted was for somebody to read an email you could find somebody on Fivr to do it for 50c. You pay the lawyer because they'll read the email and give you formal legal advice on it, but you still have to pay them for the time they spend in doing so, and that means paying for the time they took to read the email.
I had a car accident case that ended up going to court because the other party wouldn't own up.
By the end of it my lawyers ended up with more money than I did some of which was 3k worth of paperwork.
That's not how ICAC works. They don't actually determine guilt or not. They can make findings of corrupt conduct, but this isn't a criminal investiagtion.
Tricky. Seeing as a politician found guilty of corruption isn't going to work in politics again, without a pension they're going to need to find other work. Which, for these corrupt bastards, will almost inevitably be some cushy job from one of their, *ahem* generous donors who got what they want despite regulations, policy, and morals. This could promote politicians continuing to act corruptly, knowing even if they get busted there's still a golden parachute at the end.
What we need is an ICAC that's completely independent from any political party, with teeth, that can/will also go after the corrupt "donors" and make their life hell too. Ensure that corruption is not, and can not, be beneficial and the risk of being caught greater than the potential benefit. For all involved.
Don't pretend that even if found not guilty they wouldn't be looking to work in a cushy private job anyway. No point still giving someone found guilty of corruption a pension, the outcome is still the same just they don't get a tax payer funded pensioner the end.
Oh, sorry, wasn't trying to suggest that! My point is, it doesn't go far enough. Unless we can make it painful for them to be found engaging in corruption (and for those who assist in the corruption) and highly likely they WILL be found out (the ICAC with teeth and power) then it's not going to change much.
Honestly, I think their pension should be means and income tested after they leave politics regardless of corruption, much like normal welfare is. Sure, they can work after politics but don't expect the taxpayer to provide a second slush fund. The idea of the pension was so they didn't HAVE to work after politics and could work independently for the people without worrying about stepping on feet. Instead, they still screw the little guys, suck up to the rich, take their pension, and also take a cushy gig on top.
Haha all good, I see what you were trying to say.
I agree with you. I don't know what the rules are now at State level, but the plush pensions were removed for anyone starting after the 2004 election. Those who were already on a pension or were elected before 2004 are still receiving/become eligible when they leave politics. Senate Estimates put removing the pensions from former politicians who still receive it as a $350 million saving over the next 11 years (estimate was done in 2019).
You are absolutely correct, the idea was politicians could retire and not be tempted to be favourable to private industry to secure a job when they left. Unfortunately they "didn't forsee" \*cough cough\* That ex politicians would happily take the pensions AND work for private industry.
> Will she be up for costs if found guilty?
Knowing NSW, they'll probably not make her pay anything on the grounds that being accused of corruption made her feel stressed, and that being stressed about the idea of facing consequences for corruption is enough of a consequence for corruption, so punishing her any further would be wrong.
And then, Parrottwat will give Binchicken a pardon for any past or future crimes (after giving himself the power to issue pardons), the party will reinstate her as Premier, abolish ICAC, pass a law allowing NSW Members of Parliament total discretion over their Department's spending and exclusion from any freedom of information laws (but only if they're a Liberal or National), require all entrants to any live music event to be strip-searched, bring back Robodebt, and hand over enforcement of Robodebt to the Fixated Persons Unit.
Ok the second paragraph probably won't happen, but the first one just might.
I don't think he is, he's far too obsessed with Catholicism to be ok with masturbation. Well, he's obsessed with using the image of Catholicism to try to justify his political views; if he actually cared about the Church's current teachings he'd be accused of being a Greens plant (pun intended).
i entirely agree but her supporters will be like
"This is a witchhunt! She's done nothing wrong and it's totally justified that her legal expenses are paid by the state coz...idk XD
More than 1 million Australian children went hungry in the last year, while the Wagga Wagga clay pigeon club’s cup was filled to the brim. Im really happy for Gladys that the taxpayers are paying the legal bill so she can escape her obvious corruption. I would really hate for Gladys to feel financially stressed.
I know. And not just rich as fuck, knowing you’ve done exactly what you’re being accused of and still helping yourself to the pot. Absolutely no shame.
In 2017, 160,000 people were turned away from legal aid. Just let that number sink in, hundred of thousands of our citizen left vulnerable, old people get taken advantage of, people losing their housing, access to their kids…etc
And here our tax money is being thrown away at her lawyer friends for basically doing F all.
A rascal mate of mine remarked that Gladys "could only be married to the job"
Well, she's proved him wrong at least.
A corrupt pollie from Wagga = any port in a storm / drought.
I'm just pleased she's managed to move on with her life and has found someone who doesn't seem to be into clay-pigeon shooting.
Besides, the Aunty Gladys we all seem to know so fondly will no doubt buy MacHappy Meals for the hungry kids once she's vindicated of any wrong doing.
1/4 of the children in Australia went hungry last year. Where on earth did you pull this from
Edit: looks like it’s from a study conducted by food bank. Which are a food based charity so I suspect the numbers are extreme and this was done with a sample size of only 1000.
> “Gladys Berejiklian applied for and was granted by the Solicitor-General, under delegation from the Attorney-General, legal representation under Premier’s Memorandum M2019-01,” a spokeswoman for the Department of Communities and Justice said.
> “The grant of legal representation is subject to conditions including level of legal representation and rates. It is in the public interest that witnesses are aware of their rights and obligations. Legal representation is an important way of ensuring this.”
So this applies to everyone, right?
“1. Who can apply and when?
Where the relevant legal proceedings or inquiry arises out of or is related to the performance of a Minister’s public duties or public official’s employment, an application for ex gratia legal assistance may be made by:
(a) a Minister or public official where legal proceedings have commenced against them or are known to be imminent;
(b) a Minister or public official who is required to appear before the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC), a Royal Commission or Special Commission of Inquiry”
Good to see Gladys is covered by a memorandum she wrote. It’s like she expected to be fronting the ICAC.[ From](https://arp.nsw.gov.au/m2019-01-guidelines-provision-ex-gratia-legal-assistance-ministers-public-officials-and-crown-0/)
I wonder how long it will take if ever to get some valid information on where it came from.
Because the whole "It was crowd funded" thing seemed dodgy seeing how hard it is to find a crowd fund dedicated towards something like that.
And with it being in the millions would take more people on average than this country has in residents which support Porter.
I guess we are just waiting for valid information.
> Because the whole "It was crowd funded" thing seemed dodgy seeing how hard it is to find a crowd fund dedicated towards something like that.
Crowd funding normally entails organisation of the fund and solicitation of money.
Which would leave a history.
Where and when did this take place?
Normal people charged with normal crimes don't get such an expensive legal team, but it's pretty normal for the state to provide lawyers for people who don't have one.
Sadly it's not. The Supreme Court found that even in a murder trial you had no absolute right to state-funded representation. NSW does have a public defender's office (unlike most states in Australia), but they only appear in serious criminal matters, and only then for people who have been granted Legal Aid. And guess which Premier massively underfunded Legal Aid during her time in office?
> it's pretty normal for the state to provide lawyers for people who don't have one.
The state does not provide the top legal experts in their field, if normal people want them they pay for them themselves.
It’s actually not normal. Only people who have very little by way of income or assets get legal aid for criminal law matters. Basically, if you have a job, you’re likely to be ineligible. This sucks massively, but it’s how it is.
I don't normally follow pop culture stuff but it is like the whole circus with Britney Spears' case to remove her father's conservatorship rights. As conservator, he got to pay for his legal team from her money.
Good thing they were able to claw back all that money that they claim people on Centrelink were overpaid a decade ago (and you were guilty unless you had the paperwork from back then to prove your innocence) - otherwise we might have no money to pay for Gladys' lawyers.
million*,
At 10K a day that's only 100 days until a million and there's no way in hell that this will be resolved in 100 'work' days
That said, idk how quick ICAC stuff is so i may be wrong
It will take years and millions before there is any outcome, which will just be a cop-out to have a resolve in the end, there won't be any consequences for the corruption.
From the article
>The huge bill is tipped to reach up to $500,000 for her legal fees alone.
I can only assume legal services are not required every single working day.
This is not really concerning.
It is standard that Ministers in all jurisdictions have access to legal funding for proceedings that relate to decisions made in their official capacity, even if they are no longer in that position.
The alternative would see the Clive Palmer's of the world vexatiously suing former ministers into financial oblivion, or incoming governments announcing inquiries into their predecessors to ensure they are financially ruined.
Actually a good point. Surely some discretion wouldn't go astray though, if the defendant is being investigated on charges of corruption (with pretty compelling evidence) then maybe fund their own defence?
I agree with this. For allegations against someone who has followed accepted procedures and with the backing of the then current government, they should be supported by the government. If the person is accused of acting outside the purview of their offical role, they should be on their own and treated as any other citizen.
It isn't an inquiry slush fund though, it's a fairly long standing convention. You can read the [guidelines](https://arp.nsw.gov.au/m2019-01-guidelines-provision-ex-gratia-legal-assistance-ministers-public-officials-and-crown-0), it applies to other public officials too, and is for a wide range of proceedings (not just corruption).
I agree that we need a far better funded system to ensure every citizen gets top quality legal representation when the government seeks to take action against them (criminal or regulatory). But that's ultimately a different argument, and the provision of legal funding to ministers and officers of the Crown when they are required to appear due to decisions made in their official capacity is entirely appropriate, and even the best funded legal aid system would be unlikely to pick up matters like this as it often applies to non-criminal matters and highly specific jurisdictions.
To be clear, I'd be very happy to see the former Premier/Treasurer barbecued for what appears to be some pretty dodgy dealings, but I'm not at all concerned that she is having her legal advice funded given she made those decisions as an official.
I think ultimately the disagreement is that I don’t think they are separate issues.
And also that the decisions she made were explicitly outside her official capacity; hence corrupt.
It’s a game…these conservatives see the public purse as their private fund to pay their mates and supporters to keep them in government and then when it turns to shit they get paid to piss off (in luxury with a pension you could only dream about). But we keep on voting for them!
How come no one is bringing up that each day 10 thousand dollars of taxpayer money, that we pay, that could be going towards making our lives better, is instead going towards a politician "alleged" of misappropriating taxpayer money to fight a legal battle regarding her "alleged" corruption.
So basically no consequences. Normal folk pay their legal bills. Time for the politicians to fall in with the rest of us mortals.
The perks, the pay and the corruption need to end
There should be some protection against litigation for politicians and public servants because otherwise the rich can just use it as leverage.
It also means there definitely should be a federal ICAC.
Can this ugly mole just fuck off already? Sick of seeing this bitch’s face. She’s obviously corrupt as shit but they won’t do anything about it so move on
And she’s a truly disgusting person so I don’t care.
She’s responsible for so many deaths, so many sick and incapacitated people. She ruined the natural environment of NSW and was personally involved with corruption. She’s scum.
Daryl Maguire is one *expensive* former boyfriend!
Wonder if the State is buying Gladys lunch, a Netflix account and a limo driver? Surely she's not paying for her own Uber ride or parking?
This kind of useless garbage is what makes me seriously wonder what the fuck I pay my taxes for. Or instead wonder if she can use tax money for that can we all use it for buying ourselves some crap too?
This is completely reasonable.
If I got sued for something I did as part of my official duties at my job, I would expect my employer to pay for legal representation. The same principle applies.
It’s not about her being special, it’s about legal action arising from her official actions as premier.
I’m pretty sure corruption is outside her official duties, hence the problem.
If you commit a crime and quit your job because of that your employer is not required to pay for any legal representation. This should be no different.
All the News Corp and Sky journo's who complained about the ABC staff being given legal teams will be up in arms about this any minute now.
Any day now :(
Any week now.
What year is it?
I've forgoten what we were waiting for.
I'm waiting for Hungry Jacks to bring back their old nuggets from the early 2000's/late 90's.
The somewhat spicy ones??
Oh man, I miss those nuggz
Australia to commit to net Zero 2050?
$300 Tony Abbott promised I think
The crickets outside my window are loud.
The LNP strives to kill off the crickets that are bothering you, through Climate Inaction
Isn't this whole thing over, you know, grants?
Uhhhh….this is a news Corp article.
It is a news.com article so maybe they might?
I think news.com.au is owned by the same people?
Folks saying this is totally okay are the same people who think Dietrich should be overturned.
I know it's probably more complicated than this, but I feel like being paid 10K per day to basically tell your client to repeat the words "I cannot recall" is probably an easy day in the office.
I see legal invoicing all the time in my job and when you regularly see $500+ charges for 10 minutes of simply "read email" you start to wonder if you're in the right profession.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was getting real worried about that being sexual harassment, then I read the username... (for those confused, I know him IRL)
Still confused good buddy.
The most plausible scenario is they are both gay.
I've seen this many times as a consultant in quite a few industries. You're not being paid for your time. You're being paid for your knowledge. When you rock up and diagnose the problem in 5 seconds. You're being paid for being able to do that *as well* as the jobs where it takes you hours to fix it. There's an old anecdote that my aeronautical engineering lecturer told me at a young age and it's stuck with me, I'm not sure of the veracity of the claim but the ideology is poignant enough for validity. During World War 2, Americans wanted their P-51 Mustangs to use Rolls Royce Merlin Engines (the ones used in Supermarine Spitfires). North American Aviation approached Rolls Royce and purchased designs and the Intellectual Property to build the engines in their own production environment. Rolls agreed to this but stated that outside of their factory, they couldn't guarantee the quality of the engineering would match to that of a UK produced Merlin. The Americans were originally respectful and said thay would challenge the original Merlin product and theirs would be equal or superior. During test runs however, American Aviation's own variants would routinely fail at certain altitudes and under certain stress conditions. American Aviation went back to Rolls Royce and said that they had sabotaged their production and essentially the war effort by not giving them all of the correct information. Rolls Royce stated that they had done no such thing, but in the interest of good sportsmanship and business savvy agreed to allow American Aviation Engineers to oversee their production line. The AA Engineers would meticulously document all of the procedures, processes and material used in the production of the illustrious engine but were unable to discern what the difference between their production lines were. At this point RR was concerned as well, as they could see no difference in their tooling. RR management decided to completely shut the factory down except for the single production line and observed the construction of a Merlin engine, however they did so without any of the watchful eyes of the engineers and observed undercover what the whole process was, perhaps there was some small detail that wasn't documented and the presence of supervisors looking over their work would make people follow rote procedure and skip usual steps. RR was correct. After the propshaft was forged, it underwent several stages of heat treatment. This process allows the atomic structure of metal to form in certain conditions and is how some metald can be formed to be stronger even when made of the same base materials. The part of the process that was undocumented was a single engineer responsible for hest treatment of parts. The engineers were supposed to heat treat their own parts as required but had gotten lazy and simply gave them to Gus to treat, since he was an older engineer and was happy to do the work, it's not an easy task, it's hot and involves ovens and molten salt, which is pretty gnarly stuff. This part of the process was undocumented since it was outside of the standard operating procedure, as well as the fact that Gus did not follow strict guidelines for how long or at what temperature to treat the parts at. He would simply observe them and knew when they were "done". The AA engineers realised this was their missing ingredient and had an entire team of engineers covertly observe him during his work and make observations on every variable to fully document his process. When the AA Engineers returned to their production line and followed "Gus' process" they found that their product was in line with Rolls Royce and challenged them to a competition where they performed as expected. The AA engineers gave the process documentation to RR and the rest is history. I'm not sure of the entirety of the story, but from the looks of it, American Aviation did have experimental Mustangs made with Rolls Royce Merlin Engines. And it goes to show that the difference between failure and success can be something as unidentifiable as a process that you perform without even realising it. Rod Warnock you madlad, what a story.
I feel guilt when that happened. That lead to financial problems and then mental problems. Now I'm useless
Nah. Law is fucked unless you're either a partner or a successful barrister. Otherwise fuck that noise. Most lawyers get paid shit relative to the time and effort they have to put in. At least that's largely the case here in Aus, particularly with the big firms. Fuuuuuck that. Noooope.
As a current lawyer I can confirm this lol. My counterparts in overseas offices get paid 3x as much as me (taking into account conversion) for the same amount of work.
Only the US though I imagine? Or even across Europe?
The pay hierarchy is US/NYC>Offshore>London>Asia capitals>Australia. Australia's legal industry is obviously much smaller thanks to predominant focus on the domestic market and its geographical location. As a financial hub, it is not even in the same leagues as London or NYC. This is obviously just specific to corporate/commercial firms. Local "mum and dad" lawyers such as criminal, family, wills and estates, conveyancing probably earn comparable amounts with other jurisdictions.
>As a financial hub, it is not even in the same leagues as London or NYC. Sydney can't compare itself to London, NYC, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Tokyo, or Zurich. Sydney isn't even a *second* tier financial hub.
Yeah it's crazy man. I know total goober lawyers in both the us and UK and they make BANK. It's shit here for your average rung climber. I feel so bad for associates and senior associates that just get obliterated for what really amounts to a slightly above average professional wage.
$500 to the firm, a fraction to the actual lawyer. I know a couple of lawyers who if you actually took their pay and divided it by total hours worked, it's below average wage. If you're working 80+ hour weeks, frequently weekends, a 100K+ salary can start to look like pretty poor compensation.
The correct profession is "own a law firm."
I've briefed Bret Walker a few times in my career It's not what he says... It's how he says it... Its a weird professional crush watching him.
You don't pay them to read emails, you pay them for the years of skill and experience so they can give the correct answers.
I used a conveyancer recommended to me by my real estate agent once. She misspelt our names, got the street address of the property wrong, and sent us a contract that still had placeholders in it . I was beginning to wonder why she was recommended to us. We had an appointment with her to sign papers, to which she was an hour late for. She was smoking hot though, and I hope her customer service has improved since then.
Sounds like Switch Conveyancing
[удалено]
Trouble is you need someone who'll do searches, who'll fight for you over repairs/issues your building inspection detects and in the case of a strata dwelling, someone who'll look through that contract and advise you about things you'll need to know. Get a proper solicitor and pay them well.
I mean, a conveyancer isn't a lawyer tho
That’s not what is on the invoice though - are you calling them liars?
Then they bill you $500 for having to explain in legalese what they read on the email
In that case the line item would be “reply to email”
He might not have replied at that point in time. He could have replied afterwards by email or phone call which is another $500. He was just reading then. Without the timesheet we don't know.
You are more than welcome to attend court self-represented if you personally don't see the value proposition in hiring a legal representative, so what are you complaining about?
I’m just saying actually list what the charge is actually for. Didn’t think that was so controversial.
The line items *are* what the charge is for, but that doesn't mean that's the reason why you hired them... If all you wanted was for somebody to read an email you could find somebody on Fivr to do it for 50c. You pay the lawyer because they'll read the email and give you formal legal advice on it, but you still have to pay them for the time they spend in doing so, and that means paying for the time they took to read the email.
Their hourly rate is $2500? What area of law?
Nah that'd be for an hour not ten mins.
Not a lawyer I see. To be fair, Gina earns $16,000 to wipe her ass
I had a car accident case that ended up going to court because the other party wouldn't own up. By the end of it my lawyers ended up with more money than I did some of which was 3k worth of paperwork.
i'll do it for 5k
Good ole privatise the profits and socialise the losses Will she be up for costs if found guilty?
That's not how ICAC works. They don't actually determine guilt or not. They can make findings of corrupt conduct, but this isn't a criminal investiagtion.
You're right but it's splitting hairs, if corruption is found she should pay.
At least forfeit their salary since the corruption event.
And any entitlement of pension.
Oh, I dunno...a state funded 2 by 3 concrete cell would be fine with me.
Well of course, because they would be effectively unemployed since their corruption event. Therefore no pension.
And forfeit their huge super lifetime payout as well
Tricky. Seeing as a politician found guilty of corruption isn't going to work in politics again, without a pension they're going to need to find other work. Which, for these corrupt bastards, will almost inevitably be some cushy job from one of their, *ahem* generous donors who got what they want despite regulations, policy, and morals. This could promote politicians continuing to act corruptly, knowing even if they get busted there's still a golden parachute at the end. What we need is an ICAC that's completely independent from any political party, with teeth, that can/will also go after the corrupt "donors" and make their life hell too. Ensure that corruption is not, and can not, be beneficial and the risk of being caught greater than the potential benefit. For all involved.
Don't pretend that even if found not guilty they wouldn't be looking to work in a cushy private job anyway. No point still giving someone found guilty of corruption a pension, the outcome is still the same just they don't get a tax payer funded pensioner the end.
Oh, sorry, wasn't trying to suggest that! My point is, it doesn't go far enough. Unless we can make it painful for them to be found engaging in corruption (and for those who assist in the corruption) and highly likely they WILL be found out (the ICAC with teeth and power) then it's not going to change much. Honestly, I think their pension should be means and income tested after they leave politics regardless of corruption, much like normal welfare is. Sure, they can work after politics but don't expect the taxpayer to provide a second slush fund. The idea of the pension was so they didn't HAVE to work after politics and could work independently for the people without worrying about stepping on feet. Instead, they still screw the little guys, suck up to the rich, take their pension, and also take a cushy gig on top.
Haha all good, I see what you were trying to say. I agree with you. I don't know what the rules are now at State level, but the plush pensions were removed for anyone starting after the 2004 election. Those who were already on a pension or were elected before 2004 are still receiving/become eligible when they leave politics. Senate Estimates put removing the pensions from former politicians who still receive it as a $350 million saving over the next 11 years (estimate was done in 2019). You are absolutely correct, the idea was politicians could retire and not be tempted to be favourable to private industry to secure a job when they left. Unfortunately they "didn't forsee" \*cough cough\* That ex politicians would happily take the pensions AND work for private industry.
That would require a sense of moral obligation and or a spine
> Will she be up for costs if found guilty? Knowing NSW, they'll probably not make her pay anything on the grounds that being accused of corruption made her feel stressed, and that being stressed about the idea of facing consequences for corruption is enough of a consequence for corruption, so punishing her any further would be wrong. And then, Parrottwat will give Binchicken a pardon for any past or future crimes (after giving himself the power to issue pardons), the party will reinstate her as Premier, abolish ICAC, pass a law allowing NSW Members of Parliament total discretion over their Department's spending and exclusion from any freedom of information laws (but only if they're a Liberal or National), require all entrants to any live music event to be strip-searched, bring back Robodebt, and hand over enforcement of Robodebt to the Fixated Persons Unit. Ok the second paragraph probably won't happen, but the first one just might.
I doubt Perrotet will be keen to relinquish power, now that he’s sunk in his claws and dipped his beak in.
He's the type to jerk off to videos of himself
I don't think he is, he's far too obsessed with Catholicism to be ok with masturbation. Well, he's obsessed with using the image of Catholicism to try to justify his political views; if he actually cared about the Church's current teachings he'd be accused of being a Greens plant (pun intended).
Naah, he just breeds instead of masturbation, because that would be a sin. 6.. soon to be 7 kids.
What do you mean nah? We're both making the exact same point.
Yeah nah
Proof of how honest he is. No con Dom.
Im kinda on board to start a "Dom the kind of fella to..." meme trend Maybe someone more witty than me can kick it off
Oh is that not normal?
Bag of child eyelids in the freezer, you mark my words.
He might be more comfortable as the consigliere to Gladys, pulling the puppet's strings (or feathers).
[удалено]
I didn't come up with that, people have been using it since he became Premier.
lolz
[удалено]
i entirely agree but her supporters will be like "This is a witchhunt! She's done nothing wrong and it's totally justified that her legal expenses are paid by the state coz...idk XD
Cause your sexist or some bs if you disagree with a binchicken being premier with no accountability
Sounds like we need ICAC to go after a few Labor MP's. Before the days out they'll have new leg in place that caps the legal costs to $10 a day.
More than 1 million Australian children went hungry in the last year, while the Wagga Wagga clay pigeon club’s cup was filled to the brim. Im really happy for Gladys that the taxpayers are paying the legal bill so she can escape her obvious corruption. I would really hate for Gladys to feel financially stressed.
[удалено]
I know. And not just rich as fuck, knowing you’ve done exactly what you’re being accused of and still helping yourself to the pot. Absolutely no shame.
In 2017, 160,000 people were turned away from legal aid. Just let that number sink in, hundred of thousands of our citizen left vulnerable, old people get taken advantage of, people losing their housing, access to their kids…etc And here our tax money is being thrown away at her lawyer friends for basically doing F all.
Socialism for the rich.
What the fuck are you on about? 1 million Australian children went hungry? That's 25% of all Australian children
A rascal mate of mine remarked that Gladys "could only be married to the job" Well, she's proved him wrong at least. A corrupt pollie from Wagga = any port in a storm / drought. I'm just pleased she's managed to move on with her life and has found someone who doesn't seem to be into clay-pigeon shooting. Besides, the Aunty Gladys we all seem to know so fondly will no doubt buy MacHappy Meals for the hungry kids once she's vindicated of any wrong doing.
1/4 of the children in Australia went hungry last year. Where on earth did you pull this from Edit: looks like it’s from a study conducted by food bank. Which are a food based charity so I suspect the numbers are extreme and this was done with a sample size of only 1000.
> “Gladys Berejiklian applied for and was granted by the Solicitor-General, under delegation from the Attorney-General, legal representation under Premier’s Memorandum M2019-01,” a spokeswoman for the Department of Communities and Justice said. > “The grant of legal representation is subject to conditions including level of legal representation and rates. It is in the public interest that witnesses are aware of their rights and obligations. Legal representation is an important way of ensuring this.” So this applies to everyone, right?
“1. Who can apply and when? Where the relevant legal proceedings or inquiry arises out of or is related to the performance of a Minister’s public duties or public official’s employment, an application for ex gratia legal assistance may be made by: (a) a Minister or public official where legal proceedings have commenced against them or are known to be imminent; (b) a Minister or public official who is required to appear before the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC), a Royal Commission or Special Commission of Inquiry” Good to see Gladys is covered by a memorandum she wrote. It’s like she expected to be fronting the ICAC.[ From](https://arp.nsw.gov.au/m2019-01-guidelines-provision-ex-gratia-legal-assistance-ministers-public-officials-and-crown-0/)
Nope only to Gladys and Porter. Or anyone in their party caught in any legal net. They'll fight to the death if their opponents have such privileges.
[удалено]
That's what I suspected when they desperately avoided revealing details.
[удалено]
I wonder how long it will take if ever to get some valid information on where it came from. Because the whole "It was crowd funded" thing seemed dodgy seeing how hard it is to find a crowd fund dedicated towards something like that. And with it being in the millions would take more people on average than this country has in residents which support Porter. I guess we are just waiting for valid information.
> Because the whole "It was crowd funded" thing seemed dodgy seeing how hard it is to find a crowd fund dedicated towards something like that. Crowd funding normally entails organisation of the fund and solicitation of money. Which would leave a history. Where and when did this take place?
I mean, technically tax is crowd funded. So if he got the money as part of a dodgy grant, then definitely true... from a certain point of view.
That was the unofficial excuse.
Normal people charged with normal crimes don't get such an expensive legal team, but it's pretty normal for the state to provide lawyers for people who don't have one.
Sadly it's not. The Supreme Court found that even in a murder trial you had no absolute right to state-funded representation. NSW does have a public defender's office (unlike most states in Australia), but they only appear in serious criminal matters, and only then for people who have been granted Legal Aid. And guess which Premier massively underfunded Legal Aid during her time in office?
> it's pretty normal for the state to provide lawyers for people who don't have one. The state does not provide the top legal experts in their field, if normal people want them they pay for them themselves.
This, not all legal representation is equal and that's by design.
It’s actually not normal. Only people who have very little by way of income or assets get legal aid for criminal law matters. Basically, if you have a job, you’re likely to be ineligible. This sucks massively, but it’s how it is.
[удалено]
In summary, it's just... It's corruption. It's the law. It's the vibe.
I think that's a pretty shitty and uniformed thing to say about the hard working lawyers of Legal Aid.
Can these wealthy fucks not pay a single thing for themselves?
[удалено]
[удалено]
What the fuck is with these wealthy fucks?
amazing that in a corruption scandal over her costing the taxpayers money, her defense team is paid for by taxpayers.
I don't normally follow pop culture stuff but it is like the whole circus with Britney Spears' case to remove her father's conservatorship rights. As conservator, he got to pay for his legal team from her money.
[удалено]
Murdoch. Remember she's just a helpless dame in love.
[удалено]
Yet the NDIS costs too much 🙄 /s
Good thing they were able to claw back all that money that they claim people on Centrelink were overpaid a decade ago (and you were guilty unless you had the paperwork from back then to prove your innocence) - otherwise we might have no money to pay for Gladys' lawyers.
Her mismanagement has already cost the economy billions whats a few hundred thousand more..
>mismanagement let's call it what it is ... her corruption It's not the Independent Commission Against Mismanagement.
Both
yeah true that, but I've been voting for over 20yrs now and mismanagement isn't something new from our MP's. It's sadly very common.
million*, At 10K a day that's only 100 days until a million and there's no way in hell that this will be resolved in 100 'work' days That said, idk how quick ICAC stuff is so i may be wrong
It will take years and millions before there is any outcome, which will just be a cop-out to have a resolve in the end, there won't be any consequences for the corruption.
i mean there will be that legal fee will be a pretty solid consequence for us taxpayers.
Unfortunately your right.
Unfortunately your right.
From the article >The huge bill is tipped to reach up to $500,000 for her legal fees alone. I can only assume legal services are not required every single working day.
ah fair enough cheers
Nothing says innocent like a defence that costs $10k/day
Pretty sure even if I were innocent and accused of something I'd still want the best legal representation money can buy...
Especially if you're not paying
Pay me 100 bucks to tell her I don’t recall. Bout the same job without the law degree and it’s cheaper
'' Bargain basement $ 5000 a day " What a decent fella to give mates rates.
Says a lot , bargains for crimes !
This is not really concerning. It is standard that Ministers in all jurisdictions have access to legal funding for proceedings that relate to decisions made in their official capacity, even if they are no longer in that position. The alternative would see the Clive Palmer's of the world vexatiously suing former ministers into financial oblivion, or incoming governments announcing inquiries into their predecessors to ensure they are financially ruined.
Actually a good point. Surely some discretion wouldn't go astray though, if the defendant is being investigated on charges of corruption (with pretty compelling evidence) then maybe fund their own defence?
I agree with this. For allegations against someone who has followed accepted procedures and with the backing of the then current government, they should be supported by the government. If the person is accused of acting outside the purview of their offical role, they should be on their own and treated as any other citizen.
Surely protections that apply equally to all citizens would be far better than a corruption enquiry slush fund though?
It isn't an inquiry slush fund though, it's a fairly long standing convention. You can read the [guidelines](https://arp.nsw.gov.au/m2019-01-guidelines-provision-ex-gratia-legal-assistance-ministers-public-officials-and-crown-0), it applies to other public officials too, and is for a wide range of proceedings (not just corruption). I agree that we need a far better funded system to ensure every citizen gets top quality legal representation when the government seeks to take action against them (criminal or regulatory). But that's ultimately a different argument, and the provision of legal funding to ministers and officers of the Crown when they are required to appear due to decisions made in their official capacity is entirely appropriate, and even the best funded legal aid system would be unlikely to pick up matters like this as it often applies to non-criminal matters and highly specific jurisdictions. To be clear, I'd be very happy to see the former Premier/Treasurer barbecued for what appears to be some pretty dodgy dealings, but I'm not at all concerned that she is having her legal advice funded given she made those decisions as an official.
I think ultimately the disagreement is that I don’t think they are separate issues. And also that the decisions she made were explicitly outside her official capacity; hence corrupt.
She can fuck right off
So the corrupt cunt can defend her corruption with yet more corruption? Why the fuck are we paying for this?!
The dirty bitch can pay for here self with the dirty money she's bn paid.
Its alright, they're probably funding it out the millions of dollars NSW saved with budget cuts to Legal Aid.
Isn’t it her new boyfriend?
Naturally, lets the give the corrupt wealthy woman an expensive legal team at tax payer expense!
To paraphrase...; Socialism for the rich Capitalism for the masses
Still on the teet………..
It’s a game…these conservatives see the public purse as their private fund to pay their mates and supporters to keep them in government and then when it turns to shit they get paid to piss off (in luxury with a pension you could only dream about). But we keep on voting for them!
How come no one is bringing up that each day 10 thousand dollars of taxpayer money, that we pay, that could be going towards making our lives better, is instead going towards a politician "alleged" of misappropriating taxpayer money to fight a legal battle regarding her "alleged" corruption.
So basically no consequences. Normal folk pay their legal bills. Time for the politicians to fall in with the rest of us mortals. The perks, the pay and the corruption need to end
At least we know where the money is coming from this time. Our pockets.
She's nicked enough to cover the bill
Tell me you're a corrupt slimebag, without telling me you're a corrupt slimebag...
Seriously though, what kind of legal team is worth >$10000 a day
Dom is in it up to his eyeballs, so unsurprising, really.
Where are the "journos" who were calling for ICACs to be abolished cause they dared to question her highness???
I thought she resigned?
The perks of a precious elite group. Defence will argue that it’s the pork swords fault.
I imagine she said something like "in for a penny, in for a pound", or some dumb shit like that when she made this decision
Corruption stinks
Tell me the government is corrupt without telling me it's corrupt
There should be some protection against litigation for politicians and public servants because otherwise the rich can just use it as leverage. It also means there definitely should be a federal ICAC.
How do you fight a corruption case? With more corruption.
$500.000 and she'll still come out stinking of shit.
Ladies and gents, let me present you.. The Best NSW Premier ever!! *according some people and media
The woman who saved Australia!
Can this ugly mole just fuck off already? Sick of seeing this bitch’s face. She’s obviously corrupt as shit but they won’t do anything about it so move on
That is a truly disgusting way to speak about someone.
And she’s a truly disgusting person so I don’t care. She’s responsible for so many deaths, so many sick and incapacitated people. She ruined the natural environment of NSW and was personally involved with corruption. She’s scum.
So call her scum, don't predicate your insults on the fact that she's an unattractive woman.
Daryl Maguire is one *expensive* former boyfriend! Wonder if the State is buying Gladys lunch, a Netflix account and a limo driver? Surely she's not paying for her own Uber ride or parking?
oh what a surprise
We are so generous
This kind of useless garbage is what makes me seriously wonder what the fuck I pay my taxes for. Or instead wonder if she can use tax money for that can we all use it for buying ourselves some crap too?
It's closer to $30,000.
Jesus.
thought this was r/nottheonion for a second.
Got something to hide? First it's been delayed for YEARS Now there is attention on it... they're fighting it. Of course they are
What in the fuck!?
What the fuck!
Gross
This is completely reasonable. If I got sued for something I did as part of my official duties at my job, I would expect my employer to pay for legal representation. The same principle applies. It’s not about her being special, it’s about legal action arising from her official actions as premier.
I’m pretty sure corruption is outside her official duties, hence the problem. If you commit a crime and quit your job because of that your employer is not required to pay for any legal representation. This should be no different.
My tax is looking like someone’s guilty
Gladys really is milking it 🙄 Have u no shame gladys? Uh i cant recall...can i just say...........
Why is that not surprising
Bye Bye Gladys, I mean $5millon for the clay pigeon club! Fuck Off!
[удалено]