The latest Newspoll has Labor’s lead up again after a period of moderating results since the leadership upheaval, the two-party lead now at 54-46, compared with 53-47 in the poll a fortnight ago. Labor is up a point on the primary vote to 39%, while the Coalition is down one to 36%, the Greens are down two to 9%, and One Nation are steady on 6%. Still more worrying for the Liberals is a reversal of the tide in favour of Scott Morrison, who records his first net negative personal ratings to date, with approval down four to 41% and disapproval up six to 44%. Bill Shorten is respectively up two to 37% and down one to 50%, and his deficit as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 45-34 to 43-35. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1646.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bare-minimum-greens-arc-up-over-labor-s-climate-policy-rebuff-20181030-p50cvy.html
Hmmm…from my read of this the Greens have actually been told:
“thanks for your suggestions, we will can talk more once we have had our national conference”
“You have to wonder: if the Labor Party under Bill Shorten can’t even bring themselves to come on board with the need to increase the RET ”
FFS, that isnt the case at all. They are just not giving the Greens a commitment at the time and place they want and before the ALP conference.
TPOF:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 10:25 am
————————————-
I think compensating for reputational damage should take a back seat to protecting women and children from being abused, assaulted and worse by predatory men. For decades, churches elevated the protection of their own reputation above the welfare of children exposed to their predators. This must stop. Again, this is just my opinion.
BW
Before the case opened I thought the DT would lose. Truth is the defence. Thus the DT has to prove its true.
I am not defending the DT or Rush. I am saying its not looking good for the proof of truth defence.
Thats the standard of this court case. One established by defamation law. Not me.
The reason we are hearing all these things is the DT has to prove something which has had he said she said testimony so far.
It was always an uphill battle for the DT. Nothing about this case has so far said anything about guilt or innocence in a criminal court style setting.
What we have heard is affirmation that yes bullying and harassment do go on in the hearing. We have not heard those comments were specifically about Rush. At least not from what I have read.
AL
I get where you are coming from. Its certainly not looking good for the DT on proving Rush guilty.
Bert:
There should be a ‘one time’ button towards the top of the little pop up that PressPatron brings up – I know as I’m in a similar situation where I can’t sign up for monthly contributions.
Asha Leu:
[‘I could be wrong’]
Yes, you could be.
I’ve found it desirable not to comment publicly on a matter still before a court, albeit the suit in question is a civil proceeding. I say this because unless you’ve been present in court or have read the transcript, you’re not in full knowledge of the evidence, the snippets published in the media being far from complete. It’s best in my view to let justice take its course, and comment when this judge only trial is completed.
zoomster says:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 10:34 am
Michael A
We have criminal courts to deal with those behaviours.
—————————————
Yes. And I would love to see the likes of Rush answer properly for their conduct in such courts.
I would go further and have any civil actions like the one pursued by Rush in the present case be deferred until such a criminal court made a proper finding.
Really, we should be encouraging people to come forward and report predatory behaviour as much as possible, and only come in and apply the bad aids to bruised egos and “reputations” later.
Michael A
‘And I would love to see the likes of Rush answer properly for their conduct in such courts.’
Wow.
I don’t know who is guilty or innocent in this case, or whether no one is and it’s one of those situations where people read what’s happening in very different ways.
You, on the other hand, have decided that because Rush is famous he must be guilty.
That’s a very long bow.
Bert @ #1948 Thursday, November 1st, 2018 – 10:35 am
I make a small donation each month but I think it is possible to make one off donations via PressPatron.
In any case – courtesy of Mr. W. Bowe Esq.
Spending my time being frustrated by local election campaigns.
It’s all ‘look, I delivered X amount of dollars for X project.”
One, it’s delivered. Thanks, we have what we want now, now what are you offering? If I’ve got what I wanted, I no longer need to vote for you.
Two, yes, people are grateful. But the attitude is that the government has done what governments are meant to do, fund things that people want.
Three, the things that are really important to people are not whether or not the main street has been refurbished or the Memorial Hall has a new coat of paint. If you campaign on these issues, you simply demonstrate that you don’t get what’s important to people.
Find out what really bugs people – the issues which crop up in their lives every single day. Talk about them.
Michael A
I agree with your sentiment. However in this case there has been no complaint.
Thus no way to proceed to a criminal trial. So I have to fully agree with Zoomster. We can’t have lynch mobs. People need not wait when gossip has been published and has caused damage to reputation and career.
I say that as someone that thinks our defamation laws are too strong. However with Murdoch around I see the need. Reform media laws like Canada and we can have sensible defamation laws like other countries.
Nicholas @ #1915 Thursday, November 1st, 2018 – 9:01 am
Even if you’re acting out a play, and the play calls for some such thing?
Also, was it made explicitly clear that any touching around the breast was not okay? I mean, before the unwanted touching occurred? Because the scene involves touching, so there’s already implied consent for physical contact of some variety.
It seems a plausible explanation for the entire thing is that you had two actors with different ideas about what is and isn’t “safe for work” touching, and they didn’t bother communicating about it.
Sure, but if you’re a willing and active participant in an artistic setting where touching is part of the act, and you have boundaries you want respected with that touching, and you don’t voice them beforehand, then you probably won’t find much sympathy if you later claim deliberate harassment/abuse in all but the most blatant/obvious/egregious of cases.
There’s no expecting your fellow artists to be psychic when it comes to knowing where your personal boundaries sit. Stuff like that has to be communicated.
imacca says:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 10:35 am
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bare-minimum-greens-arc-up-over-labor-s-climate-policy-rebuff-20181030-p50cvy.html
Hmmm…from my read of this the Greens have actually been told:
“thanks for your suggestions, we will can talk more once we have had our national conference”
“You have to wonder: if the Labor Party under Bill Shorten can’t even bring themselves to come on board with the need to increase the RET ”
FFS, that isnt the case at all. They are just not giving the Greens a commitment at the time and place they want and before the ALP conference.
The Gs are implementing their business plan…….running decoys, laying baits, trying to wedge Labor. Lawd above, they are vile.
‘There’s no expecting your fellow artists to be psychic when it comes to knowing where your personal boundaries sit. Stuff like that has to be communicated.’
Yep. Harassment (generally speaking – there are obvious exceptions) is, to my mind, ongoing behaviour which you have made clear is not acceptable.
You dill, Nicholas. Sucked in by a pretty girl acting out her greatest role of “put-upon virgin”.
We have ONLY Norvill’s evidence that any of this happened. If it has not been denied, that is because there has been no chance to do so. She gave her evidence after Rush gave his. However, wherever there WERE witnesses, appropriate denials have been issued. By ALL of them.
Norvill’s response? “They are all in on it. They are all lying under oath: actors (males and women betraying their gender) management, the director, technicians … everyone. The whole industry is rotten.”
Yet, during the production, after all of the above alleged incidents had occurred, it was the greatest thing ever. Rush was a father figure, mentor, funny, wise and cheeky. The director was fantastic, The whole cast excelled itself. STC was a great place to work and learn.
So, when was Norvill lying (or at its most charitable, exaggerating) Nicholas? In 2015, or now?
What happened in between the “humiliation” and “sexual harassment” in 2015, and now, to change her mind and interpretation of exactly the same set of facts and experiences? From bliss to bastardization in a couple of years.
Could it be her failed Hollywood career? Did someone from the Tele (coincidentally, part of the Murdoch news and filmed entertainment empire) whisper sweet nothings into Cordelia’s ear? Why the 180 degree reversal?
That is not true. The media outlets know that people of typical wealth can’t afford to initiate defamation proceedings.
Defamation law has a chilling effect on criticism of wealthy people. That There is not an equivalent restriction on criticising people of ordinary means.
zoomster says:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 10:45 am
—————————————
Straw man, much?
“Answering properly” before a criminal court may very well mean “pleading not guilty and being found not guilty”, and often does so. You must know that. Stop verballing me. It disgraces your attempt to reason with me.
I want the first and overriding priority in cases of alleged or suspected assault or abuse to be the protection from further abuse or assault of the victims, the determination of what abuse or assault occurred, the identity of those responsible if there has been, and the infliction of punishment on any such perpetrators. Only after that do I want any judicial or social/cultural attention to be paid to the “reputation” of anyone accused in this process.
Only through this shall we finally provide proper protection from predators for the vulnerable in our society.
Nicholas is so repressed he would never take yes as an answer.
BB
Again I don’t think we know the full details. We are relying on media reports unless you have directly attended court.
Thats why I think Norvill was making a general point and not against Rush personally. This would be in response to questions from the DT barrister trying to prove guilt.
The point is nothing we have seen proves that and nothing has suggested that the two versions are inconsistent. That includes not contradicting other witnesses. Their standard of sexual harassment could be different. e.g.. What is leering and what is play in a rehearsal in a theatre setting. I have no idea I have not been in a rehearsal setting in exactly those circumstances.
All we do know is so far the Daily Telegraph has not proved guilt.
To argue otherwise is to let others frame the argument falsely. 🙂
Michael A
It is not a strawman to point out that you have decided that Rush is guilty simply because he is famous.
That’s a ridiculous position. I note that you make no attempt to defend it.
guytaur:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 10:50 am
—————————————
I agree with you in general about lynch mobs. But I think male violence has been allowed to become so entrenched that it needs a “thermonuclear” response. We need to make men actually scared to act on their violent or sexually presumptuous impulses. If we do this for long enough, hopefully we will remove this cancer from our society.
…if a wealthy person sues for defamation, that establishes a precedent that X behaviour is not acceptable. That precedent then flows through to form the guidelines followed by all media.
So, yes, a wealthy person using defamation laws to protest against unfair treatment by the media does help those without the wealth to pursue similar unfair treatment.
Michael A
Having been the subject of sustained attempt by an individual to publicly trash my reputation, to do the same in our shared client base, to destroy my character, and to have me sacked, I beg to differ.
For your personal edification, all the #metoo stereotypes were there: elite, white, male, powerful, wealthy, and connected.
While none of the very, very large number of allegations involved sexual harrassment or sexual assault, every other sort of allegation was trotted out. These included misogyny and racism with direct references to all the formal institutions that deal with these issues. I worked for decades in incredibly difficult circumstance in remote Indigenous communities but I was the one who was on trial for, inter alia, racism.
Apart from protecting myself, my other main concern at the time was to protect her fellow workers (my staff) from her totally destructive, totally manipulative and systematically sly set of behaviours. One had ended in hospital with a stress-related heart attack. Others were on stress leave. I was headed in the same direction.
There was a formal set of processes that took two years to resolve. I found it to be a massive personal ordeal that still makes be somewhat physically sick to write about even now, decades later.
Fortunately, I had seen what was coming and I was ready. After all, the same routines had happened with the same person in other workplaces.
I had ensured never being alone with her in any circumstances. Ever. I avoided any chance of even casual physical brushing past in a crowded venue. Yep, there had been accusations of sexual harassment and sexual assault in other workplaces.
I had ensured that every single interaction involved third parties being present. Always.
I had ensured that every single decision making process was 100% consistent with our various corporate standards. Without a single exception. Ever.
I had ensured minuting every single interaction. Always. In detail.
I had ensured that I was never anything else but quietly spoken and totally reasonable in any interaction.
I had ensured that all necessary external supports were made available.
It took two years to deal with an avalanche of vile lies, vicious accusations, legal processes, public processes and internal processes. The damage to my reputation in the client community was never addressed. The death threats were never addressed.
Two years of sleepless nights and raised anxiety levels.
I was on trial for my reputation, my job, my achievements, my family and my life. If found guilty of any of the accusations, I was finished.
Fortunately, there were processes and fortunately, the processes were robust.
Fortunately, I had on hand all the documentation, all the care and preparation, all the 100% consistency with ALL the process rules and ALL the standards ALL the time (a practically inhuman task in and of itself), ALL the evidence of all my staff, peers, and clients was 100% on my side. 100%.
I was exonerated.
She was sacked.
Two years of my life badly damaged.
This is why I am particularly sensitive about the #metoo lynch mob stuff.
zoomster:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:02 am
————————————-
Zoomster, you are wrong in asserting that I think, or have ever said, Rush is guilty of anything. Not being a judge or a jury member in a trial which has Rush as a defendant, I am not in any position to form a valid opinion on his guilt or innocence.
I say that our society needs to have the cancer of male violence and sexual imposition removed, and that devoting time, attention and resources to defending mere reputations makes it harder to achieve that imperative.
Michael A
The Daily Telegraph is a “lynch mob” all of its own in my view. Remember Norvill did not lodge a complaint she sounded out friends to test if she should. Her decision was not to lodge a complaint. I see that as sensible seeking feedback.
Describing those conversations under oath to determine guilt or innocence is bad. We are only hearing them because the DT has to prove guilt. Norvill and Rush both did not want to be in this setting though Rush could have just suffered the reputational damage of course.
Reminds self that Melbourne Cup Day is my personal Bowe Value-for-Money Annual Donation Day.
When is Melbourne Cup Day?
Michael A
‘And I would love to see the likes of Rush answer properly for their conduct in such courts.’
This statement makes it absolutely crystal clear that you believe Rush is guilty.
Boerwar:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:06 am
—————————————
Please be clear: I am only arguing for a suspension of protections from reputational damage in cases involving credible allegations of violence or sexual assault or abuse, not the sort you were accused of. No overriding public interest is involved in deferring/suspending protection of reputation in those cases, AFAIK.
Rossmcg @ #1947 Thursday, November 1st, 2018 – 7:35 am
I used to think the West was a a god awful rag, then I moved to Victoria and “read” the Hun in a cafe one morning.
Whether defamation occurred depends on the facts of the case, and the facts don’t get examined unless there is a plaintiff with the money to initiate proceedings.
Australia’s defamation laws, particularly in New South Wales, are a means for wealthy people to intimidate the media and suppress legitimate public comment. Unfortunately they see it as a handy means of getting some money for a granny flat extension or a swimming pool.
We need to move the protection of reputation out of the courts as much as possible.
For matters that get to court, the maximum monetary damages should be capped at $20,000 (so that money isn’t a motive to sue). The system should emphasize the remedies of apologies, corrections, and clarifications.
After all, if a person is chiefly concerned about their reputation, they should be satisfied if a court orders that the Daily Telegraph must publish a correction and apology on its front page every day for a week. The reality at the moment is that reputation is only part of what defamation proceedings are about. Much of the focus is on getting money, punishing a critic by tying them up in expensive legal proceedings, and shutting down valid discussion.
Requiring a high threshold before a defamation action can be brought is essential.
Taking large monetary damages off the table is too.
Are defamation laws different in different states?
Michael A has the naive belief that, if Norvill had walked into a cop shop with her evidence, they would have dropped everything, got in a paddy wagon, turned on the siren and flashing lights and proceeded straight aroubd to Geoffrey Rush’s house to interrogate him.
Michael also believes that if the investigation – even if Rush is found to be innocent – results in the destruction of Rush’s and several other careers, that is entirely immaterial. A few wrecked legacies is nothing compared to the duty of law authorities to jump into action in response to the persecution fantasies of young women who can’t seem to get their stories straight.
Michael reckons Rush is rich and old, so he shouldn’t complain if people come after him and his career. He deserves it. Sheesh, I hope Michael is never allowed near a real jury room.
‘Michael A says:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:13 am
Boerwar:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:06 am
—————————————
Please be clear: I am only arguing for a suspension of protections from reputational damage in cases involving credible allegations of violence or sexual assault or abuse, not the sort you were accused of. No overriding public interest is involved in deferring/suspending protection of reputation in those cases, AFAIK.’
Please be clear. YOU are not the judge and jury. YOU are not the decision maker about what is ‘credible’ or not. YOU are not the executioner.
Had YOU and a couple of your ilk had been around my little effort, the lynch mob would have been in full swing.
The accusations were ‘credible’ enough to cost two years of effort, numerous formal processes, and well over $100,000 worth of staffing effort.
IMO, the ONLY reason I did not get sexual assault charges thrown in was because I had been 100% careful to ensure that they were 100% impossible.
So DO stop setting yourself up as all of the above.
zoomster:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:09 am
—————————————
Zoomster, did you even read my response @10:58am?
“Answering properly” before a criminal court may very well mean “pleading not guilty and being found not guilty”, and often does so.
Nicholas
I am all for defamation law reform 🙂
I agree the playing field is tilted towards the wealthy and that should change. Plus the less we need lawyer intervention the better. Another way of helping would be to keep lawyers fees down to what a lawyer would get as a public defender not a litigator of a private firm.
Much more cases would get settled and certainly repairing reputation should be the aim not damages.
I am sure Rush would much prefer to resume his career than get money. Plus then when someone makes a mistake it doesn’t destroy them totally in a career forever. They get a chance to learn and change.
The added advantage of not having a victim having to go through a longer than needed case to determine an outcome. Thus reducing damage from an actual case on both parties.
FFS Nicholas, this is EXACTLY how it works. Court is the very last resort.
Michael A:
[“pleading not guilty and being found not guilty”]
I think you’ll find that that’s exceptional, the state not wasting its resources on a trial unless there is a good chance of conviction.
See, for instance, the Queensland DPP’s prosecutory guidelines:
https://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/16701/directors-guidelines.pdf
Observer says:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 9:09 am
…ANZ says the “average” home loan approved has dropped by $110,000- over the last 3 years…
Yeah that is a bit of an odd comment.
The ABS average loans data are (average 3 months to August ’18 vs’15)…
Established residence: $406k vs $368 (+38k)
Construction of a residence: $347k vs $300k (+47k)
The G
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/31/labor-to-propose-new-environmental-laws-to-enforce-biodiversity-and-conservation
Did PB discuss this yesterday? Fascinating look into behind the scenes machinations inside the ALP. This is great news. Especially if it can be future proofed against the marauding intentions of the Coalition and Lib Dems.
Can they also set up a fund to buy native vegetation on private land and protect it in National Parks. I would have no problem if these were opened up to private tourism ventures. Just so long as the widespread clearing is stopped for good.
lizzie:
[‘Are defamation laws different in different states?’]
Commencing 1 Jan 2006 there have been uniform defamation laws.
https://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/entry/the-new-uniform-defamation-laws/
BB has the naive belief that, since the RC into child abuse, and the recent National Apology, all is now under control and can be dealt with satisfactorily with “business as usual”. Let’s offer all the protection against abuse and assault that our concern for reputational damage can afford!
So many priests, including my own parish priest, abused children for decades but then went to their graves without a word being published against them, or any other consequence falling upon them. This must not be allowed to happen ever again.
Thanks Aunt Mavis. No escaping over the border then. 😉
SK
I had become so inured to the environmental looting and destruction under the Coalition that the Labor initiatives are like rain breaking a drought.
The destruction started with speeding up global warming but included world class land clearing, killing the Reef, environmental water theft, destroying environmental science and gutting environmental protection institutions, destroying the implementation of the EPBC Act, unrestrained resource extraction, ignoring endangered species, winding back national park protections, turning national parks into shooting galleries and horse paddocks, and even such ‘small’ things as handing farmers responsibility for managing waterfowl numbers.
Yes, I am looking at you: Hunt, Frydenberg and Price.
The coming Labor Government will be like rain breaking a drought.
Horror movie stuff from the Grenfell inquiry
.
.
Grenfell Tower inquiry: Man trapped in burning building ‘told his sister-in-law he was at work to stop her worrying’
At 2am the dying man also called his colleagues at Marks & Spencer and reportedly left a message to let them know he was not going to come into work
……………….“I could hear my nieces in the background crying and someone comforting them, telling them not to worry as they would be OK and all die together not alone,” she said.
“The last words recorded of my family in their dying moments on the telephone will stay with me forever.
“To hear an adult trying to explain to a child that they are going to die but not to worry is horrific.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-inquest-man-trapped-died-told-sister-working-a8611026.html
Michael A
TPOF:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 10:25 am
————————————-
I think compensating for reputational damage should take a back seat to protecting women and children from being abused, assaulted and worse by predatory men. For decades, churches elevated the protection of their own reputation above the welfare of children exposed to their predators. This must stop. Again, this is just my opinion.
___________________________________
The idea of throwing someone to the dogs on suspicion because there is a big focus on a relevant area of misconduct is vile. Having personally been the victim of this approach – and having my life fundamentally turned upside down as a result (ironically for the better) – I can object in the strongest terms.
Which is why I am angry with this rush to judgement. And with the cheap smears engaged in by the Telegraph in reporting what was, at the time, effectively gossip.
Regarding latest generic USA House of Reps metrics from Los Angeles Times pollster:
National generic party polling is often irrelevant to the eventual HoR seats result due to America’s extreme gerrymanders, relentless pursuit of voter suppression and unavoidable demographic idiosyncrasies such as the heavy concentration of Democractic Party voters in urban areas.
Take California for example. Metropolitan Los Angeles and San Diego have a plethora of Congressional districts where the Democratic Party always wins landslides. Only in a few suburban counties are there marginal districts. Then in eastern half of southern California, rural districts are invariably safe Republican Party seats. No political gerrymanders here, yet there’s a relative paucity of districts which can be impacted by a national swing.
Lest we forget, Trump is POTUS due to the Electoral College system conjured up by a cabal of 18th century slave-owning oligarchs.
‘Michael A says:
Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:28 am
BB has the naive belief that, since the RC into child abuse, and the recent National Apology, all is now under control and can be dealt with satisfactorily with “business as usual”. Let’s offer all the protection against abuse and assault that our concern for reputational damage can afford!
So many priests, including my own parish priest, abused children for decades but then went to their graves without a word being published against them, or any other consequence falling upon them. This must not be allowed to happen ever again.’
And?
Two of my ex teachers, members of a religious order, are in jail.
But their behaviour does not justify destroying other lives by way of your lynch mobs.
These days defamation laws are reasonably consistent from state to state but there are still some differences.
New South Wales has always been the most pro-wealthy thin-skinned wanker jurisdiction in Australia.
Boerwar
Some seem to want to change an old quote to- ‘It’s better that 10 innocent men be wrongly convicted than one guilty man go free’
.
Boerwar @ #1973 Thursday, November 1st, 2018 – 11:09 am
Tuesday 6th November this year. Always the first Tuesday in November
BW, it is clear we’re living in different worlds here. I cannot comprehend anyone equating the suffering undergone by someone falsely accused, with the tragedy of an entire life wrecked by an abuser. So many people never got the chance to acquire the kind of beneficial reputation enjoyed by the likes of Geoffrey Rush because of attacks on them by predators while they were still children. But I am starting to better appreciate that this is probably a blindness on my part, a lack of empathy which precludes me from seeing it from your side. I apologise for that.