Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13212223
Results 331 to 344 of 344
  1. #331
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    14,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    And on links from that page:

    An 'identified position' is a vacancy with specific selection criteria/job requirements that signify that the role has a strong involvement in issues relating to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people. Typically, these roles will involve the development of policies or programs targeted at Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples, or which involve direct interaction with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander communities.

    While the restriction of these positions is justified based on "the inequitable employment outcomes experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as a group, and the fact that this situation is not improving" it could just as easily be justified based on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being overwhelmingly likely to be the best people for these jobs.
    Patrick asked me for evidence of legally documented preferences - I have done so. Re justifying - its another story all together.

    Re best people for jobs...so if job is not within Indigenous communities ..such preferences should not apply? ?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  2. #332
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    14,428
    From the same document:
    ''Are affirmative measure—Indigenous employment vacancies restricted to Indigenous Australian applicants?
    Yes. The affirmative measure is used to restrict vacancies to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander applicants.''

    To me, this is a legal document!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  3. #333
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,884
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Re best people for jobs...so if job is not within Indigenous communities ..such preferences should not apply? ?
    The very page you've pointed to only provides evidence of certain positions with "strong involvement in issues relating to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people" being restricted to such applicants, who are the only people who would get them in a properly applied merit process anyway. It provides no evidence concerning favourable treatment for other positions.

    The linked pages even show that not all positions involving work on Indigenous issues involve even favourable treatment, let alone exclusive treatment. Some positions are described as "identified positions" because they require knowledge of Indigenous issues but it is not necessary that the person employed be Indigenous. While Indigenous people are encouraged to apply for these positions, appointment is in the end based purely on merit.

    Frankly, based on the amount you whinge about this issue already, it is difficult to imagine you would actually be any less happy if every position had positive discrimination clauses attached to it, or if the range of exclusive positions was expanded.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  4. #334
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Here you go, one of many (googled for 5 secs thats the first to come up) https://ocpe.nt.gov.au/nt-public-sec...ecial-measures They themselves use words ''Positive Discrimination'' Is this NOT a legal document?
    It's a policy, not a legal document. And what does it actually say:
    The two main types of Special Measures plans used in NTPS selections are:
    Designated Positions: Positions are specifically designated for a suitable Aboriginal and cannot be filled by any person from outside that group. (Often used for jobs such as Aboriginal Mental Health Workers or Aboriginal Interpreters)
    Priority Consideration and Preference in Selection: Plans under which Aboriginal applicants are considered first before any other applicants, and are given preference in selection if they meet all essential criteria and are suitable at level
    So the first set of positions are ones that Indigenous people are simply far more suitable for, and the second set simply preference Indigenous people over other, equally qualified, people (you've got to select someone for the job, so why not an Indigenous person?).

  5. #335
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    14,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    It's a policy, not a legal document. And what does it actually say:
    The two main types of Special Measures plans used in NTPS selections are:
    Designated Positions: Positions are specifically designated for a suitable Aboriginal and cannot be filled by any person from outside that group. (Often used for jobs such as Aboriginal Mental Health Workers or Aboriginal Interpreters)
    Priority Consideration and Preference in Selection: Plans under which Aboriginal applicants are considered first before any other applicants, and are given preference in selection if they meet all essential criteria and are suitable at level
    So the first set of positions are ones that Indigenous people are simply far more suitable for, and the second set simply preference Indigenous people over other, equally qualified, people (you've got to select someone for the job, so why not an Indigenous person?).
    So documented Policy is not a legal document? Any other excuses? If GOVERNMENT produces a policy for GOVERNMENT to follow is it not a legal document?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  6. #336
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    14,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The very page you've pointed to only provides evidence of certain positions with "strong involvement in issues relating to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people" being restricted to such applicants, who are the only people who would get them in a properly applied merit process anyway. It provides no evidence concerning favourable treatment for other positions.

    The linked pages even show that not all positions involving work on Indigenous issues involve even favourable treatment, let alone exclusive treatment. Some positions are described as "identified positions" because they require knowledge of Indigenous issues but it is not necessary that the person employed be Indigenous. While Indigenous people are encouraged to apply for these positions, appointment is in the end based purely on merit.

    Frankly, based on the amount you whinge about this issue already, it is difficult to imagine you would actually be any less happy if every position had positive discrimination clauses attached to it, or if the range of exclusive positions was expanded.
    I would be happy if there is no discrimination of any kind in Australia.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  7. #337
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    So documented Policy is not a legal document? Any other excuses? If GOVERNMENT produces a policy for GOVERNMENT to follow is it not a legal document?
    Exactly - it doesn't have the force of law. But you've ignored the other issues I raised.

  8. #338
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,884
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    I would be happy if there is no discrimination of any kind in Australia.
    Then do you support strong anti-discrimination laws that prohibit people from discriminating on the basis of race (or any other relevant basis such as gender, religion etc) in determining who to hire, to do business with, to enrol in a school, etc ?

    If an Aboriginal person who is not Catholic wants to teach at a Catholic school, should the school be allowed to refuse to hire her because her religion is not compatible?
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  9. #339
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    I would be happy if there is no discrimination of any kind in Australia.
    You didn't seem concerned about the two examples I gave of discrimination against Indigenous people in Australia. In fact, I can't recall a single post where you've expressed any concern at all about discrimination against Indigenous people, including past discrimination. Perhaps you could list some for me?

  10. #340
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    14,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Then do you support strong anti-discrimination laws that prohibit people from discriminating on the basis of race (or any other relevant basis such as gender, religion etc) in determining who to hire, to do business with, to enrol in a school, etc ?

    If an Aboriginal person who is not Catholic wants to teach at a Catholic school, should the school be allowed to refuse to hire her because her religion is not compatible?
    Of course he should be allowed to teach there. Furthermore, Not sure what exactly happens in Catholic schools but my Chinese Friend is teaching in a Jewish school...and she does not appear Jewish to me. I would be surprised if Catholic schools employed catholics only.
    As far as Universities are concerned ACU (Australian Catholic University) employs plenty of non Cathnolics - I was offered jobs at ACU on various occasions and right now, some of my colleagues who are Muslim, Hindu etc are teaching there.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  11. #341
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    14,428
    https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/shar...dssbdestsearch

    Relevant to the discussing above...Seminar by RMIT coming up next week!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  12. #342
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,521

    Good on Latham: loser pays should apply here as well

    Mark Latham takes aim at discrimination cases overkill
    YONI BASHAN, NSW POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
    Australian, 28 Feb 2020

    One Nation’s NSW leader, Mark Latham, is moving to significantly raise the bar for complaints being made to the Anti-Discrimination Board, saying the agency is being exploited by political activists and vexatious litigants whose goal is to financially ruin their opponents.

    Mr Latham moved a private member’s bill in the NSW Legislative Council on Thursday seeking to end the “political perse*cution” and “lawyers’ picnic” incentivised by lax legal standards enshrined in the Anti-Discrimin*ation Act.

    At present, the law allows complaints to be lodged without any cost. The board’s president can choose to discontinue the matter if they are satisfied the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, but if that occurs, an appeal can be lodged with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where penalties of up to $100,000 can be awarded. If the board accepts the complaint, it is referred to the same tribunal.

    Mr Latham told parliament the law had been passed in good faith before the advent of social media, and was now being abused by political activists and others to settle personal vendettas. “If the board, in a rare moment of common sense, decides to terminate an investigation into a frivolous and vexatious complaint, that is where the matter should end,” he said.

    The amendments seek to stop NCAT from taking discontinued referrals from the board and stop complaints being accepted against people with a known brain injury, among other proposed changes.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  13. #343
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,199
    I was always suspicious Pauline Hanson had a brain injury.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  14. #344
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,884
    Here is the bill page for Latham's bill:

    https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bi...s.aspx?pk=3735

    I think it has some merit because these sorts of laws are a magnet for punishment-as-process type complaints. I would amend 1(4)(a) slightly because I don't think a complaint should be rejected entirely if it is deemed to be partly misconceived. If it is partly frivolous, vexatious or baseless then fair enough as that will encourage people to only make complaints that are entirely serious and well focused.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vic Labor's proposed anti-discrimination laws
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:05 PM
  2. anti-discrimination case in Toronto sf SSM
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 18-07-2013, 05:48 AM
  3. Court rejects Jetstar discrimination claim
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-01-2012, 07:42 AM
  4. Discrimination against Gays (homosexuals)
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-01-2012, 03:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •