Qantas makes mercy plea for illegal sackings 'mistake'
Qantas did not deliberately break the law when it illegally sacked 1820 workers and its "mistake" warrants a "mid-range" penalty, a court has been told.
Federal Court Justice Michael Lee has heard final submissions on the penalty to be imposed on Qantas for the biggest case of illegal sackings in Australian history.
Last year, Qantas agreed to pay $120 million to the ground staff as compensation for their economic loss, pain and suffering since their jobs were outsourced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Transport Workers Union is seeking the maximum penalty of $121 million and an order that the money be paid to the union, while Qantas has urged Justice Lee to impose a "mid-range" penalty between $40 million and $80 million.
The airline's "failure was in the territory of mistake, rather than deliberate breach of the law," Qantas counsel Justin Gleeson SC told the court.
"The failure has now been exposed and recognised by the contravener, and the contravener has put in place appropriate steps to minimise the risk of the failure occurring again," he said on Wednesday.
Qantas argued that its actions were driven by "business calamities" caused by the pandemic, not exploitation, and the illegal sackings were the result of a single decision and therefore only one breach of the law.
It also pointed to the $120 million compensation deal and and its expression of contrition for its actions.
On Monday, Qantas chief people officer Catherine Walsh told the court the airline was "deeply sorry" for the impact on the workers, their family and friends and the union.
Mr Gleeson argued the court should not infer negatively from the failure to call Qantas chief executive Vanessa Hudson as a witness, and emphasised concrete steps she had taken, including rebuilding relationships, creating an inclusive culture and public apologies.
"There's a recognition that a change needed to be made ... there was a top down culture which impacted empowerment and a willingness to challenge or speak up on issues or decisions of concern," he said.
"There's been a significant refresh of the group leadership team. Seventy per cent are either new to Qantas or to their role or to the (team)"
Most of the submissions at Wednesday's hearing focused on meetings between senior managers at Qantas, a group management committee meeting and a board meeting.
After initially saying he would aim to deliver a judgment on Friday, Justice Lee reserved his decision.
At a protest at Brisbane Airport on Wednesday, the TWU called on airlines, airports, governments and regulators to ensure fair standards at companies like Swissport, which took over much of the work done by the sacked Qantas workers.
"That work has been shoved off to operators like Swissport, who have a horrific international reputation for maiming workers, for underpaying workers, for wage theft," TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said.
Recent safety visits revealed that in Brisbane, Swissport has more than 400 safety reports a month, he said.
"The Albanese government must put in place a Safe and Secure Skies Commission to stop the spiral of dangerously low standards and ensure there's oversight in such a vital industry to our island nation."
Qantas did not deliberately break the law when it illegally sacked 1820 workers and its "mistake" warrants a "mid-range" penalty, a court has been told.
Federal Court Justice Michael Lee has heard final submissions on the penalty to be imposed on Qantas for the biggest case of illegal sackings in Australian history.
Last year, Qantas agreed to pay $120 million to the ground staff as compensation for their economic loss, pain and suffering since their jobs were outsourced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Transport Workers Union is seeking the maximum penalty of $121 million and an order that the money be paid to the union, while Qantas has urged Justice Lee to impose a "mid-range" penalty between $40 million and $80 million.
The airline's "failure was in the territory of mistake, rather than deliberate breach of the law," Qantas counsel Justin Gleeson SC told the court.
"The failure has now been exposed and recognised by the contravener, and the contravener has put in place appropriate steps to minimise the risk of the failure occurring again," he said on Wednesday.
Qantas argued that its actions were driven by "business calamities" caused by the pandemic, not exploitation, and the illegal sackings were the result of a single decision and therefore only one breach of the law.
It also pointed to the $120 million compensation deal and and its expression of contrition for its actions.
On Monday, Qantas chief people officer Catherine Walsh told the court the airline was "deeply sorry" for the impact on the workers, their family and friends and the union.
Mr Gleeson argued the court should not infer negatively from the failure to call Qantas chief executive Vanessa Hudson as a witness, and emphasised concrete steps she had taken, including rebuilding relationships, creating an inclusive culture and public apologies.
"There's a recognition that a change needed to be made ... there was a top down culture which impacted empowerment and a willingness to challenge or speak up on issues or decisions of concern," he said.
"There's been a significant refresh of the group leadership team. Seventy per cent are either new to Qantas or to their role or to the (team)"
Most of the submissions at Wednesday's hearing focused on meetings between senior managers at Qantas, a group management committee meeting and a board meeting.
After initially saying he would aim to deliver a judgment on Friday, Justice Lee reserved his decision.
At a protest at Brisbane Airport on Wednesday, the TWU called on airlines, airports, governments and regulators to ensure fair standards at companies like Swissport, which took over much of the work done by the sacked Qantas workers.
"That work has been shoved off to operators like Swissport, who have a horrific international reputation for maiming workers, for underpaying workers, for wage theft," TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said.
Recent safety visits revealed that in Brisbane, Swissport has more than 400 safety reports a month, he said.
"The Albanese government must put in place a Safe and Secure Skies Commission to stop the spiral of dangerously low standards and ensure there's oversight in such a vital industry to our island nation."
Qantas did not deliberately break the law when it illegally sacked 1820 workers and its "mistake" warrants a "mid-range" penalty, a court has been told.
Federal Court Justice Michael Lee has heard final submissions on the penalty to be imposed on Qantas for the biggest case of illegal sackings in Australian history.
Last year, Qantas agreed to pay $120 million to the ground staff as compensation for their economic loss, pain and suffering since their jobs were outsourced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Transport Workers Union is seeking the maximum penalty of $121 million and an order that the money be paid to the union, while Qantas has urged Justice Lee to impose a "mid-range" penalty between $40 million and $80 million.
The airline's "failure was in the territory of mistake, rather than deliberate breach of the law," Qantas counsel Justin Gleeson SC told the court.
"The failure has now been exposed and recognised by the contravener, and the contravener has put in place appropriate steps to minimise the risk of the failure occurring again," he said on Wednesday.
Qantas argued that its actions were driven by "business calamities" caused by the pandemic, not exploitation, and the illegal sackings were the result of a single decision and therefore only one breach of the law.
It also pointed to the $120 million compensation deal and and its expression of contrition for its actions.
On Monday, Qantas chief people officer Catherine Walsh told the court the airline was "deeply sorry" for the impact on the workers, their family and friends and the union.
Mr Gleeson argued the court should not infer negatively from the failure to call Qantas chief executive Vanessa Hudson as a witness, and emphasised concrete steps she had taken, including rebuilding relationships, creating an inclusive culture and public apologies.
"There's a recognition that a change needed to be made ... there was a top down culture which impacted empowerment and a willingness to challenge or speak up on issues or decisions of concern," he said.
"There's been a significant refresh of the group leadership team. Seventy per cent are either new to Qantas or to their role or to the (team)"
Most of the submissions at Wednesday's hearing focused on meetings between senior managers at Qantas, a group management committee meeting and a board meeting.
After initially saying he would aim to deliver a judgment on Friday, Justice Lee reserved his decision.
At a protest at Brisbane Airport on Wednesday, the TWU called on airlines, airports, governments and regulators to ensure fair standards at companies like Swissport, which took over much of the work done by the sacked Qantas workers.
"That work has been shoved off to operators like Swissport, who have a horrific international reputation for maiming workers, for underpaying workers, for wage theft," TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said.
Recent safety visits revealed that in Brisbane, Swissport has more than 400 safety reports a month, he said.
"The Albanese government must put in place a Safe and Secure Skies Commission to stop the spiral of dangerously low standards and ensure there's oversight in such a vital industry to our island nation."
Qantas did not deliberately break the law when it illegally sacked 1820 workers and its "mistake" warrants a "mid-range" penalty, a court has been told.
Federal Court Justice Michael Lee has heard final submissions on the penalty to be imposed on Qantas for the biggest case of illegal sackings in Australian history.
Last year, Qantas agreed to pay $120 million to the ground staff as compensation for their economic loss, pain and suffering since their jobs were outsourced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Transport Workers Union is seeking the maximum penalty of $121 million and an order that the money be paid to the union, while Qantas has urged Justice Lee to impose a "mid-range" penalty between $40 million and $80 million.
The airline's "failure was in the territory of mistake, rather than deliberate breach of the law," Qantas counsel Justin Gleeson SC told the court.
"The failure has now been exposed and recognised by the contravener, and the contravener has put in place appropriate steps to minimise the risk of the failure occurring again," he said on Wednesday.
Qantas argued that its actions were driven by "business calamities" caused by the pandemic, not exploitation, and the illegal sackings were the result of a single decision and therefore only one breach of the law.
It also pointed to the $120 million compensation deal and and its expression of contrition for its actions.
On Monday, Qantas chief people officer Catherine Walsh told the court the airline was "deeply sorry" for the impact on the workers, their family and friends and the union.
Mr Gleeson argued the court should not infer negatively from the failure to call Qantas chief executive Vanessa Hudson as a witness, and emphasised concrete steps she had taken, including rebuilding relationships, creating an inclusive culture and public apologies.
"There's a recognition that a change needed to be made ... there was a top down culture which impacted empowerment and a willingness to challenge or speak up on issues or decisions of concern," he said.
"There's been a significant refresh of the group leadership team. Seventy per cent are either new to Qantas or to their role or to the (team)"
Most of the submissions at Wednesday's hearing focused on meetings between senior managers at Qantas, a group management committee meeting and a board meeting.
After initially saying he would aim to deliver a judgment on Friday, Justice Lee reserved his decision.
At a protest at Brisbane Airport on Wednesday, the TWU called on airlines, airports, governments and regulators to ensure fair standards at companies like Swissport, which took over much of the work done by the sacked Qantas workers.
"That work has been shoved off to operators like Swissport, who have a horrific international reputation for maiming workers, for underpaying workers, for wage theft," TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said.
Recent safety visits revealed that in Brisbane, Swissport has more than 400 safety reports a month, he said.
"The Albanese government must put in place a Safe and Secure Skies Commission to stop the spiral of dangerously low standards and ensure there's oversight in such a vital industry to our island nation."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Average home prices hit $1m with more growth to come
Australia's property market continues to strengthen and gain momentum as the value of the average home soars past the $1 million mark for the first time. The national mean dwelling price reached $1,002,500 in the March quarter, a 0.7 per cent increase from the previous three months, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released on Tuesday. Figures from the ABS show the total value of the nation's residential dwellings rose by $130.7 billion to a staggering $11.4 trillion. "We're certainly not going to see the massive increases that we saw during COVID, but we do think house prices will continue to increase, particularly as interest rates are predicted to fall further," she told AAP. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking at the National Press Club on Tuesday, noted that regulation and red tape had made building and buying a home in Australia too hard. Mr Albanese said it was too complex and expensive to get a project off the ground, adding that Housing Minister Clare O'Neil had been tasked with reducing those barriers. "It is too hard and one of the areas is regulation," he told the National Press Club. He also backed a failed NSW project to redevelop Sydney's Rosehill Racecourse, describing the controversial proposal as "absolutely right". The proposal aimed to transform the 140-year-old track into a "mini-city" encompassing about 25,000 homes, but it was ultimately voted down by the racecourse owner's members. "That's the sort of thing that we're going to need to do. You can't deal with supply issues without having the courage to do things like that," Mr Albanese said. "(We) want to make sure that housing is fit for purpose and all of that but if we can cut through on some of the red tape, then that will reduce costs." According to the ABS, the increase in residential dwellings was fuelled by housing markets in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. While NSW remains Australia's most expensive property market with a median price of $1.25 million, Queensland is not far behind at $944,700. Though prices are rising, further interest rate cuts could slow the pace of increases compared to the same period last year. Data reveals the average price in the ACT went backwards, falling to $941,300, as the Northern Territory maintains the lowest mean price at $517,700. Eliza Owen, head of research at property analyst group Cotality, told AAP it was not a surprise the nation's property market continued to be pushed to record values. "(It comes) off the back of long-term constraint on housing supply, compounded by more recent factors like interest rate reductions, which increase access to finance," she said. Ms Owen noted the interest rate reduction earlier this year helped reinvigorate demand across the housing market on a fairly broad basis. While the average dwelling price has reached seven figures for the first time, Ms Owen said factors such as rate reductions had given markets like Sydney a "sugar hit", rather than triggering a large upswing like the robust growth seen in 2021. Australia's property market continues to strengthen and gain momentum as the value of the average home soars past the $1 million mark for the first time. The national mean dwelling price reached $1,002,500 in the March quarter, a 0.7 per cent increase from the previous three months, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released on Tuesday. Figures from the ABS show the total value of the nation's residential dwellings rose by $130.7 billion to a staggering $11.4 trillion. "We're certainly not going to see the massive increases that we saw during COVID, but we do think house prices will continue to increase, particularly as interest rates are predicted to fall further," she told AAP. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking at the National Press Club on Tuesday, noted that regulation and red tape had made building and buying a home in Australia too hard. Mr Albanese said it was too complex and expensive to get a project off the ground, adding that Housing Minister Clare O'Neil had been tasked with reducing those barriers. "It is too hard and one of the areas is regulation," he told the National Press Club. He also backed a failed NSW project to redevelop Sydney's Rosehill Racecourse, describing the controversial proposal as "absolutely right". The proposal aimed to transform the 140-year-old track into a "mini-city" encompassing about 25,000 homes, but it was ultimately voted down by the racecourse owner's members. "That's the sort of thing that we're going to need to do. You can't deal with supply issues without having the courage to do things like that," Mr Albanese said. "(We) want to make sure that housing is fit for purpose and all of that but if we can cut through on some of the red tape, then that will reduce costs." According to the ABS, the increase in residential dwellings was fuelled by housing markets in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. While NSW remains Australia's most expensive property market with a median price of $1.25 million, Queensland is not far behind at $944,700. Though prices are rising, further interest rate cuts could slow the pace of increases compared to the same period last year. Data reveals the average price in the ACT went backwards, falling to $941,300, as the Northern Territory maintains the lowest mean price at $517,700. Eliza Owen, head of research at property analyst group Cotality, told AAP it was not a surprise the nation's property market continued to be pushed to record values. "(It comes) off the back of long-term constraint on housing supply, compounded by more recent factors like interest rate reductions, which increase access to finance," she said. Ms Owen noted the interest rate reduction earlier this year helped reinvigorate demand across the housing market on a fairly broad basis. While the average dwelling price has reached seven figures for the first time, Ms Owen said factors such as rate reductions had given markets like Sydney a "sugar hit", rather than triggering a large upswing like the robust growth seen in 2021. Australia's property market continues to strengthen and gain momentum as the value of the average home soars past the $1 million mark for the first time. The national mean dwelling price reached $1,002,500 in the March quarter, a 0.7 per cent increase from the previous three months, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released on Tuesday. Figures from the ABS show the total value of the nation's residential dwellings rose by $130.7 billion to a staggering $11.4 trillion. "We're certainly not going to see the massive increases that we saw during COVID, but we do think house prices will continue to increase, particularly as interest rates are predicted to fall further," she told AAP. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking at the National Press Club on Tuesday, noted that regulation and red tape had made building and buying a home in Australia too hard. Mr Albanese said it was too complex and expensive to get a project off the ground, adding that Housing Minister Clare O'Neil had been tasked with reducing those barriers. "It is too hard and one of the areas is regulation," he told the National Press Club. He also backed a failed NSW project to redevelop Sydney's Rosehill Racecourse, describing the controversial proposal as "absolutely right". The proposal aimed to transform the 140-year-old track into a "mini-city" encompassing about 25,000 homes, but it was ultimately voted down by the racecourse owner's members. "That's the sort of thing that we're going to need to do. You can't deal with supply issues without having the courage to do things like that," Mr Albanese said. "(We) want to make sure that housing is fit for purpose and all of that but if we can cut through on some of the red tape, then that will reduce costs." According to the ABS, the increase in residential dwellings was fuelled by housing markets in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. While NSW remains Australia's most expensive property market with a median price of $1.25 million, Queensland is not far behind at $944,700. Though prices are rising, further interest rate cuts could slow the pace of increases compared to the same period last year. Data reveals the average price in the ACT went backwards, falling to $941,300, as the Northern Territory maintains the lowest mean price at $517,700. Eliza Owen, head of research at property analyst group Cotality, told AAP it was not a surprise the nation's property market continued to be pushed to record values. "(It comes) off the back of long-term constraint on housing supply, compounded by more recent factors like interest rate reductions, which increase access to finance," she said. Ms Owen noted the interest rate reduction earlier this year helped reinvigorate demand across the housing market on a fairly broad basis. While the average dwelling price has reached seven figures for the first time, Ms Owen said factors such as rate reductions had given markets like Sydney a "sugar hit", rather than triggering a large upswing like the robust growth seen in 2021. Australia's property market continues to strengthen and gain momentum as the value of the average home soars past the $1 million mark for the first time. The national mean dwelling price reached $1,002,500 in the March quarter, a 0.7 per cent increase from the previous three months, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released on Tuesday. Figures from the ABS show the total value of the nation's residential dwellings rose by $130.7 billion to a staggering $11.4 trillion. "We're certainly not going to see the massive increases that we saw during COVID, but we do think house prices will continue to increase, particularly as interest rates are predicted to fall further," she told AAP. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking at the National Press Club on Tuesday, noted that regulation and red tape had made building and buying a home in Australia too hard. Mr Albanese said it was too complex and expensive to get a project off the ground, adding that Housing Minister Clare O'Neil had been tasked with reducing those barriers. "It is too hard and one of the areas is regulation," he told the National Press Club. He also backed a failed NSW project to redevelop Sydney's Rosehill Racecourse, describing the controversial proposal as "absolutely right". The proposal aimed to transform the 140-year-old track into a "mini-city" encompassing about 25,000 homes, but it was ultimately voted down by the racecourse owner's members. "That's the sort of thing that we're going to need to do. You can't deal with supply issues without having the courage to do things like that," Mr Albanese said. "(We) want to make sure that housing is fit for purpose and all of that but if we can cut through on some of the red tape, then that will reduce costs." According to the ABS, the increase in residential dwellings was fuelled by housing markets in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. While NSW remains Australia's most expensive property market with a median price of $1.25 million, Queensland is not far behind at $944,700. Though prices are rising, further interest rate cuts could slow the pace of increases compared to the same period last year. Data reveals the average price in the ACT went backwards, falling to $941,300, as the Northern Territory maintains the lowest mean price at $517,700. Eliza Owen, head of research at property analyst group Cotality, told AAP it was not a surprise the nation's property market continued to be pushed to record values. "(It comes) off the back of long-term constraint on housing supply, compounded by more recent factors like interest rate reductions, which increase access to finance," she said. Ms Owen noted the interest rate reduction earlier this year helped reinvigorate demand across the housing market on a fairly broad basis. While the average dwelling price has reached seven figures for the first time, Ms Owen said factors such as rate reductions had given markets like Sydney a "sugar hit", rather than triggering a large upswing like the robust growth seen in 2021.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so
"You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King. "You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King. "You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King. "You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Coaches' coffers boosted after months of soft cap angst
AFL coaches have had a win as they lobby for more soft cap relief, with head office announcing several financial measures to boost club football departments. From next year, senior coaches can earn up to $100,000 outside the soft cap from marketing service agreements. Geelong coach Chris Scott's deal with a club sponsor, announced late last year, raised eyebrows and reportedly attracted AFL attention. The soft cap limit will also rise by $750,000 next year, up from the original $250,000 boost. In 2027 the increase will be $350,000, an increase of $100,000 on what had been announced. From next season, 20 per cent of the salary of the most senior assistant coach or coaching director will sit outside the soft cap. That is on top of 20 per cent of the senior coach's salary already being outside the cap. "The combined impact of these changes for each club is estimated to be an additional $1.4 million of spend capacity per club over 2026-27, over and above the existing planned increases," the league said in a statement. The AFL will also stump up $500,000 to support coaches in their professional development and career transition. It follows months of growing angst among coaches and clubs, with the soft cap sharply reduced at the start of COVID-19. In April, St Kilda coach Ross Lyon derided the coaches' association as a "paper tiger", while Essendon counterpart Brad Scott said he had never seen the coaching group as a whole feel so disenfranchised. Brisbane premiership coach Chris Fagan made a presentation to the AFL commission late last year, while league chief executive Andrew Dillon has had a series of meetings in the past few weeks with senior coaches. "The soft cap is in place to provide some guard rails, such that each club can afford to put together a competitive football program," Dillon said. "How clubs choose to allocate and spend it across their football department is at their discretion to suit their specific circumstances. "Coaches are key leaders who play a pivotal role in our game and at their clubs. This additional soft cap space, earning capacity and support, recognises this importance. "The meetings we have had across the year allowed me to see first-hand their passion for the game and pressures associated with being a coach in such a high-profile role." Coaches' association chief executive Alistair Nicholson welcomed the changes, also noting the league would provide more detail soon. "In addition to the increases to the soft cap, which will increase a coach's earning potential, the introduction of a senior coach marketing agreement and the soft cap concession that will benefit the senior assistant coach or director of coaching, helps to recognise the significant contribution coaches make to the success of the game," Nicholson said. "We also acknowledge the contribution to professional development and transition that will complement the support already provided by the AFLCA." AFL coaches have had a win as they lobby for more soft cap relief, with head office announcing several financial measures to boost club football departments. From next year, senior coaches can earn up to $100,000 outside the soft cap from marketing service agreements. Geelong coach Chris Scott's deal with a club sponsor, announced late last year, raised eyebrows and reportedly attracted AFL attention. The soft cap limit will also rise by $750,000 next year, up from the original $250,000 boost. In 2027 the increase will be $350,000, an increase of $100,000 on what had been announced. From next season, 20 per cent of the salary of the most senior assistant coach or coaching director will sit outside the soft cap. That is on top of 20 per cent of the senior coach's salary already being outside the cap. "The combined impact of these changes for each club is estimated to be an additional $1.4 million of spend capacity per club over 2026-27, over and above the existing planned increases," the league said in a statement. The AFL will also stump up $500,000 to support coaches in their professional development and career transition. It follows months of growing angst among coaches and clubs, with the soft cap sharply reduced at the start of COVID-19. In April, St Kilda coach Ross Lyon derided the coaches' association as a "paper tiger", while Essendon counterpart Brad Scott said he had never seen the coaching group as a whole feel so disenfranchised. Brisbane premiership coach Chris Fagan made a presentation to the AFL commission late last year, while league chief executive Andrew Dillon has had a series of meetings in the past few weeks with senior coaches. "The soft cap is in place to provide some guard rails, such that each club can afford to put together a competitive football program," Dillon said. "How clubs choose to allocate and spend it across their football department is at their discretion to suit their specific circumstances. "Coaches are key leaders who play a pivotal role in our game and at their clubs. This additional soft cap space, earning capacity and support, recognises this importance. "The meetings we have had across the year allowed me to see first-hand their passion for the game and pressures associated with being a coach in such a high-profile role." Coaches' association chief executive Alistair Nicholson welcomed the changes, also noting the league would provide more detail soon. "In addition to the increases to the soft cap, which will increase a coach's earning potential, the introduction of a senior coach marketing agreement and the soft cap concession that will benefit the senior assistant coach or director of coaching, helps to recognise the significant contribution coaches make to the success of the game," Nicholson said. "We also acknowledge the contribution to professional development and transition that will complement the support already provided by the AFLCA." AFL coaches have had a win as they lobby for more soft cap relief, with head office announcing several financial measures to boost club football departments. From next year, senior coaches can earn up to $100,000 outside the soft cap from marketing service agreements. Geelong coach Chris Scott's deal with a club sponsor, announced late last year, raised eyebrows and reportedly attracted AFL attention. The soft cap limit will also rise by $750,000 next year, up from the original $250,000 boost. In 2027 the increase will be $350,000, an increase of $100,000 on what had been announced. From next season, 20 per cent of the salary of the most senior assistant coach or coaching director will sit outside the soft cap. That is on top of 20 per cent of the senior coach's salary already being outside the cap. "The combined impact of these changes for each club is estimated to be an additional $1.4 million of spend capacity per club over 2026-27, over and above the existing planned increases," the league said in a statement. The AFL will also stump up $500,000 to support coaches in their professional development and career transition. It follows months of growing angst among coaches and clubs, with the soft cap sharply reduced at the start of COVID-19. In April, St Kilda coach Ross Lyon derided the coaches' association as a "paper tiger", while Essendon counterpart Brad Scott said he had never seen the coaching group as a whole feel so disenfranchised. Brisbane premiership coach Chris Fagan made a presentation to the AFL commission late last year, while league chief executive Andrew Dillon has had a series of meetings in the past few weeks with senior coaches. "The soft cap is in place to provide some guard rails, such that each club can afford to put together a competitive football program," Dillon said. "How clubs choose to allocate and spend it across their football department is at their discretion to suit their specific circumstances. "Coaches are key leaders who play a pivotal role in our game and at their clubs. This additional soft cap space, earning capacity and support, recognises this importance. "The meetings we have had across the year allowed me to see first-hand their passion for the game and pressures associated with being a coach in such a high-profile role." Coaches' association chief executive Alistair Nicholson welcomed the changes, also noting the league would provide more detail soon. "In addition to the increases to the soft cap, which will increase a coach's earning potential, the introduction of a senior coach marketing agreement and the soft cap concession that will benefit the senior assistant coach or director of coaching, helps to recognise the significant contribution coaches make to the success of the game," Nicholson said. "We also acknowledge the contribution to professional development and transition that will complement the support already provided by the AFLCA."
