Tweets of the Week

Timelapse of all the photos I took tonight. Down at Island Point, just south of Mandurah.
Biggest aurora I've seen! Could see it moving w/ the naked eye, w/ massive beams appearing suddenly & a very obvious pink hue across the sky.
Just amazing!#Perth #WesternAustralia #Aurora pic.twitter.com/lvEZbUYJjd

— Shelley ⚓️ (@wheresshelly) December 1, 2023

"do not interrupt!!"

Mark Dreyfus isn't taking any shit from Sky today.#auspol pic.twitter.com/pVLZuT4ski

— Squizz (@SquizzSTK) December 6, 2023

The Walkley Foundation has revoked the nomination given to Seven Spotlight’s Trial and Error interview with Bruce Lehrmann after reviewing documents released by the federal court. https://t.co/5w9uF9ln5R

— amanda meade (@meadea) December 7, 2023

Landmark High Court ruling delivered on 8 November 2023 in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023]

NZYQ is an undocumented stateless person whose age cannot be established, who entered Australian territorial waters by boat in 2012 seeking asylum.

The Minister for Immigration at that time was Labor MP Chris Bowen. During the subsequent years to date the following members of the government of the day have held that office: Labor MPs Brendan O'Connor & Tony Burke; Liberal MPs Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton, David Coleman, Alan Tudge (acting) & Alex Hawke; with the current incumbent being Labor MP Andrew Giles.

Since June 2017 NZTQ has been seeking resolution of his matter in the Australian lower courts and finally in the High Court of Australia in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCATrans 153 before the full Court.

Human Rights Law Centre, media release, 8 November 2023:

Indefinite immigration detention unlawful: High Court rules

The High Court has today ruled that it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the Australian Government to detain people indefinitely in immigration detention.

Nearly 20 years ago, the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of indefinite immigration detention in the case of Al-Kateb v Godwin. Today, a majority of judges of the Court overruled that decision. 

In this landmark legal challenge, brought by a person referred to by the pseudonym NZYQ, it was argued that Al-Kateb was wrongly decided, and that it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the Australian Government to continue to detain a person where there is no real prospect that they could be removed from Australia. 

Subsequent to the 2004 decision, attempts to overturn it failed. As a result, the Australian Government has routinely detained people for prolonged periods of time – some for over a decade. 

Today, the average period of time for which the Australian Government holds people in immigration detention is 708 days. There are 124 people in detention today whom the Government has detained for over five years. Many of those people are stateless or owed protection by Australia, meaning that they cannot be returned to their countries of origin as a matter of international law. 

The Human Rights Law Centre and UNSW’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law appeared as amici curiae – friends of the court – to successfully argue that detention is unlawful for any person the Government is unlikely to remove in the foreseeable future.  

Quotes attributable to Sanmati Verma, Acting Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre:

“Indefinite detention ends today. The High Court has overturned a two-decades-old authority that allowed the Government to lock people up in immigration detention potentially for the rest of their lives. Today, the High Court held that the Government can no longer detain people if there is no real prospect that it will become practicable to remove them from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. Detention in these circumstances is unconstitutional.

“This has life-changing consequences for people who have been detained for years without knowing when, or even if, they will ever be released.

“The government must respect the constitutional limits of detention and act immediately to free people who have been indefinitely detained.”

Quotes attributable to Professor Jane McAdam AO, Director of UNSW’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law:

“Indefinite detention has always been arbitrary and unlawful under international law. We welcome the High Court’s decision today, which will mean that Australia can no longer detain people for years on end. For decades, Australia’s approach to detention has been completely out of step with that of other democratic countries. As a result of this significant decision, this will now have to change.

“This is an important and long-awaited victory for human rights.”

Excerpt from NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCATrans 154 (8 November 2023), 8 November 2023:

AT 4.17 PM SHORT ADJOURNMENT

UPON RESUMING AT 4.33 PM:

GAGELER CJ: The order I am about to pronounce is the order of the Court with which at least a majority agrees. The Court will publish its reasons for the order in due course. The order is:

The questions stated for the opinion of the Full Court in the further amended special case filed on 31 October 2023 be answered as follows:

Question 1: On their proper construction, did sections 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) authorise the detention of the plaintiff as at 30 May 2023?

Answer: Yes, subject to section 3A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Question 2: If so, are those provisions beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth insofar as they applied to the plaintiff as at 30 May 2023?

Answer: Yes.

Question 3: On their proper construction, do sections 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) authorise the current detention of the plaintiff?

Answer: Yes, subject to section 3A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Question 4: If so, are those provisions beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth insofar as they currently apply to the plaintiff?

Answer: Yes.

Question 5: What, if any, relief should be granted to the plaintiff?

Answer: The following orders should be made:

It is declared that, by reason of there having been and continuing to be no real prospect of the removal of the plaintiff from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future:

(a) the plaintiff’s detention was unlawful as at 30 May 2023; and

(b) the plaintiff’s continued detention is unlawful and has been since 30 May 2023.

A writ of habeas corpus issue requiring the defendants to release the plaintiff forthwith. [my yellow highlighting]

Question 6: Who should pay the costs of the further amended special case?

Answer: The defendants.

The Court will now adjourn until 9.30 am tomorrow for the pronouncement of orders and otherwise until 10.00 am.

AT 4.36 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

The Dept. of Home Affairs has reportedly stated that there are 92 detainees who were in a similar position to the Rohingya man, NZYQ.

The Liberal Party of Australia continues to rip itself apart ahead of the May 2022 federal general election

 

On 5 April 2022 the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) Executive was composed of: State President Philip Ruddock, State Director (in attendance) Chris Stone, Urban Vice-Presidents Penny George, Country and Regional Vice-Presidents Tobias Lehmann & Aileen MacDonald Female Vice-President Mary-Lou Jarvis, Young Liberal President De Yi Wu, Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Party Scott Morrison MP (and from time to time his representative Alex Hawke MP), Leader of the State Parliamentary Party Dominic Perrottet MP, Urban Representatives James Wallace, Matthew Hana, Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond, Martin Zaiter, Sally Betts, Zac Miles, Michelle Byrne, Sammy Elmir & Jacqui Munro (replacing Matthew Camenzuli who was expelled from the Liberal Party on or about 6 April 2022 for bringing the legal action, Camenzuli v Morrison), Country Representatives Michelle Bishop, Patrick Doherty, Mark Croxford, James Owen, Chair of Convention Committee and Director of Policy Engagement Alex Dore and Treasurer Mark Baillie.

A battle had been brewing for some time between the Federal Liberal Party Executive, the NSW Liberal Party Executive and state local party branches over the 2018 changes to the NSW Division Constitution which included the right to state branch plebiscites. These changes also allowed the federal leader of the Liberal Party a guaranteed seat on the executive.

The first hint of factional fighting and preselection battles came to light in the local government arena with Diaz v Ruddock; Attie v Ruddock and Zaiter v Ruddock in July 2021.

The open stoush widened and had developed by February 2022 into Camenzuli v Hawke. Followed by Morrison & Ors v Camenzuli & Ors; Attorney-General of the Commonwealth v Camenzuli & Ors, heard by the High Court of Australia in March 2022. The High Court remitted the case to its jurisdiction and then promptly remitted it back to NSW Court of Appeal – given that no difficulty was found to exist in the hearing schedule in the state court.

On 5 April 2022 in Camenzuli v Morrison the NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, ruled that the Federal Liberal Party Executive had the power to intervene in the NSW Division’s candidate preselection process and take control of the selection of candidates.

The 12 electorates in question being Farrer, Mitchell, North Sydney, Hughes, Parramatta, Fowler, Grayndler, Newcastle, Warringah, Greenway, Eden-Monaro and McMahon. Candidate selection and endorsement was by a three person federal committee comprising Scott Morrison, Alex Hawke and Trent Zimmerman and occurred ahead of the 5 April judgment.

Subsequent to the 5 April judgment Morrison ordered the expulsion of Matthew Camenzuli from the Liberal Party. Mr. Camenzuli is appealing this expulsion.

Legal proceedings in the matter of the usurped state candidate preselection process has not gone away however.

In MATTHEW CAMENZULI v THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP First Respondent, CHRISTINE McDIVEN AM Second Respondent, THE HON. DOMINIC PERROTTET MP Third Respondent, THE HON. ALEX HAWKE MP Fourth Respondent, THE HON. SUSSAN LEY MP Fifth Respondent, TRENT ZIMMERMAN MP Sixth Respondent, THE HON. PHILIP RUDDOCK AO Seventh Respondent, THE HON. JOHN OLSEN AO Eighth Respondent on 7 April 2022 the High Court of Australia decided the timetable for hearing of oral arguments in this Special Leave To Appeal Application, commencing 4pm on Friday 8 April 2022.

Apparently Morrison et al intend to argue that Camenzuli no longer has standing before the Court as he is not now a member of the Liberal Party and will ask that the application be dismissed. 

Scott Morrison's dysfunctional need to control every aspect of the Liberal Party of Australia is ripping this 77 year-old conservative political party apart in a very public manner.

Morrison Government seeks to reopen Love v Commonwealth of Australia in High Court seeking reversal of a February 2020 judgment which found Aboriginal Australians, even when born outside Commonwealth borders, are not aliens under the Constitution and cannot be deported

 

The Guardian, 14 October 2021: 

The federal government is seeking to overturn a landmark high court decision that deemed Aboriginal Australians cannot be aliens and cannot be deported. 

The Love and Thoms ruling in February 2020 ranks as the high court’s most significant constitutional decision in recent years, with the narrow four-to-three judgment prompting Coalition conservatives to publicly lobby for black-letter judges to be appointed. 

 Just a year and a half later, the commonwealth has revealed it wants the precedent to be overturned after a New Zealand man tried to fight deportation using the Love and Thoms precedent..... 

 In June 2020 Amanda Stoker, now the assistant attorney general, noted in a research paper that given the two retirements “there is a significant possibility that a reconstituted bench would reconsider the decision in the event of challenge”. In its submissions, the commonwealth revealed that the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, and home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, will seek leave “to the extent necessary, to argue that Love was wrongly decided”..... 

 [High Court Justice] Keane said it would be difficult for the high court to hear the case in 2021, given the number of cases already delayed by Covid. Keane agreed to remove the constitutional aspects of the case to the high court, giving interveners until 22 November to join the case, likely to be heard in the new year.

Read the full article here.

When a powerful 77 year-old legal figure is finally revealed as a serial sexual harasser in the workplace

The Sydney Morning Herald,  22 June 2020:

Justice Dyson Heydon arrives at the Royal Commission into trade unions in 2015 in Sydney,CREDIT: BEN RUSHTON

Former High Court Justice Dyson Heydon, one of the nation’s pre-eminent legal minds, sexually harassed six young female associates, an independent inquiry by the court has found.

A Herald investigation has also uncovered further allegations from senior legal figures of predatory behaviour by Mr Heydon, including a judge who claims that he indecently assaulted her. The women claim that Mr Heydon’s status as one of the most powerful men in the country protected him from being held to account for his actions.

The High Court inquiry was prompted by two of the judge’s former associates notifying the Chief Justice Susan Kiefel in March 2019 that they had been sexually harassed by Mr Heydon.

“We are ashamed that this could have happened at the High Court of Australia,” said Chief Justice Kiefel in a statement. She confirmed that the lengthy investigation found that “the Honourable Dyson Heydon, AC, QC” harassed six former staff members.

“The findings are of extreme concern to me, my fellow justices, our chief executive and the staff of the court,” said the Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Kiefel has personally apologised to the six women, five of them Mr Heydon’s associates, saying “their accounts of their experiences at the time have been believed”.

Dyson Heydon was on the High Court bench from 2003-13 and in 2014 was appointed by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott to run the royal commission into trade union governance and corruption.

Mr Heydon denied the claims via his lawyers Speed and Stracey who issued a statement.....

“Dyson Heydon was one of the most powerful men in the country,” said Josh Bornstein, the women’s lawyer and a principal with law firm Maurice Blackburn in Melbourne. “As the independent investigation makes clear, he is also a sex pest. At the same time he was dispensing justice in the highest court in Australia’s legal system, he was [engaged in] sexual harassment.”

Vivienne Thom, the former Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, interviewed a dozen witnesses, including five former associates. Dr Thom’s report found that the evidence “demonstrates a tendency by Mr Heydon to engage in a pattern of conduct of sexual harassment” which included unwelcome touching, attempting to kiss the women and taking them into his bedroom.

A Herald investigation can reveal that Mr Heydon’s predatory behaviour was an “open secret” in legal and judicial circles. Not only did he prey on his young associates during his decade on the High Court until his mandatory retirement at 70 in 2013, other females in the profession suffered at his hands.....

Read the full article here.

The Guardian, 22 June 2020:

“At the time that this sexual harassment occurred, Dyson Heydon was in his 60s, a conservative judge, a prominent Catholic and a married man,” Bornstein said. 

“The women he employed were in their early 20s and often straight out of university. He was one of the most powerful men in the country, who could make or break their future careers in the law. 

Bornstein said there was an “extreme power imbalance” between Heydon and the young women. 

There was no clear avenue for women to complain about such conduct, he said. 

“The fear of his power and influence meant that the women did not feel able to come forward until recently,” he said.

STATEMENT BY THE HON SUSAN MEFEL AC,CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA (PDF)

UPDATE 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 June 2020: 

The Herald and The Age can now reveal claims about his behaviour extend to Britain where he is the subject of allegations, including inappropriate touching. 

Following his mandatory retirement from the High Court in 2013 aged 70, Dyson Heydon sought out a teaching position at the prestigious English university, where he had studied on a Rhodes scholarship in 1964. 

His three-year appointment at the Faculty of Law was greeted with excitement within the university, according to documents released under freedom of information laws...... 

Mr Heydon's lectures were scheduled to occur early each year from 2014 to 2016 inclusive. 

However, allegations about his behaviour would cast a dark shadow over Mr Heydon’s tenure. 

"My first introduction to him was that all the Australian law students at Oxford called him 'Dirty Dyson', that seemed to be the moniker he had widely," one former student said. 

One of Mr Heydon’s postgraduate students, whom the Herald and The Age have chosen not to name, was so upset and angry about Mr Heydon’s harassment of her in the Bodleian Library, that she complained to the university. 

The university decided not to renew Mr Heydon’s visiting professorship. In heavily redacted documents released to the Herald and The Age under FOI, the reason for the university's decision was not apparent. 

"The Personnel Committee has already taken a decision that Dyson Heydon should not be renewed," stated Oxford Law Faculty Dean Anne Davies in an email dated June 1, 2016. "We have written to tell him this."

The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 June 2020:

The ACT's Director of Public Prosecutions has recommended the Australian Federal Police investigate former High Court justice Dyson Heydon over allegations of sexual harassment following a damning investigation commissioned by the court.....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 June 2020:

Ms Coutts told the investigator she was worried that Justice Heydon "who was then a large and strong man" may try to harass her friend again. 

Ms Coutts told the investigator called in to conduct the independent inquiry, Dr Vivienne Thom, that she informed Justice McHugh of his colleague's alleged behaviour. 

According to the report, Justice McHugh allegedly replied: "Well Sharona, it's not easy to shock me these days but you have just truly shocked me." 

Ms Coutts said the following day, after further discussions with Justice McHugh, that he left the chambers, returning later to tell her: "I've told the Chief. It's his court. He has to deal with this." 

It is not known what steps were taken by then Chief Justice Murray Gleeson about Justice Heydon's behaviour. Mr McHugh declined to participate in the investigation. When contacted by the Herald and The Age, Mr Gleeson, now retired from the bench, said: "I am unwilling to comment". Mr McHugh, also retired from the bench, did not respond to emails and phone messages..... 

A group of the most senior female barristers in NSW have lodged a complaint with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, following allegations of sexual harassment and indecent assault against Mr Heydon. The 14 silks took their action following the revelation in the Herald that a High Court investigation found Mr Heydon had sexually harassed six former associates of the court. None of the female barristers making the complaint allege they themselves were the subject of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Heydon. 

The statutory body, which acts as the professional watchdog, has powers to investigate Mr Heydon's alleged misconduct. It can determine whether Mr Heydon is a "fit and proper person" under the official admission rules for the legal profession. It can also take disciplinary action against a barrister, or commence disciplinary proceedings in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In the most serious cases, a practitioner can be disbarred. 

Complaints to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner are confidential. 

The move came as the NSW Bar Association president Tim Game SC released a strongly-worded message warning "barristers who engage in sexual harassment can be investigated and disciplined for professional misconduct".

Grafton civil rights law firm has a win in the High Court of Australia which should stop NSW Police from unlawfully arresting people for the sole purpose of questioning them when there was no intention at the time of arrest to bring them before a magistrate

The Grafton civil rights law firm of Foott Law & Co. had a win in the High Court of Australia on 4 December 2019 in the matter of a 2013 wronfgul arrest. 

In this lengthy progession through the lower courts to the High Court solicitor Joe Fahey was assisted by Dominic Toomey SC, Dallas Morgan and Dean Woodbury.

The High Court dismissed the appeal in State of New South Wales v Robinson and ruled concerning the power of a police officer to arrest a person, without a warrant, under s 99 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) ("the Act") when, at the time of the arrest, the officer had not formed the intention to charge the arrested person with an offence. A majority of the High Court held that s 99 of the Act does not confer a power to arrest a person in such circumstances.....

The High Court unanimously held that in New South Wales, at common law, an arrest can only be for the purpose of taking the arrested person before a magistrate (or other authorised officer) to be dealt with according to law to answer a charge for an offence ("the single criterion"). Nothing in the Act displaced that single criterion. An arrest under s 99 can only be for the purpose, as soon as is reasonably practicable, of taking the arrested person before a magistrate (or other authorised officer) to be dealt with according to law to answer a charge for an offence. A majority of the High Court held that it followed that the constable did not have the power to arrest Mr Robinson pursuant to s 99 when, at the time of the arrest, the constable had not formed the intention to charge him. The arrest was unlawful.

Palmer loses bid in Australian High Court to stifle election coverage on 18 May 2019

Clive Palmer before he resigned from parliament ahead of the 2016 federal election
Image: Huffington Post

Mining billionaire Clive Palmer may be back onto the Forbes Australian Rich List and currently attempting to 'buy' his way into the Senate on 18 May 2019, but the High Court of Australia is unimpressed by his latest legal foray.

The  Court unanimously dismissed Clive Palmer's application with reasons to be given at a later date.

SBS News, 7 May2019:

Clive Palmer's attempt to delay the publication of early results on federal election night has been shot down by the High Court.

Mr Palmer wanted the detailed data kept quiet until all polling booths had closed, lest last-minute crowds in far-flung locations be swayed by the results.

He was concerned West Australian voters who left their run until the last two hours could be influenced by early figures from the eastern states.

But the full bench of the High Court ruled the Australian Electoral Commission does not need to wait for stragglers in WA before broadcasting indications in east coast seats.

"The court is unanimous in its view that the application should be dismissed," Chief Justice Susan Kiefel said on Tuesday…..

Mr Palmer's case takes aim at the AEC's two-candidate preferred counting practice.

This is used on election night to give an early indication of results.

But the two candidates listed are almost always from Labor and the coalition, rather than the minor parties or independents. But the two candidates listed are almost always from Labor and the coalition, rather than the minor parties or independents…….

Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue downplayed the potential "bandwagon" effect.

Mr Donaghue said last-minute voters in WA voters could be influenced by many other factors, including basic voting figures and exit polls.

He also argued the federal election was not a presidential race, with people in WA voting for different local candidates than those on the east coast.

Palmer's United Australia Party is said to be standing candidates in every federal electorate and for Senate positions in every state.

The Guardian reported on 1 May 2019 that almost 40% of all United Australia party candidates do not live in the electorates they are standing for and, the party has recruited senior executives from Clive Palmer’s mining interests to fill its ranks.

Australian High Court rejects NSW Berejiklian Government's 2018 electoral funding reforms

In May 2018 the NSW Berejiklian Government announced plans to cap election-related spending by unions, environmental groups, and churches at a maximum of $500,000. 

The Electoral Funding Act 2018 No 20 came into force on 1 July 2018.

In December 2018 five unions joined Unions NSW in challenging these laws in the High Court of Australia.

Australian Financial Review, 29 January 2019:

In July 2018, the Berejiklian Government reduced the amount that unions and other third parties could spend in the six months before an election from $1.05 million to $500,000. A political party and it candidates, however, can spend up to $22.6 million if it stands candidates in all 93 seats.

The High Court said NSW proved that aiming to "prevent the drowning out of voices in the political process by the distorting influence of money" was a legitimate purpose.

However, it said "the reduction in the cap applicable to third-party campaigners was not demonstrated to be reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose".

The court did not accept NSW's argument that $500,000 was still a substantial sum that would allow third parties to "reasonably present their case".

The lead judgement of Chief Justice Susan Kiefel and Justices Virginia Bell and Patrick Keane said "no enquiry as to what in fact is necessary to enable third-party campaigners reasonably to communicate their messages appears to have been undertaken".

The reforms also sought to ban third parties from acting "in concert" by pooling money into multi-million-dollar campaigns, such as the "Stop the Sell-off" campaign against energy privatisation for the 2015 poll. Those who breach the act would have faced up to 10 years' jail.

Former Commonwealth solicitor-general Justin Gleeson SC was lead counsel for Unions NSW and the five unions which also signed up for the challenge.

BACKGROUND

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA, Judgment Summary, 18 December 2018:

UNIONS NSW & ORS v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2013] HCA 58

Today the High Court unanimously held that ss 96D and 95G(6) of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) ("the EFED Act") are invalid because they impermissibly burden the implied freedom of communication on governmental and political matters, contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution.

Section 96D of the EFED Act prohibits the making of a political donation to a political party, elected member, group, candidate or third-party campaigner, unless the donor is an individual enrolled on the electoral roll for State, federal or local government elections. The EFED Act also caps the total expenditure that political parties, candidates and third-party campaigners can incur for political advertising and related election material. For the purposes of this cap, s 95G(6) of the EFED Act aggregates the amount spent on electoral communication by a political party and by any affiliated organisation of that party. An "affiliated organisation" of a party is defined as a body or organisation "that is authorised under the rules of that party to appoint delegates to the governing body of that party or to participate in pre-selection of candidates for that party (or both)".

Each of the plaintiffs intends to make political donations to the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch) or other entities, and to incur electoral communication expenditure within the meaning of the EFED Act. The second, third and sixth plaintiffs are authorised to appoint delegates to the annual conference of the Australian Labor Party (NSW Branch) and to participate in the pre-selection of that party's candidates for State elections. A special case stated questions of law for determination by the High Court.

The High Court unanimously held that ss 96D and 95G(6) burdened the implied freedom of communication on governmental and political matters. The Court held that political communication at a State level may have a federal dimension. The Court accepted that the EFED Act had general anti-corruption purposes. However, the Court held that the impugned provisions were not connected to those purposes or any other legitimate end.

· This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons

With a royal commission having found that all major religions house and protect paedophiles we still find Liberal Party MPs seeking to extend the influence of priests & ministers in the Australian school system in 2018

The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 March 2018:

Dozens of federal Liberal MPs have reportedly signed a petition calling for a 25 per cent funding increase for the controversial National Schools Chaplaincy Program. 

Whether the budget can afford the funding increase or whether the money would be better spent elsewhere are interesting issues. The bigger legal issue is that the way the chaplains program operates is illegal…….

The High Court has struck down the chaplains program as illegal twice already. In 2012, the High Court ruled the program illegal because the federal government was paying for the chaplains program without any legislation authorising the spending. To overcome the High Court decision, federal Parliament quickly passed legislation to authorise the spending.

The chaplains program again was struck down again in 2014. Federal Parliament can only pass legislation dealing with certain subject matters. The High Court ruled that school chaplains do not fall within any of those.

To get around its own lack of power to run the chaplains program, the federal government now grants money to the states for them to run it. Lots of federal government programs operate this way with the states running programs on behalf of the federal government using federal money.

Getting a job as a chaplain requires a person to be recognised as qualified for the role "through formal ordination, commissioning, recognised religious qualifications or endorsement by a recognised or accepted religious institution". In other words, a person has to be religious and endorsed by a religious group in order to get a job as a chaplain. Atheists need not apply.

Individual schools pick which religion they want their chaplain to be a member of and then recruit a person from that religion for the job.

But it makes no practical sense to require a chaplain to have a particular religion. Chaplains are strictly prohibited from religious proselytising, although there are sometimes reports of chaplains breaking the rules. The High Court even commented that despite the religious sounding job title, the actual work chaplains do has nothing much to do with religion. Justice Dyson Heydon wrote that the work of chaplains "could have been done by persons who met a religious test. It could equally have been done by persons who did not".

In other words, there is no genuine occupational requirement for a chaplain to be a member of any particular religion or to be religious at all. The federal government has simply decided that it wants all chaplains to be religious.

Requiring a chaplain to be a member of a particular religion is inconsistent with the nature of public schools……

Requiring a chaplain to be a member of a particular religion is also illegal. Each state has anti-discrimination or equal opportunity legislation making it illegal to discriminate against a person on the ground of religion in employment decisions. These anti-discrimination rules apply to public schools and their hiring decisions.

Public schools cannot advertise a teacher’s job and require that only Hindus are eligible to apply. Public schools cannot advertise a cleaner’s job and require that only Baptists are eligible to apply. The reason is because that would be discrimination on the ground of religion in employment.

It’s exactly the same with chaplains. Requiring a chaplain to be a member of a particular religion is religious discrimination and completely illegal for public schools…..

The state anti-discrimination commissions should do something about public schools breaching religious discrimination laws. If they don’t, someone will eventually go to court and the school chaplains program will probably be ruled illegal for the third, and hopefully final, time.

Another Liberal federal politician bites the dust - months after he knew he was in the wrong

By mid-July 2017 Green senators Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters resigned because they discovered they held dual citizenship and were therefore elected unlawfully to the Australian Parliament. More politicians followed, admitted their standing was in doubt because of dual citizenship.

On 27 October 2017 the High Court of Australia upheld the wording and intent of Sec 44 of the Australian Constitution concerning the ineligibility of dual citizens to nominate for election to the federal parliament.

Former police officer and Liberal Senator for Tasmania Stephen Shane Parry knew he was in trouble from the beginning of this saga in July - after all he was aware his father William Parry migrated from the U.K. in 1951 and lived in Australia for the next sixty-four years until his death.

Yet Parry chose to wait until 31 October 2017 to own up to having sat in parliament unlawfully for the last twelve years and then resign.

ABC News, 1 November 2017:

Liberal senator Stephen Parry has confirmed he is a British citizen and will now resign from the Parliament.

Yesterday, Senator Parry revealed he had doubts about his citizenship status because his father was born in the UK, and emigrated to Australia in the 1950s.

He has now released a statement saying the British Home Office confirmed he is a citizen by virtue of his father's birthplace.

In a letter to his Senate colleagues, he wrote it was "with a heavy heart" he had to inform them he would be submitting his resignation as Senate President and as a Tasmanian senator to the Governor-General tomorrow.

Once again the Liberal Party is not covering itself in glory.

UPDATE

The Age, 2 November 2017:

Communications Minister Mitch Fifield knew for weeks that Stephen Parry could be a dual UK-Australian citizen, but said nothing after the then Senate president confessed to him.

Mr Parry also confided in an unnamed member of the outer ministry about his citizenship concerns. He revealed the concerns after former cabinet minister Fiona Nash referred herself to the High Court.

Fairfax Media has been told Mr Parry was advised not to go public ……