Tweet of the Week

Be vewy vewy quiet. We're hunting tewwowists. pic.twitter.com/7kc3HzCjzR

— Leo Jai (@lionheartleojai) July 29, 2017

And so the spotlight hovers over Australian Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and NSW Regional Water Minister Niall Blair......

When both the NSW Coalition Government (2 April 2015) and Federal Coalition Government (21 September 2015) gave a minister dual responsibility for agriculture and water one could almost hear the political train careening wildly in the distance.

Unfortunately two years later the people of Australia woke to discover that handing over responsibility for water in a complex major river system to two National Party MPs meant it was also a social, economic and environmental train wreck as well.

All the audits and investigations in the world will not unmake the disaster that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has become under Barnaby Joyce and Niall Blair unless the political will is there, however this is a good start.

"The Auditor-General will investigate how Barnaby Joyce's Dept is monitoring use of environmental water by NSW." [@Tony_Burke]

In an effort to wrest back control of the situation Prime Minister Turnbull has reportedly 
ordered the Murray Darling Basin Authority to conduct an allegedly ndependent basin-wide review into compliance with state-based regulations governing water use. The review report will be presented to the December 2017 Council of Australian Government (COAG) meeting.

Australian Government guide to when it is extinguishing our traditional freedoms, rights and privileges

In 2015 Australian Attorney-General and Liberal Senator for Queensland George Brandis thoughtfully provided voters with a guide to assist them with analysing whether federal legislation rides roughshod over traditional rights, freedoms and privileges.

This guide can be found in the Australian Law Reform Commission Report 129, Traditional Rights and Freedoms— Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws:

The Terms of Reference, provided by the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, state that laws that encroach on traditional rights, freedoms and privileges should be understood to refer to laws that:

interfere with freedom of speech;

interfere with freedom of religion;

interfere with freedom of association;

interfere with freedom of movement;

interfere with vested property rights;

retrospectively change legal rights and obligations;

create offences with retrospective application;

alter criminal law practices based on the  principle of a fair trial;

reverse or shift the burden of proof;

exclude the right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination;

abrogate client legal privilege;

apply strict or absolute liability to all physical elements of a criminal offence;

permit an appeal from an acquittal;

deny procedural fairness to persons affected by the exercise of public power;

inappropriately delegate legislative power to the executive;

authorise the commission of a tort;

disregard common law protection of personal reputation;

give executive immunities a wide application;

restrict access to the courts; and

interfere with any other similar legal right, freedom or privilege

WARNING: Don’t attempt a drinking game with this list as you may succumb to acute alcohol poisoning before reaching the end.

Shorter UN Position: Australia's policy of offshore processing has caused extensive, avoidable suffering for far too long

To add insult to injury our very own J. Edgar Tuber, Peter Craig Dutton, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & just about everything that isn't nailed down, has apparently been lying to the United Nations.

United Nations Refugee Agency, UNHCR chief Filippo Grandi calls on Australia to end harmful practice of offshore processing, 24 July 2017:

Australia’s policy of offshore processing in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, which denies access to asylum in Australia for refugees arriving by sea without a valid visa, has caused extensive, avoidable suffering for far too long.

Four years on, more than 2,000 people are still languishing in unacceptable circumstances. Families have been separated and many have suffered physical and psychological harm.

In light of this dire humanitarian situation, last November UNHCR exceptionally agreed to help with the relocation of refugees to the United States following a bilateral agreement between Australia and the US. We agreed to do so on the clear understanding that vulnerable refugees with close family ties in Australia would ultimately be allowed to settle there. 

UNHCR has recently been informed by Australia that it refuses to accept even these refugees, and that they, along with the others on Nauru and Papua New Guinea, have been informed that their only option is to remain where they are or to be transferred to Cambodia or to the United States.

This means, for example, that some with serious medical conditions, or who have undergone traumatic experiences, including sexual violence, cannot receive the support of their close family members residing in Australia.

To avoid prolonging their ordeal, UNHCR has no other choice but to endorse the relocation of all refugees on Papua New Guinea and Nauru to the United States, even those with close family members in Australia.  

There is no doubt these vulnerable people, already subject to four years of punishing conditions, should be reunited with their families in Australia. This is the humane and reasonable thing to do. 

The Australian government’s decision to deny them this possibility is contrary to the fundamental principles of family unity and refugee protection, and to common decency. 

UNHCR fully endorses the need to save lives at sea and to provide alternatives to dangerous journeys and exploitation by smugglers. But the practice of offshore processing has had a hugely detrimental impact. There is a fundamental contradiction in saving people at sea, only to mistreat and neglect them on land.  

Australia has a proud humanitarian tradition, manifested in its support for overseas aid and its longstanding refugee resettlement programme. I urge Australia to bring an immediate end to the harmful practice of offshore processing, offer solutions to its victims, for whom it retains full responsibility, and work with us on future alternatives that save lives at sea and provide protection to people in need.

At a time of record levels of displacement globally, it is crucial that all States offer protection to survivors of war and persecution, and not outsource their responsibilities to others. Refugees, our fellow human beings, deserve as much.

 Background

Approximately 2,500 refugees and asylum-seekers have been forcibly transferred by Australia to ‘offshore processing’ facilities in Papua New Guinea and Nauru since the introduction of the current policy in 2013. Of these, some 1,100 remain in Nauru and 900 in Papua New Guinea.

Following the Australia-US bilateral agreement on relocation, UNHCR has referred more than 1,100 refugees to the US over the past eight months. Another 500 people are still waiting for the outcome of the refugee status determination processing being carried out by authorities in PNG and Nauru, under the Australian arrangement.

Mr. Turnbull, about those millions.....

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, Minister for Communications Mitch Fifield and Minister for Sport Greg Hunt owe an explanation to every Australian who has taken an income support cut or an earned income cut during the last three years because of Coalition Government policies and decisions.

Show us the contract signed by Foxtel Sports Australia or News Corp!

ABC Radio Melbourne, “Mornings” program, 17 July 2017:

The federal communications department has refused to release details about $30 million in sports broadcasting funding given to Foxtel, because it says documents about the deal "do not exist".

Senior Producer for ABC Radio Melbourne Mornings, Dan Ziffer spoke to Jon Faine about the money, which was allocated to Foxtel in the 2016 federal budget to support "underrepresented sports."

"There appears to be no paper trail for the $30 million contract," Mr Ziffer said.

"Whatever was done about this deal, it certainly wasn't written down."

Director of the Australian Shareholders Association Stephen Mayne said he believed the government gave Foxtel the money to avoid making an enemy with the Murdoch media.

"Because the free to air networks were all getting a licence fee cut in the budget and the government wants to keep sweet with all of the media," he said.

"They didn't want to have an enemy in the Murdoch's so they just gave them $30 million and then had to come up with a reason."

The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 July 2017:

Communications minister Mitch Fifield has come under renewed pressure to explain why Foxtel – and not a free-to-air network or public broadcaster – was given millions of dollars to boost coverage of women's and niche sports. 

The broadcaster was assigned $30 million in taxpayer's money over four years in the 2017 federal budget in order to boost "under represented sports" on subscription television….

Labor is opposed to the Turnbull government's media reforms and the package has yet to pass the Senate. Foxtel's funding was able to sail through the upper house because it was bundled into the government's appropriation bills. 

BACKGROUND

Financial Review, 4 June 2017:

A spate of recent deals show the influence broadcaster Fox Sports has on the Australian sporting scene and how it may wield that power in the future….

Government subsidies to Fox increase

Fox will also play a part in any FFA expansion plans for the A-League, with a small kicker in the rights contract for additional matches as a result of more teams at any stage of the six-year contract. It will have a say in where the new teams come from.

Then there is the budget 2017 deal with the federal government. The government will provide subscription television worth $30 million over four years to "maintain and increase coverage of women's sports, niche sports and high-participation sports which have struggled to get air-time".

Yes, that means Fox Sports – which already has an iron grip on sport with rights to all NRL, AFL, Super Rugby and A-League matches and Supercars races – will receive government funding to show even more sport.

While the notion of giving money to ensure exposure for so-called lesser sports is a positive one, it is going to a commercial organisation rather than a government funded entity such as the ABC or SBS.

ABC News, 28 December 2016:

Following a day when there was more coverage of a stomach ache suffered by one male commentator of one male sport than there was for the entire gamut of women's sports being played at the moment, a very serious question remains unanswered.

Why, on the eve of 2017, is the media still failing to report women's sport adequately while Mark Nicholas' abdominal distress is national news?

Having covered sport for more than 20 years with NewsCorp Julie Tullberg now teaches digital journalism at Monash University.

"Yeah it's pretty funny, I covered AFL many years ago for the Australian and I've been unwell but when I left the coverage no-one could be bothered writing about what I went through — if I was pregnant, or whatever — but with men, for someone live on air for a big event like a Test match, that's newsworthy because they have such a large audience," Tullberg told ABC NewsRadio.

Turn on the radio, television, or go online during the 'summer of sport' and there are updates galore on cricket, basketball and football (the round-ball variety).

But you would be excused for thinking only men play these games despite the fact there are concurrent women's domestic competitions being played at the moment.

In a country where there are four times as many journalists accredited to cover the AFL than federal politics you would be right to suggest sport is a key component of the national culture.

The past 18 months or so in Australia have been record breaking for women's sport ... new competitions, new pay deals and a new level of respect from sports bodies themselves.

Unfortunately, though, that doesn't seem to extend to day-to-day mainstream media coverage.

The Australian, 19 February 2016:

Subscription television group ­Foxtel has reported a 5.5 per cent jump in first-half revenue to $1.66 billion, driven by strong subscriber growth.

However, higher programming costs saw earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation slip by 7.7 per cent to $434 million.

Foxtel, which is owned by Telstra and News Corp, the publisher of The Australian, saw total subscriber growth of 8.1 per cent for the six months ended December 31 and broadcast subscriber growth of 7.4 per cent….

Fox Sports Australia, which is carried by Foxtel and owned by News Corp,....

A new Australian Federal Government super ministry capable of deploying armed soldiers on our streets

“The first question to ask yourself is this: does handing Dutton that power sound like a good idea?” [journalist Katherine Murphy, The Guardian, 18 July 2017]

A new Australian Federal Government super agency capable of deploying armed soldiers on our streets? With a former Queensland police officer of no particular merit as its head?

What could possibly go wrong with a rigid, far-right, professed ‘Christian’ property millionaire having oversight of a super portfolio which would reportedly bring together the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Australian Border Force, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and AUSTRAC along with a database on ordinary citizens, ‘intellectuals’ and perfectly legal organisations, going back literally generations?

How long will it take before any industrial action or protest event would be quickly labelled as terrafret and armed soldiers sent to disperse people exercising their democratic right?

Australia’s been down that painful path before during the last 229 years and been the worse for it.

Turnbull at Holsworthy Barracks, Forbes Advocate,17 July 2017

“The measures I am announcing today will ensure that the ADF is more readily available to respond to terrorism incidents, providing state and territory police with the extra support to call on when they need it.”  

[Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull, media release, Holsworthy NSW,17 July 2017]

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 July 2017:

Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed a dramatic shake-up of Australia's security, police and intelligence agencies that will put Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, in charge of a sprawling new Home Affairs security portfolio.

The department of Home Affairs will bring together domestic spy agency ASIO, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Border Force, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, AUSTRAC and the office of transport security and will be put together over the next year.

And Mr Turnbull has also announced the government would, in response to the 

L'Estrange review of Australia's intelligence agencies, establish an Office of National Intelligence and that the Australian Signals Directorate will also be established as an independent statutory authority. 

The new Office of National Intelligence will co-ordinate intelligence policy and is in line with agencies in Australia's "Five Eyes" intelligence partners in the US, Britain, Canada and New Zealand…..

The changes are to be finalised by June 30, 2018 - subject to approval of the National Security Committee of Cabinet -  with Mr Dutton to work with Senator Brandis in bedding down the changes.

Senator Brandis will lose responsibility for ASIO under the changes but, crucially, retain sign-off power on warrants for intelligence agency. 

Mr Turnbull said the Attorney-General's oversight of Australia's domestic security and law enforcement agencies would be strengthened, with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the independent national security legislation monitor moving into his portfolio. 

The Prime Minister said Australia needed these reforms "not because the system is broken, but because our security environment is evolving quickly…..

The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 July 2017:

However that L'Estrange review – part of a routine reassessment of national security arrangements – is understood not to specifically recommend such a super-portfolio.

Mr Turnbull has been dropping strong hints lately that he is inclined to make a significant change, rejecting what he's branded a "set and forget" policy on national security and warning that Australia must keep up with an evolving set of threats from terrorism to foreign political influence.

Security and intelligence agencies themselves are also believed to have concerns about such a change, while some former intelligence heads have publicly said they do not see any need for change.

However, a well-placed source in the intelligence community said a Home Affairs office - as opposed to a US-style Department of Homeland Security - was the preferred options for police and intelligence agencies.

That was because a Home Affairs department would potentially be broader, including agencies such as the Computer Emergency Response Team, the Australian Cyber Security Centre, Crimtrac, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the new Critical Infrastructure Centre, rather than just police and intelligence agencies.

The Guardian, 18 July 2017:

Peter Jennings, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, put it well on Tuesday when he said any “grit” in the Dutton/Brandis relationship could be problematic for intelligence operations, which is obviously problematic for all of us, given we rely on the efficiency of the counter-terrorism framework to keep us safe.

So we’d better hope for the best, to put it mildly.

We’d also better hope it’s a good use of the time of our intelligence services and public servants to nut out how the Big Idea is going to work in practice, which will be a reasonably complex task, at a time when these folks already have a serious day job.

Recapping that specific day job again: trying to disrupt national security threats, in a complex environment. Pretty busy and important day job, that one.

It’s cartoonish to say this is all about the prime minister rewarding old mate Dutton, on the basis you keep your friends close, and your (potential) enemies closer.

Nothing is ever that simple outside a House of Cards storyboard– although it remains an irrefutable fact that Dutton wanted this to happen, and if Dutton really wanted it to happen, it would have been difficult for Turnbull, in his current position, to say no.

The Australian, 19 July 2017:         

The pressure points lie in the risk calculations that link intelligence to response. In a liberal democracy, we rightly demand high certainty of the intention to carry out an act of violence before we are comfortable with our security services pre-emptively taking someone off the streets. Usually when an attack happens, here or in the US or Europe, it’s because the calibration of risk hasn’t worked. It’s not because security services weren’t concerned about an individual’s beliefs and actions or couldn’t find him.

For those of us without access to national security data, the evidence suggests that Australia does these important risk calculations relatively well. Our list of foiled terrorist attacks is quite a bit longer than the list of attacks. The reason for this is the national security structures we have evolved: the combination of separate national security agencies, each with highly developed specialist capabilities and slightly different cultures and perspectives, working in close, 24/7 collaboration.

When calculating risk, separation and diversity are a strength because they build contestation, careful deliberation and stress testing into the system. Britain, the US, France and Belgium have chosen more centralised structures, and the evidence is that their systems do not work as well as ours. Bringing our highly effective agencies into a super-department cannot help but disrupt their inner structures and cultures. Such enterprises inevitably lose sight of the goal — keeping Australians safe — as they become driven by the desire for efficiencies and cultural homogenisation, and the urge for bureaucratic tidiness. Look no further than the creation of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, a process that has consumed enormous amounts of resources in reconciling two incompatible cultures, with no apparent benefits and a list of embarrassing blunders.

Creating one security super-department places a major imperative on the government to get everything right, first time. Separate but closely collaborating security agencies create a powerful check against underperformance: a struggling agency or a leader who’s not up to it are spotted and called out quickly. But underperformance in a federation-style conglomerate is not so easy to see and to call out. And in the meantime, it’s the safety of Australians that will be the price for underperformance.

If the Turnbull government were serious about national security, it would not engage in evidence-free experimentation with our national security. It should instead be building on what’s working well and making it even stronger. We need better co-ordination and cross agency connectivity, not big-bang organisational redesign.

We should be getting these sorts of issues right in a system that is working, rather than indulging in the risk-riddled gesture politics of a grand restructure.

Michael Wesley is professor of international affairs and dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University.

Can the CSIRO sink any lower?

“Collaborating with government. As a trusted adviser to government, our collaboration within the sector supports it to solve challenges, find efficiencies and innovate.” [CSIRO, Data61]

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is a federal government corporate entity ultimately responsible to the Australian Parliament.

It started life in the midst of global conflagration in 1916 and for most of its existence it was widely respected both in its country of origin and around the world.

Sadly that level of respect has been diminished in recent years as commercial imperatives saw it move away from its once proud boast that:

The integrity of our science is underpinned by commitment to our values, adherence to our policies and maintaining the highest standards of practice.

However, it had not yet become a low creature of right-wing political ideology.

Until now – when it appears willing to participate in enforcing punitive social policies, cynically presented in the guise of Budget measures by the Turnbull Coalition Government.

In particular, enabling the trial drug testing of income support applicants “based on a data-driven profiling tool developed for the trial to identify relevant characteristics that indicate a higher risk of substance abuse issues” which almost inevitably will target the poor and vulnerable.

Apparently the only matter holding the CSIRO back from full commitment to the trial is the matter of contract negotiations with the Dept. Of Social Security and/or Dept. of Human Services¹.

The cost of this measure has reportedly been deemed by government to be “commercial-in-confidence”.

InnovationAus, 2 June 2017:

CSIRO has still not officially agreed to allow its Data61 analytics unit to become involved in the government’s highly contentious welfare drug testing program, a Senate estimates hearing has been told.

But the delay appears to be related to difficult contract negotiations – for which the research agency is well known – rather than the objections of staff or management to becoming involved in such a politically-driven program.

The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and CSIRO appeared at the Senate estimates on Thursday morning.

The shocking concession that CSIRO has been in discussion to work on the drug-test project since April comes despite the organisation having specifically declined to confirm any knowledge of the project for weeks – let alone that it was actively negotiating a contract.

This is despite direct questions being put to CSIRO on multiple occasions for weeks.

The estimates hearing also revealed that Data61 has been called into the controversy plagued Social Services robo-debt project that has mistakenly matched debt to welfare recipients.

CSIRO digital executive director David Williams told shadow industry minister Kim Carr that while CSIRO was approached by the Social Services department about the welfare drug testing scheme in late April – less than a month before its involvement was prematurely announced by Cabinet Minister Christian Porter – it is still yet to officially sign on to the project.

“The Department of Social Services approached CSIRO in early April, wanting to implement a trial involving activity tested income support recipients across a small number of geographical areas,” Mr Williams told senate estimates.

“They asked for Data61’s support in doing the analysis to see whether predictive analytics could help them in that task.”

“Since that time we’ve been talking with the department, and scoped out a statement of work and we’ve looked at how we can implement that work should we sign a contract and proceed. At this moment we’re working through the procedures inside CSIRO.”

FOOTNOTE

1. The CSIRO already has a business relationship with the Australian Department of Human Services (DHS). Commencing in February 2017 the CSIRO and/or CSIRO Data61 conducted a Review of Online Compliance Systems, as well as supplying Specialist Data Science Services and Selection Methodologies Advice to the department. See; https://www.tenders.gov.au.

About those rules for joining the Liberal-Nationals' cosy little citizenship club.......

Currently the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is before the Australian Parliament.

This bill raises the bar on applications for citizenship and increases the power of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, over the citizenship process - including granting him the power to override Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions on citizenship applications.

One of the components of this bill is the introduction of an English language test, which means that with few exceptions applicants between 16 and 60 years of age will need to demonstrate competent English language listening, speaking, reading and writing skills before being able to sit the citizenship test.

Applicants will be required to undertake a separate upfront English language test with an accredited provider and achieve a minimum level of ‘competent’.

According to the Immigration Minister the minimum level of competency is the IELTS General Training language test at  “Level 6 of the General stream focuses on "basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts".

This particular test has three components – listening, reading and writing - and takes the better part of three hours to complete.

An example of the type of questions contained in the General Training reading test can be found here.

There is a strong likelihood that between est. 7-16 million Australians (including those born in Australia of Australian parents) would fail this test if they were required to take it today.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) recorded the results of direct measurement of three critical information-processing skills: literacy; numeracy; and problem solving in technology-rich environments and the 16.3 million people whose skills were measured included those not in the workforce, those in employment and those without a job.

In 2016 ABS recorded:

Approximately 7 million (46%) Australians aged 15 to 74 years had scores at Level 1 or 2 on the prose scale, a further 5.6 million (37%) at Level 3 and 2.5 million (16%) at Level 4/5. Results for document literacy were similar to prose. There were 7 million (47%) Australians at Level 1 or 2 on the document scale, 5.4 million (36%) at Level 3 and 2.7 million (18%) at Level 4/5.

By 2011-12 ABS was stating:

Around 3.7% (620,000) of Australians aged 15 to 74 years had literacy skills at Below Level 1, a further 10% (1.7 million) at Level 1, 30% (5.0 million) at Level 2, 38% (6.3 million) at Level 3, 14% (2.4 million) at Level 4, and 1.2% (200,000) at Level 5.

In the 2011-12 round of testing 43% of participants born in Australia and 51% of participants born outside of Australia had English literacy levels below Level 3.

The chances of the majority of these people, regardless of whether they are citizens or residents with visas, being able to pass Peter Dutton’s new English language test is slim to say the least.

According to Catherine Elder, a world-leading expert at Melbourne University and president of the International Language Testing Association; "A level six on both tests requires you to be highly literate and to be able to do things like write an essay. It would take a great deal of time and be beyond the reach of many people who come to Australia."

The fact of the matter is that in 2011-12 it was people who had attained a higher education qualification (Bachelor degree and above) who were more likely than others to have achieved a score at Level 3 or above in literacy and numeracy, and Level 2 or above in problem solving in technology-rich environments.

So according to the new citizenship rules being supported by millionaire parliamentarians Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and Peter Craig Dutton, it would appear that only those that managed to acquire a decent education need apply to join the Liberal-Nationals’ cosy little citizenship club.¹

  

Footnote:

1. In 1788 when the forbears of many individuals and families - which are both grand and humble members of  Australian society of today - first stumbled off those early British convict ships onto shore the vast majority of them would have been illiterate. On the basis of poor literacy levels and criminal records Malcolm Bligh Turnbull's many convict forbears wouldn't be allowed to become permanent residents much less citizens today under the new rules.

Considering a matter for prosecution

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) prosecutes counter-terrorism matters through the Organised Crime and Counter Terrorism Practice Group.

The CDPP appeared for The Queen as head of the Commonwealth of Australia in the matter of an Australian-born 18 year-old charged with plotting a terrorist act in 2015.

The young man plead guilty, was convicted of the offence in September 2016 and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven and a half years.

In October 2016 the Commonwealth of Australia appealed the length of his sentence.

So by June 2017 the CDPP representing the Commonwealth of Australia was again in court presenting the argument for a longer sentence.

Enter two Commonwealth ministers, the Minister for Health Greg Hunt and Minister for Human Services Alan Tudge who, along with Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar, proceeded to criticize the judge/s hearing this appeal in an article published in The Australian on 13 June 2017.

Mr Hunt said "the state courts should not be places for ideological experiments in the face of global and local threats from Islamic extremism….".

Mr Tudge was quoted as saying “Some of these judges are ­divorced from reality….We have a crisis on our hands with people who want to kill ­indiscriminately and yet some judges seem more concerned about the terrorists than the safety of the community.”

Mr Sukkar opined “It’s the attitude of judges like these which has eroded any trust that remained in our legal system…Labor’s continued appointment of hard-left activist judges has come back to bite Victorians. Our judiciary should focus more on victims and the safety of our society, and less on the rights of terrorists who don’t respect our society, its laws or our people.”

All these statements were made while the Commonwealth’s appeal was still before the Court.

Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar very belatedly withdrew their remarks but arrogantly refused to apologise for these comments when lawyers for the three appeared in the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Melbourne on 16 June, to explain why they shouldn't be referred for prosecution for contempt.

In criminal matters before Victorian courts "penalties for contempt usually consist of fines, imprisonment or both".

In my humble opinion Messrs. Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar deserve to be referred and have the matter heard summarily by a judge as the alleged contempt was of a serious nature, freely made and offered to a national newpaper for publication by unsolicited email, committed in the course of an appeal of a judgment in a trial for serious criminal offences and, to date there has been no apology or public expression of contrition and full acceptance of the Court's authority.

UPDATE 2:06AM 18 JUNE 2017

Supreme Court of Victoria live stream of the matter of explanations as to why Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar should not be referred for prosecution for contempt:

https://www.streaming.scvwebcast1.com/hearing-14-june-2017-10-30am/

Many thanks to Josh Bornstein for posting this link on social media.

UPDATE 4:10PM 22 June 2017

Since their original defiance Messrs. Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar have had second thoughts.

First the Prime Minister had committed the uncomfortable error of publicly defending their attack.

INTERVIEW WITH TOM ELLIOTT, Radio 3AW, transcript, 15 June 2017:

TOM ELLIOTT:

Is this unusual for three of your ministers to be hauled into court to explain themselves?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well it certainly is unusual but it is not unusual for Victorians to express real concern about public safety in their state.

Those three ministers, yes they are ministers in my government, they are Members of Parliament but they are also citizens of Victoria and residents of Victoria and you know, as your listeners do, that there is real concern about law and order and the failure of the state government and the system in Victoria to protect people.

Look, I think it is a matter of the justice system, the legal system in Victoria, the criminal justice system is a matter of real public interest and my ministers are focused on public safety, they are working with me and the rest of our team and our agencies to do everything we can to keep Australians safe and defeat Islamist terrorism.

TOM ELLIOTT:

Will the three ministers appear in court on Friday?

PRIME MINISTER:

I can’t answer that. I am sure they would be represented but whether they appear in person, that is a matter for them. I am not sure what arrangements they’ve made.

Then Senator Derryn Hinch added his inflammatory mite and debate on social media widened..

Finally, in the early hours of 22 June BuzzFeed posted images the three amigos had hoped would fade into oblivion when, along with offending tweets, they deleted these Facebook posts:

By late afternoon on 22 June 2017 The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

A trio of Turnbull government ministers will make an abject apology to Victoria's highest court on Friday, a week after they refused to apologise for comments critical of the judiciary.

Fairfax Media has learned that Health Minister Greg Hunt, Human Services Minister Alan Tudge and Assistant Minister to the Treasurer Michael Sukkar have now decided to reverse course and make the special apology.

The hearing on Friday is going ahead at the request of the ministers and is designed to bring the matter to an end.

I suggest we all rememebr these faces at the next federal election....

Left to Right: Human Services Minister Alan Tudge MP for Aston, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar MP for Deakin & 
Health Minister Greg Hunt MP for Flinders

Human Services Minister Alan Tudge says the public is "fed up". You bet we are!

The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 June 2017:

Judges and magistrates have lashed out at "grossly improper and unfair" conduct by several Turnbull government MPs, who accused Victorian courts of being too soft on terror offenders.

Federal Liberal MP Alan Tudge has taken a public swipe at Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews over the State's soft terror laws and the Premier has answered his critic.

The three ministers' criticisms of the courts have appalled the professional association of judges, which said the comments could be misconstrued as an attempt to interfere in a case before the courts.

Judicial Conference of Australia president Robert Beech-Jones said the "co-ordinated and direct attack" on the independence of the courts risked undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

"The statements attributed to the ministers are deeply troubling. They represent a threat to the rule of law. They should never have been made." Justice Beech-Jones said.

Victorian Attorney-General Martin Pakula also hit back at the federal frontbenchers, warning they have come "dangerously close" to contempt of court.

Following national agreement to toughen parole and bail laws to prevent violent extremists being released from prison, Health Minister Greg Hunt and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge claimed Victorian judges were failing the public.

Triggered by recent courtroom comments from Victorian Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justice Mark Weinberg, Mr Hunt said their apparent support for lighter sentences was "deeply concerning". Mr Tudge said the public was "fed up".

So Human Services Minister and Liberal MP for Aston Alan Tudge thinks the public is "fed up".

You bet we are!

However, I suspect that it is not the judiciary which has caused this reaction so much as it is the antics of Alan Tudge and his Coalition cronies.

This constant ideological assault on the nation’s legal, political and social institutions and, the continuing erosion of the citizen’s civil and human rights, has moved well beyond the pale.

This latest attack on the judiciary has provoked a response from the Supreme Court of Victoria that Mr. Tudge in his overweening sense political superiority probably did not even consider.

Judicial Conference of Australia: Media Release Grossly Improper Attack on Vic Judiciary 13 June 2017 by clarencegirl on Scribd

The Age, 14 June 2017:

Three senior Turnbull government ministers will be hauled before the Supreme Court of Victoria to explain why they should not be charged with contempt after accusing the judiciary of advocating softer sentences for terrorists.

In an explosive development, the Supreme Court has ordered Health Minister Greg Hunt, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge to appear on Friday "to make any submissions as to why they should not be referred for prosecution for contempt" .

A letter from Judicial Registrar Ian Irving obtained by Fairfax Media says comments by the three ministers published in the The Australian accusing the judiciary of going soft on terrorists would appear to bring the court into disrepute.

"The attributed statements were published whilst the judgements of the Court of Appeal were reserved," the letter says.

"The attributed statements appear to intend to bring the Court into disrepute, to assert the judges have and will apply an ideologically based predisposition in deciding the case or cases and that the judges will not apply the law."

The extraordinary order follows comments published in The Australian in which the senior ministers blasted the Victorian judiciary for handing down lighter sentences for terrorists as part of "ideological experiments".

The judicial registrar has also written to The Australian's editor and the journalist Simon Benson asking them or their legal representatives to attend the court, alongside legal representatives for News Limited.