"The bad reality TV show" that is Lismore City Council continues to stumble from one poor planning or policy decision to another

 

Lismore City councillors
IMAGE: Lismore City Council

In October 2023 it was reported that the Santin Quarry was once more on the Lismore City Council agenda.

Local residents and farmers in the Alstonville area were objecting to the quarry being made operational again in part because of concerns regarding the impact its activities would have on the Alstonville aquifer.

Echo, 10 October 2023:

Lismore’s Santin Quarry ceased operation in 2021 after an attempt to extend the life of the quarry for 16 years failed. An appeal to the Land and Environment Court (L&EC) by Santin Quarry’s owner Mick Santin was subsequently withdrawn. Yet the quarry is back on the table and objectors are concerned that the current crop of conservative Lismore councillors will approve the extension regardless of the fact that the staff have recommended refusal.

Due to the ‘lengthy history’ of the Santin Quarry modification to the development application (DA) Lismore Council staff ‘engaged an independent town planner, GAT & Associates, to undertake the assessment’.

There were 35 submissions received in relation to the modification with ‘25 against and 10 in support’.

‘The public submissions raised several concerns, including impacts on the visual and acoustic amenity of the area and nearby properties, impacts on the road networks, koalas, and the legality of the potential for consent to extend the quarry’s life,’ stated the staff report.

‘The modification application has been assessed and is recommended for refusal.’ .....

Despite this  staff recommendation Council in the Chamber gave consent in a 5 to 4 vote and yet another poor planning decision, in a long line of poor policy and planning decisions that can be placed at the feet of Lismore City Mayor Steve Kreig and his supporters on Council, was underway.

Echo, 15 January 2024:

A local group is challenging the decision-making ability of Lismore Mayor Steve Kreig and his team in court, in what they say is yet another test of that team’s legitimacy.

The Monaltrie Area Community Association Incorporated (MACAI) have commenced Class 4 proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court arguing the Lismore City Council had no power to approve a Modification Application (MA) that was made by Michael Santin operating Santin Quarry.

The MA was approved by Mayor Kreig and his team on the 10 October 2023.

Seeking costs and an injunction

MACAI are seeking costs and that the council and Mr Santin be permanently injuncted from acting upon the approval.

MACAI commenced proceedings on January 9. The group alleges that Council did not have the power to approve a modification application (MA) to extend the life of the Santin Quarry, at Riverbank Rd.

The quarry at Monaltrie, 5 km from Lismore CBD, had a modification application approved by Lismore City Councillors in October last year. The application would allow a 12-year extension of the quarry, that owing to an expired consent, had ceased operations in February 2021.....

BACKGROUND

Lismore App, 11 October 2023:

As expected, the Santin Quarry application to extend its life for another 12 years to the 12th of May 2036, was keenly debated and easily dominated the Lismore City Council agenda.

What was not expected was the amount of drama that went on in the one-hour sixteen-minute discussion before the majority of councillors approved the extension 6 votes to 4 (Councillor Cook was away). Once again, it was like a bad reality TV show.

There were five public speakers who spoke in favour of the Lismore City Council (LCC) staff recommendation that the application not be approved. Council staff based that recommendation on the likelihood of the quarry having a significant acoustic impact on neighbouring properties, and the proponent has submitted insufficient information to assess whether all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been explored.

However, the five public speakers, one of which does not live on the land in the buffer zone near the quarry in Monaltrie, included previously disputed points that the DA (development application) is not substantially the same and the wording of the consent having expired or lapsed.

LCC staff sought outside legal advice and found the DA could be approved on both points finding the DA was substantially the same and council could extend the life of the quarry as the consent had expired. The sticking point was the acoustic impact.

Where the discussion started turning ugly was when some of the public speakers insinuated that a number of councillors personally knew Mr Santin and this may influence their decision to approve the extension.

One speaker said, "When making these decisions, associations and friendships need to be declared and decisions need to be made on facts, not friendships."

Earlier in the evening, a number of councillors did declare they knew Mr Santin and the association was non-pecuniary and non-significant.

Another speaker was concerned about the road width which was supposed to be widened to 6m but hadn't and was currently 4.9m making it dangerous for cars to pass trucks as they approached or left the quarry.

The final speaker was the catalyst for the meeting to be paused as councillors lost all perspective. To start the October meeting, Mayor Krieg asked councillors to remain respectful throughout tonight's proceedings. That reasoning unravelled at this point.

After prefacing her controversial comments by saying they were her own and she did not represent any body, community or organisation, the speaker went on to challenge the non-pecuniary, non-significant declaration saying, "It seems to me a very obvious conflict of interest."

There was a reference to undertones of nepotism and potential corruption if councillors voted against the staff recommendation.

It was at this point that Councillor (Cr) Rob moved a point of order and Mayor Krieg asked the speaker to stop talking. Something she did not do with Cr Rob sitting and continuing to talk also.

Mayor Krieg then banged his gavel asking for order as part of the gallery applauded. The mayor then threatened to clear the gallery if people could not be respectful to each other. The speaker continued to talk in reply to the mayor's comments before he issued one last warning that she would be removed if there was another outburst.

The speaker and another person spoke once more when Cr Rob stood to change the order of business as they walked out of the meeting. Mayor Krieg made another plea to the gallery to keep order or he would clear the gallery. This was challenged by Cr Guise.

"Mr. Mayor, can you please refer to the code of meeting practice where it gives you the right to clear the gallery based....."

At this point, the mayor is on his feet and refers to 6.9 of the code of meeting practice, "When the chairperson rises or speaks during the meeting, any councillor speaking or seeking to speak, must cease speaking and if standing immediately resume their seat."

Mr Guise then replied, "If you're gonna threaten to kick out the public members from a public facility, practising democracy, please refer to the code of meeting practice where you can do that. We are not in an autocratic regime, yet."

Mayor Krieg then adjourned the meeting for five minutes to find the relevant section.

When the meeting restarted five minutes later, Mayor Krieg reiterated 6.9 that when the chairperson stands, a councillor must immediately cease speaking and resume their seat. He then quotes 15.15, "All chairpersons of meetings of the council and committees of the council are authorised, under this code, to expel any person, other than a councillor, from a council or committee meeting for the purposes of section 10.2b.

The mayor then referred to 15.18, "A member of the public may, as provided by section 10.2a or b of the act, be expelled from a meeting of the council for engaging in or having engaged in disorderly conduct at the meeting. If I have to do it individually, so be it, but I will do it. Thank you, Councillor Guise for bringing those to everyone's attention."

Once the order of business was changed, Cr Rob put forward an alternative motion that the application for modification of the Development Consent to extend the life of the quarry be approved for a maximum of 12 years subject to the attached conditions. We later learnt that there were 44 conditions for the Santin Quarry to comply with over various timeframes of the consent. Some of those, like the acoustic noise mitigation measures were to be completed before any quarrying restarts while others were within the first six months of operation and some longer.

Councillor Guise expressed his reasons for not supporting the new alternative motion by outlining the history of the quarry, as well as asking his fellow councillors to support the staff's recommendation.

"Councillors, if you're contemplating ignoring a staff recommendation to refuse this, you are throwing out any adherence to the law. Any adherence to sensible planning decisions and you're ignoring what you folks said you were being elected for, which is to listen to staff recommendations and follow their recommendations. Please don't stand up in this chamber and say that you're going to go against the staff recommendation. When it's quite clear. This quarry will have unacceptable impacts on the community and it does not meet the basic legal threshold tests required for a development application modification."

Later Cr Rob asked Cr Guise what the staff recommendations were when the applications came to the LCC chambers in 2019 and 2020.

Cr Guise responded by saying he couldn't remember those recommendations. Cr Rob mentioned they were to approve the extension of the quarry's life to which Cr Guise replied, "Councillors did resolve to not give consent".

Non-compliance was an issue raised by Crs Bird, Guise and Ekins during the lengthy debate.

Acoustic earth mounds were to have been constructed at the start of the quarry thirty years ago but LCC's Eber Butron said that his understanding was that partial construction has occurred.

Cr Bird put forward a foreshadowed motion to defer the decision so councillors could understand the 44 new and updated conditions attached to the approval before Cr Ekins added more drama to an already bizarre discussion when she said that Mr Santin had donated money to the Greens last state election campaign.

Someone had complained to the General Manager that this caused a conflict of interest for Cr Guise and Ekins. The Greens returned the money but Cr Ekins said, "And in their view (the NSW Greens), it appeared to be an attempt to undermine the democratic process and to remove Council Guise and myself from this chamber."

To this point, no councillor had spoken for the motion to extend the quarry's life. A point not lost on Cr Bird who challenged those councillors to explain their decision.

Cr Rob, who was going to speak then rose and said, " How dare any councillor try and tell me what to do. I do what I want, as long as I believe it's within the code of meeting practice and the code of conduct. So, I'm not going to explain why I want to do this. I'm just going to approve it.

It was put to the vote which was won 6/4 with councillors Gordon, Hall, Jensen, Bing, Rob and Krieg in favour and councillors Guise, Colby, Bird and Ekins against......

Blockade Australia August 2023: climate crisis activists court appearances update

 

BLOCKADE AUSTRALIA, media release, 23 August 2023:

Emma Dorge appeared before Magistrate Breton at Penrith Local Court today. Emma was found guilty to resisting arrest by plain clothes officers at Springwood train station.

The Magistrate did question why the initial arrest was even made for breaching bail, as police were unable to specify the breach or provide any evidence, and did not lay this charge. Police prosecution claimed that police were acting in good faith, despite concurrent bail breach accusations against Emma of not being allowed in NSW and not residing at a NSW address. In response to this, the Magistrate stated, "I suggest otherwise, it seems there was no breach of bail, meaning there would have been no power to arrest her at all".

"Despite the obvious lack of reason for my arrest, the magistrate still decided that me turning to get out my phone to contact help constitutes resisting arrest. The judicial system has once again protected police mis-use of power; over the rights of people affected by it."

"As we see increasing over-reach by the police and courts, we also see increasing extreme climate events around the world. We must match this with resistance." Emma Dorge

Blockade Australia is a growing network of people commitment to targeting the economic pinch points that materially disrupt the exportation and exploitation that this political system relies on. This was demonstrated in a simultaneous week of actions at Brisbane, Newcastle and Melbourne ports in June.

Blockade Australia acknowledges First Nations Peoples as the custodians and true owners of this land

Earlier Blockade Australia media news announcement, 23 August 2023:

Emma Dorge, who was arrested in June 2022 in a spree of arrests made by police to repress Blockade Australia's planned mobilisation in Sydney last year, is facing court today [Wednesday 23rd] at Penrith Local Court. Several other Blockade Australia activists have faced court or had charges dropped by police this past week - details below. Two of these people - Daniel Heggie and Emma Dorge will be available for comment at court today.

Emma Dorge is pleading not guilty to resisting arrest when being apprehended by two undercover officers at a train station in June last year. The police attempted and failed to bring a detention order on Emma. Emma has been living with `bail conditions for 14 months, including: not to associate with 25 others, including their partner, had to move house and leave NSW. These conditions, whilst extensive, have been used against various activists arrested in the period in association with Blockade Australia.

At the same time in June last year, Max Curmi and Daniel Heggie were being held in custody after the bungled Colo surveillance operation which led to the large scale raid. Both were given a significant list of charges each. Daniel was facing charges of aid and abet in the commission of a crime, for unloading a trailer at Colo, was subsequently on bail for over a year, only for all charges to be dropped the day before the court date. Max was charged with conspiracy and affray, for which he was held on remand for over 3 weeks, along with Tim Neville who was also arrested during the raid.

On these police tactics, Max wrote from prison in June last year, "I'm a political prisoner, I'm being held on prefabricated charges because I refuse to let this system continue destroying this continent, the climate and our right to a livable future".

Aunty Caroline Kirk, Ngemba Elder and Lily Bett were in Paramatta court last week for charges of obstruct and intimidate the police during the Colo raids in June last year. The intimidation and obstruct charges were laid on them for yelling at or standing in the path of, what they identified as armed intruders at a private residence.

Aunty Caroline was given $400 in fine and Lily a 6 month CRO. Both had no conviction recorded.

At the time of the charges in question, police were dressed in camouflage and black clothes, refused to identify themselves and hit several people in the process of leaving in a car. It was not until 100+ police, with dogs and helicopters made their way down the valley, smashing up the camp and holding everyone for hours, that it became clear it was a police operation.

"Over the past 18 months we have seen harsh bail conditions, surveillance and incarceration of climate activists, even when no legitimate charges end up being laid. These underhanded police tactics go hand in hand with the anti protest laws introduced early last year. Australia uses these repressive mechanisms to uphold this destructive profit-growth system and block meaningful climate action." - Emma Dorge

Environmental Defenders Office filed a legal challenge to NSW Government's draconian anti-protest laws on behalf of two Knitting Nannas members who live in fire and flood affected parts of the NSW far north coast

 

Post at The Saturday Paper, 13 October 2022:

Knitting Nannas unpick anti-protest laws

Two members of the Knitting Nannas will challenge the NSW government’s anti-protest laws in court, as climate activists explore avenues for action with “less punitive” consequences.

What we know:

• The Environmental Defenders Office will file the legal challenge on behalf of the two activists, who live in fire and flood-affected parts of the NSW far north coast (The Guardian);

• The two women have concerns about the controversial laws introduced in March that allow fines of $22,000 and two years in prison to punish non-violent protesters;

• They will argue that making it illegal to protest on major roads, tunnels and “near” prescribed facilities unlawfully impinges on the freedom to protest;

• “When it comes to protest rights … it can be a death by a thousand cuts. We have to fight to preserve that right, ” said David Morris of the Environmental Defenders Office;

• The legal challenge comes as the union movement pushes NSW Labor to commit to reversing the laws if elected in March (Sydney Criminal Lawyers);…….

Environmental Defenders Office spokesperson announcing legal challenge on 13.10.22, accompanied by Knitting Nannas Helen Kvelde and Dominique Jacobs. IMAGE: @jatremain

‘For these two women protest became an essential form of political expression to sound the alarm about the impacts of climate change. “Our communities have felt terrified, angry and stressed. Protest can transform those overwhelming feelings into change and action,” Dominique said. “We will ask the Court to find that aspects of these new laws are unconstitutional. Australians like us shouldn’t have to risk imprisonment or bankruptcy to participate in our democracy, and the Government should not be taking away our democratic freedoms.”’ [Environmental Defenders Office, October 2022]

A regional NSW weekend of #COVIDIOTS in the pub & in the bush

 

NSW Police, News, 16 & 17 October 2021:

Statement from Commissioner Mick Fuller regarding Singleton business closure

Saturday, 16 October 2021 05:14:23 PM

Officers from Hunter Valley Police District have served a licensed premises on George Street, Singleton, with an order to close today (Saturday 16 October 2021), due to alleged repeated breaches of the public health orders.

The closure order follows a number of previous interactions with the licensee – a 57-year-old man – due to repeated and continued breaches of the Public Health Order by allegedly allowing – and not taking steps to prevent – unvaccinated people being at the premises. [my yellow highlighting]

Police have attended the venue numerous times in the past week and issued the licensee three PINs and staff members three PINs for breaching the public health orders.

The venue will remain closed until midnight on Tuesday (19 October 2021).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charges laid after unauthorised events - Tweed/Byron

Sunday, 17 October 2021 04:43:51 PM

Eleven people have been charged following unauthorised gatherings held at national parks on the state’s north coast overnight. [my yellow highlighting]

Just after 9.15pm (Saturday 16 October 2021), police were alerted to an unauthorised gathering being held within bushland at Tyagarah Nature Reserve.

Officers from Tweed/Byron Police District attended, and the crowd dispersed into bushland.

About 1am (Sunday 17 October 2021), police were alerted to a separate event at Billinudgel Nature Reserve and shut down the event, dispersing the crowd.

The organiser, a 25-year-old man, was spoken to with sound and lighting equipment and prohibited drugs seized from the site.

The Byron Bay man was issued a cannabis caution after being found in possession of cannabis as well as a $1,000 PIN for breaching the Public Health Order and an infringement for the consumption of alcohol in a National Park.

Police established a stationary breath testing site at the intersection of Jones and Wooyung Roods.

During the operation 10 drivers were charged, five with low-range PCA and five with Mid-Range PCA. They will all face court at a later date. An additional four drivers were issued infringements for traffic offences.

Of note, a Toyota Hiace was stopped by officers on Wooyong Road, after failing to stop at the site. [my yellow highlighting]

The driver fled into nearby bushland and following a foot pursuit, the 21-year-old man, was found injured, with a suspected fractured ankle.

He was treated by paramedics and taken to Tweed Hospital, under police guard, for treatment.

The man was later transferred to Tweed Heads Police Station and charged with drive motor vehicle during disqualification period. An outstanding warrant was also executed.

He is due to appear at Tweed Heads Local Court on Monday 6 December 2021.

Inquiries continue to identify attendees and further breaches.

Tweed/Byron Police District Commander, Superintendent David Roptell said unauthorised gatherings of this type will not be tolerated and we appeal to the community to report suspected breaches which may impact on the health and safety of the community.

Not only are events like these illegal, but they also pose a serious safety risk to attendees and responding police due to the location and terrain, Supt Roptell said.

“The local community and environment are also being impacted by the noise and the rubbish left behind.

“Police will work closely with National Parks and Wildlife Services to target these events and prosecute offenders accordingly,” Supt Roptell said.

Anyone with information about is urged to contact Crime Stoppers: 1800 333 000 or https://nsw.crimestoppers.com.au. Information is treated in strict confidence. The public is reminded not to report information via NSW Police social media pages.

Debt laden Clive Palmer's United Australia Party currently being considered for deregistration by the Australian Electoral Commission

Australian Electoral Commission notice of 17 September 2020:

This political party appears to be on the chopping block because it now has less than 500 members.

In recent years Clive Frederick Palmer appears to have exclusively funded this political party through his companies Mineralology Pty Ltd and Palmer Coolum Resort Pty Ltd.

It currently has debts of $8,829,343 of which $8,208,389 is owed to Google Australia Pty Ltd and another $609,039 to IPG Marketing Solutions.

According to an Australian Securities and Investments Commission media release billionaire Clive Palmer is due back in court on 27 November 2020 in relation to; two counts of contravening section 184(2)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) - dishonest use of position as a director and two counts of contravening section 408C(1)(d) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) – fraud by dishonestly gaining a benefit or advantage in that he allegedly dishonestly obtained a benefit or advantage for Cosmo Developments Pty Ltd and/or the Palmer United Party (PUP) and others by authorising the transfer of $10,000,000 contrary to the purpose for which the funds were being held. It is alleged that he dishonestly used his position as a director of Mineralogy Pty Ltd (Mineralogy), a mining company owned by him, in obtaining that advantage.

United Australia Party founder & former MP for Fairfax Clive Palmer facing charges which might lead to 12 years imprisonment

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), media release, 17 July 2020:

20-163MR Clive Palmer charged over breaches of directors’ duties and fraud 

Following an ASIC investigation, Mr Clive Frederick Palmer, 66 of Broadbeach Waters in Queensland, has been charged with two counts of contravening section 184(2)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) - dishonest use of position as a director and two counts of contravening section 408C(1)(d) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) – fraud by dishonestly gaining a benefit or advantage. 

ASIC alleges that between 5 August 2013 and 5 September 2013, Mr Palmer dishonestly obtained a benefit or advantage for Cosmo Developments Pty Ltd and/or the Palmer United Party (PUP) and others by authorising the transfer of $10,000,000 contrary to the purpose for which the funds were being held. It is alleged that he dishonestly used his position as a director of Mineralogy Pty Ltd (Mineralogy), a mining company owned by him, in obtaining that advantage. 

ASIC also alleges that, between 31 August 2013 and 3 September 2013, Mr Palmer dishonestly obtained a benefit or advantage for Media Circus Network Pty Ltd and/or PUP by authorising the transfer of $2,167,065.60 contrary to the purpose for which the funds were being held. It is alleged that Mr Palmer dishonestly used his position as a director of Mineralogy in obtaining that advantage. 

The maximum penalty for an offence under section 184(2) of the Act is $340,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both. 

The maximum penalty for an offence under section 408C of the Code is five years’ imprisonment. However, if circumstances of aggravation are established the maximum penalty at the time the offences are alleged to have occurred is increased to 12 years’ imprisonment. 

The matter was first mentioned in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 20 March 2020, at which time the matter was adjourned for further mention on 17 July 2020. On 17 July 2020 the matter was adjourned until 28 August 2020. 

The matter is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

For years mainstream media have used a presence on the Facebook platform as an easy way to extend digital audience reach. What could possibly go wrong?

There are reputedly est. 15 to 16 million Australians with active Facebook accounts and many in the mainstream media avails themselves of the digital audience this represents by maintaining their own Facebook pages on which they publish newspaper articles with an accompanying comment, image and headline.

News Corp and Nine just found out the hard way that having unmoderated Facebook pages is never a wise choice.

In July 2017 then 20 year-old Dylan Voller commenced defamation proceedings against three media companies owned by News Corp and Nine Entertainment.

This is a news article abot the third and most recent judgment rendered in the ongoing legal saga.....

ABC News, 1 June 2020:

Three Australian media outlets have lost an appeal about a key ruling holding them responsible for the alleged defamation on Facebook of former Don Dale Youth Detention Centre detainee Dylan Voller. 

The 23-year-old is suing Fairfax Media — now owned by Nine Entertainment — Nationwide News and Sky News over comments posted by members of the public in response to articles they placed on their Facebook pages. 

Last year, a New South Wales Supreme Court judge ruled the media companies were publishers of the comments — and therefore liable for them — and the media companies appealed. 

The NSW Court of Appeal today dismissed the challenge and said it was clear the relevant Facebook pages were created on the basis users would be invited to post comments. 

Justices John Basten, Anthony Meagher and Carolyn Simpson said the organisations "accepted responsibility for the use of their Facebook facilities for the publication of comments, including defamatory comments".  
"It was the applicants who provided the vehicle for publication to those who availed themselves of it," they wrote in the judgment. 

'Turning a blind eye' no defence 

The judges said it was not uncommon for someone to be held liable for publishing defamatory imputations conveyed by "matter composed by another person". 

They drew parallels to cases where the owners or occupiers of buildings had been taken to court over defamatory statements on noticeboards or scrawled in graffiti. 

The court is yet to tackle the question of whether the material in question was defamatory. 

In his initial decision last year, Justice Stephen Rothman said defendants could not escape consequences of their actions by "turning a blind eye". 

He also ruled the defence of innocent dissemination was not available because the defendants were first or primary distributors. 

Mr Voller's statement of claim alleges he was defamed by imputations including that he had "brutally bashed a Salvation Army Officer", had raped an elderly woman, that he committed a carjacking and that he had bitten off someone's ear. 

The comments were posted between July 2016 and June 2017 on pages run by the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Sky News, The Bolt Report and The Centralian Advocate. 

Mr Voller's treatment at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, which was the subject of an ABC Four Corners investigation in 2016, sparked a royal commission into youth detention facilities.

The judgment in Fairfax Media Publications; Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2020] NSWCA 102 dismissed the appeal, ordered the applicants pay the respondent’s costs in the appeal proceedings and dismissed the notice of motion of Bauer Media Pty Ltd, Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd and Seven West Media Ltd filed on 23 August 2019 (the latter three media companies having sought leave to appear as amici curiae in the proceedings).

Lismore Diocese in the NSW Northern Rivers region once again focus of historical child sexual abuse allegations

Former Catholic priest Clarence David Anderson died in retirement at Toowoombah Qld in April 1996 and peacefully rests in a Goonellabah NSW cemetery, but his alleged victims are still seeking justice....

Newcastle Herald, 23 January 2020: 

A PARISH priest is suing a NSW Catholic diocese and an order of nuns [believed to be the Presentation Sisters] in what is believed to be the first Australian case of a serving Catholic priest seeking compensation for alleged child sexual abuse by a priest. 

 The Diocese of Lismore has denied liability for alleged crimes by the late charismatic "surfer priest" Clarence "David" Anderson against the then 12-year-old altar boy in the 1960s, and has given notice it will seek a permanent stay against the priest's case in the NSW Supreme Court. 

The move, initiated by the diocese last week, means survivors are "back to square one" in some dioceses despite legal reforms following the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the priest's lawyer Mark Barrow said. 

The permanent stay application is despite the diocese offering compensation to two families in 2004 who alleged Anderson sexually abused two brothers aged 9 and 14 in the Macksville area between 1966 and 1968, and two other brothers, aged 9 and 15, in Tweed Heads parish in 1969.

Melbourne-based Broken Rites put the two families in touch with each other after both were told they were the first to complain about Anderson, and that the diocese had no knowledge of allegations about him. Anderson was a priest for just seven years. One of his alleged victims was advised by the Diocese of Lismore in 2002 that Anderson resigned in 1970. He died in 1996......

The Guardian, 25 January 2020:

The abuse is said to have occurred at a church on the north coast of New South Wales, which sat on the grounds of a boarding school....

It is the second time in recent months that the diocese has attempted to have an abuse case thrown out due to delay.

In December, the Lismore diocese successfully applied to permanently stay a case brought by a woman who alleged she was abused in the 1940s by a priest named John Curran, who has since died.

The church’s approach to delay conflicts with findings of the child abuse royal commission.

According to Broken Rites; In 2020, a legal firm is acting for eleven of Father David Anderson's victims, suing the Lismore Catholic Diocese for compensation.

At last, a class action to be mounted against Morrison Government's error-prone 'robodebt'

If any of the following applies to you and you are considering joining this class action challenge on behalf of Centrelink clients who were served with a debt notice, the following are first contact details for the law firm which may act for you if you are eligible:

Gordon Legal
Ph: 1300 55 50 16

Informaton at https://gordonlegal.com.au/robodebt-class-action/ Online contact form at https://gordonlegal.com.au/contact

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Guardian, 17 September 2019:

Gordon Legal has put out its official statement on the class action: 

"The law firm will challenge, on behalf of affected persons, the government’s use of a flawed calculation system by Centrelink to unlawfully take back tens of millions of dollars from many thousands of Centrelink recipients, including pensioners. 

The money for pensioners, carers, widows, students, farmers and unemployed people was taken from them due to a one-size-fits-all online compliance system. 

The robodebt scheme has been in place since mid-2016, its legality was first raised with us by the new shadow minister for government services, Bill Shorten. 

The basis for the challenge is that that the federal government financially benefited when it wrongfully took and banked money that legitimately belonged to recipients. 

Gordon Legal Senior Partner Peter Gordon says ‘investigations reveal between two to three hundred million dollars have been wrongly taken from people, and making it even worse was many were hit with penalties of 10% on those amounts.’ 

‘These people are the least able groups to afford the heavy-handed actions which are based on a system that used ATO averages that didn’t take into account individual circumstances.’ 

‘The unfair and incorrect assumptions had a devastating financial impact on people’s lives. The emotional distress for people who have done nothing wrong has been high.’ 

‘The robodebt system put debt collectors onto innocent people to chase unlawful debts.’ 

‘They have been unfairly financially disadvantaged and must be repaid with interest, penalties dropped and damages paid.’ 

‘The amounts owed will vary from case to case but the average repayments could be a few thousand dollars which is vital from a financial and wellbeing perspective for these people who are least able to afford it.’

Peter Gordon says ‘The people in this class action were not gaming the system. They had honest claims to payments and allowances that Robodebt wrongly assessed, penalised and pursued with harsh consequences.’ 

‘If you have been unfairly affected by Robodebt, you should register your details on the Gordon Legal website and we will be in touch.’ 

Gordon Legal considers a class action is likely to be the best way to deliver redress for people unfairly impacted by Robodebt." [my yellow highlighting]

Peter Gordon: 

"The class action element of the claim is reasonably straightforward. What is innovative about this is to bring a claim against the government for damages for unjust enrichment that will require the high court to recognise legal principles, which I hardly recognised in other common law countries, particularly the United Kingdom. It may break new ground. We think there … is a strong legal basis for it. 

In order for a class action to proceed, either in a state court or the federal jurisdiction, you need to demonstrate that there appear to be several more people who have claims with similar or the same common issues in the fact of law, and there are clearly a large number of people who have similar issues of fact and of law. 

So the question of its status as a class action is not particularly controversial. Under class-action law, not every case needs to be exactly the same. They only have to be roughly similar. Not every case needs to be bound to succeed. You simply need to demonstrate that there are cases that have similar issues that the court can resolve for the benefit of everybody. 

Everyone who believes they are aggrieved is entitled to bring their own actions, whether they are in the ART or as appropriately advised. We are working with the legal aid agencies, but it doesn’t take, I think, a lot of consideration of what has happened to understand that if a template approach has been applied across 800,000 people, and there are admittedly, on the part of the government, 150,000 errors that have been made, that’s a very large number of mistakes which have been made. If they’ve been made, there is a limit to the ability of any court system and indeed bureaucracy to take them off one by one. 

We think it’s appropriate that if there are common issues that have been got wrong by the Commonwealth, that they be addressed in a way that gives everyone release, not just those who are able to access lawyers and legal aid or have the wherewithal all the records to be able to do it themselves."

Bill Shorten: 

" Let’s be clear, we’ve asked the government to fix this, but they’ve got it wrong. If the government through parliament won’t fix the problem, I think giving justice to victims through class action is a legitimate political approach to take. 

Question: Should the program then in your view be suspended while this class action is even being looked at? 

That would be smart for them to suspend it. The question you have to ask is why is the government looking at a blanket scheme looking at annual wages data against people getting fortnightly payments? 

They are hoping they can shake down people into paying up. This is a government building their government position based on this faulty, immoral and quite possibly illegal scheme, but they should suspend it and rule out extending it to anyone else, and in fact they should revisit their own files and perhaps sit down and work out why this is wrong and stop it. 

The government keeps reaching for blaming Labor pre-2013. Robodebt, this online compliance system, was introduced by the current government. 

The current government announced compliance campaigns in 2015, 2016, and they started introducing robodebt, their use of an algorithm to data match. 

It was born under this government and the pathology of robodebt is sick, it has caused countless harm. I give a shoutout to the media, you’ve all covered the problems of robodebt, but at what point in Australia do you say once you’ve seen individual case after individual case it is called a pattern, and the pattern shows robodebt is immoral itself. 

What we and Gordon Legal is going to do is testing the legal foundations of robodebt, because my own research in the last couple of months has led me to believe it is almost certainly illegal and I just have to do research through the stories you’ve covered to say there is a sickness at the heart of robodebt which needs to be cured."