Cartoons of the Week

Marian Kamensky

Michael de Adder

Cathy Wilcox

Emad Hajjaj

Mary Leunig

State of Play for Women and Girls in Australia, 2024

 

The very ordinary street in which the first murder of a woman occurred in 2024. IMAGE: yahoo! news, 3 January 2024 

To date this year 2024, one woman is murdered every four days somewhere in Australia.

Nationally, in the twelve months between July 2022 and June 23 there had been 34 women killed by an intimate partner, according to the National Homicide Monitoring Program.

By 30 April 2024, 28 women had died of gender-based violence, with 10 of these murders occurring in New South Wales - sadly five being killed in the same place on the same day in Bondi Junction and one being a 60 year-old woman found bundled into the boot of a car outside her home at Evans Head in the Northern Rivers region. Her son has been charged with murder and interfere with corpse.

NOTE: Media reports now cite the number of women murdered nationally to date in 2024 as between 33 and 34. If the current rate of women murdered by men this year continues, then the Australian toll of 75 femicides in 2022-2003 may be exceeded by 31 December 2024. Although it is not expected to reach the 1990-1991 terrible high of 148 femicides.

The year before in New South Wales there were 15 adult women who were a victim of a Domestic Violence (DV) murder in the 12 months to December 2023. While DV assaults recorded by NSW Police increased significantly over the two and five years to December 2023, up by 6.7% over two years and up 3.6% per year on average over five years.

The year-on-year increase was higher in Regional NSW than Greater Sydney (7.6% vs 6.0%), and substantially higher over five years (5.5% vs 2.0% average annual change).

In the Clarence Valley, NSW, from January through to December 2023 there 320 domestic violence related assaults recorded, of which 276 involved female victims of which 250 were aged between 18 and 40+ years and 26 were aged between 0 to 17 years of age.

The gender of offenders across all domestic violence murders and assaults is overwhelmingly male.

According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR) since 2019 the Clarence Valley rate of domestic violence related assaults has risen in the last five years from 354.3 per 100,000 persons to 686.0 per 100,000 persons in 2023. In the wider NSW Police Coffs Harbour-Clarence District the 2023 domestic violence relate assault rate was 816.1 per 100,000 persons, making the rate more than 50% but less than double the NSW average.

The response of federal and state governments to this increase in gender-based violence has been announced.

*******************

Dept. of Prime Minister and Cabinet, PM Transcripts, 1 May 2024:

Released by The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister of Australia

Meeting of National Cabinet on gender-based violence

National Cabinet met virtually today to discuss the national crisis of gender-based violence.

First Ministers are committed to stopping the homicides and achieving our shared goal of ending violence against women and children in a generation.

National Cabinet agreed to a number of priorities for all our governments, building on efforts under way under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, including:

• Strengthening accountability and consequences for perpetrators, including early intervention with high-risk perpetrators and serial offenders, and best practice justice responses that support people who have experienced violence.

• Strengthening and building on prevention work through targeted, evidence-based approaches.

• Maintaining a focus on missing and murdered First Nations women and children, and the impact of domestic and family violence in First Nations communities.

First Ministers heard from Commonwealth Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin. Ms Cronin reflected on her work as Commissioner, including discussions with people with experience of violence, and key priorities for shared effort to address gaps in the current system.

Premier of Victoria, the Hon. Jacinta Allan also shared lessons from the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence.

National Cabinet noted the importance of housing reforms in supporting women and children escaping violence.

National Cabinet agreed to strengthen prevention efforts through targeted, evidence-based approaches and to be informed by an expert led rapid review of best practice approaches. This will allow further and effective action on preventing gender-based violence, building on the considerable work under way.

The Commonwealth will deliver the Leaving Violence Payment to help people experiencing intimate partner violence with the costs of leaving that relationship. This acknowledges financial insecurity is closely linked to violence, and can prevent women leaving a violent relationship.

The Leaving Violence Payment builds on existing measures being delivered to improve financial security of women, including expansion of the single Parenting Payment, 10 days paid domestic violence leave, and investment in crisis accommodation and affordable housing for women and children escaping violence.

The Commonwealth will also deliver a range of new measures to tackle factors that exacerbate violence against women, such as violent online pornography, and misogynistic content targeting children and young people.

New measures will include legislation to ban deepfake pornography and additional funding for the eSafety Commission to pilot age assurance technologies.

First Ministers agreed that system responses need to be strengthened, with a focus on high-risk perpetrators and serial offenders to prevent homicides. This will involve work across governments and jurisdictions. First Ministers have agreed to undertake a range of work that will report back to National Cabinet later this year.

• Police Ministers Council and the Standing Council of Attorneys-General will be tasked to develop options for improving police responses to high risk and serial perpetrators, including considering use of focused deterrence and fixated threat strategies.

• First Ministers agreed to improve information sharing about perpetrators across systems and jurisdictions, led by the Commonwealth Minister for Women.

• First Ministers agreed that States and Territories will explore opportunities to strengthen national consistency and drive best practice approaches across jurisdictions, including relating to risk assessment and responses to sexual assault, led by Victoria and South Australia.

We will continue to listen and learn from those with lived experience of violence. We recognise they have intimate first-hand knowledge of services, systems, and structures that are meant to support. They know from experience the weaknesses and strengths of interventions in practice.

First Ministers are listening to the experts, identifying where the gaps are, and acting with urgency. We want violence against women and children to stop.

This media statement has been agreed by First Ministers and serves as a record of meeting outcomes.

*******************

What is yet to be revealed is the degree to which federal and states governments are willing to address the legislative inadequacies demonstrated within the Commonwealth Criminal Code & state laws covering personal and domestic violence.

Here are a number of points currently being discussed in the wider community:

1. The advisability of legislating a) increases in fines and prison sentences for crimes identified as falling within the range of crimes of violence against women and b) making a prison sentence mandatory for repeat offenders;

2. Reviewing legislation covering Apprehended Violence Orders (AVOs) & Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) to ensure the conditions contained therein reflect the gravity of crimes of violence against women;

3. Reassess with a view to strengthening bail eligibility criteria & specific conditions, so as to avoid a) police failure to refuse bail or failure to set appropriate police bail at time of arrest before first appearance in local court and b) magistrates allowing bail for repeat offenders - particularly when the charges asserted violence or threats;

4. By way of legislation, a mandatory precautionary measure be established requiring all persons charged to wear a monitored ankle bracelet until the matter is progressed through the courts to a final judgment.

5. Where residential occupancy of the shared home's title is in the name of both parties or where the rental lease is in the name of both parties then a legal obligation be established by legislation requiring the offending party to immediately vacate the premises and find alternative accommodation.

6. That serious consideration be given to removing the relationship between the current amount of parenting payments received by the primary caregiver and a partner's income, setting a new across-the-board base rate and making it tax free for unpartnered parents on low to middle incomes. Thereby giving women with children more certainty and flexibility when seeking to leave violent relationships.

Youth crime and crime generally are always good ways to scare rural and regional communities and a scare campaign has been running hot and cold in 2024

 

Youth crime and crime generally are always good ways to scare rural and regional communities and a scare campaign has been running hot and cold since the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR) released the state's 2023 December quarter crime statistics.

The National Party members of the NSW Parliament have been beating up these figures and supporting any group who will drink the political Kool-Aid.

On 23 February 2024 the NSW Police Minister Yasmin Catley in Budget Estimates described the Country Mayors Association calls for an inquiry into regional crime as calling for nothing more than a “talkfest”.

By 14 March 2023 the political situation but not the statistics had changed.

TheCountry Mayors Association of NSW has welcomed the NSW Premier’sannouncement that the NSW Government will implement new initiativesto start to address regional youth crime.

The mayors' law and order concerns were somewhat recent given the last annual survey conducted by the CMA saw the 69 rural and regional local governments who answered this survey placing law and order low on their priority lists.

Readers of Murdoch media and local Northern Rivers newspapers may also have noticed the sudden flurry of journalistic and National Party concern about local crime rates.

The Clarence Valley Independent of 13 March 2024 was a case in point:

News of an escalation in youth crime in the Clarence Valley has gone right to the top of the Coffs Clarence Police District, with the Commander, Superintendent Joanne Schultz involved in implementing prevention and intervention strategies to prevent re-offending....

Last month, Member for Clarence, Richie Williamson joined calls by the Country Mayors Association of NSW for the Minns Labor Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into rural and regional crime, following a spike in crime in the Clarence and Richmond Valley’s.

“The most recent data from the authorities show that youth crime continues to rise, especially for stealing motor vehicles and break and enter offences,” Mr Williamson said.

So what had changed for the Minns Government?

Well, firstly the state electorate is now only six months away from the NSW Local Government elections on Saturday, 14 September 2024 and both incumbent governments and their political opposition like to play the 'laura norder' card in an election year which sees party politics playing a significant but rarely openly stated role in council elections.

Secondly, the NSW Premier has announced new punitive legal measures aimed at youth offenders when it comes to matters like consideration of bail applications and certain increased penalties and, what better way to win support for this move and a policy of "proactive policing" of vulnerable groups than to further demonise young offenders.

Thirdly, a 'helpful' study was released by BOSCAR this month titled "Crime in Regional and Rural NSW in 2023: Trends and Patterns".

While this study openly admitted that in the last 20 years property crime had fallen by 48 per cent in regional NSW, this was seen as deficient because property crime had fallen by 67 per cent in Greater Sydney over the same period and as due to the different rates of decline, in 2023 the rate of recorded property crime was 59 per cent higher in Regional NSW compared to Greater Sydney. A most unfortunate statistical clash.

The study also stated: In 2023 the aggregate rate of recorded violent crime in Regional NSW was equivalent to the recorded rate in 2004. In Greater Sydney, however, violent crime declined significantly in the two decades to 2023 (down 20% from 2004 to 2023). The long-term decline in violence in Sydney and relative stability in Regional NSW has increased the disparity between the rate of violent crime in the regions versus the capital city. In 2023 the rate of recorded violent crime was 57% higher in Regional NSW compared with Greater Sydney.

Leaving a distinct impression that the comparisons being made are beginning to resemble the apple and orange variety and are unhelpful to anyone except state and local government politicians on the make in a local council election year.

The icing on the cake was the following paragraph, which totalled five years of crime statistics to achieve impressive numbers which are broken down in red annotations:

Four major offences, however, significantly increased in Regional NSW over the five years from 2019

to 2023:

o Motor vehicle theft (up 20% or 1,239 additional incidents) An est. average increase of 248 offences per year across 95 regional local government areas. In this category and unspecified number of youth offenders are alleged to be found.

o Non-domestic assault (up 14% or 1,825 additional incidents) An est. average increase of 365 offences per year across 95 regional local government areas. On a yearly average est. 204 were youth offenders.

o Sexual assault (up 47% or 1,505 additional incidents) An est. average increase of 301 offences per year across 95 regional local government areas. In this category it is solely adult offending.

o Domestic violence related assault (up 24% or additional incidents)

An est. average increase of 659 offences per year across 95 regional local government areas. On a yearly average est. 86 were youth offenders.

For those interested BOSCAR released a set of graphs which breakdown the trends into more specific crime categories at:

https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publication%20Supporting%20Documents/RCS-quarterly/Supplementary%20charts%20-%20Recorded%20Crime%20Charts%202019%20to%202023.pdf

As for "stealing motor vehicles and break and enter offences" the Nationals MLA for Clarence points to in relation to youth crime, BOSCAR data for January to December 2023 show NSW Police proceeded against a total of 27 vehicle thefts in the Clarence Valley LGA, with 9 of these thefts alleged to be by young offenders aged between 10-17 years of age. While break and enter offences proceeded against totalled 33 offences, with 9 of these break and enters alleged to be by young offenders aged between 10-17 years of age.

As for motor vehicle theft and break and enter statistics for the Coffs Clarence Police District, BOSCAR shows Coffs-Grafton statistical district was considered "stable' over the last five years. With the change in motor vehicle theft being +113 thefts between 2019 and 2023 totals. While break and enter dwelling fell by -145 incidents and break and enter non-dwelling fell by -9 incidents between 2019 and 2023 totals.

From a personal perspective - yes let's all insist on higher numbers of police in all regional areas to improve crime clear up rates and because police are often spread thin on the ground during emergencies and, in the Northern Rivers region in particular we now have such events far too often.

However, does the desire to have more police in our towns mean that we need to endorse a more punitive response to young offenders by a state government and its police force?

ABC News, 18 March 2024:

Some of the country's top legal and criminal justice experts have written to NSW Premier Chris Minns about proposed bail changes. Sixty organisations signed the letter, including the Aboriginal Legal Service and the Sydney Institute of Criminology....

Amnesty International, Save the Children and the Human Rights Law Centre are also signatories to the letter, which states the premier's bail changes will "make crime worse in regional communities, not better".

"Your new policy to increase youth incarceration is a betrayal of your Closing the Gap commitments," they tell the premier....

North East Forest Alliance & Environmental Defenders Office fight on to protect the continued existence of native forests and the biodivsersity they contain

 

Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), March 2024 Newsletter, 29 February 2024:

Hope for NSW forests: Court decision upholds community’s right to challenge native forest logging

In the shadow of claims made by the NSW Forestry Corporation, communities have been led to believe that they have no rights to challenge decisions about industrial logging in NSW native forests or seek action over unlawful conduct when logging destroys hollow-bearing trees and critical habitat for threatened species.

But two recent court decisions have shattered those claims after EDO’s client successfully ran an argument which hasn’t previously been tested in the courts. After 20 years of resistance by the Forestry Corporation, it is now legally recognised that communities with a special interest have the right to hold the state-owned logging agency to account over its forestry operations in native forests.

NSW forests are remarkable for their diverse ecosystems, unique biodiversity and cultural significance. Encompassing semi-arid woodlands to lush rainforests, these globally recognised forests are home to an extraordinary array of plant and animal life, much of which is unique to the region.

Protecting our forests is one of the most important things we can do to manage climate change, preserve our precious biodiversity and prevent further species extinctions. Yet Forestry Corporation NSW logs around 30,000 hectares of state forest every year. Sadly, many of these forests are logged to be turned into low-value products, such as woodchips, that are exported to make cardboard and toilet paper.

Weak laws failing our forests

NSW Forestry Corporation is the state-owned logging agency that undertakes industrial logging in public native forests, including in nationally important koala habitat and areas that are still recovering from the catastrophic impacts of the 2019-20 Black Summer Bushfires. It is entrusted with managing two million hectares of public forests, yet in the past three years alone, Forestry Corporation has been fined 12 times for illegal logging activities. There are 21 investigations still pending. ¹

Forestry Corporation operates under bilateral agreements with the Federal Government, called ‘regional forest agreements’, or RFAs, which allow logging to bypass normal federal environmental scrutiny. No other industry benefits from such an allowance. Under the current system of RFAs, threatened species such as the koala, greater glider and gang-gang cockatoo are being driven to extinction and the ecosystems and landscapes that we depend on are being destroyed at an astounding rate.

For some 20 years, Forestry Corporation has asserted that the community cannot seek to challenge its public native forestry operations. On 20 November 2023, the NSW Land and Environment Court rejected that position.

Court decision confirms community right

The EDO represented the North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) in mid-2023 challenging logging approvals in Myrtle and Braemar State Forests. The forests were severely damaged by the ferocious Black Summer Bushfires, which wiped out an estimated 70 per cent of the local koala population.

While NEFA was not ultimately successful, the court confirmed for the first time that the Forestry Act does not prevent persons with a special interest from taking legal action over forestry operations in NSW, including disputing logging approvals.

This is particularly important as NSW laws explicitly attempt to reduce the community’s right to challenge Forestry Corporation conduct regarding industrial native forest logging.

Forestry Corporation also argued that the court cannot judicially review harvest and haul plans because all forestry operations had already been approved by the relevant Ministers in the overarching regulation, the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval (CIFOA). However, the court again rejected that position and found that such operational plans are open to challenge.

Forest groups fight on after disappointing court decision

Building on the NEFA decision, South East Forest Rescue (SEFR) then took a step further with court action in January 2024. SEFR is seeking an injunction to stop Forestry Corporation from conducting any forestry activities in certain state forests until adequate surveys for greater, yellow-bellied and squirrel gliders have been performed. SEFR is being represented by XD Law.

SEFR argued that Forestry Corporation is breaking the law by not performing adequate surveys for den trees and necessary exclusion zones around den trees are not being implemented. It is the first time in 25 years that the Forestry Corporation has been brought to court by citizens for failure to comply with native forestry regulations, in particular failure to conduct adequate surveys for gliders.

Drawing from the findings in the NEFA decision, her Honour found that persons with a special interest can also seek to enforce the conditions of the CIFOA against Forestry Corporation.

These two decisions mark a significant departure from the status quo of the past 20 years and set important precedent for the community to hold the Forestry Corporation to account over native forest logging.

President of NEFA, Dailan Pugh said regarding NEFAs legal challenge:

“While NEFA were disappointed that our legal challenge to the logging of important Koala populations in Braemar and Myrtle State Forests was not successful, it’s promising that the case did establish that NEFA have the civil right to enforce NSW’s logging rules, opening a door to litigation we thought had been shut to us since 1998.”

“We thank the EDO for the immense effort they put into this case and creating future opportunities for NEFA, and other groups, to challenge the culture of complacency around logging fostered by lack of public accountability.”

1 Register of Crown forestry investigations (nsw.gov.au)

The NSW bench demonstrates a more balanced approach to political & environmental activism than the former Perrottet Coalition Government ever did

 

The first day of protest actions in the Sydney CBD, coordinated by Blockade Australia. In New South Wales, it's effectively illegal to protest without a permit. Disrupting traffic also potentially comes with a $22,000 fine and 2 years in jail - laws that were legislated in response to Blockade Australia's previous mobilisations. At least 10 activists were arrested on the first day during this action. Dozens more would be tracked down, raided and arrested in the subsequent days.

TEXT & IMAGE: Matt Hrkac, 28 June 2022

The Guardian, 6 May 2023:

Protesters who faced a $22,000 fine or two years in prison for demonstrating in Sydney under tough laws championed by the Perrottet government have instead walked away without convictions or with modest financial penalties, a lawyer for the activists says.

New South Wales police charged at least 20 people with a range of offences during Blockade Australia protests in Sydney last June.

The offences included seriously disrupting or obstructing traffic on a major bridge, tunnel or road, the new laws subject to harsh penalties including a maximum fine of $22,000 or two years’ imprisonment.

But lawyer Mark Davis, who is representing 18 people charged with the offence, says the vast majority received only minor penalties.

Last month, 15 of the cases were resolved, Davis said, with six protesters receiving non-convictions, and the rest receiving modest fines of between $100 and $800.

Three more cases are set to be heard later this month.

The new laws were passed last April, with the then-NSW government saying previous penalties had not prevented protests.

“The old laws, at $400 a pop, were no deterrent,” the then-NSW attorney general, Mark Speakman, said last June.

“It’s hard to imagine that $22,000 fine or two years in jail won’t deter a lot of people. It may be there’s a tiny core that will protest, regardless.”

At the time of the charges, activists told the Guardian that the harsh new penalties were unlikely to deter them.

The then-premier, Dominic Perrottet, described the Blockade Australia activists as “bloody idiots”, and his then-deputy, Paul Toole, said they should “go and get a real job”.

But Davis said it was clear the judiciary did not share the opinion of the then-government regarding the right to protest.

“This is the trouble with over-criminalising very simple activities,” he said.....

How for a total of 1,609 days Scott John Morrison hid his ambition to be a 'president' rather than a humble Prime Minister of Australia

Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 23 August 2022:

Solicitor-General’s opinion

23 August 2022

On 22 August 2022, the Prime Minister received the Solicitor-General’s opinion (SG No 12 of 2022) – In the matter of the validity of the appointment of Mr Morrison to administer the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources PDF 945KB.

Only the validity of one Appointment of a Minister of State by the Governor-General was considered in the Solicitor-General’s investigation – that of then Australian Prime Minister Scott John Morrison to administer the Dept. of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER) from 15 April 2021 onwards.

IMAGE: pmc.gov.au

IN THE MATTER OF THE VALIDITY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF MR MORRISON TO ADMINISTER THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SCIENCE, ENERGY AND RESOURCES

EXCERPT ONE

1. On 12 April 2021, the former Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, wrote to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (the Governor-General) to recommend that the Governor-General “appoint me, as Prime Minister, to administer the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources” (DISER). Mr Morrison advised the Governor-General that this appointment would allow him “to be the responsible Minister for matters within that Portfolio, if and when required”.

2. Mr Morrison enclosed with his letter a document headed “Appointment of Minister of State”, with space for the Governor-General’s signature.

EXCERPT TWO

29. While I consider that Mr Morrison’s appointment to administer DISER was valid, that is not to say that the absence of any notification of that appointment to the Parliament, the public, the other Ministers administering DISER or DISER itself was consistent with the principle of responsible government that is inherent in Ch II of the Constitution. In my opinion, it was not.

(i) Responsible government

30. The provisions of Chapter II are sparse. Nevertheless, the High Court has long recognised that they provide for a system of responsible government – meaning a “system by which the executive is responsible to the legislature and, through it, to the electorate”. Indeed, responsible government has been recognised as a “central feature of the Australian constitutional system”. As a majority of the High Court put it in the Engineers Case, the Constitution is “permeated through and through with the spirit of … the institution of responsible government”.

EXCERPT THREE

(iii) Recent change in practice concerning Ministry lists

42. Apparently since Mr Morrison became Prime Minister in August 2018 (and certainly since no later than 25 January 2019), it has not been possible to infer from the Ministry list that a Minister has been appointed to administer only such departments as fall within the portfolios against which that Minister’s name appears. That follows because, since that time, the footer to the Ministry list has denied the legitimacy of any such inference, by expressly stating that Ministers “may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed”. The impetus for the inclusion of those words is unclear, although it seems possible that they were included so as to ensure that the tabling of the Ministry list did not mislead Parliament. The words contemplate an apparent practice whereby Ministers may be appointed to administer one or more departments of State without those appointments being published (at least in the Ministry list). The point is starkly illustrated by the fact that Mr Morrison’s name did not appear in the Ministry list published in October 2021 with respect to any of the five departments that he was appointed to administer between March 2020 and May 2021.

43. The result of the analysis above is that there was no way the public could discern from the Ministry list, or anywhere else, that Mr Morrison had been appointed to administer either DISER or any of the other four departments that he was appointed to administer between March 2020 and May 2021. There was likewise no way of knowing whether any other Ministers had also been appointed to administer additional departments without that being mentioned in the Ministry list.

(iv) Implications for responsible government

44. The capacity of the public and the Parliament to ascertain which Ministers have been appointed to administer which departments is critical to the proper functioning of responsible government, because it is those appointments, when read together with the AAO, that determine the matters for which a Minister is legally and politically responsible.

45. The pathway to that conclusion is fairly technical. It is the result of reading the AAO together with the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). The AAO provides that a Minister who has been appointed to administer a department is responsible for administering the legislation listed in the Schedule to the AAO relating to that department. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) then provides that references to “the Minister” in legislation are to be interpreted as a reference to “the Minister, or any of the Ministers, administering the provision”. The result is that the Ministers who are entitled to exercise statutory powers under any Act of the Commonwealth Parliament cannot be identified without first identifying from the AAO which department administers that Act, and then identifying the Ministers who have been appointed to administer that department.

46. The end result is that, to the extent that the public and the Parliament are not informed of appointments that have been made under s 64 of the Constitution, the principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined. Neither the people nor the Parliament can hold a Minister accountable for the exercise (or, just as importantly, for the non-exercise) of particular statutory powers if they are not aware that the Minister has those powers. Nor can they hold the correct Ministers accountable for any other actions, or inactions, of departments. The undermining of responsible government therefore does not depend on the extent to which Mr Morrison exercised powers under legislation administered by DISER, because from the moment of his appointment he was both legally and politically responsible for the administration of that department, and yet he could not be held accountable for the way that he performed (or did not perform) that role.

47. Separately from the problem of holding Ministers to account, if multiple Ministers have been appointed to administer a single department, those Ministers (or the Prime Minister) are responsible for working out the division of responsibilities between themselves. However, if one Minister does not know that another Minister has been appointed to administer their department, that obviously cannot occur.

48. Finally, an appointment under s 64 of the Constitution is an appointment to “administer” a department. Plainly, however, a department cannot, in practice, be administered by a person whose appointment has not been revealed to the department itself. Failure to inform at least the Secretary of the department of the appointment therefore defeats the purpose of the appointment. It also prevents the department from taking appropriate steps to support and advise that Minister if the Minister decides to exercise powers under any legislation that is administered by that department (unless the appointment is disclosed at that time, as appears to have occurred with respect to Mr Morrison’s appointment to administer DISER). An unpublicised appointment to administer a department therefore fundamentally undermines not just the proper functioning of responsible government, but also the relationship between the Ministry and the public service.

[my yellow highlighting throughout the excerpts]

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on 23 August 2022 announcing the result of the Inquiry and the need to establish a second inquiry:

ABC News, 23 August 2022, on the subject of the mechanics of establishing the first of five appointments of Scott Morrison to administer a department. In this case the federal Dept. of Health, a portfolio of the then Minister for Health Greg Hunt:

A three to four-page protocol was drafted for approval by the National Security Committee (NSC) of cabinet, which comprised Morrison, then-deputy PM Michael McCormack, Hunt, Peter Dutton (Home Affairs), Mathias Cormann (Finance), Marise Payne (Foreign Affairs) and Linda Reynolds (Defence).

And on March 14, the Governor-General signed an administrative instrument that appointed Scott John Morrison to administer the Department of Health.

Four days later — March 18, 2020 — a "human biosecurity emergency" was declared under the Biosecurity Act, giving health minister Greg Hunt sweeping, plenary powers.

Only members of the NSC — and the Governor-General — knew that Morrison also had that authority, which amounted to effective power of martial law.

Blockade Australia members were before Sydney Central Local Court this week - face prospect of two years gaol and $22,000 fine

 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 June 2022:

A car has driven through in Sydney's CBD as unrest continues.

A car has driven into a march by a climate activist group in Sydney’s CBD on Monday morning. NSW Police said they were aware of the incident and had commenced inquiries.

The Harbour Tunnel was earlier blocked by a member of the group Blockade Australia, while other CBD streets were obstructed during a morning of protest.

The woman, 22, from Lismore, blocked the southbound entrance to the tunnel by chaining herself to the steering wheel of her parked white car just after 8am.

The tunnel reopened after police arrested her. Southbound traffic on the Warringah Freeway and Gore Hill Freeway has since cleared.

The woman, named Mali, live-streamed the event in which an unknown man repeatedly approached her car to yell obscenities at her.

So far, 10 people have been arrested after participating in the unauthorised protest. They are awaiting charges at Surry Hills and Day Street police stations.

“I’ve watched much devastation with two one-in-100-year floods. This is climate change. I cannot stay silent any more. I cannot be complacent any more. The colony of Australia, this destructive colony system landed here, hellbent on spreading exploitative practices all over the earth,” Mali told viewers.

“To those people who are really angry right now, I understand, and it’s not a good thing to be experiencing. You know what? Climate change isn’t a good thing to be experiencing.

“There’s a lot of people yelling, it’s quite overwhelming, but it’s been an overwhelming year. I was lucky in Lismore, but I’ve seen people that I love lose everything and places I love be destroyed.”

The Blockade Australia protest began at Hyde Park at 8am and quickly moved across the city’s CBD towards the harbour. Streets were obstructed with wheelie bins, plastic crates, and other items.

The protesters began to disperse in the CBD just before 9am. According to internal communications seen by The Sydney Morning Herald, the group intended to reconvene at lunchtime. NSW Police estimate about 50 to 60 people were involved in the protest….

Read the full article here.

NSW Police Public Site – News, 27 June 2022, Charges laid following unauthorised protests, excerpt:

Police have made 10 arrests following unauthorised protests in the Sydney CBD and North Sydney this morning…...

Those arrested are:

• A 49-year-old man from Williamstown, Victoria, charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc; pedestrian obstruct driver’s/other pedestrian’s path (two counts). He’s been bail refused to appear in Central Local Court tomorrow (Tuesday 28 June 2022).

• A 25-year-old man from Brandy Hill, NSW, charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc; pedestrian obstruct driver’s/other pedestrian’s path (two counts). He’s been bail refused to appear in Central Local Court tomorrow (Tuesday 28 June 2022).

• A 34-year-old woman from Leichhardt charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc; pedestrian obstruct driver’s/other pedestrian’s path; and wilfully prevent free passage of person/vehicle/vessel. He was given strict conditional bail to appear at Downing Centre Local Court on 21 July 2022.

• A 24-year-old woman from Preston, Victoria, charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc; pedestrian obstruct driver’s/other pedestrian’s path; and wilfully prevent free passage of person/vehicle/vessel. He’s been bail refused to appear in Central Local Court tomorrow (Tuesday 28 June 2022).

• A 26-year-old man from Ellinbank, Victoria, charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc; pedestrian obstruct driver’s/other pedestrian’s path; and wilfully prevent free passage of person/vehicle/vessel. He was given strict conditional bail to appear at Downing Centre Local Court on 21 July 2022.

• A 21-year-old woman from Lismore Heights charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc. She’s been bail refused to appear in Central Local Court tomorrow (Tuesday 28 June 2022).

• A 30-year-old woman from Carnegie, Victoria, charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc; pedestrian obstruct driver’s/other pedestrian’s path; and wilfully prevent free passage of person/vehicle/vessel. She was given strict conditional bail to appear at Downing Centre Local Court on 21 July 2022.

• A 22-year-old woman from St Lucia, Queensland, charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc; pedestrian obstruct driver’s/other pedestrian’s path; and wilfully prevent free passage of person/vehicle/vessel. She’s been bail refused to appear in Central Local Court tomorrow (Tuesday 28 June 2022).

• A 25-year-old man from Coburg, Victoria, charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc; and wilfully prevent free passage of a person or vehicle. He’s been bail refused to appear in Central Local Court tomorrow (Tuesday 28 June 2022).

• A 22-year-old woman from Petersham charged with Enter etc Sydney Harbour Bridge etc disrupt etc vehicles etc; and wilfully prevent free passage of a person or vehicle. She’s been bail refused to appear in Central Local Court tomorrow (Tuesday 28 June 2022).

Perth Now, 28 June 2022:

The young woman who locked herself onto the steering wheel of a car blocking Sydney's harbour tunnel in peak-hour traffic has been granted conditional bail along with fellow climate protesters……

Mr Davis outside court said his clients were brave in the face of the newly implemented penalties that target protests on major roads, ports and railways.

Some face two years in prison and a fine of $22,000.

The group will next return to court on July 19 where they are expected to enter pleas.

Bail conditions include reporting to police three times a week, restrictions from entering Sydney's CBD, and prevention from contacting co-accused.

#Breaking: 31-year-old man from Bondi fined for negligent driving for driving through Blockade Australia protest yesterday in Sydney. $469 fine and 3 demerit points. @9NewsSyd pic.twitter.com/2oOWKl90IH

— andrew rickert (@_rockrit) June 28, 2022

OK, in general I'm against climate change extremists causing this disruption to the city. Then I read that the Harbour Bridge blockade woman was from Lismore. NSW has royally screwed Lismore & other disaster locations. Those people are desperate. https://t.co/R8sG8w2IUX

— TheTossitAcctForCustomerServiceIssues (@BadCustSvc101) June 27, 2022