Showing posts sorted by date for query abuse. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query abuse. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, 17 July 2024

Coalition parties & aged care industry unhappy with federal government proposal to make care providers criminally responsible for abuse and neglect of vulnerable older Australians in their care

 

In 2018 the Morrison Government established the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.


The Royal Commission's Final Report was delivered to the Federal on 1 March 2021. The Summary contained in Volume 1 of the report stated in part;


Over the course of 2019, we heard from many people about substandard care—those who experienced it, family members or loved ones who witnessed it or heard about it, aged care workers, service providers, peak bodies, advocates and experts. We heard about substandard care during hearings and community forums. We also were informed about it in public submissions. Substandard care and abuse pervades the Australian aged care system.


The accounts of substandard care were always sad and confronting. They were no doubt difficult to tell, and very difficult to hear and read. We acknowledge the courage people have shown in sharing their experiences with us. Their contributions have been essential to our inquiry and we are grateful.....


The abuse of older people in residential care is far from uncommon. In 2019–20, residential aged care services reported 5718 allegations of assault under the mandatory reporting requirements of the Aged Care Act. A study conducted by consultancy firm KPMG for the Australian Department of Health estimated that, in the same year, a further 27,000 to 39,000 alleged assaults occurred that were exempt from mandatory reporting because they were resident-on-resident incidents. In our inquiry, we heard of physical and sexual abuse that occurred at the hands of staff members, and of situations in which residential aged care providers did not protect residents from abuse by other residents. This is a disgrace and should be a source of national shame. Older people receiving aged care should be safe and free from abuse at all times......


Commissioner Briggs attached 148 specific recommendations to her final report and it is unclear exactly how many have been acted on to date, apart from the initial response found in the Aged Care and other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Act 2021 and the subsequent Albanese Government's Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022.


So it should come probably come as no surprise that disturbing media reports were still surfacing in 2023.


May 2023 - a NSW police officer deliberately tasered a 92 year-old woman on a walking frame at the nursing home of which she was a resident. She died of her injuries.

July 2023 - an 89 year-old woman was allegedly bashed to death inside a Sydney nursing home room by a fellow dementia patient with his walking frame. She died of her injuries.

Nov 2023 - A woman in her 90s died in hospital after allegedly being sexually assaulted by an intruder in a nursing home on the New South Wales Central Coast.

Dec 2023 - A woman in her 70s was sexually assaulted in her room at an aged care facility on NSW north coast.


By 13 February 2024 The Guardian was reporting:


More than 1,000 cases of neglect are being reported in residential aged care homes each month, prompting a warning from the sector’s regulator.


The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (ACQSC) has flagged “a concerning spike” in neglect cases over the past 12 months and raised concerns about inadequate care standards.


So it was a relief when on 3 April 2024 the Albanese Government announced in a media release that it will:

  • Introduce criminal penalties – including jail time - for dodgy aged care providers who seriously and repeatedly facilitate or cover up abuse and neglect of older Australians, and who deliberately breach the general duty of care they owe to their residents.

  • Introduce a new duty of care, owed by providers, to recipients of aged care services, including a compensation regime when the duty is breached. This will create a path for class actions against dodgy providers.

  • Create a new aged care complaints commissioner, to ensure complaints against providers are properly and thoroughly dealt with.

  • Introduce new civil penalties for aged care providers who punish aged care workers, residents and families in retaliation for complaints.

  • Give stronger investigative powers to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, including powers to enter and remain in an aged care facility at any time to ensure the safety of residents, as well as full access to documents and records.

  • Introduce measures to ensure the 215 minutes of care and nursing that Labor has pledged per resident per day is actually spent on care and clinical support - not on marketing, administration, maintenance or other activities that are not direct care.

  • Require providers to publicly report on the expenditure of residents’ and taxpayers’ money – including a breakdown of money spent on caring, nursing, food, maintenance, cleaning, administration, and profits....

These measures implement and build on the Royal Commission recommendation to establish a General Duty of Care for aged care – which will set minimum standards to protect residents and workers....


However, it seems that the Albanese Government's plans to reform the dysfunctional aged care system have met with political headwinds.....


The Saturday Paper, 13 July 2024, "Criminal penalties proposed for aged care bosses", excerpt:


The Serious Incident Response Scheme (SIRS) – instigated after the royal commission to track and reduce the frequency of major incidents, including unreasonable use of force, neglect, psychological and emotional abuse, unlawful or inappropriate sexual conduct, stealing or financial coercion, inappropriate use of restrictive practices and unexpected death – came into force in April 2021 in residential settings. In December 2022 it was added for home care. This scheme, which asks providers to self-report serious incidents, has shown concerning levels of delusion and dishonesty among providers.


In the most recent SIRS figures, providers self-assessed that of the 2257 incidents of unlawful or inappropriate sexual contact in Australian nursing homes from April 2022 to March 2023, 95 per cent of residents affected had experienced no or only minor psychological impacts. Put another way, providers reported that only 5 per cent of aged-care residents who experienced serious and unlawful sexual contact or conduct have had major psychological impacts afterwards.


In the same report, providers self-assessed that of the 28,890 incidents of unreasonable use of force in the same year, 98 per cent of residents had no or minor psychological impact and 92 per cent had no or only minor physical impact. In the scheme’s first six months of operation, 75 per cent of the nation’s home-care providers had not reported a single serious incident of any kind to the aged-care regulator.


These figures reveal a sector that is still fundamentally in denial about its own performance and the effects of abuse and neglect on older Australians in its care.


Now, as the federal government attempts to muster bipartisan support for its new act, the aged-care lobby is circling its wagons again, this time to fiercely oppose the government’s proposed imposition of a statutory duty of care on aged-care providers and responsible persons that could result in civil and criminal penalties, including potential jail time in especially egregious cases.....


Nonetheless, providers, peak bodies, the Australian Institute for Company Directors and shadow minister for aged care Anne Ruston have all come out swinging at the proposed introduction of criminal penalties. 


They claim the penalties will lead to vast increases in insurances for directors, are unnecessarily punitive and will discourage good people from working in the aged-care sector. This is a bit like arguing we shouldn’t have child-abuse laws or require police checks to work with children as that might stop good people from opening kindergartens.


The extraordinary optics of arguing against criminal penalties – even in cases where there is no reasonable excuse for failures of care that have led to death or serious injury – seems to be lost on providers and the federal opposition.


Friday, 14 June 2024

NACCered: a brief look at the immediate repercussions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission decision not to pursue Robodebt Royal Commission referrals but instead focus on ensuring lessons learnt

 

The public reaction to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) announced decision - to dismiss those referrals of corruption findings received from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Schemewas immediate and an intense mix of emotions dominated by shock, disbelief, distress, worry and anger.


The tone and wording of NACC's media release was frequently viewed as insulting, arrogant and divorced from reality.


These are the reasons originally given by the NACC for not investigating those six person referred to it by the Royal Commission.....


National Anti-Corruption Commission decides not to pursue Robodebt Royal Commission referrals but focus on ensuring lessons learnt


Media Releases

Published: 6 Jun 2024


On 6 July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Commission) received referrals concerning six public officials from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (Robodebt Royal Commission) pursuant to section 6P(2B) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth).


The Commission has carefully considered each referral and reviewed the extensive material provided by the Robodebt Royal Commission, including its final report, and the Confidential Chapter.


The Commission has become aware that five of the six public officials were also the subject of referrals to the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC).


The Commission is conscious of the impact of the Robodebt Scheme on individuals and the public, the seniority of the officials involved, and the need to ensure that any corruption issue is fully investigated.


However, the conduct of the six public officials in connection with the Robodebt Scheme has already been fully explored by the Robodebt Royal Commission and extensively discussed in its final report. After close consideration of the evidence that was available to the Royal Commission, the Commission has concluded that it is unlikely it would obtain significant new evidence.


In the absence of a real likelihood of a further investigation producing significant new evidence, it is undesirable for a number of reasons to conduct multiple investigations into the same matter. This includes the risk of inconsistent outcomes, and the oppression involved in subjecting individuals to repeated investigations.


In deciding whether to commence a corruption investigation, the Commission takes into account a range of factors. A significant consideration is whether a corruption investigation would add value in the public interest, and that is particularly relevant where there are or have been other investigations into the same matter. There is not value in duplicating work that has been or is being done by others, in this case with the investigatory powers of the Royal Commission, and the remedial powers of the APSC.


Beyond considering whether the conduct in question amounted to corrupt conduct within the meaning of the Act and, if satisfied, making such a finding, the Commission cannot grant a remedy or impose a sanction (as the APSC can). Nor could it make any recommendation that could not have been made by the Robodebt Royal Commission. An investigation by the Commission would not provide any individual remedy or redress for the recipients of government payments or their families who suffered due to the Robodebt Scheme.


The Commission has therefore decided not to commence a corruption investigation as it would not add value in the public interest. However, the Commission considers that the outcomes of the Robodebt Royal Commission contain lessons of great importance for enhancing integrity in the Commonwealth public sector and the accountability of public officials. The Commission will continue through its investigation, inquiry, and corruption prevention and education functions, to address the integrity issues raised in the final report, particularly in relation to ethical decision making, to ensure that those lessons are learnt, and to hold public officials to account.


In order to avoid any possible perception of a conflict of interest, the Commissioner delegated the decision in this matter to a Deputy Commissioner.


The Commission will not be making further comment.


A brief look at the response to that decision on social media platform X more familiarly known as Twitter....


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


An example of media reporting of the developing situation, as reported by Crikey on Thursday 13 June 2024:


A NACC that ignores robodebt is no NACC at all


It took the federal anti-corruption watchdog a year to decide to do nothing on robodebt, and a few hours to realise it faced a public relations disaster. What it had failed to see was that its inaction would outrage more than just the direct victims of the Coalition’s illegal scheme, writes Michael Bradley. It would outrage any Australian fed up with a political system we no longer have any trust in.


Another example of mainstream media's account of NACC's response including a statement by the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, as reported by ABC News on 13 June 2024:


The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) will be asked to explain why it refused to launch a fresh probe into the Robodebt scandal, after the watchdog's watchdog received nearly 900 complaints about the decision.


The Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, tasked with overseeing the agency's operations and conduct, has announced it will start its own inquiry into the matter.......


Inspector Gail Furness SC said her office had received nearly 900 complaints after the NACC made its ruling.


"Many of those complaints allege corrupt conduct or maladministration by the NACC in making that decision," she said in a statement.


"I also note that there has also been much public commentary.


"Accordingly, I have decided to inquire into that decision. I anticipate that I will make my findings public in due course."....



NOTE


Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission website as at 13 June 2024:


Roleof the Inspector

The Inspector’s role is to:

  • detect corrupt conduct in the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)

  • undertake preliminary investigations into NACC corruption issues

  • undertake investigations into NACC corruption issues that could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic. ‘Serious or systemic’ means something that is significant, something more than negligible or trivial but it does not have to be severe or grave. Systemic means something that is more than an isolated case, it involves a pattern of behaviour or something that affects or is embedded in a system

  • refer NACC corruption issues to the NACC, Commonwealth agencies and State or Territory government entities

  • investigate complaints of maladministration or officer misconduct by the NACC or a staff member of the NACC. The Inspector cannot deal with complaints about any other agency or its staff provide relevant information and documents to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NACC 

  • receive public interest disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

  • audit the NACC to monitor compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth

  • report to Parliament on the outcomes of the Inspector’s activities.


Sunday, 26 May 2024

Suicide is a distressing subject and one that is linked in many kitchen table conversations with Centrelink income support programs. It appears that such a link may exist


The Guardian, 22 May 2024:


More than 30% of people who took their lives in 2019 were on welfare, AIHW says


The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has just released some data that shows more than 30% of suicides in 2019 were people on the disability support pension (DSP) and newstart – despite being just 5.7% of the population.


During 2019, the most recent pre-Covid pandemic year, the age-standardised suicide rate among males who received unemployment payments was 2.8 times that of the male Australian population comparison. For females, it was 3.3.


During the same year, unemployment recipients accounted for approximately 20% of all suicide deaths among Australian males and females (across the same age range 15-66 years). Those on DSP were 14.5%.


The DSP recipient and Antipoverty Centre spokesperson, Kristin O’Connell, said:


The new figures on welfare recipient deaths by suicide are chilling, but reflect my all-too-frequent experiences supporting people who are planning to or have made an attempt as a result of dealing with “mutual” obligations or poverty.


Every government decision to leave us in poverty and subject people to abuse through “mutual” obligations is a decision that kills.


In 2020, Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank said the fastest and most effective thing the government could do to ease the mental health crisis was to keep the jobseeker payment at the poverty line.


The Morrison government plunged people back into deep poverty, and despite their claims to offer “cost of living relief” the Albanese government has continued the brutal welfare policies that led to these alarming suicide rates and widespread harm in our communities.


The wider picture also supports the assertion that welfare recipients of workforce age as a cohort are experiencing higher levels of suicide than the Australian population and, within that cohort those receiving disability or unemployment income support show the highest suicide rates. With a higher suicide rate than the general population continuing into old age for those receiving disability income support.


Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Suicide & self-harm monitoring, Supporting people who experience socioeconomic disadvantage: Deaths by suicide among Centrelink income support recipients, retrieved 22 May 2024:



Age-specific rates of suicide among those who received income support payments between 2011 and 2021









Click on images to enlarge



AIHW, 15 August 2023:


Deaths by suicide, by socioeconomic areas


 From 2001 to 2022, age-standardised suicide rates were highest for those who lived in the lowest socioeconomic areas (most disadvantaged areas), and generally decreased as the level of disadvantage lessened.


In 2022, the suicide rate for people living in the lowest socioeconomic (most disadvantaged) areas (18.4 deaths per 100,000 population; Quintile 1) was more than twice that of those living in the highest socioeconomic (least disadvantaged) areas (8.2 deaths per 100,000 population; Quintile 5). Similarly, the number of deaths by suicide generally declined as socioeconomic disadvantage decreased.


Overall, age-standardised suicide rates increased for those living in the lowest socioeconomic areas (Quintile 1); from 14.0 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001 to 18.4 deaths per 100,000 population in 2022. In contrast, smaller change was observed for those living in the higher socioeconomic areas (Quintiles 4 and 5). [my yellow highlighting]


The Coronavirus Supplement was introduced in April 2020 and abolished in April 2021. Then COVID-19 Disaster Payments were announced in June 2021 and withdrawn in November 2021 placing increased financial stress on up to 2 million people. The Reserve Bank Cash Rate Target began to rise on 4 May 2022 and kept on rising - swiftly exacerbating a cost-of-living squeeze into an escalating crisis.


Although the causes of individual suicides can be complex, it is hard to resist seeing an economic policy correlation with the rising suicide rate between 2021 and 2022. It is also hard to avoid viewing entrenched poverty as being heavily influenced by federal income support policy decisions.


Sunday, 24 March 2024

Are all bets off when it comes to policing the integrity of search engines now AI has taken hold?

 

Recognising emerging problems


Perth Now/AAP Bulletin Wire, 12 March 2024:


New rules for search engines will ban child abuse and terrorist content in Australia but will also seek to prevent abuse images being created by AI tools.


Google, Bing, Yahoo and other search engines will be required to prevent child sexual abuse and terrorist content appearing in search results under a code introduced to govern the industry.


The code will ban the companies' generative artificial intelligence tools being used to produce deepfake versions of the offensive material in one of Australia's first set of AI regulations.


The eSafety Commission launched the Internet Search Engine Services Code on Tuesday following months of negotiations with internet giants over the measures that had to be changed after the launch of generative AI tools.


The code will come into place alongside five other online safety codes covering areas from social media to app stores and will include penalties of up to $780,000 a day for companies that fail to comply with its provisions.


AI experts welcomed the code but said more restrictions and technological advances will be needed to stop the scourge of artificial "class one material" online.


eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said the search engine code, created under the Online Safety Act, was an important addition to stop the spread of the "worst of the worst" content from being widely seen or shared.


"It helps ensure one of the key gateways to accessing material - through online search engines - is closed," she said.


"It will target illegal content and conduct, with significant enforceable penalties if search engines fail to comply."


The code dictates that search engines take "reasonable and proactive steps" to prevent public exposure to illegal content such as child abuse, pro-terrorism or extremely violent material, and provide tools to report instances of it.


The regulations also apply to "artificial intelligence features integrated into the search functionality that may be used to generate" illegal content - an addition Ms Ingram said had to be added to ensure it dealt with all relevant risks.


"The sudden and rapid rise of generative AI and subsequent announcements by Google and Bing that they would incorporate AI functionality into their internet search engine services all but rendered the original code drafted by industry obsolete," she said.


"What we've ended up with is a robust code that delivers broad protections for children."


Search engines will also be required to publish annual reports into illegal material found and removed from their services.


University of NSW AI Institute chief scientist Toby Walsh said removing the most offensive material from search engines was an important step and preventing its creation using AI tools was equally vital.


"These tools are, sadly, being used to generate such offensive and, in many cases, illegal content," he said


"Ever since generative AI tools became available, the (Australian Federal Police) have seen a significant uptick in the amount of such content... so it's definitely a real challenge."


Prof Walsh told AAP banning illegal AI-generated images would become easier after technological advances allowed content to be digitally watermarked but, until then, regulations were crucial to taking action against it.


"(The code) doesn't fix the problem because there are lots of other ways of accessing these tools ... but it's an obvious place to start," he said......


The Daily Telegraph, 18 March 2024, p.3:


The nation’s competition watchdog is putting search engines on notice, announcing plans to scrutinise the competitive nature and quality of popular services including Google and Bing.


The inquiry into the search engine giants, announced today, will call for consumers, businesses and experts to recall recent results and consider whether recent changes to laws in Europe have affected the results they see.


The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has released an issues paper as part of its Digital Platform Services Inquiry.


Under the inquiry, the watchdog is continuing to put different aspects of consumer technology offerings under the microscope.


The new probe into search engines comes are new laws and regulations under consideration in the UK and Europe will require search engines to promote competition, ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.


We’ve seen new laws introduced overseas that place obligations on so-called ‘gatekeeper’ search engines and the emergence of new technologies, like generative AI, that have changed the way consumers search for information online and may be impacting the quality of the service they are receiving,” she said.


The ACCC wants to know whether the general public still believes search engines are useful and whether they’ve noticed changes to the quality of the results they see.


The increased scrutiny arrives at a time when artificial intelligence is set to impact the way search engines perform. AI-powered search engines and tools are growing and these results aren’t influenced by the same advertising constraints and requirements as older search engines including Google. Social media platforms are also increasingly being used as a method of searching or finding visual results to queries, where answers to queries are often cut into short, attention-grabbing videos infused with marketing strategies.


Those allegedly taking advantage of the situation


The Sydney Morning Herald, 23 March 2024:


Liberal Party press releases and its website are showing up on the Google News tab as a source of information alongside queries about prominent current affairs searches, calling into question the technology giant's verification of news material, according to one of Australia's senior-most media and data experts.


Links to different media releases from the Liberal Party website show first in response to search with keywords "Labor position nuclear", "Labor and nuclear" or "Labor renewables" in Google News at a time when federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is pushing for Australia to adopt nuclear power.


Associate professor of news and political communication at Monash University Emma Briant said it "looks like a clear strategy by the Liberals to get political content listed as news to increase its credibility and visibility in the search engine".


Briant, who was also involved in exposing the Cambridge Analytica Facebook scandal, called on Google to be more rigorous in making sure material marked as news came from verified news organisations.


"It's too easy for those pushing persuasion and propaganda to take advantage of the high level of trust the public places in Google News - and it will only become more dangerous as campaigns can train AI to produce articles that more effectively game the system," she said.


The Liberal Party directed questions about the referral to Google.


Google declined to explain the Liberal Party's presence in the News tab but pointed to its "publisher help centre", which deems all publishers who comply with its news content policies eligible to appear within Google News.


Anyone generating news-related information, including press releases, can apply to have a dedicated page on Google News.


On its support page, Google says it uses "automated systems" to compile its news index, saying it "algorithmically discovers news content through search technologies".


Google plays a key role in the news ecosystem in Australia and globally. Google Search and News link people to publishers' websites more than 24 billion times each month, the company says.


Its algorithm can be a deciding factor in a website's traffic and its ability to drive revenue through advertising and subscriptions.


In 2021, the federal government implemented the news media bargaining code as a tool to bridge the power imbalance between digital platforms and news publishers.


Google says it is one of the world's biggest financial supporters of journalism. In Australia, it directly contributes more than $135 million to news organisations through deals agreed as part of the bargaining code per year.....


Harvard University's Nieman Lab for Journalism reported in February that Google has tested removing its News tab from search results.


Search engine optimisation (SEO) is an online practice that allows publishers to target keywords that are relevant to a story in order to attain a higher ranking in Google's search engine result pages.


New trial versions of Google Search use its AI bot Bard to present a summary response to a query, as opposed to links to relevant news sites. Google says the features can help users distil complex information into easy-to-digest formats. The features are yet to be fully rolled out across Google Search.


A spokesperson for Communications Minister Michelle Rowland also declined to comment, saying "Google is best placed to explain how content surfaces on its news product".


The Australian Media and Communications Authority, which oversees the code for misinformation and disinformation was contacted for comment.


And those who thrive on creating their own brand of misinformation


Sky News, 22 March 2024:


Media Research Centre Contributing Writer Stephanie Hamill discusses researchers' discovery of 41 instances of election "interference" by Google since 2008.


"There's algorithms that seem to be in favour of the left," Ms Hamill told Sky News host James Morrow.


"And this report found that not only are they typically in favour of the left but they’re in favour of the most liberal candidate.


"So this goes as far back to 2008 and the researchers are saying that actually, Google may have interfered in the 2008 primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in support of Barack Obama.


It’s a manipulation of the algorithm and they’re saying that it’s actually escalating and increasing as we go into 2024 in support of Joe Biden.”


Note:

Media Research Center states of itself:

Since 1987, the Media Research Center has worked successfully to expose and counter the leftist bias of the national news media, where now only a historically low 32% of Americans say they trust media to be fair and impartial. Alongside this effort, MRC leads the conservative movement in combatting the left’s efforts to manipulate the electoral process, silence opposing voices online, and undermine American values. 

This bad faith actor on the quasi-research centre scene was founded by L. Brent Bozell III, a conservative 'activist' whose son Leo Brent "Zeeker" Bozell IV 44, of Palmyra, Pennsylvania, was found guilty of 10 charges, including five felonies as a result of his actions during the 6 January 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol, when along with others he disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the 2020 presidential election.


Wednesday, 17 January 2024

Two aggressive loggers get off with a rap over the knuckles for violently assaulting two community members

 

It was two arrests and two court judgments long delayed - with little in the way of deterrence at the end of proceedings.


News of the Area, 25 June 2023:


Two men appeared in Coffs Harbour Local Court on June 14 in relation to an incident in Wild Cattle Creek State Forest in June 2020.


Michael Luigi Vitali from South Grafton is charged with common assault against local ecologist Mark Graham.


Grafton man Rodney James Hearfield is charged with common assault and assault occasioning bodily harm against Andre Johnston.


Both men pleaded ‘not guilty’ and the matter will be heard next in Coffs Harbour on August 16......


Echo, 16 January 2024:


The Coffs Harbour Local Court has found two forestry workers guilty of assaulting two members of the community on a public road in Wild Cattle Creek State Forest on 25 June 2020.


NSW Upper House Greens MP Sue Higginson reported the guilty finding, which was handed down by the court yesterday, in a press release.








Ms Higginson said the assaults had been recorded on a mobile camera device by a Forestry Corporation Officer.


The two forestry workers were, at the time, employed by logging company Greensill Bros that was contracted by the NSW Forestry Corporation, a state owned corporation.


The forestry workers were not charged immediately following the assault, and one of the victims was instead targeted and charged by the Coffs Harbour Police.


The officer who handled the matter attempted to withhold the video footage of the assaults from the victims and the public, according to Ms Higginson. He is no longer a police officer.


Today’s judgement is well overdue and is the end of a harrowing experience for the two victims, Mark Graham and Andre Johnston,’ Ms Higginson said.


Mark and Andre were on a public road, in a public forest, when the forestry workers approached, threatened and then assaulted them all while being filmed by an employee of the NSW Forestry Corporation…’


The initial investigation into these assaults resulted in the charging of one of the victims, Mark Graham, who is a forest ecologist.


The NSW Police, after discussions with the Forestry Corporation charged Mr Graham with approaching forestry operations, those charges were wrongly pressed and were later withdrawn.


The fact that Mr Graham was charged for a crime when he was a victim of what the Magistrate described as a violent assault on a public road, in a public forest, and it was captured on video, can only be described as a wilful miscarriage of justice.


The Magistrate noted that the evidence showed the police officer who handled the situation had been helpful to the guilty men and took a serious dislike to the victims of the assaults.


The video evidence is confronting and unambiguous.’ Ms Higginson said.


Two members of the community, who are acting in a friendly and non-threatening manner, are approached by two agitated and hostile forestry workers who then proceed to assault them, demand their personal property and shout threatening abuse at them.


It is gross and brutal and shows the level of impunity that forestry workers are afforded from their actions when the local police then charge the victims of the assault instead of the perpetrators.’


It is a good day for justice, as slow and bumpy as this road has been for Mark and Andre. There must be a strong response from the Government.’


Blue Mountains Gazette, 16 January 2024:


The Forestry Corporation is under pressure to blacklist a logging contractor after its workers attacked two environmentalists in a NSW forest.


It's been three-and-a-half years since Mark Graham and Andre Johnston were assaulted on a public road during a day trip to the Wild Cattle Creek State Forest, where logging was under way.


On Monday, the pair got their day in court with a Coffs Harbour magistrate finding two employees of Greensill Bros had committed common assault.


The environmentalists are now demanding Greensill Bros be banned from any further logging work for the NSW government-owned Forestry Corporation.


They also plan to pursue a corruption complaint against the Forestry Corporation, saying one of its direct employees who was overseeing the logging operation filmed the assault but failed to intervene.....


"Immediately following the assault in 2020 neither of the forestry workers were charged and one of the victims was instead targeted and charged by the Coffs Harbour police."


Ms Higginson said the charges were laid after discussions between the police and Forestry Corporation.


Mr Graham has told AAP he was dismissed by police when he went to report the assault in June 2020 and was instead to go and "get a job".


About six months later he was charged with being within 100 metres of logging machinery.


Ms Higginson represented Mr Graham in that matter and has accused police of trying to withhold video evidence of the assaults from both victims, and from the public.


The charge against Mr Graham, of being too close to logging machinery, was eventually dropped in May 2022.....


No convictions were recorded with Michael Luigi Vitali and Rodney James Hearfield both put on 15-month good behaviour bonds.


The Forestry Corporation and Greensill Bros have declined to comment.


AAP has also sought comment from police.