In case your wondering how sexual assault breaks down by gender in Australia

Australian Bureau of Statistics definition of Sexual Assault:
 is an act of a sexual nature carried out against a person's will through the use of physical force, intimidation or coercion, and includes any attempts to do this. This includes rape, attempted rape, aggravated sexual assault (assault with a weapon), indecent assault, penetration by objects, forced sexual activity that did not end in penetration and attempts to force a person into sexual activity. Incidents so defined would be an offence under State and Territory criminal law. Sexual assault excludes unwanted sexual touching - for the purposes of this survey, this is defined as Sexual Harassment. Sexual assault also excludes incidents of violence that occurred before the age of 15 - for the purposes of this survey, these are defined as Sexual Abuse. If a person experienced sexual assault and sexual threat in the same incident, this was counted once only as a sexual assault. If an incident of sexual assault also involved physical assault or threats, this was counted once only as a sexual assault.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012 Personal Safety Survey revealed that 1,494,000 females and 336,000 males had experienced sexual assault since the age of fifteen.

The following infographics highlight some findings from this recently released survey.  See the full report for more information.

Pie charts found at http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html

Morgan Poll of Australian federal voting intentions released on 24 March 2014 shows ALP leading

Scroll down in media release for polling breakdown, tables and graphs.

Roy Morgan Research, Morgan Poll, Media Release 24 March 2014

Word of the unrest spreads......

Letter to the editor, The Daily Examiner, 19 March 2014:

Question bullying

Councillor Margaret McKenna's motion in council regarding violence against people on the basis of their sexuality is commendable (DEX, 15/3).

The violation of anyone's human rights is unacceptable in a civilised society.

Bullying and intimidation in the workplace is equally abhorrent and, I would suggest, a far more widespread form of human rights abuse.

If the good councillor were to ask just how many complaints of this kind of abuse have occurred within Clarence Valley Council over the past 12 months, she may be very unpleasantly surprised.

Bullying in the workplace can become endemic if it is not addressed forcefully and publicly. Bullying and intimidation are trademarks of an absence of quality leadership.

The impact on its victims, their families, their work colleagues, and the productivity and morale of the entire organisation is as profound as it is irreparable.

It cannot be contained or hidden.

We live in an age when social media and personal networks can negate any attempted commercial blackmail of mainstream media.

I would suggest Cr McKenna and all Clarence Valley councillors need to address an issue that threatens not only the reputation and integrity of this council but its continuance in office, and they need to do it immediately.

Ian Saunders

Maclean

More dodgy figures to be released by the Abbott Government?

The Australian 24 March 2014:

In which Australian House of Representatives Speaker Bronwyn Bishop appears to invent or ignore standing orders as she pleases

Federal Liberal Party MP and Speaker House of Representatives, Bronwyn Bishop, asserts that Abbott Government ministers are not obliged to answer questions during Question Time, then decides that standing orders relating to relevance don't apply and makes a mockery of the point of order rule by not immediately addressing the point but turning instead to ask a question of the prime minister.

Australian House of Representatives Hansard 20 March 2014:

Sinodinos, Senator Arthur

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to Senator Sinodinos's statement to the Senate in February 2013 that he played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to Australian Water Holdings by Sydney Water. Was the Prime Minister aware that Senator Sinodinos had in fact arranged for a letter from Premier O'Farrell to help secure the contract? When did the Prime Minister become aware of this?

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:27): These are all matters that will quite properly be canvassed by the ICAC inquiry.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister finished his answer?

Mr ABBOTT: Yes.

The SPEAKER: He has finished his answer. Do you have a point of order?

Mr Burke: Yes, under standing order 104(a), Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has finished his answer.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, it cannot be the case that the moment—

The SPEAKER: You were very quick on your feet.

Mr Burke: I am given the call, you then, instead of hearing the point of order, turn to the Prime Minister for advice.

The SPEAKER: I point out to the Manager of Opposition Business that that is coming close to a reflection.

Mr Burke: Well—

The SPEAKER: Resume your seat! The member would also know that, under the standing orders, ministers are not obliged to answer questions.

Mr Burke interjecting—

The SPEAKER: No, they are not, as you well know. Merely because you do not get the answer you wish does not make it outside the standing orders. [my red bolding]

Excerpts from House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders (44^th Australian Parliament) concerning questions to government ministers and points of order:

98 Questions to Ministers

(a) A Member may ask a question in writing of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary), to be placed on the Notice Paper for written reply.

(b) During Question Time, a Member may orally ask a question of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary), without notice and for immediate response.

(c) A Minister can only be questioned on the following matters, for which he or she is responsible or officially connected:

(i) public affairs;

(ii) administration; or

(iii) proceedings pending in the House.

(d) Questioners must not ask Ministers:

(i) for an expression of opinion, including a legal opinion; or

(ii) to announce government policy, but may seek an explanation about the policy and its application, and may ask the Prime Minister whether a Minister's statement in the House represents government policy. [my red bolding]

Point of order and Speaker's ruling

86 Point of order

(a) Subject to standing order 104, a Member may raise a point of order with the Speaker at any time. After the question of order has been stated to the Speaker by the Member rising to the question of order, consideration and decision of every other question shall be suspended until the matter is disposed of by the Speaker giving a ruling thereon. [my red bolding]

Excerpt from Parliamentary Library Research Paper, 22 November 2013, on the subject of relevance:

Standing Order 104 was amended on 29 September 2010 in relation to relevance as follows:

(a) An answer must be directly relevant to the question.

(b) A point of order regarding relevance may be taken only once in respect of each answer.

(c) The duration of each answer is limited to 4 minutes.

Hitherto the requirement had been for answers to be 'relevant to the question'—meaning 'relevant in some way or relevant in part, rather than directly or completely relevant', with the result that 'provided the answer is relevant and is not couched in unparliamentary language Ministers may virtually answer questions without notice in any way they choose'. [my red bolding]

The fact that the Speaker is so visibly partisan does not earn her the respect of her own party.

It is becoming increasing obvious that government ministers, from Prime Minister Abbott down, are cutting short her remarks or directions from the Chair by interrupting/over talking her whenever the mood moves them.

Yet another Abbott Government attack on workers' wages

Australian Government Dept. of Employment 20 March 2014:

Repeal Day - revocation of the Fair Work Principles and the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, including the requirements applying to textile, clothing and footwear manufacturers.

Thursday 20 March 2014

News

As part of Repeal Day, the Coalition Government announced that it would cease a number of regulatory arrangements that are administered by the Department of Employment and apply to Australian Government procurements. These changes will take effect from 1 July 2014.

These arrangements create different requirements for suppliers to Government than those required in the private sector. The requirements under the Government’s mainstream procurement framework (such as the Commonwealth Procurement Rules) and the mainstream workplace relations framework will continue to apply.

The changes involve revoking the Fair Work Principles, which currently apply to all procurements above $80,000. The Fair Work Principles require tenderers to complete a declaration of compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Existing Government procurement policies and processes that require decision makers to ensure tenderers comply with laws and policies of the Commonwealth, including the Fair Work Act 2009, are not affected.

The Fair Work Principles also create specific obligations for tenderers from the cleaning services industry and those that manufacture textile, clothing and footwear products. These include the requirement for textile, clothing and footwear manufacturers to have accreditation under the Homeworkers Code of Practice administered by Ethical Clothing Australia, a joint union-industry non-government organisation. The Department’s funding agreement with Ethical Clothing Australia will also cease on 30 June 2014 to coincide with the end of this regulatory requirement.

The Fair Work Ombudsman investigates and prosecutes any allegations of underpaid wages or breaches of the Fair Work Laws.

As well as the cleaning services provisions in the Fair Work Principles, the associated Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines (a legislative instrument under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997) will also cease on 30 June 2014. Cleaning services providers tendering for Government work from 1 July 2014 will still be required to comply with all relevant workplace laws and the Modern Awards set by the Fair Work Commission.

Queries in relation to the revocation of the Fair Work Principles and the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines may be directed to the Fair Work Principles mailbox at: FairWorkPrinciples@employment.gov.au

The Sydney Morning Herald 23 March 2014:

Some of the country's lowest-paid workers could lose almost a quarter of their weekly wages under changes quietly introduced by the Abbott government.

Thousands of workers will be hit by the changes, which will strip between $172 and $225 a week from the pockets of full-time contract cleaners who work in government buildings.

The changes are among the 9500 regulations to go under Prime Minister Tony Abbott's red tape ''repeal day'' on Wednesday.

Buried in more than 50,000 pages of regulations and acts of parliaments to be scrapped is the revelation the government will abolish the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines for cleaners employed on government contracts from July 1.

The regulations are a form of collective bargaining introduced by Labor that lift the wages of workers hired by businesses that win government cleaning contracts, by between $4.53 and $5.93 an hour above the minimum wage. This brings their weekly wage from $664 to $836 for a 38-hour week for level 1, and from $724 to $950 a week for level 3 workers.

United Voice, the union representing cleaners, would not comment on the changes before consulting its members. It is understood the union was not aware of the changes and is trying to negotiate with contractors and the government in an attempt to mitigate the effects on its members.

Labor introduced the Cleaning Services Guidelines in 2011 to tackle the exploitation of vulnerable workers in the contract cleaning industry. A 2010 Fair Work Ombudsman audit of cleaning contractors found that 40 per cent of audited businesses did not comply with workplace laws. It recovered almost $500,000 for 934 underpaid workers…..

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Cardinal George Pell exposed as being selective with the truth

The Sydney Morning Herald  11 March 2014:

Mr Ellis came away from a pivotal meeting with then Archbishop Pell in 2009 with the impression that the litigation had been “a runaway train with nobody at the wheel”. This was after years of legal action that had crippled Mr Ellis mentally and financially…
“No, it left me with the impression that Cardinal Pell was completely out of the loop on all of that decision making,” Mr Ellis said…

The Saturday Paper 15 March 2014:

But on Monday morning, just minutes before Ellis entered the witness box, counsel assisting the commission Gail Furness, SC, in her introductory remarks, dropped something of a bombshell.

She referred to a witness statement by Cardinal George Pell, not yet public because he was not due to appear until later in the week, in which he expressed “some concern” about the way the litigation between the church and Ellis had been handled. She quoted Pell:

“Whatever position was taken by the lawyers during the litigation, or by lawyers or individuals within the archdiocese following the litigation, my own view is that the church in Australia should be able to be sued in cases of this kind.”...

The Sydney Morning Herald 17 March 2014:

Monsignor Rayner who as Archdiocesan chancellor was the official church authority to deal with victim’s complaints, said he told Cardinal Pell about the amounts of money victims of sex abuse sought. But for an agreement to be reached, “finally the decision would have been made by the Archbishop himself”.

The Sydney Morning Herald 18 March 2014:

 Cardinal George Pell was calling all the shots in the notorious case in which the Catholic Church fought off the damages claim of abuse victim John Ellis, his solicitor has confirmed to the child sex abuse Royal Commission. The 2007 Ellis case established the defence which has insulated the church from paying damages to victims in similar cases ever since... 

 Cardinal Pell himself described the litigation against Mr Ellis as “legal abuse”, the Commission has been told. The case caused Mr Ellis harm and suffering, according to senior counsel for the Commission Gail Furness.

 For more than a week, before the Cardinal himself takes the stand, the Commission has been grappling with the question of how much Cardinal Pell knew. Now Paul McCann, the senior partner with Corrs Chambers Westgarth, which conducted the litigation for the church from 2004, has told the Commission he had no doubt the instructions he received through Cardinal Pell’s private secretary Dr Michael Casey came from the Cardinal himself. Cardinal Pell is due to appear early next week.

“What was your understanding of those instructions and whether or not they were informed by Cardinal Pell?’, asked commission chair, Justice Peter McClellan.

Mr McCann replied: “I didn’t have any doubt that the Cardinal was being kept up to date on developments in the case and it is obvious from some of the exchanges that he was in fact seemingly giving instructions as to various steps.’’

According to the solicitor, he was instructed by Dr Casey, who he believed was doing Cardinal Pell’s bidding in relation to several key decisions in the case. These included refusing Mr Ellis’ offer to mediate before the litigation, refusing a compromise offer to pay $750,000 plus costs before the case started and the decision not to put a counter offer to Mr Ellis….

ABC News 18 March 2014:

In a statement presented to the inquiry earlier this month, Cardinal Pell said he was not aware of ex-gratia offers made to Mr Ellis.

But Monsignor Brian Rayner, who represented the Sydney Archdiocese and Archbishop Pell in Towards Healing matters in 2004, has contradicted that statement.

Under cross-examination, Monsignor Rayner maintained the Archbishop was informed.

"I spoke to the Archbishop on every amount of money that was being offered to any particular victim," he said.

Despite saying he did not have authority, Monsignor Rayner offered Mr Ellis a $5,000 increase on the $25,000 payment before gaining the approval of Catholic Church Insurance.

In a lively exchange with the Church's counsel Peter Gray SC, Monsignor Rayner maintained that he had informed Archbishop Pell of the ex-gratia offers made to Mr Ellis.

"My evidence is correct and I've seen the contrary thoughts of the Archbishop and the Archbishop also has occasions when his recollection of events is not clearly accurate," he said.

He also said the Archbishop was very involved in Mr Ellis' case… 

The Sydney Morning Herald 22 March 2014:

The Catholic Church's insurer insisted on being "kept in the loop" in the John Ellis case after lawyers expressed concern at Cardinal George Pell's "tooth and nail" approach, according to evidence at the child sex abuse royal commission.

Peter Rush, then general manager of Catholic Church Insurance Ltd, complained to the business manager of the Sydney Archdiocese about being "kept out of the loop" in the case and warned this could jeopardise the church's insurance, the commission heard…

Dr Casey testified that it was his job to convey instructions to the church's lawyers, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, but the instructions came from Cardinal Pell.

"The general instructions were to vigorously defend the claim and to defeat the litigation, is that right?" asked Gail Furness SC for the commission.

"Yes", Dr Casey replied…

At a 2009 meeting Cardinal Pell told him the church's move from mediation to vigorous pursuit of his case was "unfathomable", Mr Ellis said...