Australian Politics

Inside the push to scrap NSW’s ‘no body, no parole’ laws

This is a stupid and evil law that could well keep innocent people in prison. Finding the body is important in securng a conviction but after that is of sentimental importance only. A discretionary 10% cut in the parole period after a conviction would be a much better way of encouraging disclosure

On September 20, 2022, just weeks after Chris Dawson was convicted of murdering his wife Lynette following a trial that gripped the country, then-NSW premier Dominic Perrottet announced a tightening of the state’s parole laws.

Convicted killers who “wilfully and deliberately” refused to reveal the whereabouts of their victims’ remains would be ineligible for release on parole, Perrottet said. The changes, referred to as “Lyn’s law”, were rushed through parliament and passed on October 13.

Dawson’s appeal against his conviction for the 1982 killing of Lynette Joy Simms was dismissed last week by NSW’s top criminal appeal court. He was sentenced in December 2022 to a maximum of 24 years in prison with a non-parole period of 18 years.

A year was added to his non-parole period last year, after he was convicted of unlawful sexual activity with a then-pupil in 1980.

Dawson is first eligible for release in August 2041, aged 93, but Lyn’s law will keep him behind bars until he is 98, unless he co-operates with authorities about the location of her remains.

Lynette’s family and the couple’s elder daughter have pleaded with Dawson to allow them to “bring her home”, and the “no body, no parole” laws are backed by advocates for victims of crime.

But the changes may have no practical application to Dawson at all.

NSW Supreme Court Ian Harrison acknowledged in his sentencing decision that Dawson, now 75, would “not live to reach the end of his non-parole period” or would be “seriously disabled well before then even if he does”.

It is the potential application of the laws to other prisoners that has raised alarm bells.

Folbigg, Chamberlain-Creighton unite

This month, the women at the centre of two of Australia’s biggest miscarriages of justice, Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton and Kathleen Folbigg, joined a coalition of high-profile lawyers fighting for the “no body, no parole” laws to be overturned.

In an open letter, organised by the Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative (BOHII) at RMIT University and delivered to Attorney-General Michael Daley, more than 100 signatories including Folbigg and Chamberlain-Creighton called for the laws to be scrapped due to their “disastrous” consequences for wrongfully convicted prisoners.

Lawyer Rhanee Rego, who acted for Folbigg in the inquiry that led last year to her acquittal over the deaths of her four young children after 20 years in prison, said the laws “should be repealed”.

“Wrongfully convicted people cannot help locate a body if they have not committed the crime,” Rego said.

“Importantly, the same legislation enacted in 2017 in Queensland is not having the desired effect. The legislation does not appear to increase the instances of offenders assisting to locate bodies.”

In the first case to test the new laws, Keli Lane, who was convicted in 2010 of the murder of her infant daughter, Tegan, was denied parole last month after serving her minimum sentence of 13 years and 5 months.

Tegan’s body has never been found and Lane maintains she gave the baby to her daughter’s father, who has never come forward. BOHII has called for an urgent review of her case. The 49-year-old is set to remain behind bars until her 18-year sentence expires in December 2028.

Judge in Lane case speaks out

Anthony Whealy, KC, a former judge of the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, presided over Lane’s jury trial and is a signatory to the open letter.

“The general proposition is this: hard cases make bad law, and [these laws] … stemmed essentially from the Chris Dawson trial,” Whealy said.

“One can understand that that was a traumatic trial, and it was certainly so for [Lynette Simms’ family], very much so, and so the government rushes to make a law without thinking of the consequences.”

Whealy noted that “it was always possible under the existing law for the parole body to take into account the fact that somebody was refusing to cooperate indicating where a victim’s body might be found”.

‘The impact of that [parole] door slamming shut, the emotional, psychological damage that would do to someone, [is profound].’

“The fact that they can’t tell you where the body is should be merely a discretionary factor and not a mandatory exclusion from parole,” he said. “We should go back to what the law was originally.”

Judges imposing murder sentences “will have very carefully given a sentence which embodies the principal period during which someone must be in jail and the period where it’s reasonable for them to be released on parole”, Whealy said.

“That would have taken into account the fact that they were refusing to admit that they were guilty … and had [not] demonstrated any remorse.”

During his second reading speech, the then-corrections minister Geoff Lee said the “no body, no parole” bill “recognises the pain and ongoing suffering experienced by victims’ families and friends who have not only lost a loved one but are unable to locate their remains and put them to rest”.

But Whealy said that in Lane’s case “the person whose grief and distress would need to be recognised was Keli Lane herself”, in the absence of Tegan’s biological father, and it was “absolutely ludicrous to say that this law should be applied to her”.

Professor Michele Ruyters, director of the Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative, said: “If the purpose of the legislation is to provide closure to victims’ families, and if that’s not possible because the families are not lobbying for this outcome, or there is no family, as in Keli’s case, then the only purpose of these laws is to punish.”

“That’s not the job of the [State] Parole Board,” Ruyters said.

In Lane’s case, she had been taking steps preparatory to release and then “all of a sudden that door is shut and then she’s back into the mainstream prison”, Ruyters said.

“From a human rights aspect, the impact of that door slamming shut, the emotional, psychological damage that would do to someone, [is profound].”

The government response

A NSW government spokesperson did not respond directly to the open letter but said the laws require an offender to “cooperate to locate the remains of the victim, not that the victim’s remains are actually found.”

“If the offender cooperates satisfactorily, they could be granted parole. If the offender does not cooperate, they will not be granted parole.”

Parole “rewards good behaviour”, the spokesperson said, and the laws were designed to “incentivise offenders to disclose the location of a victim’s remains, to provide closure to the victim’s family.”

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/inside-the-push-to-scrap-nsw-s-no-body-no-parole-laws-20240613-p5jlg0.html

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

These duplicitous modern Greens are Nazis in sheep’s clothing

FRANCIS GALBALLY

In my opinion there appears to be alarming similarities between Adam Bandt’s Greens and Hitler’s National Socialist Workers’ Party of the 1920s and 1930s. Both leaders are ideologues and demagogues. They are anti-Semitic in their rhetoric and this encourages in many a belief that the Jews are the cause of things wrong with society.

Bandt encourages the chant “from the river to the sea”. What does that mean other than the annihilation of the Jewish state and its people? But not just that, he seems through his rhetoric to want more. He encourages and attends pro-Palestinian demonstrations that are anti-Semitic and aimed at intimidating Australia’s Jews as they at least try to go about their ordinary lives whether as university students, workers or business people. Bandt supports gatherings that seem to me frighteningly similar to those pre-Nuremberg rallies in Munich in the 1920s. His rhetoric and actions appear to encourage the anti-Semitic demonstrations at parliament and on our city streets. This was Hitler at his most effective, and Bandt seems to have borrowed his playbook.

Bandt’s rant a few days ago has all the hallmarks of a Nazi rally. He accuses the major parties of “slandering this movement”. He calls on the Israeli ambassador to be expelled. He calls on sanctions against Israeli. He says “enough of the hand-wringing tweets, enough of the words that always come with conditions attached … they are being ignored by an extreme war cabinet that is hellbent on continuing this invasion”. And, like 1930s Munich, police had to move in to quell the violent protesters and use pepper spray (in Munich it was batons).

Bandt doesn’t mention how the Gaza war started, and appears to have no empathy for the abducted Israelis and the rape and killing of women and children. Bandt is a frightening demagogue; he distorts the truth, which suits a political agenda.

Bandt’s support of activists locking politicians out of their electoral offices bears the hallmarks of a potential dictator slowly cutting away at democracy.

Like Hitler, Bandt uses propaganda, discontent and fearmongering to gain support. He finds support among anti-Semites and uses climate action and anti-capitalist rhetoric to feed his supporters. Bandt would massively raise taxes and drive business from Australia. His rhetoric on tax and anti-business plays to his supporter base, much as Hitler did. And, like Hitler, he gets support from some individuals and businesses.

I do not criticise those who truly support the original Greens’ stand: protection of the environment and action to mitigate climate change.

But the Greens are now a party controlled by a rabblerouser who could destroy our way of life.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/these-duplicitous-modern-greens-are-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/news-story/85782a0b1725d97060fc3d1b98db275f

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

Queensland Labor shelves reforms to stop faith-based schools discriminating against gay teachers

A rather mournful report from the Guardian below

The Queensland government will renege on its promise to pass new anti-discrimination laws before the October state election – a move advocates say will leave women fleeing domestic violence, people with disabilities and members the LGBTQ+ community at risk.

Guardian Australia revealed on Monday that the state government was considering watering down reforms proposed by a review of the 33-year-old act.

State cabinet has approved a new plan that involves passing some measures – the parts that are a priority of the union movement – which mimic the federal “respect at work” bill, including placing a positive duty on workplaces to prevent discrimination or harassment.

It remains unclear whether other elements of the proposed reforms will be included in the new bill – due to be tabled on Friday – and which will be shelved until after the election.

The most controversial recommendation – to scrap the so-called “genuine occupational requirement” clause that has enabled faith-based schools to discriminate against teachers based on their sexuality, pregnancy, relationship status and gender identity – will not be passed during this term of government.

Other measures also likely to be delayed include proposals to scrap exemptions that allow accommodation providers to lawfully discriminate against sex workers; employers to discriminate against gender diverse or trans people when working with children; and IVF providers to discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality.

In a statement, the attorney general, Yvette D’ath, said the government remained committed to all of the reforms but that further work was needed to ensure new laws aligned with the federal approach to a March report by the Australian Law Reform Commission calling for the removal of exemptions for religious schools.

“This is a complex issue and many in the community have differing opinions,” D’ath said. “We need to make sure we get these legislative reforms right.”

Advocacy groups said this week they are concerned that a delay until after the election – with Labor well behind in published opinion polls – would put unfinished reforms at risk.

Alastair Lawrie, the director of policy and advocacy at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said there was “no justification” for Queensland to stall on the basis of the ALRC report.

“Indeed, the stance of the commonwealth government, which is currently refusing to introduce its own legislation without bipartisan support that is unlikely to be forthcoming, places more rather than less pressure on the Queensland government to act,” Lawrie said.

“The current ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ approach under the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act does not work and does not protect the rights of workers who should be employed on the basis of their skills and experience, not their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Matilda Alexander from Queensland Advocacy for Inclusion said splitting the reforms would create a “chaotic and siloed” series of protections.

“It’s incredibly frustrating to hear that the Anti-Discrimination Act changes will not be going ahead,” Alexander said.

“Queenslanders have said conclusively what we think respect at work looks like in Queensland. We need the government to listen.

“And what we have comprehensively and completely told them is a respectful workplace in Queensland is one where all forms of discrimination are unlawful.

“We understand that the commitment was to repeal and replace the Anti Discrimination Act, which is now more than 30 years old. It’s outdated. It’s not fit for purpose. It can’t be tinkered with, it needs to be repealed [and] these changes need to happen now.”

Nadia Bromley, the chief executive of the Women’s Legal Service Queensland, said the reforms included measures to protect women experiencing domestic and family violence from discrimination.

“A woman who was fired for being the victim of domestic and family violence cannot sue for discrimination in Queensland,” she said. “They can also be denied access to housing by a landlord afraid of having their rental accommodation damaged.

“The bill’s been 33 years in the making already. It’s a really disappointing decision.”

Labor sources have said the government was “not up for a fight” with religious groups who had criticised draft legislation as “a betrayal of all faith communities in Queensland”.

The government needs to table the new bill by Friday for it to pass the parliament before the election.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/14/queensland-labor-shelves-reforms-to-stop-faith-based-schools-discriminating-against-gay-teachers

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

EU climate knaves and follies

Only a week ago, Energy Minister Chris Bowen was telling anyone who would listen about the marvels of Germany’s energy policy. Since turning off its last nuclear power plant in April 2023, Mr Bowen claimed that Germany had experienced ‘record renewables output, energy price falls and a material drop in emissions’. The next election in Australia would be a ‘referendum on nuclear power’ Mr Bowen claimed.

Never mind the next election in Australia, the results of the European Parliamentary election this week have been a de facto referendum on Germany, and Europe’s, energy policies that Bowen would do well to heed.

The Social Democratic party (SPD) of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz suffered an ignominious defeat winning less than 14 per cent of the vote, down from almost 16 per cent, its worst result in a national poll since 1949. Humiliatingly, it only came third in the overall tally behind the main opposition party, the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) which won almost 24 per cent of the vote, up more than one percentage point, and behind the much demonised Alternative for Germany (AfD) which increased its vote by almost 5 per cent compared with the last election. As SPD leader Lars Klingbeil put it, ‘There is no way to sugarcoat it. I think it is crystal clear that things have to change.’

But if the European parliamentary elections were devastating for Germany’s SPD, roughly the equivalent of the Australian Labor party, they were even worse for its ‘traffic light’ coalition partner, the Greens, which was incontestably the biggest loser, falling almost 9 percentage points to less than 12 per cent. This will no doubt come as a shock to Mr Bowen but it’s hardly surprising when you look at the appalling policies that the Greens tried to implement. Their Building Energy Act sought to mandate that all new heating systems use at least 65 per cent renewable energy which amounted to it effectively forcing people to install heat pumps that would have inflicted punishingly high costs on owners of older buildings. The law is deeply unpopular as is the plan to ban CO2-emitting cars.

One of the most damning aspects of the Green nightmare in Germany is that having campaigned to lower the voting age to 16, their vote crashed to only 10 per cent with those aged 16 to 24 years old, and their partner, the SPD, got a paltry 9 per cent. Instead, 17 per cent of these youths voted for the conservative Christian Democrats/Christian Social Union and another 17 per cent voted for the Alternative for Germany.

As the most populous country in the EU, the results in Germany had a big impact on the overall outcome in the European Parliament but in any event the same trend could be seen in France, Italy and Belgium.

In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally got more than 31 per cent of the vote, the first French party to do so since 1984. Macron’s Renaissance party got just over 15 per cent of the vote down from 22 per cent in 2019. The French Greens – the Ecologists – got a tad over 5 per cent, a steep fall from over 13 per cent in 2019 and more than 16 per cent in 2009.

Overall in the European Parliament it looks like the Greens will be pushed from fourth place into sixth place with only 53 seats out of 720. The only green shoot, so to speak, was Denmark where the Greens gained one seat and in the Netherlands where a Green-Left party is the largest Dutch party in the EU parliament with eight seats but where Geert Wilders Freedom Party went from one seat to six and the Farmer-Citizen party also got two seats.

What explains this collapse in the vote for Green parties and for climate-loving left-liberals is that Europe is suffering what it calls a greenlash to its Green New Deal. For months, farmers have been protesting EU climate policies that are driving them out of business. Yet the least palatable proposals of the EU’s delusional 2030 goal of cutting greenhouse gases by 55 per cent from 1990 levels look highly unlikely to be implemented. A carbon market for heating and transport fuels that is meant to be launched in 2027 would further exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis, and all new cars are meant to be emissions-free by 2035. But even that is not enough for the climate commissars who earlier this year called for a more ambitious goal for 2040 of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent relative to emission levels in 1990. That would require almost doubling the level of investment from the 863 billion euros per annum spent in the decade to 2020 to 1.5 trillion euros per annum. Good luck with raising the capital to splurge on such profoundly unproductive investments.

You know that climate policies have lost their appeal when even the most ardent of activists, such as Greta Thunberg, was wrapping herself in a keffiyeh last Friday to protest the war in Gaza in Berlin rather than ‘climate injustice’ per se. Bizarrely, the protesters managed to conflate Israel’s war against Hamas with a ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ rally that called for oil and gas companies to be held accountable for enabling genocide in Gaza, systemic violence, and fuelling the climate crisis. In a strange way that they didn’t intend their protest almost made sense. After all, who is a bigger exporter of gas than Qatar, which bankrolls Hamas, the terrorists that are calling for a Jewish genocide? As William Blake wrote in his Proverbs of Hell, ‘If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise’, although perhaps more apposite when considering the EU’s climate policies is Blake’s proverb that ‘Folly is the cloke of knavery’. What does Mr Bowen make of all this? Very little it seems. Under Labor, Australia is set to follow in Europe’s foolish footsteps while the knaves laugh all the way to the bank.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/eu-climate-knaves-and-follies/