Religious worship powers under spotlight after arrest of former Greens candidate
In NSW, police are not allowed to issue move on directions for genuine protests unless they decide it presents a 'serious risk' to a person's safety, is obstructing traffic or, after the changes introduced by the Minns government this year, is taking place near a place of worship.
The document states police attended the protest on Friday morning after receiving 'intelligence' via Instagram that a group called Weapons Out of The West would hold an 'unauthorised' protest at the Belmore business.
At 5.50am, a person was seen walking past the business and 'communicating via a group chat'.
After confirming they were attending a demonstration, police said the person was issued a move-on direction on the basis the 'unauthorised' demonstration would 'cause fear and alarm'. The group, the fact sheet said, had 'a history of violent disruptions outside of the SEC Plating business'.
They were initially arrested, but then released after indicating they would comply with the direction.
However, the police fact sheet then says the person 'walked across the road to the opposite side of SEC Plating which is a place of worship'. At that point, officers approached the protester and again 'informed her to comply with the move on direction'.
'Due to the accused being given repeated warnings and opportunities to comply with the direction, she was cautioned and placed under arrest for failing to comply with a move on direction,' it stated.
Loading
The reference to a place of worship has sparked serious concern among civil liberty groups and legal experts, who have repeatedly warned the laws are overly broad.
In February, Premier Chris Minns pushed through new laws banning protests near places of worship following the so-called Dural caravan incident. The laws faced pushback from members of the Labor caucus at the time, MPs arguing the wording of the bill would allow police to break up protests even if a demonstration was unrelated to the religious institution.
The caravan, along with a spate of other antisemitic attacks, was revealed to be a 'con job' carried out by organised crime figures rather than racially motivated hate crimes or terror plots.
NSW Police deny the anti-protest laws were used in the arrest and said the protesters were given a move-on order for allegedly blocking pedestrian access to the business, which had been the target of protests previously.
Greens MP Sue Higginson, who has written to Police Minister Yasmin Catley demanding Thomas's injury as a critical incident investigation, said she was 'shocked but unsurprised'.
'It's written there in black and white. A direct reference to the anti-protest laws rushed through the NSW Parliament under the sordid non-disclosure of the truth around the Dural caravan incident,' she said.
'I along with others in parliament warned the premier and his government that we would see this level of impunity and now here it is.'
Last week the NSW Supreme Court heard a challenge against the laws mounted by the head of the Palestine Action Group, Josh Lees. Lawyers for Lees have argued the laws are unconstitutional.
Speaking at an event in Sydney on Sunday, Premier Chris Minns said it was too early to comment on whether the arrest was an appropriate use of his government's anti-protesting laws.
'I'd wait for that information to come in,' he said, adding police were investigating the extent of Thomas' injuries.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
34 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Injured Greens candidate charged, slams 'draconian' law
A one-time Greens challenger to Anthony Albanese in the federal elections who suffered severe facial injuries as police clashed with demonstrators has been charged for resisting arrest. Ms Thomas was among five people arrested while protesting Israel's war in Gaza outside an Australian firm reportedly linked to the manufacturing of components for fighter jets used by the Israeli Defence Forces. The protesters accused SEC Plating, in southwest Sydney, of making parts for F-35 jets used by Israel, a claim the firm denies. Hannah Thomas, 35, who was the Greens candidate for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's seat of Grayndler, was taken to hospital with facial injuries suffered during her arrest. In a social media post from her hospital bed, Ms Thomas said her critical injuries to her eye could leave her "potentially without vision", pointing the finger at the NSW premier and the police minister. "I'm in this position because people like Chris Minns and Yasmin Catley have demonised protesters and passed draconian anti protest laws which licence police to crack down on peaceful protest in extremely violent, brutal ways," she said."The anti-protest laws aren't just a threat to people protesting for Palestine but for any person who wants a safer world for all of us." Police said the early morning demonstration at SEC Plating was unauthorised and had blocked access to the Belmore business. "As police attempted to arrest the protesters who were not complying with the directions, a scuffle ensued between police and protesters," the force said late Sunday. Video of the incident shows multiple police dragging one of the protesters as on-lookers repeatedly shouted "get off her" and "let go of her". Police said Ms Thomas was arrested for not complying with that direction and was charged with resisting arrest. She is set to appear at Bankstown Local Court in August. Footage of Ms Thomas circulating online shows her eye swollen shut and with blood on her face before she was taken to hospital for surgery. NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson labelled the policing "excessive" and has written to Ms Catley, the NSW police commissioner and the state's police watchdog demanding an investigation. A police statement said the medical advice they had received about the incident did not meet the threshold for a critical incident declaration. "Should further medical advice be received, the decision can be reviewed," the force said. Protest organisers say another protester was grabbed by the neck and choked, while others were knocked to the ground. All five protesters arrested during the scuffle were granted bail, four will appear in Bankstown Local Court on July 15.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Should staffing matters be under such unfettered prime ministerial control?
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just announced a reduction in staffing to the opposition (ie the Coalition parties) by about 20 per cent and some small cuts to the staffing for minor parties and independents and his government's own ministerial offices. To clarify, these changes only concern those extra "personal" staff allocated to ministerial offices, the opposition, minor parties and independents concerning their shadow ministerial and direct parliamentary roles. It does not affect the five electorate staff each federal MP has, including all ministers, to serve their electorates. This was increased from four by the Albanese government in the 2023-24 budget at a cost of $159 million over four years. In 1974, there were just two, and once upon a time, our parliamentarians had none - they did it all themselves. Such staffing changes occur after every election, reflecting a prime minister's wide discretionary powers conferred under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPs Act). It highlights once again whether such matters should be under such direct, unfettered prime ministerial control. Such prime ministerial unilateral decisions require no parliamentary approval. The prime minister can give additional support and just as easily take it away. Nor do reasons have to be given, though usually lame ones like "savings to the budget" are proffered, as when the Albanese government reduced staff support for crossbenchers in 2022. That is being used again. Such explanations stretch credibility given the relatively small size of parliamentary staff costs compared to the total federal budget expenditure of $786 billion. Of course, reducing staff numbers and their classifications undermines the ability of an opposition, minor parties and independents to hold governments to account. It has even greater adverse impacts on oppositions given their role in our Westminster system to not just be critics of government but as the "government in waiting" be able to present to the electorate alternative policies across the whole of government and be ready to take office and govern immediately after an election. Reducing the number of opposition staffers from a 100 or so to the reported 87 is minuscule compared to the more than 430 in ministerial offices, which are supplemented by the support and expertise of each minister's public service department. Indeed, Albanese's prime ministerial office alone has about 60 staff, while comparable with recent coalition prime ministers, it is far more than previous Labor leaders like Whitlam, who had just 21. The 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald Report highlighted the lack of adequate staffing for oppositions to scrutinise the National Party-led governments, and so undermined responsible and accountable government and possibly allowed corruption to flourish. Another concern is that the government is reported to be giving greater emphasis to employing more political rather than policy or expert personnel in ministerial offices. This presumably means having fewer experienced public servant secondments from departments who presently constitute surprisingly large proportion of ministerial staff, including chiefs of staff, under both Labor and Coalition administrations. The problem with current arrangements is that too much is left to convention and non-legislated formulas. For instance, since 1995, opposition staff numbers were based on a formula that their staffing allocation be 21 per cent of the government's staff. So, by the current government reducing its own ministerial numbers, cuts to opposition staff numbers can be justified. While the MoPS Act required the prime minister to have regard to the "parliamentary duties" of a member or senator when concerning personal staff, that term is not defined nor clarified by other material. MORE OPINION: Apparently Medicare applies to all Australians, except ratepayers in the ACT Although there has been the Sex Commissioner's investigation of parliamentary working conditions and the subsequent review of the MoPs Act, personal staff numbers and their allocations have not been similarly reviewed. They are thus open to far too much discretionary decision-making driven by partisan, rather than public interest, considerations. Consequently, there is a need for a follow-up to the 2009 Henderson Review of Government Staffing, preferably one that is independent and transparent, to consider who and on what basis staffing numbers and allocations are made. It might explore new issues like whether the Greens with 12 per cent of the vote deserve a better allocation than is presently envisaged.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Politics and rugby league have been thrown into a blender
Why on earth the game is dabbling in the geo-politics of the region is anyone's guess. The PNG Board announced during the week looks very well-credentialed, so a big tick there. But there was a worrying moment when all league fans would have, or should have, cringed. Politicians specialise in bagging everything opposing politicians do. It's their modus operandi. They can't help themselves and always think every other side of politics has it wrong. Their brains are conditioned to babble on about how good they, and their initiatives are, while others, even ones that are good, aren't. A prime example came when Pat Conroy, the federal minister for Pacific Island affairs, spoke about the PNG team last week. Now, we're not making this up. He actually said: 'I want to ensure the taxpayers' timeline is on track (for 2028). 'When we get this project delivered through the huge investment of all three parties, this will make Penrith look like the minnows of rugby league. They will be made to look like Sydney Roosters juniors.' What a dribbler. The last thing rugby league needs is politicians immaturely sticking their bibs in after spending in excess of half a billion dollars of our money and then insulting the thousands upon thousands of volunteers and players who have built and nurtured the game from the ground up in districts like Penrith over decades and decades by saying 'we're going to be better than you'. A little tip for you minister – you're not. Grow up. Then we get to the latest chapter of the Book of Feuds between the Sydney Roosters and the South Sydney Rabbitohs. 'A bit like the chicken and the egg - what comes first, the revamped stadium to attract the tenant or the tenant to justify the revamp?' It goes like this. The Rabbitohs signed a long-term deal to play at Accor Stadium, but say they only signed the deal because they were promised by the then-Berejiklian government that the stadium would be revamped and a roof put on. But that plan lost out in the unedifying stadium wars which saw the Sydney Football Stadium bulldozed and replaced by the gleaming, yet roofless, Allianz, and Penrith get a new boutique beauty. South Sydney maintains they were told by the government they had to sign on to provide the stadium content, allowing the government to build the case for a rebuild. A bit like the chicken and the egg – what comes first, the revamped stadium to attract the tenant or the tenant to justify the revamp? In the end, the Rabbitohs were left hanging, while the Roosters got almost exclusive rugby league use of a billion-dollar taxpayer-funded asset. When the Rabbitohs told the government they felt as though they'd been dudded and would rather move to Allianz to get better service their fans and, more importantly, the corporates in state-of-the-art facilities, they were rebuffed. Time and again. The latest was by Premier Chris Minns himself, declaring Souths would not be let out of the contract. Both stadiums fall under the control of Venues NSW, which is in a bind. It needs 'content' at Accor to try and hold membership of that venue, while membership for the SCG precinct could sell out twice over. Maybe thrice. Leading the charge to block the Rabbitohs' move is Roosters chairman Nick Politis, who has put a land rights claim over the public property as the precinct has been the Roosters only home since 1908. It's a fair enough position, ideologically, but one which has a major problem. The club doesn't own the stadium. And it can't squat on it. The Rabbitohs' position is fair too, and if 'Stingy' Minnsy isn't going to fix Accor, he can't expect the Rabbitohs, and others, to fix his problem, which is that people are jack of going to matches at a stadium built to house athletics more than a quarter of a century ago. Fans love Allianz because it's a fantastic place to watch football. Purpose built. Brand new. Accor isn't. Try driving a brand-new Mercedes for a while and then jumping back into the old Falcon. Australia is desperately falling behind the world when it comes to world-class venues. Then again, we don't seem to be even able to build enough houses, let alone stadiums. Maybe minister Conroy and his government should spend more time working out where everyone is going to live as migration booms. His party wasn't voted in to bag its constituents.
