Latest news with #AnneTwomey
ABC News
17 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
MP convicted of sex offences to continue receiving salary
New South Wales MP Gareth Ward has spent his first night in jail after being convicted of sexually abusing two young men last week. The Member for Kiama, on the state's south coast, was taken into custody on Wednesday and will remain behind bars until he is sentenced in September. Ward has not resigned from the parliament, and continues to receive his taxpayer-funded salary. But a motion to expel him from his seat is expected to be passed when the lower house returns next week. So can Ward continue to sit in parliament despite being convicted of sex offences? ABC NewsRadio's Sarah Morice spoke with Anne Twomey, a Professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney's Law School.
ABC News
4 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Tasmanian Liberals accused of breaching caretaker conventions over Marinus Link and TT-line borrowing limit
As votes continue to be counted and both major parties continue discussions with crossbenchers to form government following Tasmania's snap election, the government is being accused of breaching caretaker conventions. Tasmania's Labor opposition has claimed the government's handling of two policy decisions — an increase in the borrowing limit for ferry operator TT-Line and the yet-to-be-made decision on whether to proceed with the Marinus Link undersea power cable — have contravened caretaker conventions. The government said it would follow all relevant caretaker conventions and that it had briefed Labor on the TT-Line decision, and would consult with Labor on the Marinus decision "in due course". When the House of Assembly is dissolved for a general election, the government is placed in what is called a caretaker period. Caretaker conventions outline how the government should operate during the period. According to the guidelines, the conventions are "neither legally binding nor hard and fast rules" and they should be applied to individual cases with "sound judgement and common sense". Professor emerita Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert at the University of Sydney, said the conventions were developed "as a matter of fairness". "The idea is that during that [caretaker] period, after parliament has been dissolved, where governments are no longer actively responsible to parliament because there's no parliament in existence, then they should be a lot more careful about what they do. "You don't want to bind a new government, which may have completely different policies, by entering into a whole lot of commitments immediately beforehand to make life difficult for them," Professor Twomey said. Professor Twomey said it "comes down to the people". "It's really a political matter as to how effective they are. So, it comes down to the people, particularly when they vote, in terms of deciding whether the government has behaved appropriately," she said. Under the guidelines, governments are encouraged to avoid making major policy decisions that are likely to commit an incoming government. However, this is not always possible, Professor Twomey said. "There is an additional principle that says, if you have to make a major decision in that period, then you should consult the other side as well and try to reach an agreed position," she said. The government does not require endorsement from the opposition during consultation. "Ultimately, it's the government that makes decisions. "But it's better to try and get some kind of agreement between both sides in order to progress matters that are significant and would have an impact on an incoming government," Professor Twomey said. Labor is calling on the government to release the business case for the Marinus Link undersea power cable project, saying that withholding it is a breach of caretaker conventions. Marinus would be a second electricity interconnector between Tasmania and Victoria. A decision by the Tasmanian, Victorian and federal governments on whether to proceed with the project is due by the end of July. A whole-of-state business case was provided to the government by Treasury in May. The government promised to release the case 30 days before its final investment decision, however said the release has been delayed due to the early election. Labor MLC Sarah Lovell said the premier needed to release the business case "as soon as possible". "These are major financial decisions that will be made by the government. "These are long-term decisions and under caretaker conventions one of the prerequisites is that decisions that are being made that will impact on future governments need [to have] all that information released to both the opposition and the government, and we're not seeing that from the premier," Ms Lovell said. On Saturday, Liberal MP Felix Ellis said Labor had not been briefed yet "because no final decision has been made" on Marinus Link. "We'll continue to work through the process. This is an important investment for our state, and we'll be updating the public as well as the opposition in due course," Mr Ellis said. State Energy Minister Nick Duigan also said on Saturday that "all relevant information will be publicly released" only once a decision on the project is finalised. Professor Twomey said the government did not have to be "undecided" before it consulted. "It's fair enough for a government to take a view as to what it wants to do before engaging in consultation," she said. "But if you're saying a decision means that's our final decision and we're not going to pay one iota of attention to anything you say, that would be rather pre-empting the consultation and making it pointless." At the weekend, the government agreed to support a temporary $410 million increase to Bass Strait ferry operator TT-Line's borrowing capacity. Treasurer Guy Barnett said the government received advice from Treasury on July 25 "recommending TT-Line's guaranteed borrowing limit be increased". "[Opposition treasury spokesperson] Josh Willie was briefed on July 26, and the decision was announced the same day," Mr Barnett said. Mr Willie said he received a call just over an hour before the decision was announced. "Jeremy Rockliff's idea of 'consultation' is a last-minute phone call. That's not consultation — that's a courtesy call after the decision had already been made. "When a major policy decision is being made during the caretaker period — especially one that would bind a future government — Labor must be consulted before the decision is made," Mr Willie said. Professor Twomey said caretaker conventions did not outline specific requirements for adequate consultation, rather that was "a matter for the relevant parties to decide". "Telling someone something an hour before you publicise it does seem to be perfunctory in terms of genuine consultation," she said. "As a general principle, that would be something that you would think would not be adequate consultation. "But, again, these are not binding rules. They're just conventions and it's a matter for the political parties to decide how they want to interpret them."
ABC News
4 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Tasmanian Liberals accused of breaching caretaking conventions over Marinus Link and TT-line borrowing limit
As votes continue to be counted and both major parties continue discussions with crossbenchers to form government following Tasmania's snap election, the government is being accused of breaching caretaker conventions. Tasmania's Labor opposition has claimed the government's handling of two policy decisions — an increase in the borrowing limit for ferry operator TT-Line and the yet-to-be-made decision on whether to proceed with the Marinus Link undersea power cable — have contravened caretaker conventions. The government said it would follow all relevant caretaker conventions and that it had briefed Labor on the TT-Line decision, and would consult with Labor on the Marinus decision "in due course". When the House of Assembly is dissolved for a general election, the government is placed in what is called a caretaker period. Caretaker conventions outline how the government should operate during the period. According to the guidelines, the conventions are "neither legally binding nor hard and fast rules" and they should be applied to individual cases with "sound judgement and common sense". Professor emerita Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert at the University of Sydney, said the conventions were developed "as a matter of fairness". "The idea is that during that [caretaker] period, after parliament has been dissolved, where governments are no longer actively responsible to parliament because there's no parliament in existence, then they should be a lot more careful about what they do. "You don't want to bind a new government, which may have completely different policies, by entering into a whole lot of commitments immediately beforehand to make life difficult for them," Professor Twomey said. Professor Twomey said it "comes down to the people". "It's really a political matter as to how effective they are. So, it comes down to the people, particularly when they vote, in terms of deciding whether the government has behaved appropriately," she said. Under the guidelines, governments are encouraged to avoid making major policy decisions that are likely to commit an incoming government. However, this is not always possible, Professor Twomey said. "There is an additional principle that says, if you have to make a major decision in that period, then you should consult the other side as well and try to reach an agreed position," she said. The government does not require endorsement from the opposition during consultation. "Ultimately, it's the government that makes decisions. "But it's better to try and get some kind of agreement between both sides in order to progress matters that are significant and would have an impact on an incoming government," Professor Twomey said. Labor is calling on the government to release the business case for the Marinus Link undersea power cable project, saying that withholding it is a breach of caretaker conventions. Marinus would be a second electricity interconnector between Tasmania and Victoria. A decision by the Tasmanian, Victorian and federal governments on whether to proceed with the project is due by the end of July. A whole-of-state business case was provided to the government by Treasury in May. The government promised to release the case 30 days before its final investment decision, however said the release has been delayed due to the early election. Labor MLC Sarah Lovell said the premier needed to release the business case "as soon as possible". "These are major financial decisions that will be made by the government. "These are long-term decisions and under caretaker conventions one of the prerequisites is that decisions that are being made that will impact on future governments need [to have] all that information released to both the opposition and the government, and we're not seeing that from the premier," Ms Lovell said. On Saturday, Liberal MP Felix Ellis said Labor had not been briefed yet "because no final decision has been made" on Marinus Link. "We'll continue to work through the process. This is an important investment for our state, and we'll be updating the public as well as the opposition in due course," Mr Ellis said. State Energy Minister Nick Duigan also said on Saturday that "all relevant information will be publicly released" only once a decision on the project is finalised. Professor Twomey said the government did not have to be "undecided" before it consulted. "It's fair enough for a government to take a view as to what it wants to do before engaging in consultation," she said. "But if you're saying a decision means that's our final decision and we're not going to pay one iota of attention to anything you say, that would be rather pre-empting the consultation and making it pointless." At the weekend, the government agreed to support a temporary $410 million increase to Bass Strait ferry operator TT-Line's borrowing capacity. Treasurer Guy Barnett said the government received advice from Treasury on July 25 "recommending TT-Line's guaranteed borrowing limit be increased". "[Opposition treasury spokesperson] Josh Willie was briefed on July 26, and the decision was announced the same day," Mr Barnett said. Mr Willie said he received a call just over an hour before the decision was announced. "Jeremy Rockliff's idea of 'consultation' is a last-minute phone call. That's not consultation — that's a courtesy call after the decision had already been made. "When a major policy decision is being made during the caretaker period — especially one that would bind a future government — Labor must be consulted before the decision is made," Mr Willie said. Professor Twomey said caretaker conventions did not outline specific requirements for adequate consultation, rather that was "a matter for the relevant parties to decide". "Telling someone something an hour before you publicise it does seem to be perfunctory in terms of genuine consultation," she said. "As a general principle, that would be something that you would think would not be adequate consultation. "But, again, these are not binding rules. They're just conventions and it's a matter for the political parties to decide how they want to interpret them."
The Guardian
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Decoding a voter's poor handwriting is subjective – let's enlist AI to help with the Bradfield recount
Liberal candidate Gisele Kapterian has appealed her narrow loss to Nicolette Boele in Bradfield to the court of disputed returns. According to Professor Anne Twomey, no questions of law are raised in Kapterian's challenge. Rather, the court is being asked to determine more mundane questions. Is that 1 actually a 7; is that 6 an 8? and so on. Cases like this present an almost absurd disjuncture between the banality of the evidentiary questions – is a 1 a 7? – and the weight of the consequences: who shall represent over 100,000 citizens in parliament? Australian elections are global exemplars of fairness. All adult citizens are required to be enrolled and to turn out to vote. Ballots can't be hacked in Australia: they are tangible things, physical pieces of paper, with handwritten markings. Scrutineers from both sides carefully observe the count. The entire electoral process is administered by a politically neutral agency, the Australian Electoral Commission. The prospect of an Australian election being determined by competing subjective assessments about poor handwriting is jarring, at odds with the rigorous procedural fairness so valued and so manifest in Australian electoral law and practice. AEC officials no doubt do their best, and must make thousands of these judgments in the course of closely scrutinised counts like the one in Bradfield. Indeed over the course of a career, many AEC officials must become some of the most experienced handwritten-digit distinguishers in the world. Nonetheless, challenges to their initial judgments can be made under section 281 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, reserving disputed ballots for determination by a more senior AEC official. Further challenges about the formality of these ballots can form the basis of a petition to the court of disputed returns. The last time the courts considered questions about ballot formality was in 2007 from the seat of McEwen. The resulting federal court case produced one of the more unusual judgments one will find in Australian law reports. Mitchell v Bailey (No 2) contains a lengthy tabular schedule, listing the disposition of 643 reserved ballots and – in 153 instances – reasons for Justice Richard Tracey's assessments about ballot formality differing from those of the AEC. Examples include comments such as 'Notations reasonably resemble numbers. In particular, three of them can be recognised as figures 7, 6, 5.' Why? How? Presumably, they just did to Tracey, just as they did not to AEC officials. No criticism of the late justice is intended; the point is to highlight just how subjective and hence seemingly unfair these assessments – and election outcomes – can appear. Tracey's observations and principles were adopted in their ballot formality guidelines. Given the rather exhaustive guidance provided by Mitchell v Bailey, what's left to dispute? Highly subjective judgment calls about handwriting is all that is left to fight over, something akin to Australia's version of the United States's unedifying hanging chad episode in the 2000 presidential election. Can we do better? Could an election really be decided this way? That one person's 7 is another person's 1? Here's a modest proposal. For decades we've been training computers to recognise handwritten digits, principally for making mail processing and delivery more efficient. Massive datasets of real, handwritten digits have become one of the touchstones of machine learning, test beds for refining algorithms and global competition among researchers. The best algorithms have 99.82% accuracy in recognising digits. And the AEC itself uses digital scanning to process Senate ballot papers. The outputs of digit recognition algorithms are probabilities, summing to 1 over the 10 possible digits, collapsing to a probability of almost exactly 1.0 on one candidate digit in most cases, but more spread out when processing poor, ambiguous handwriting. Algorithmically derived, rigorously validated on massive datasets spanning hundreds of thousands of handwritten digits, these probabilities could be a useful alternative – or at least a guide – in helping a judge determine whether a 1 is a 7, whether a 2 is an 8, and so on, and ultimately as to whether a ballot is formal or not. One simple decision rule might be to classify an ambiguous mark as that digit recognised with probability above 0.5, consistent with courts' reliance on the 'balance of probabilities' as a decision rule in many legal settings. Humans remain very much 'in the loop' in this process. The algorithms only assist in the hard cases: the ballots subject to dispute. Further, while digit recognition algorithms process single digits, ballot formality turns on whether a unique, valid enumeration of preferences or sequences of digits can be discerned, an assessment that considers not just individuals marks but the ballot as a whole. Surely this guidance could not only help the court in a practical sense (parsing hundreds of reserved ballots) but offer reassurance to the parties – and the voters of Bradfield – that the election is being finally decided rationally and with a degree of objectivity, consistent with the fairness integral to Australian elections. Simon Jackman is an honorary professor at the University of Sydney, specialising in elections, public opinion and data science
