Abortion never the answer, says Libs candidate

Farrah Tomazin & Josh Gordon

A sitting Victorian Liberal MP is be­ing challenged for preselection by a pro-life campaigner who believes women should never have abortions, even in cases of rape.

Stephanie Ross, the partner of “Young Turk” and party numbers man Marcus Bastiaan, is preparing to challenge 65-year-old incumbent Gary Blackwood for his Gippsland seat of Narracan.

The looming preselection stoush has heightened concerns about a push to drag the Liberals further to the right, which many fear could hinder their chances of defeating Labor at the 2018 Victorian election.

Ms Ross, 25, is aligned with the Menzies branch of the party, which is controlled by conservative warrior and former defence minister Kevin Andrews.

While some argue the preselection of Ms Ross would give the Liberals some much-needed youth, and help narrow the party’s gender gap, others say her views on abortion are too “extreme”.

In a January 2015 interview with on-line magazine Vice, Ms Ross, a Catholic, argued women can “heal from rape”, and “there is no situation in which a child should be killed”.

Asked if a rape victim should have her baby, she told the publication: “Well she’ll never forget the abor­tion, which means she will never for­get the rape. Whereas, so many wo­men who are raped, they find love through their child, and they can grow or they can adopt and know they’ve given it a life. And they can heal from the rape, in a way,” she said in the article, “At Home With Three Young Anti-Abortion Protesters”.

“I still think that, because it is a human being, for me personally there is no situation in which a child should be killed.”

Ms Ross declined to comment, with party rules banning preselec­tion candidates from speaking pub­licly in the media. However, in a Face-book post confirming her nomina­tion on Friday [9 December], she argued that, in the face of the Hazelwood closure, the Narracan community “needs fear­less advocacy and the Liberal Party needs new faces and a fresh approach” to win the election.

In an opinion piece penned for Fairfax Media in November, Ms Ross, a self-described anti-family viol­ence advocate and founder of aged care service Kookaburra Care, also argued the focus of modern pro-life advocates should not be about cri­minalising abortion or shaming women, but “lowering the rate of abor­tion by addressing causational issues and promoting alternatives”.

Nonetheless, her preselection nomination is seen by some as part of a broader push by a group of Lib­erals aligned with party president Michael Kroger to redefine the power lines in the Victorian branch.

It comes a week after conservative Turnbull government MPs, including Mr Andrews, had been accused of recruiting members of hard-line micro-parties such as Family First and the Australian Christians, a move some insiders called “horrifying”.

Mr Kroger and state Liberal dir­ector Simon Frost declined to com­ment about Ms Ross’s pro-life inter­view, while Opposition leader Mat­thew Guy said: “I disagree with that view”.

From: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/prolife-campaigner-challenges-liberal-...

Euthanasia no substitute for palliative care


On a daily basis, Palliative Care Victoria receives distressed calls from people seeking help for someone who is dying and suffering needlessly.

In hospitals, aged-care facilities and homes across Victoria, people are dying difficult deaths without re­ceiving palliative care and the sup­port their carers need.

Inadequate training of health pro­fessionals in caring for the dying per­son creates a reliance on a small, specialist palliative care work force that cannot meet the current need.

The fact that too many Victorians are dying bad deaths is not news. A number of these difficult deaths have been the impetus for calls to legalise euthanasia.

Public attention has focused on the quest for euthanasia without giving adequate attention to the solution that 99 per cent of Victorians want: timely access to high-quality palliative care.

The reality is, many Victorians benefit from improved quality of life and die with dignity and in comfort with the support of palliative care. But we need to make this readily available to everyone. Many people don’t know about palliative care, many are not referred, and gaps in services mean many miss out.

Victoria’s Auditor-General high­lighted the need to improve palliative care in his April 2015 report, while The End of Life Choices Inquiry Report in June 2016 included 29 recom­mendations to improve palliative care. Much of the focus of the Vic­torian government’s response to the recommendations of the End of Life Choices Inquiry will be on its deci­sion to introduce legislation that would legalise a physician-assisted death for terminally ill people who meet specific criteria. This will be welcomed by those who seek this.

However, the vast majority of Victorians do not want to die by a lethal dose of drugs. They want the right to choose and receive high-quality palliative care.

People dying in suffering should be given the same priority as a per­son experiencing a heart attack or other life-threatening event. Sys­temic failures to provide safe neo­natal care or meet ambulance emer­gency response times are addressed by governments as urgent priorities.

Similarly, systemic failures in car­ing for dying people deserve to be addressed by the Victorian govern­ment with as much urgency and pri­ority. Euthanasia may become a choice, but it is not the solution.

The solution requires substantial increases in funding to improve ac­cess to high-quality palliative care and end-of-life care across Victoria. It requires urgent and full imple­mentation of Victoria’s new policy framework as a priority, along with the transparency of funding and ser­vice provision recommended by the End of Life Choices Inquiry.

Regrettably, increases in palliative care funding have declined in the past two years in spite of the recom­mendations noted above. Funding in Victoria is about one per cent of ex­penditure on public hospitals. To im­plement the recommendations of the Auditor-General and the End of Life Choices Inquiry, palliative care ser­vices need at least $50 million in ad­ditional funding each year, as well as substantial capital funding.

Without concerted and compre­hensive action to address the sys­temic failures in how we care for people who are dying across Victoria, there can be no genuine choice; we could only hang our heads in shame and mourn the loss of a truly com­passionate society.

Odette Wanders is chief executive officer of Palliative Care Victoria.

From: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/euthanasia-is-not-the-answer-for-the-vast-...

Andrews flags plan for historic change

Richard Willingham & Rania Spooner

Terminally ill Victorians could soon be able to legally end their lives, with Premier Daniel An­drews backing historic legislation to be introduced to Parliament next year.

If passed, the legislation could be the first in Australia to legalise euthanasia since the Northern Territory’s laws were quashed by the federal government two years after passing in 1997.

The Victorian laws would be im­mune from Commonwealth inter­vention.

The Victorian government will introduce a bill in the second half of 2017, with MPs from all sides of politics granted a conscience vote on the matter.

The bill will be drafted with the input of an expert panel over the next six months.

If the laws pass both houses of Parliament and come into effect, which is not a certainty, assisted dying would be available only to Victorian residents.

The earliest the laws could come into effect is 2019, with the commit­tee recommending an 18-month delay after they are passed.

Mr Andrews changed his mind to support assisted dying, as long as it has stringent oversight, after his father died earlier this year.

“My opposition to these laws for me was wrong,” Mr Andrews said.

“There is no reason for this to be anything other than a civil, serious, perhaps at times an intense debate, but it should be a respectful one.”

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy feared laws for assisted dying were a “political distraction” at a time when there was a “law and order crisis”.

The Andrews government said it would allow adults with decision-making capacity who are at the end of their lives and suffering from a terminal illness to be helped to die.

The laws are likely to require two doctors to sign off on any plan that would involve the prescription of a lethal tablet.

Those who are physically unable to take a tablet would be assisted by a doctor.

It will be consistent with the as­sisted dying regulations recom­mended in June by a cross-party committee following the inquiry into end-of-life choices.

A ministerial advisory panel made up of clinical, legal, con­sumer, health administrator and palliative care experts will help draft the laws. Crown counsel Melinda Richards, SC, will also ad­vise.

The challenge for the external panel is to work out who qualifies, what support and tools clinicians needed, how drugs are prescribed, and how doctors would qualify for practising assisted death.

Health Minister Jill Hennessy and Attorney-General Martin Pakula will oversee the bill’s pre­paration.

“It is time for us to put forward a proposition that gives people a choice about how they die when they face unbearable and unspeak­able suffering,” Ms Hennessy said.

The laws’ fate is likely to rest on the multi-party upper house, with many MPs expecting the proposal to pass the lower house.

The announcement comes after the government’s formal response to the end-of-life choices recom­mendations was tabled on Thurs­day [8 December] morning, which had not backed the scheme outright, instead say­ing more work still needed to be done.

Across the Parliament, MPs have indicated support for some type of scheme, with many saying they would support a law that had strict rules about who qualified for assistance in ending their lives, and assurance that there was strict oversight of the laws, to ensure that the vulnerable were not pres­sured into making such a final choice.

The formal response stated the plans outlined for assisted dying laws needed more work.

“Consistent with the introduc­tion of any new medical interven­tion or procedure, rigorous review of the assisted dying framework should be undertaken, including safety and quality considerations and the impact on wider health care delivery, including resource implication for palliative and end of life care,” it read.

The government has backed most of the report’s 46 recom­mendations, including calls to bol­ster palliative care services across the state and enable more Victori­ans to die at home.

Some of these were addressed by the state’s ambitious end-of-life framework, released in July, with a $7.2 million commitment to expand specialist palliative care services, and support GPs to assist people at home.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told radio station 3AW he did not support voluntary euthanasia.

The plan to take the legislation to Parliament next year came as a disappointment for Professor Peter Hudson, director at the Centre for Palliative Care at St Vincent’s Health, who has been outspoken against rushing into vol­untary euthanasia laws.

“The government appears to be predetermining any further exam­ination of the impact of euthanasia, which is a serious disappoint­ment,” he said.

For social historian and volun­tary euthanasia advocate Deb Campbell, the proposed frame­work doesn’t go far enough. She believes the proposed framework would “merely replace one set of gatekeepers with another, requir­ing people to get “permission to die from the medical profession”.

From: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorian-parliament-to-vote-on-assist...

A desperate plea is answered

Victoria’s move to help the terminally ill die is a welcome relief for the suffering.


News that the Andrews government will back the introduction of as­sisted dying legislation is good public health policy, long sought after by a clear majority of Victorians.

It comes off the back of a 10-month cross-party parliament­ary inquiry into end-of-life choices, which put forward undeniable evi­dence of suffering in our com­munity because of existing laws.

It found repeated examples, for those with a serious and incurable condition, of inadequate pain relief and of deep suffering beyond even the reach of palliative care.

It found doctors breaking the law and relatives risking being put on trial to relieve the torment of their patients and loved ones. And it tabled the testimony of Coroner John Olio, who detailed the horrific ways in which desperately ill Vic­torians are taking their own lives to end their agony.

This included the case of a 90-year-old man with cancer who killed himself in a particularly horrific way.

The coroner estimated the number of elderly Victorians taking their own lives to escape the rav­ages of incurable diseases at one a week. Faced with such evidence, the inquiry found a clear case for law reform.

Its recommendation was that voluntary assisted dying, with strong safeguards, be introduced as another option at the end of life. The law they proposed, and that the government will now consider, is conservative, offering relief from suffering to those who are in the “last weeks and months” of an in­curable illness.

They will have to be at a point, agreed by two doctors, where med­ically speaking there is no more hope. At that time they can be writ­ten a prescription for a lethal drink that they can choose to take — or not. Overseas experience shows that more than a third of patients choose not to; simply having the means to control the end being powerful palliation in itself.

Based on recent experience in South Australia, where similar le­gislation failed by just one vote to pass the lower house, politicians will be lobbied by church groups and conservative elements of the medical community. The key argu­ments they will hear are likely to be:

1. That assisted dying is “state-sanctioned killing”. This phrase will be hammered again and again, and it will dishonestly avoid the central fact that the law is to help those already being killed by an in­curable disease. Being voluntary, it is entirely up to the patient whether they choose to end the suf­fering caused by that disease.

2. The slippery slope. That pass­ing a conservative law will inevi­tably lead to wider ones over time. This argument says yes, we know that real people in our community are dying in agony or suiciding to avoid it, but we refuse to do any­thing about it for fear that, some­where in the future, a parliament may decide to help hypothetical other people.

It is also contradicted by North American laws, on which the com­mittee have largely modelled theirs, that have been unchanged since their introduction 20 years ago.

3. That more resources for palli­ative care will solve all suffering at the end of life. While the inquiry, quite rightly, recommends greater resourcing for palliative care, it is clear that this alone won’t fix the problem. In Palliative Care Australia’s own words, “even with optimal care we cannot relieve all pain and suffering”. Their statistics, collected every year from 106 palliative care units around Aus­tralia, prove it. The Victorian in­quiry found the same.

This is not a criticism. Australia has one of the best palliative care systems in the world. It simply re­flects the reality of modern medi­cine, which can keep us alive longer but can’t always treat what comes with that.

4. That granny will be coerced into ending her life so the family can get the inheritance. This has been tracked closely in jurisdic­tions overseas. Independent au­thorities there have found no evidence that it has occurred. The safeguards written into the legisla­tion have been proven to protect the vulnerable. Only those dying of an incurable illness can access this law. It is very hard for a greedy relative to coerce granny into an illness she doesn’t have. Even harder to coerce two doctors, whose work will be reviewed, to agree with her.

5. Do no harm. The AMA, which represents less than a third of Aus­tralia’s doctors, cites this as its guiding principle in opposing these laws. Other doctors see leaving a dying patient to suffer as the oppo­site of “do no harm”. Both are en­titled to their ethics. The question is, should one set of ethics be im­posed on everyone?

The answer, of course, lies in the proposed law, which is voluntary for doctors and nurses as much as for patients.

In giving evidence of elderly Vic­torians taking their own lives, Cor­oner Olle said of the families left to pick up the pieces: “They know this person is screaming for help, but no one is going to answer the call, not in this society.”

Victoria now has a chance to be the society that does.

Andrew Denton is a television personality and campaigner for legalising assisted dying.

From: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/euthanasia-move-is-conservative-but-correc...

Catholic school probed on alleged $5 million “rort”

A Catholic school in Melbourne's south-east is being investigated by the schools' watchdog over explosive claims of a $5 million state government funding rort.

The alleged scam was carried out at St John's Regional College in Dandenong. It is understood it involved exploiting government training subsidies by dishing out cooking qualifications to students who never received any training.

Many of the students caught up in the alleged scam did not attend the school, and some were adult migrants who had studied overseas and wanted to quickly gain an Australian qualification.

The Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority confirmed it was investigating the training delivered by the school – which is also a registered training organisation – as part of a joint probe with the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria and the Victorian Department of Education.

Forensic auditors have seized school files and notebooks to try and work out what happened to the missing millions.

While training rorts have plagued the private college sector, this is believed to be the first scandal of this scale involving a Victorian school. It is particularly sensitive for Catholic Education Melbourne, which prides itself on ensuring government funds are not misappropriated.

The school's canonical administration – which is made up of local priests – sacked the former principal Andrew Walsh and former business manager Mark Siwek in September after the revelations came to light.

The Age is not suggesting that Mr Walsh or Mr Siwek were involved in the alleged scam.

The school's newsletter said that Mr Walsh left "suddenly for a range of reasons including family health reasons".

It is understood that he was upset and shocked when he was asked to leave the school he had run for almost eight years.

The school is located in a disadvantaged area, and almost half of its students have a language background other than English.

None of the money reaped through the alleged rort is believed to have been spent on students, and it is not known where it went.

Many regular students enrolled at the school have received proper training and there are fears their qualifications will be tainted by the alleged fraud.

The federal government's My School website shows that the school's income from other sources soared from $642,746 in 2012 to a staggering $5.9 million in 2013. In 2014, the school reaped $5.1 million from other sources.

On Monday, the blinds were drawn at the school's graduate restaurant, which is where the alleged fraud was believed to have taken place. Coffee cups were neatly stacked next to the espresso machine, and white serviettes were neatly folded in preparation for the next diners.

VRQA director Lynn Glover said that the investigation was initiated following complaints.

"The investigation is ongoing and it is therefore inappropriate for us to make further comment at this stage," she said.

A 2014 VRQA audit identified "non-compliance" but Ms Glover decided to renew the college's registration as a training organisation until April 2019.

The watchdog refused to release the audits, citing privacy concerns.

An Education Department spokesman said the school had held contracts to deliver state government funded training from 2011 to 2015. But it was unsuccessful in its bid for a 2016 contract.

The spokeswoman would not say how much funding the Catholic school had received under the Victorian Training Guarantee, or for how many students, citing commercial in confidence.

A Catholic education spokesman said it was inappropriate to comment while an investigation was under way.

An auditor-general's report released earlier this year found little evidence that state government grants for non-government schools, estimated to be $676 million this year, were being used appropriately.

St John's Regional College, Mr Walsh and Mr Siwek were contacted for comment.


What next for dying with dignity?

He’s the progressive premier whose reforms include same-sex adoption, decriminalising medicinal cannabis and putting safe access zones around abortion clinics. But this week, Daniel Andrews and his government will address what could arguably be their toughest social policy challenge yet: dying with dignity.

• What’s happening?

Put simply, the government has until Thursday [8 December] to respond to a parliamentary report that recommends Victoria legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill people.

That report, by the bipartisan Social and Legal Issues Committee, was based on a 10-month inquiry, an overseas tour of assisted dying ré­gimes, and more than 1300 submissions, most of which favoured reform.

The government now has a number of options: reject the committee’s recommendation; accept it and introduce legislation; accept it in principle but refer it to an agency (such as the Law Reform Commission) to work out the details; or deal with it through a private member’s bill (the Greens are already preparing one in case the government doesn’t act).

• So does this mean Victoria could become the first Australian state to legalise euthanasia?

Not quite. It’s important to note that the committee’s recommendation doesn’t actually call for voluntary euthanasia, which involves ending another person’s life to relieve their suffering. Instead, it specifically suggests a new “assisted dying” framework, whereby a doctor could prescribe a lethal drug that would be taken by the patient.

The key difference is self-administration. The only exception to the rule would be in cases when people were physically unable to take a lethal drug, in which case, a doctor could assist.

• But are there enough safeguards?

The model proposed by the committee has many; whether it’s enough is a matter of opinion.

Firstly, a patient must be a permanent adult resident of Victoria, have a “serious and incurable condition”, and be in the final weeks or months of their life.

They must also have decision-making capacity (which rules out people with dementia and Alzheimer’s), and the request must be approved by a primary doctor and an independent secondary doctor. For further oversight, a new End of Life Commission has also been proposed, along with an End of Life Review Board, which would examine each case and ensure doctors have complied with their requirements.

• So what are the chances the Andrews government will change the law?

Not bad. Given the public momentum and Labor’s record of progressive reform in Victoria, some believe the time is now.

It’s no coincidence, either, that soon after the report was tabled, more than half of cabinet’s 22 ministers lined up to openly declare their in-principle support for a shift, including Health Minister Jill Hennessy, Treasurer Tim Pallas and Attorney-General Martin Pakula.

All seven Green MPs and the Sex Party’s Fiona Patten also want reform, along with a number of Liberals.

This is worth noting, given that any future bill would ultimately be decided on a conscience vote in the 88-member lower house and the 40-member upper house.

• But hasn’t the Victorian Parliament tried - and failed – to deal with this already?

Correct. Eight years ago, Greens MP Colleen Hartland introduced a private member’s bill to legalise physician-assisted death, but it was immediately voted down in the upper house: 25 votes to 13.

But a lot has changed since then, including community momentum, with some polls now suggesting that up to 70 per cent of Australians want voluntary euthanasia legalised.

That’s not to say the issue won’t be fiercely contested again: it will be, particularly among religious groups, some sections of the medical community and conservative members of parliament.

Labor also has some members who would likely vote against a bill, particularly those aligned with the Catholic-based “shoppies” union (parliamentary secretary Daniel Mulino, for instance, sat on the committee but wrote his own “minority report” raising concerns about appropriate safeguards).

• What about Andrews? What does he think?

Therein lies the million-dollar question.

At a Melbourne Press Club lunch in June last year, I asked the Premier whether he supported voluntary euthanasia, and his position was clear.

“I don’t support, at this stage . . . making the sort of change that some people would like to make, but I do readily acknowledge that there is certainly more momentum, and there is perhaps more public support for this change than there has ever been,” Andrews said at the time.

But since then, his position has noticeably softened in the wake of his father’s death from cancer.

“If you search your conscience, and you search your own personal experience, I think more and more Victorians are coming to the conclusion that we are not giving a dignified end, we are not giving the support, the love and care that every Victorian should be entitled to in their final moments,” he said in September.

Thursday is deadline day. Watch this space.

From: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/explainer-the-push-towards-a-dyingwith...

Family First, conservative Christians join the Victorian Liberals

Conservative Turnbull government MPs are recruiting members of hardline micro parties such as Family First and the Australian Christians, in a move described as a "horrifying" lurch to the right that could thwart the Liberals chances at the next Victorian election.

Former defence minister Kevin Andrews is believed to be attending micro party meetings and holding church-based community forums in a broad bid to attract more members from the religious right, sparking deep divisions in the state branch.

In a statement to Fairfax Media, a spokesman for Mr Andrews did not confirm or deny the claims, other than to say the MP "encourages people who share the values of the Liberal Party to join".

Deakin MP Michael Sukkar argued that getting more members into branches was critical to fighting Labor's well orchestrated grassroots campaigning, adding that those opposing new memberships were using fears of Christian conservatives as "a red herring".

And some in the minor parties are also pushing for a shift, saying that the federal Senate reforms had stymied their electoral prospects and prompted them to rethink their political strategy.

"Conservatives are concerned that we're losing our voice, so it's fair to say that a number of people are going over," said Peter Bain, who ran for Family First in the July poll and is now one of several ex-candidates applying for Liberal membership.

The targeting of micro parties follows revelations there had been a concerted recruitment drive – led by Brighton branch president Marcus Bastiaan – targeting Mormon and evangelical churches as well as probus and community groups.

Mr Bastiaan has also been at the centre of branch-stacking allegations plaguing the Liberal Party more broadly this week, with claims of enrolment "irregularities" designed to sway the outcome in Saturday's preselection battle for the prized state seat seat of Brighton.

However, Mr Bastiaan - an ally of party president Michael Kroger - has denied any wrongdoing, telling Fairfax Media: "Branch-stacking allegations are false and politically motivated. Statewide membership drives are an ongoing strategy to turn around our party's collapsing membership.

"With the average age of members over 70 and less than 15 per cent who are under the age 40, the party has an immense amount of work to do to rebuild a dynamic base to win and hold government."

The push to get more people from the religious right to join the Liberals is likely to pose a challenge for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who many believe is already beholden to the hardline conservatives within his ranks.

And with opposition leader Matthew Guy keen to capture the political middle ground against Daniel Andrews, state MPs are also concerned it could hinder their chances in the 2018 Victorian poll, or result in an "uprising" of candidates in future elections with single-issue agendas, such as winding back abortion laws.

"It's horrifying. If we become a more right-wing party there is no way we will win the election," said one senior Liberal source.

Another MP told Fairfax Media: "We've had a strong two years, but if this shit gets any worse, I think it could really undo us."

The changing ideological fault lines have also caused tensions among the micro parties, with DLP state MP Rachel Carling-Jenkins saying: "I am a true representative of the conservative voice here in Victoria. I am aware of, and distressed by, the move to leave minor parties like Family First and Australian Christians, to join the Liberal party."

But others say it's a necessary shift, given Liberal membership in Victoria has dropped by 1800 compared to 2014. In the past 12 months membership has increased just 220.


Yeshivah leaders “enabled” child abuse

Leaders at Yeshivah Melbourne and Yeshiva Bondi have been accused of failing to report child abuse to police and allowing paedophiles unfettered access to children, in strongly-worded findings of the royal commission.

Investigations into child sexual abuse at the religious Jewish institutions uncovered a "pattern" of inaction in responding to reports of abuse, according to findings released by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse on Tuesday.

In the face of repeated reports of child abuse, leaders at the Orthodox centres - which operate as synagogues, schools and community hubs - assured victims they would act in defence of the victim, but no action was ultimately taken, the commission said.

"We were told that the responses of leadership groups to the adverse experiences of survivors and their families ranged from inaction to enabling those adverse experiences. The responses were perhaps in part to protect the reputations of individuals or the institutions concerned."

Four survivors of abuse and several rabbis and community leaders, gave evidence about the the scale of child abuse at Yeshivah Centre and the Yeshivah? College in Melbourne and Yeshiva? Centre and the Yeshiva College Bondi, in public hearings last year.

Convicted paedophiles accused of sexual abuse allegations at the hearings included Shmuel David Cyprys, Rabbi David Kramer and Daniel Hayman.

Despite victims' allegations of abuse, paedophiles had a "continued association with, presence at or employment at the institutions", the commission found.

Abuse was often not reported to police due to a Jewish law, known as Mesirah, which some interpret as forbidding a Jew from handing over another Jew to a secular authority.

As a result, victims who reported their abuse to police were treated as "outcasts", the commission heard.

Evidence from victims at Yeshivah Melbourne, including outspoken advocate Manny Waks and his father Zephania Waks, showed leaders and community members ostracised and reprimanded victims for speaking out.?

"Criticism of those who spoke out was forceful," said the commission, noting there were "many occasions" where leaders at Yeshivah Melbourne failed to advocate for victims and educate the community about religious obligations to report child abuse.

From 1984 to 2007, the Yeshivah College Melbourne "did not have adequate policies, processes and practices for responding to complaints of child sexual abuse", the commission said.

The commission said the former board member of Yeshiva in Sydney, Rabbi Yosef Feldman, said he 'didn't know much about sex abuse at all' and that 'it didn't enter into [his] mind the whole idea of what's considered a legal crime or not; what should be reported to the police or not'.

"He said that he had only recently learnt of the serious criminal nature of child sexual abuse," the commission said.

In 2011, Rabbi Feldman wrote an email to other rabbis questioning the need to immediately report child molestation to police.

The commission said Rabbi Feldman supplied the Australian Jewish News with a false statement of his views to defend his reputation, and accused him of prioritising the "perspective of the perpetrator rather than that of the victim".

It was unclear, the commission said, whether Yeshiva Bondi had implemented child protection measures.

Yeshivah Melbourne however, had taken "significant steps in implementing structured child protection measures, including drafting formal policies and giving training to children, parents and staff," the commission said.

A statement from the directors of Yeshivah Centre, Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah Schools and Chabad Institutions Victoria, said the centre "deeply regrets its failure to protect those who were victims of child sexual abuse perpetrated by people in a position of trust in the Yeshivah Centre and its schools".

Gavriella Aber, Head of Teaching and Learning at Yeshiva College in Bondi, said the school was under "new management" and was committed to child protection.

Yeshiva Centre in Bondi did not respond to Fairfax Media.


Make churches pay up


Churches should be forced to contribute to the compensation scheme or lose tax exemption.

As someone who has followed the child sex abuse royal commission with horror and fury, my de­sire (make that demand) has been consistent: make them pay!

My greatest fear was that those innocents, whose dignity, self-esteem and human rights were ripped away by those they trusted, would be abused all over again in their quest for justice. The retelling of their stories would be mere fodder for a news cycle, and then, once the hearings concluded, we would all tut-tut and go our merry way, grateful that “times have changed” and the culpable institu­tions had “learnt a lesson”.

But justice has arrived, for living victims at least. Last Friday [4 November], the Social Services Minister, Christian Porter, announced a national com­pensation scheme with payments to victims of up to $150,000. One entity would process claims, with federal backing, thus cutting red tape.

I was jubilant. But I kept reading and my anger returned. Not only is the maximum amount $50,000 lower than the commission’s sug­gested cap, but a clause allows the (mostly religious) institutions and the states to opt out of contributing.

Talk about a kiss followed by a kick; this is immoral. Allowing the wealthy religious institutions that committed heinous crimes against children to have an option to pay or not is obscene.

Care Leavers Australia Net­work’s chief executive, Leonie Sheedy, says compensation from the states and institutions respons­ible should be mandatory, given that many of the religious institu­tions have a poor track record of supporting people who were abused. She also raises a very inter­esting argument: any charity or re­ligious organisation that refuses to contribute to the scheme should lose their [sic: its] tax exempt status.

Hallelujah! The issue of tax ex­emption has for too long been un­questioned, and the government won’t be keen to revisit the issue, given the party is run by a handful of right-wing Christian fanatics. But it’s time this ridiculous indem­nity was debated.

Under Australian law, religious organisations are deemed “charit­able” and thus exempt from tax, which adds up to an estimated $30,000 million (the Catholic Church ac­counts for about half) annually.

To be recognised as charitable, the institution should provide: the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, and “other purposes bene­ficial to the community”.

However, in 2014, a Charities Act was introduced expanding the stat­utory definitions of “charity” and “charitable purpose” to recognise other attributes including: advan­cing health, education, social or public welfare, religion, culture, re­conciliation, mutual respect and tolerance; promoting or protecting human rights, advancing the secur­ity or safety of Australia or the pub­lic, preventing or relieving the suffering of animals, and advancing the natural environment.

All of these are supposed to be “for the public benefit” and, as such, are accepted as charitable and ex­empt from certain taxes. And fair enough. In most cases, their public benefit is duly noted.

Yet religious institutions such as the Catholic Church are also cam­paigning against same-sex mar­riage, excluding women in their hierarchies, teaching that homo­sexuality is immoral, backing cam­paigns against legal abortion rights, perpetuating the nonsense that is creationisrn, scaring children with threats of hell and damnation, preaching virgin births, sea part­ings and resurrection. Can this work be deemed “charitable” and of “public benefit”?

Where the money goes to hospitals, refuges and the like, no tax should be re­quired. But the income from mas­sive property portfolios and related investments, really?

And consider Scientology, cre­ated by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, which decrees that, 75 million years ago, a dictator called Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth in spacecraft, drop­ped them in volcanoes and then blew them up with hydrogen-like bombs. The spirits of these aliens, called thetans, inhabit humans and can only be eradicated by spending thousands of dollars to become “clear”. This institution, too, is tax exempt. A recent documentary, Going Clear, reported that it is worth $US1750 million ($A2200 million) glob­ally, and takes in about $US200 mil­lion a year.

Meanwhile, Hillsong Church pul­led in an estimated $100 million last year, all tax exempt because it is a religious institution. Similarly, the huge Sanitarium Health and Well-being Company, wholly owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, doesn’t pay tax on the $205 million earned last year alone.

Are these institutions really “for the public benefit”, and thus de­serving of tax indemnity?

The royal commission has provided an excel­lent opportunity to look closely at just what the “charitable” and “public interest” output of religious institutions really covers. Too many of them have considered them­selves untouchable in the past. It is time to make them pay.

Wendy Squires is a Fairfax Media columnist.


“God gave me a licence” to grow pot, court told

A man accused of growing cannabis in his vegetable patch told police that God had given him a licence to do so, a court has heard.

Police searched Matthew and Elizabeth Pallett's Carrum Downs home last May, and found about 15 and a half kilograms of cannabis in various forms, ledgers referring to the people they provided it to and drug paraphernalia, the County Court heard on Thursday.

Mr and Mrs Pallett have each been charged with one count of cultivating cannabis. Both maintain their innocence.

Prosecutor Andy Moore told a jury on the first day of their trial: "They both freely admitted to growing cannabis plants. They said they did it for medicinal purposes but each acknowledged they didn't have a licence [to do this]."

He quoted Mr Pallett as saying in his police interview: "God gave me a licence. He's the only one who can issue a licence."

Mr Moore said the couple had told police they did not operate a commercial business but made "medicinal cannabis" to help alleviate the pain of sick people, including cancer patients.

Mr Pallett had described the couple's home as a "civilian medical clinic" while Mrs Pallett had told police they "used cannabis to cure cancer cells" and other conditions, he said.

The prosecutor also said the couple had argued that the law which prohibited growing cannabis was wrong, with Mr Pallett saying cannabis itself was harmless, and that "helping people avoid pain and death is not a crime".

Mr and Mrs Pallett, who are representing themselves in court, did not give an opening address. A number of their supporters attended court.

Mr Moore told the jury the prosecution would argue that the pair had broken the law by growing cannabis, regardless of "however pure and humanitarian the motive of the accused may well be".

He said jurors' role was to objectively analyse the evidence presented.

"This is not a test case about medicinal marijuana or cannabis, or whether the accused are good or well-motivated people at heart, or whether the law as it exists should be changed."

The trial, before Judge Bill Stuart, continues.


Syndicate content