DOCSLIB.ORG

REUNION Judging the Family Court

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REUNION Judging the Family Court REUNION Judging the Family Court by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB 6 Copyright Mary Maxwell 2019 Permission is hereby granted for anyone to copy this book for personal use. Key words Reunion, Protective parent, The Family Court Survey, Fixated Persons Investigation Unit, Rilak v Tsocas, Truth Commission, parental alienation, Don Rufty, Senator Nancy Schaefer, Russell Pridgeon, law maxims, Dunblane massacre, Tim Minogue, Parent Responsibility Contract, Franca Arena, Beaumont children, Matthew Condon, Freda Briggs, Fitzgerald Inquiry, Carol Woods, George Potkonyak Author’s websites: ProsecutionForTreason.com, and MaxwellforSenate.com Front cover: Dr Russell Pridgeon, giving his historic speech in front of courthouse, Brisbane, April 5, 2019 2 For Lily and Landen 3 4 Peter Lewis (1940-2015), Speaker of the House in the South Australian Parliament: I [was] bringing some of the people who had made the allegations to the point where they might pluck up enough courage and confidence and swear the truth of those allegations, enabling them to be more carefully investigated. But they were being ‘bumped off’– that is, murdered and viciously assaulted – quicker than I could get them to write down their allegations. The most outrageous thing of all [is] the related and organised activities of those pedophiles in high public office – that is, the judiciary, the senior ranks of human services portfolios, some police and MPs, across the nation…. Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, June 11, 2008: We realize that by separating children from parents, we undermined [that child’s] ability to parent, and sowed the seeds for generations to follow and we apologize for having done this. 5 6 PREFACE Who would believe that Family Law courts are corrupt? Who would believe that governments of US, Australia, UK, and Canada steal children and get away with it? Almost certainly it’s a global racket. We must end it. The way I came into this odd story was through a beautiful member of the McIntyre family of Adelaide, Rachel Vaughan. Her father, Max McIntyre, died in 2017 at age 89. He was quite a terrible human being. He was employed by a powerful pedophile ring and did any murders they ordered. This book isn’t about those murders, nor is it about child sexual abuse. Granted, it’s set against a background of an existing pedo-and-trafficking system (which is global and therefore our judges are probably under foreign instruction!) but there won’t be nitty-gritty here about sex. My concentration is on the law. We need our law. Our law is fabulous (when it is not being perverted.) This book says ‘Legal kidnap’ is illegal. Judges can take your kids away without so much as a by-your-leave. They can order the removal of a baby from the hospital on the day it’s born. “Unjust!” you cry.” “Outrageous! I’ll fix that guy’s wagon.” No, you won’t because there is a tight system to lock you out of the civil courts, and to legally prevent you from exposing your plight to media. It really outdoes Kafka. 7 The second half of the book is about solutions. Once you have become aware that “legal kidnapping” by the courts is taking place, and you realize it is criminal, you can crack down on the miscreants. Prosecuting them and suing them to within an inch of their wallet is possible. But so is getting the children reunited with family. Perhaps some readers picking up this book do not know of the disrespect with which many a parent has been treated by so- called child-protection agencies. I will briefly state it now. To my amazement I have heard from mothers that they are allowed only supervised visits with their darling children – usually once a week or a fortnight, located at a governmental place where the interaction of kids and parents is watched through a two-way mirror. There, I said it. Did you faint on the floor? Good. Many parents have been broken by this persecution. I am not talking about a parent who has choked her child – we would all approve of supervised visits. I am talking about a parent who, say, let dirty dishes pile up at home. Is that the state’s business? They claim it is. (Faint again.) I can tell you more. The parent may be instructed not to hug her child duting the “visit,”, or say “I love you,” or even give him a gift. We know this is wrong. It’s wrong on the face of it. Also, she, the mum, will be asked to prove over and over that she’s not a mental case. (Remember, this is for “dishes.”) Note: the same can happen to a father. Family law is the great equalizer. For reasons of my slightly odd research background, I know a lot about the efforts to change our culture that have been undertaken for decades, clandestinely. So I “get it” re the supervised visit nonsense. It is part of a so-called experiment 8 to see how far a person can hold out against frustration, confusion, deprivation and humiliation. (Remember Abu Ghraib?) But I’m not having it. We need to stop all such cruelty. It’s time to terminate the whole gig. I think it is the judiciary that needs to be held to account. They are, in the end, the kidnappers. Let’s just stop honoring the kidnappers. Nevertheless, reunion is the goal in this book. Punishing the bad guys has its place, but only a secondary place. I seem to write a lot of books about how to punish bad officials. This is not the career I want! I’d like to kick aside my PhD in Politics and study the lilies of the field. All right. Time to jump onto the case. Please join me! Note: This book incorporates articles that I published at GumshoeNews.com, which is based in Melbourne. So when I say “in this country” I mean Australia. I was born and raised in US. My Bachelor’s degree is from Emmanuel College, Boston; my law degree is from University of Adelaide, with part of it completed in Germany. Mary W Maxwell, LLB February 28, 2019 UPDATE: I originally provided a downloadable copy of the February 2019 edition of this book. Some may have it on file. It was called “Reunion and Family Law.” But subsequently I revised it and changed the subtitle to “Judging the Family Court.” This is the May 2019 version, with Dr Russell Pridgeon on the cover. Same title: Reunion. Same game plan: reunion. 9 South Australia Supreme Court Schedule of Fees General Fees as at July 1, 2018 (www. courts.sa.gov.au): On filing an application for disclosure of documents before the commencement of a proceeding: $429.00 On filing to commence a proceeding in the Supreme Court: $2526.00 On filing a summons for permission to appeal: $429.00 On filing a notice of appeal for which permission to appeal is required: $2,097.00 On setting a date for trial: $2526.00 On filing a notice of appeal of an appeal as of right: $2,526.00 Copying: For a copy of a document: $4.90 per page (other than a copy of evidence). For copy of evidence -- per Page in electronic form $8.10. Per Page in hard-copy form $10.40 For copy of reasons for judgment: $8.10 per page [wow] Trial fee -- For each day or part of a day on which the trial is heard by the Court $2,526.00 For opening Court (or Court remaining open) after hours for urgent hearing: $1,169.00 per hour or part of an hour. [Emphasis added] 10 What ever happened to the Magna Charta, of 1215 AD: “We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs … forever…. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.” 11 CONTENTS Preface 7 Part One: “Legal” Kidnap Is Illegal . 1. Introduction to the Plan for Reunion 18 2. Four Whistle Blowers 25 3. Visits, Parental Alienation, Responsibility Contracts 30 4. The Lullaby of Law and George Potkonyak’s Insights 36 5. Contempt, Suppression, and Parliamentary Privilege 43 6. Is It the Money? 49 7. Is It the Sex? 55 8. A Ton of Enforcement 59 9. A Dearth of Enforcement 65 10. Truth Commissions (Plural) Are Needed Now 71 Part Two: Analyzing the Issues 11. Freda Briggs Summarizes It to the Royal Commission 77 12. McLachlan’s Survey and Kriss’s Crie de Couer 82 13. Rilak Case: Recusal, Mandamus, Abuse of Process 89 14. The Perfect Crime: Family-Court-Ordered Rape 95 15. Police State, CIA, Tavistock, Childrens Courts 102 Part Three: Operation Crackdown 16. Purge the Bench – Make Way for Great Judges 110 17. Sue for Damages or Seek to Constrain by Injunction 117 18. Think Maximally: High Principle Did Not Die 121 19. Prosecute Accomplices and Accessories to Crime 125 20. Declaratory Judgment, Mandamus, Coram Nobis 130 12 21. Legislate To Upgrade the Law, Run for Office 135 22. Demand an Inquest into Any Suspicious Death 141 23. Catch the Structural Problem: the Office of DPP 145 24. Defrock ’em: Doctors, Lawyers, Journalists, Cops 151 25. Citizen’s Arrest, Outlawry, Legal Self-Defense 155 Part Four: The Bigger Picture 26. Dr Richard Day Has Meltdown at Adelaide Fringe 159 27. We Can Learn a Lot from Dunblane 164 28. Fitzgerald Inquiry: Queensland Police Corruption 173 29. What Kind of Future Would You Prefer? 179 30.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case Study 12
    1 REPORT OF CASE STUDY NO. 12 The response of an independent school in Perth to concerns raised about the conduct of a teacher between 1999 and 2009 JUNE 2015 Report of Case Study No. 12 2 ISBN 978-1-925289-26-8 © Commonwealth of Australia 2015 All material presented in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses). For the avoidance of doubt, this means this licence only applies to material as set out in this document. The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses). Contact us Enquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document are welcome at: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse GPO Box 5283 Sydney, NSW, 2001 Email: [email protected] Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au 3 Report of Case Study No. 12 The response of an independent school in Perth to concerns raised about the conduct of a teacher between 1999 and 2009 June 2015 COMMISSIONERS Justice Jennifer Coate Commissioner Bob Atkinson AO APM Commissioner Andrew Murray Report of Case Study No. 12 4 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au 5 Table of contents Preface 1 Executive summary 5 1 Introduction 18 1.1 The school 18 1.2 YJ’s employment at the school 18 1.3 YJ’s convictions
    [Show full text]
  • Progress in Responding to the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
    110 Ordinary Session of Synod : Proceedings for 2013 Progress in responding to the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse Purpose 1. To inform the Synod of progress in the response of this Diocese to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse (Commission). Background 2. As at the date of this Report, key matters concerning Royal Commission and its work may be summarised as follows – (a) The Commission has been charged with examining the sexual abuse of children in the context of institutions throughout Australia including churches and their agencies; (b) Other unlawful or improper treatment of children that accompanied child sexual abuse will also be considered by the Commission; (c) The Commission will obtain much of its evidence from the experiences of the individuals involved and will endeavour to ensure there are no obstacles to individuals giving their accounts to the Commission; (d) The Commission will identify where systems have failed to protect children and make recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse in institutions; (e) The Commission will last for at least 3 years (2013 to 2015) and will submit an interim report after 18 months (30 June 2014) to provide early findings and recommendations and to advise if time beyond 3 years is required; (f) The Commission is able to conduct hearings in different parts of the country concurrently and will run both private and public hearings; (g) The Commission is conducting
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Failures of Australia to Protect Against And
    THE FAILURES OF AUSTRALIA TO PROTECT AGAINST AND PROVIDE REDRESS FOR THE SYSTEMIC SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND COVER-UP BY CATHOLIC CLERGY AND OTHER INSTITUTIONAL OFFICIALS Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee Against Torture In Connection with its Review of Australia 53rd Session, November 2014 I. Reporting Organisation This report is submitted by the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests – Australia (SNAP) which has provided support to and sought justice and healing for Australian survivors of clergy sexual abuse for the past five years. SNAP Australia is part of an international network that was founded 25 years ago by a small group of survivors of rape and sexual violence committed by clergy within the Catholic Church. Today, the Network has over 20,000 members in 79 countries with support groups in 65 cities.1 Since 2011, SNAP has been working for accountability in international legal mechanisms for the widespread and systemic rape and sexual violence within the Catholic Church.2 Further to that effort, SNAP, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, submitted a Shadow Report and Supplemental Report to this Committee during its 52nd session in connection with its review of the Holy See. II. Summary of the Issue: The Failures of Australia to Protect Against and Provide Redress for the Systemic Sexual Violence and Cover-up within the Catholic Church and other institutions A. Institutional Sexual Violence in Australia We respectfully refer the Committee to the Shadow Report and supplemental submission in connection with the review of the Holy See for an overview of the global dimensions of the issue and the policies and practices of the Holy See that serve to subvert national systems and obstruct the right to redress.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Solomon Solon 1270287
    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ International criminal courts and the introduction of the Daubert standard as a mode of assessing the psychological impact of warfare on civilians a comparative perspective Solomon, Solon Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DAUBERT STANDARD AS A MODE OF ASSESSING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF WARFARE ON CIVILIANS A Comparative Perspective Solon Solomon A thesis submitted to King’s College London Dickson Poon School of Law for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: The Question of the Daubert Standard Application in International Criminal Law as a Mode for Assessing Warfare’s Psychological Toll on Civilians ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • 27 July 2015 the Hon Justice Peter Mcclellan AM Chair Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
    27 July 2015 The Hon Justice Peter McClellan AM Chair Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse GPO Box 5283 Sydney NSW 2001 Dear Hon Justice McClellan Allegations of child sex abuse at the Nauru Regional Processing Centre We write to request the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse (Commission) to investigate the response of the Commonwealth and its Australian contractors to allegations of child sex abuse at the Nauru Regional Processing Centre (Centre). We are aware that this issue has previously been raised with you by Senator Hanson-Young and that you informed her by letter dated 7 May 2015 of the Commission’s view that 'it cannot investigate events that occur within another country'. With respect, we consider that the Commission can and should investigate the following matters connected to allegations of child abuse at the Centre: 1. The actions of Commonwealth employees at the Centre; 2. The actions of contractors engaged by the Commonwealth at the Centre; 3. The role and responsibility of the Commonwealth for child abuse occurring within the centre; and 4. The response of the Commonwealth to reports of child abuse occurring within the Centre. The Commission can investigate The attached Memorandum of Advice, dated 14 July 2015 and prepared by Kristin Walker SC and Simona Gory, explains the basis for our view that the Commission has jurisdiction to investigate the matters set out at 1-4 above. In summary: It is settled that the Royal Commission Act 1902 (Cth) authorises the Commonwealth to establish commissions of inquiry into extraterritorial matters, so long as the inquiry is for a purpose of government and 'is connected with the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth, or any public purpose or any power of the Commonwealth'.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of New South Wales Contents
    ANNUAL REVIEW 2009 Supreme Court of New South Wales CONtENtS Foreword by Chief Justice of NSW 1 1 2009: An Overview 2 • Refurbishment of the Law Courts Building in Queens Square 3 • Notable judgments 3 • Court operations 3 • Education and public information 3 • Consultation with Court users 3 2 Court Profile 4 • The Court’s jurisdiction and Divisions 5 • Who makes the decisions? 9 - The Judges 9 - Appointments and retirements 10 - The Associate Judges 11 - The Registrars 11 • Supporting the Court: the Registry 12 3 Caseflow Management 13 • Overview by jurisdiction 14 • Regional sittings of the Court 19 • Alternative dispute resolution 20 4 Court Operations 21 • Overview of operations by jurisdiction 22 – Timeliness 26 – Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution 28 5 Education and public information 29 • Judicial officer education 30 • Public education programme 31 • The role of the Public Information Officer 32 6 Other Aspects of the Court’s work 33 • Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 34 • JusticeLink 34 • Law Courts Library 34 • Admission to the Legal Profession and appointment of Public Notaries 35 • Admission under the Mutual Recognition Acts 37 • Administration of the Costs Assessment Scheme 38 • Pro Bono Scheme 38 • Judicial Assistance Program 38 7 Appendices 39 • i. Notable judgments – summaries of decisions 40 • ii. Court statistics – comprehensive table of statistics 55 • iii. The Court’s Committees and User Groups 62 • iv. Other judicial activity: Conferences, Speaking 69 Engagements, Publications, Appointments to Legal and Cultural Organisations,
    [Show full text]
  • BAR NEWS 2019 - AUTUMN.Pdf
    THE JOURNAL OF THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | AUTUMN 2019 barTHE JOURNAL OFnews THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | AUTUMN 2019 WE ARE THE BAR A special edition on diversity at the NSW Bar ALSO Interview with The Hon Margaret Beazley AO QC news An autopsy of the NSW coronial system THE JOURNAL OF NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | AUTUMN 2019 bar CONTENTS THE JOURNAL OF THE NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | AUTUMN 2019 02 EDITOR’S NOTE barnews 04 PRESIDENT’S COLUMN 06 OPINION The Bar under stress EDITORIAL COMMITTEE A three-cavity autopsy of the NSW coronial system: what's going on inside? Ingmar Taylor SC (Chair) news Gail Furness SC An ambitious water plan fails to deliver Anthony Cheshire SC Farid Assaf SC Clickwrap contracts Dominic Villa SC THE JOURNAL OF NSW BAR ASSOCIATION | AUTUMN 2019 18 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Penny Thew Daniel Klineberg 39 FEATURES Catherine Gleeson bar Lyndelle Barnett Data on diversity: The 2018 Survey Victoria Brigden Juliet Curtin Breaking the culture of silence - sexual harassment at the Bar Kevin Tang Advocates for Change - Jane Needham SC Belinda Baker Stephen Ryan Advocates for Change - Hament Dhanji SC Joe Edwards Bar Association staff members: Advocates for Change - Andrew Pickles SC Michelle Nisbet Race and the Bar Ting Lim, Senior Policy Lawyer ISSN 0817-0002 Disability and the Bar Further statistics on women at the New South Wales Bar Views expressed by contributors to Bar News are not necessarily What is the economic cost of discrimination? those of the New South Wales Bar Association. Parental leave - balancing the scales Contributions are welcome and Working flexibly at the Bar - fact or fiction? should be addressed to the editor: Ingmar Taylor SC Avoiding the law; only to be immersed in it Greenway Chambers L10 99 Elizabeth Street Untethered: ruminations of a common law barrister Sydney 2000 Journey through my lens DX 165 Sydney Contributions may be subject to Socio-economic ‘diversity’ at the New South Wales Bar editing prior to publication, at the Katrina Dawson Award recipients discretion of the editor.
    [Show full text]
  • FROM SPCC V CALTEX to DATE*
    ENVIRONMENT CRIME IN CONTEXT: FROM SPCC v CALTEX TO DATE* Justice Peter McClellan Chief Judge at Common Law Supreme Court of New South Wales 10 December 2009 Justice Stein was sworn in as a judge of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court in June 1985. Justice Stein was not one of the original judges – the court had been operating for some four years before he joined it. But he came at a critical time. The jurisprudence was still in its infancy. Many of the principles developed by the court were identified by Justice Stein. His grasp of the contemporary issues facing our environment and his capacity to reflect them with clarity in his usually short but comprehensive judgments ensured that his approach to many problems would become an essential principle of environmental law. Throughout all of our adult lifetimes the appropriate use of our natural and man made resources has proved a divisive issue. I doubt that any sensible person would suggest that we should not create a built environment appropriate for our needs and reflective of the aesthetic values which prevail in our community. At times those values may not be in harmony across the entire community. The individual aspirations of some may clash with the * Paper presented to the Law Council of Australia, special conference in honour of Paul Stein AM, 10 December 2009. - 1 - aesthetic ideals of others. Although we accept and encourage diversity we all have a threshold beyond which the diverse becomes the discordant. These issues are generally resolved through processes which provide for a decision to be made by an elected person or their delegate.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Assembly
    12323 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 7 March 2001 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. AUDIT OFFICE Report Mr Speaker, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, tabled the Performance Audit Report entitled "Ambulance Service of New South Wales—Readiness to Respond", dated March 2001. Ordered to be printed. CASINO CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL Bill introduced and read a first time. Second Reading Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [10.01 a.m.]: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This legislation will implement many of the recommendations made by Mr Peter McClellan, QC, as a result of last year’s inquiry into the operations of Star City Casino. For the benefit of honourable members, I will give some background to that inquiry. The casino legislation requires the Casino Control Authority, at least once every three years, to investigate whether the casino operator, Star City, is suitable to continue to give effect to the casino licence and the casino legislation, and whether it is in the public interest that the casino licence should continue in force. The authority must report its findings and opinion to the Minister, giving reasons, and it must take whatever action under the casino legislation it considers appropriate in light of the findings. The Authority is empowered to appoint an outside person to conduct an inquiry that would assist it to undertake a section 31 investigation. In May 2000 the authority appointed Mr Peter McClellan, QC, to conduct an inquiry for this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW METHOD with EXPERTS – CONCURRENT EVIDENCE Hon
    JCIMCCLELLAN_NEW METHODS WITH EXPERTS 3-9.DOC (DO NOT DELETE) 3/21/2011 3:35 PM NEW METHOD WITH EXPERTS – CONCURRENT EVIDENCE Hon. Justice Peter McClellan* The title of this journal captures two certainties: first, that no court system is perfect; second, that through joint endeavors, we are better placed to reach perfection. The launch of the International Judicial Institute for Environmental Adjudication provides a unique opportunity for judges, practitioners and academics to share insights from their own court systems and to benefit from hearing those of their overseas counterparts. The New South Wales Land and Environment Court The New South Wales Land and Environment Court (Court) was established under the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (N.S.W.). At the time of its inception, the Court was described as “a somewhat innovative experiment in dispute resolution mechanism.”1 The Court provides a specialized forum for the determination of land, environmental and planning disputes and has jurisdiction over judicial and merits reviews, civil and criminal enforcement and *Hon. Justice Peter McClellan is the Chief Judge at Common Law, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia; formerly Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. 1. P. Ryan, Court of Hope and False Expectations: Land and Environment Court 21 Years On, 14(3) J. ENVTL. L. 301 (2002) (U.K.) (citing N.S.W. Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 21 Nov 1979, 3349-50 (Hon. D.P. Landa). MCCLELLAN_NEW METHODS WITH EXPERTS.DOC (DO NOT DELETE) 3/21/2011 3:35 PM 260 JOURNAL OF COURT INNOVATION 3:1 appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1998 Sydney Water Crisis (C- Epilogue)
    CASE PROGRAM 2005-22.3 The 1998 Sydney Water Crisis (C- Epilogue) At 8.45 am on 30 July 1998, New South Wales Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning Craig Knowles, the Operating Licence Minister for Sydney Water, called Premier Bob Carr. During their discussion about the worsening state of affairs, they agreed that an inquiry should be held. Announced by the Premier later that day, the scope of the inquiry was to include: the cause of the contamination; how the incident was managed; and the adequacy of public notification. In the meantime, Knowles assumed control of the situation. He instructed his staff to prepare a press release and arrange a media conference which was designed to explain the actions being undertaken and allay public concern. By 4.30 pm, Knowles was convening a meeting between himself, the Premier, the Health Minister, NSW Health and Sydney Water. Managing Director Chris Pollett advised those present that the likely cause of contamination was the Upper Canal leading to the Prospect Plant, or backwashing conducted at the plant itself. On learning this, Director-General of NSW Health Michael Reid advocated an immediate extension of the warning. The Premier and Ministers agreed. The Premier then questioned Pollett about Sydney Water’s proposed solution to the problem. Pollett reported that the Upper Canal had been shut off and water was bypassing the Prospect Plant. Water for Sydney was now being drawn and chlorinated directly from Warragamba. A public statement to that effect was drawn up and disseminated that evening. The release also made reference to both Cryptosporidium and Giardia.
    [Show full text]
  • From One Prime Minister to Another
    GradLife inside WHITLAM PRIME MINISTERIAL COLLECTION Significant donations from veteran speechwriter Graham Freudenberg YOUNG WOMEN OF THE WEST AWARD The story of Najeeba Wazefadost CHANGING THE DYNAMICS Lindsay Charles’ engaging project with the Aboriginal community CHARTING 25 YEARS A published history of UWS GRADLIFE BENEFITS FOR ALUMNI from one Prime Minister to another VOLUME 3 ISSUE 1 redefining the Labor character JUNE 2011 GradLife CONTENTS From one Prime Minister to another 4 Veteran speechwriter makes donation to Prime Ministerial Collection 6 Najeeba – a young woman of substance 7 Changing the dynamics 8 London calls sound researcher 10 Behind the camera 11 Charting 25 years of history 12 Opinion piece: who or what is feeding the public debate on racism? 14 UWS NEWS 15 • UWS graduate takes Archibald Prize 15 • Gail Jones rings up five bells 15 • UWS research scores highly in national era report 15 • UWS Chancellor installed 16 • Boost to Indigenous employment and engagement 17 GRADLIFE 18 UWS Alumni GradLife benefits 18 UWS Foundation match alumni gift 19 ALUMNI ONLINE 19 Alumni social networking online 19 Working towards a better future for western Sydney 20 Military history through one family’s eyes 22 Mark’s drive to improve 23 Accountants build numbers 24 Climbing the ladder to partner 25 RECENT EVENTS 26 • UWSLA annual occasional address 26 • UWS open forum: should Australia keep growing? Immigration & multiculturalism seminar 26 • CAN function – pay vs passion 27 • December and April graduation ceremonies 27 • Business
    [Show full text]