Australia – Feminist Legal Clinic

Craig Silvey child exploitation material charges: Jasper Jones author fails to post bail | SMH

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Acclaimed Australian author Craig Silvey likely spent the night behind bars after failing to post his $100,000 bail on Tuesday over child exploitation material accusations.

The Fremantle-based writer, 43, was arrested at his home on Monday after he was allegedly caught by detectives “actively engaging” with other child exploitation offenders online.

He’s accused of having conversations with paedophiles where he expressed a sexual interest in children and distributed child exploitation material.

During his first appearance in Fremantle Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, prosecutors alleged the Jasper Jones author had refused to provide police with his passwords to access his phone, laptop and other electronic devices.

He was granted bail on the condition he live with his mother and report to police three times a week, however he did not post his $100,000 surety after the court appearance, and was transported to prison a short time later.

If he is bailed at a later date, he will be banned from being unsupervised around children, including his own, and is forbidden from using the internet.

The charges have shocked the literary world, with Silvey’s publisher, Allen & Unwin, halting promotion of his books as state education departments pull his novels from school bookshelves.

In the wake of the charges, WA Education Minister Sabine Winton ordered schools to remove the author’s books from their English courses.

“Jasper Jones and Rhubarb by Craig Silvey are two of these texts, with Jasper Jones also being one of 40 suggested texts that may be studied in years 11 and 12 ATAR and General English Courses.

“I have asked the Department of Education to ensure that schools cease using texts by Craig Silvey for the 2026 school year while the allegations are under investigation.”

The City of Subiaco, which runs the Craig Silvey Award for Young Writers, said the author would have no affiliation with the awards this year.

Source: Craig Silvey child exploitation material charges: Jasper Jones author fails to post bail

Western Australia gender clinic enables double mastectomies for teenage girls, secret document reveals | Bernard Lane |The Australian

The gender clinic at the Perth Children’s Hospital enables double mastectomies for its teenage female patients who identify as boys, according to an internal document the West Australian Cook Labor government tried to keep secret.

The four-year-old model of care document – abruptly tabled in state parliament in November after months of refusals to disclose it – reveals that the gender clinic will connect interested under-18 patients with private surgeons for “top surgery”, or mastectomy, while stressing the “personal responsibility” of the girl and her family for the choice.

There is no accurate public data on the extent of under-18 transgender mastectomy in Australia. Knowing the very idea is strongly opposed by mainstream opinion, activists downplay it or outright deny it happens, despite this surgery being documented in Family Court rulings.

In September 2016, a year after its formal start, the Perth gender clinic had 14 legal minors – patients aged under 18 – on puberty blockers. This number rose to 71 in the same month last year, an increase of 407 per cent. These figures were obtained under Freedom of Information law; the clinic does not publish regular treatment data.

Although the Perth Children’s Hospital gender clinic enables double mastectomies and a fast track to puberty blockers for younger minors “with a strong wish” to stop their natural puberty, the model of care is at pains to say it does not offer “extended or intensive counselling or psychotherapy”, nor formal diagnosis of autism or ADHD.

One of WA’s most distinguished physicians, Gary Geelhoed – who served as the state’s chief medical officer and assistant director-general for the WA Department of Health – told The Australian he believed it was “unethical” for female minors to be referred for mastectomies.

Professor Geelhoed, who also served as WA president of the Australian Medical Association, urged the medical profession to advocate for an Australia-wide ban on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery for gender-confused minors.

Source: The Australian

Women have fought hard to be recognised as farmers. There’s still more work to be done | The Conversation

Women’s labour has long been central to the success of Australian farming. But farming itself is still largely seen as a “masculine” job. That’s why the Australian women in agriculture movement has fought hard to change this perception.

Our research has reviewed the story and impacts of this movement over the past 40 years.

There have been some big wins for women – particularly in terms of cultural recognition. But they still do not have equal access to the economic rewards of farming.

In the 1990s, rural women started meeting and formulating agendas for change at what were known as the “Women on Farm Gatherings”.

In 1994, the movement was successful in challenging the existing legal status of women on farms as a “sleeping partner, non-productive”.

This impacted women’s position in divorce and injury settlements, impinging on their claims that they were contributors to the farm business and deserved recognition as such.

The movement was making gains in disrupting the masculine idea of what it was to be a farmer. But it also faced backlash.

Like many Australian women’s movements, the momentum of the rural women’s movement stalled from the late 1990s onward.

Farmers were encouraged to “get big or get out” to maintain farm viability. They were also encouraged to become more professional and entrepreneurial.

Policies targeted at women in agriculture and women in rural areas focused on tapping into rural women’s potential to make farms professional and less reliant on government support.

This included building skills related to the farm office. These programs helped to legitimise the policy of economic restructuring, as it was seen to be empowering for women.

These programs did little to improve women’s access to the economic rewards of agriculture. Key politicians still appeared to see women as secondary farmers.

For example, in 2013, then federal agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce said agriculture would “fall flat on its face without the prominent and incredible role that women play”, but then described that role as “basically as the assistant farm labourer, with the partner or with the husband”.

Women’s on and off-farm labour is crucial for family farm viability in Australia, but they still do not share equally in the economic rewards of farming.

The flexibility and underpayment of family labour is arguably one of the key reasons Australian farming remains largely in family rather than corporate hands.

This does not recognise women as independent farmers in their own right. It also reinforces and normalises women’s contribution to agriculture and rural communities as underpaid or unpaid.

Source: Women have fought hard to be recognised as farmers. There’s still more work to be done

Child abuse campaigners want reforms to Centrelink, insurance repayments from compensation – ABC News

When survivors of child sexual abuse receive compensation, many may have to repay Centrelink, Medicare and private health insurance amounts relating to their abuse.

While these amounts are taken into account when compensation is calculated, they are subtracted from the lump sum before the money reaches survivors’ bank accounts.

Mr Turner had to repay more than $90,000 to his private health insurance, relating to three stays at a mental health clinic during his criminal and civil proceedings.

“The view is that they have already compensated you enough in your settlement, but that’s a fallacy,”

he said.

Mr Turner believes the system should be streamlined, and any repayments should be accounted for early in the process so that survivors can plan for the full amount they will receive.

“The civil compensation journey is really quite long and arduous, to have a system where they also take another bite at the cherry, there’s no such word as closure,” he said.

Michael Bradley, managing partner at Marque Lawyers and a board member of the Grace Tame Foundation, supports the idea of a streamlined approach to limit the burden on survivors.

“Coming at the end of what has inevitably been a very traumatic process itself, it’s just sort of a bit of a final nail in the coffin,” he said.

The reason for the repayments is to prevent survivors from being paid twice by the government or insurance agency.

“The theory is if the Commonwealth has, through Medicare, paid you something towards that, then obviously that money should go back to the Commonwealth and back to the taxpayers,” Mr Bradley said.

“Otherwise, there’s a windfall gain.”

However, the process to calculate the required repayment amounts can take months.

Sexual Assault Services Victoria chief executive Kathleen Maltzahn supports a change to the compensation system and is pushing for further reforms.

“This is not like a Tattslotto win. This is a tremendously difficult process where someone has to explain the worst thing that ever happened to them, every decision they’ve made subsequently and wait essentially, for the institution to haggle over the price of the loss to their life,” she said.

“If you’ve paid your insurance dues and they’ve been written off, often many years ago, too late for the insurer to come back.

“If you’ve received the disability support payment for years when you had no prospect of having compensation, the government should just wear it.

Source: Child abuse campaigners want reforms to Centrelink, insurance repayments from compensation – ABC News

Daughters and Destroyers – by Jenny Nabben

The bitterest pill to swallow for many left-wing women is that many of the fiercest and most committed supporters of gender identity ideology, are themselves left-wing women: Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Anna Cody, Australia’s Governor-General, Sam Mostyn, Victorian State Labor Premier, Jacinta Allan and paediatrician and gender medicine zealot, Michelle Telfer.

By the 2010s women in the Labor political establishment began treating “woman” as a movable, inclusion-defined category. The women who once said – “keep men out of women’s refuges to protect women,” now say, “it’s violence to keep men out if they say they are women” and “woman” is a construct and defining “women” in terms of biology is oppression.” The domestic violence shelter is now mixed-sex, the shortlist half male, the rape-crisis hotline staffed by people with beards and anyone who objects is ‘transphobic’ or ‘far right’.

Given the incontrovertible biological and psychosocial differences between men and women, gender ideology is at root a linguistic Ponzi scheme that survives by avoiding meaningful debate, critique and analysis.

Source: Daughters and Destroyers – by Jenny Nabben

ABC admits failure over gender clinic court ruling | The Australian

The ABC has conceded it “could have done better” and “should have provided more coverage” of a landmark Family Court judgment which made damning findings about the conduct of Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital gender clinic.

Responding to a complaint letter from interest group Parents of Adolescents with Gender Distress, ABC Editorial Director Gavin Fang admitted the public broadcaster’s failure to provide any news coverage of Justice Andrew Strum’s Re Devin judgment earlier this year was a shortcoming, but denied it constituted a breach of editorial standards.

In June, in response to an application by The Australian, Justice Strum identified Royal Children’s Hospital chief of medicine Michelle Telfer as the medical professional he had accused in his April Re Devin judgment of giving misleading evidence in support of a mother who wanted her 12-year-old child to be prescribed puberty blockers.

The April ruling highlighted serious concerns about the RCH gender clinic’s practices, including the lack of a formal gender dysphoria diagnosis for the child after six years of treatment, and the failure to explore alternative treatment options.

Justice Strum also savaged Professor Telfer — the lead author of Australia’s guidelines on gender-affirming care — for cheapening the suffering of victims of Nazism, after she likened the UK’s Cass review, which recommended restrictions on medication for children with gender dysphoria, to the victimisation of LGBTIQ+ people by Nazis in the 1930s.

The ABC failed to provide any news coverage of the judgment whatsoever, with a Law Report episode on Radio National the broadcaster’s only mention of the ruling.

The letter referred to earlier complaints PAGD had made to both the Australian Communications and Media Authority and ABC Managing Director Hugh Marks, including a letter sent to Mr Marks in June regarding the Strum judgment.

“As parents of adolescents experiencing gender distress, we are alarmed that ABC News has not covered this landmark ruling, despite its significant implications for clinical practice, child welfare, and public policy,” the parents wrote.

“The ABC has previously featured (Professor) Telfer in positive profiles, such as on Australian Story, without adequately addressing criticisms or alternative perspectives on pediatric gender-affirming care.

“This omission risks presenting a one-sided narrative and undermines the ABC’s commitment to journalistic balance and impartiality, as outlined in its editorial policies.

A PAGD spokeswoman, whose name The Australian has agreed not to publish out of concern for her child’s privacy, said Mr Fang’s letter was the first time her organisation had received a response where they felt the public broadcaster had given any genuine consideration to their concerns.

The spokeswoman said she “absolutely” believed the ABC’s partnership with LGBTIQ+ activist organisation ACON had influenced its coverage of gender affirming care, and failure to cover the Strum judgment.

Source: ABC admits failure over gender clinic court ruling

Independent Review into puberty blockers released – Ministerial Media Statements

The Crisafulli Government has published the Independent Review Advice Report into the use of puberty suppression (Stage 1) and gender affirming (Stage 2) hormones for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria in Queensland public hospitals.
After considering the Review’s broad policy options, the Government will continue the pause on initiating Stage 1 and Stage 2 hormone therapies for minors with gender dysphoria in Queensland’s public health system, pending the results of the UK PATHWAYS TRIAL in 2031.
The Crisafulli Government remains committed to providing health care that is in the best interests of Queensland children and adolescents.

The Independent Review Advice Report is available here.

Source: Independent Review into puberty blockers released – Ministerial Media Statements

Why can someone in suburban Sydney own 6 guns legally? New laws might change that | The Conversation

Australians have watched on in horror as more details have come to light about the shooters in the Bondi terror attacks.

As people grapple with the tragedy, many wonder how such a thing could have happened in a country that has long prided itself on its tough gun laws.

The 50-year-old father, Sajid Akram, and 24-year-old son, Naveed Akram, had six guns. Police confirmed all of them were registered firearms. The father, who was fatally shot by police, had a recreational hunting licence and was a member of a gun club.

National Cabinet has since committed to a raft of new gun laws, including renegotiating the National Firearms Agreement, caps on the amount of firearms any one person can own and limiting open-ended licensing.

Gun control laws vary slightly in each state and territory, but are broadly similar. We’ll look here at the laws in New South Wales.

The first step is to apply for a firearms licence. As part of this, authorities will conduct a background check to ensure there’s no criminal history, including mental health orders or domestic violence charges.

The applicant must also pass the “fit and proper person” test. NSW Police says this test checks someone is “of good character, law abiding, honest, and shows good judgement”.

If these standards are met, a firearms licence is granted.

But in order to actually buy a firearm, people must apply for a “permit to acquire”. This is linked to the specific firearm they’d like to purchase. Subsequent guns do not need a waiting period as long as it’s in the same category they already have approval to own.

They must also pass a safety course, with both practical and theoretical components, including a written test.

Firearms, once acquired, must be stored in a specific way. Guns cannot be stored while loaded, for instance, and ammunition must be kept in a separate safe.

Finally, someone must have a “genuine reason” to buy a firearm. These include working as a primary producer, or participating in recreational hunting, among others. They need to prove a genuine reason for each and every firearm purchase. Personal protection is not a a genuine reason.

Applicants need to prove their reason is truthful. This may be proof of membership to a gun club, or a letter with express permission from the landowner on whose property they intend to hunt.

Importantly, if someone holds a firearm licence for recreational purposes, they must compete in a certain amount of competitions each year. In NSW, it’s two to four.

It’s not uncommon for people to have more than one firearm. Licensed firearm owners in NSW have an average of about four, according to a 2025 report.

Source: Why can someone in suburban Sydney own 6 guns legally? New laws might change that

ALRC surrogacy review: why process matters as much as principle – AAWAA

On 18 December, feminist organisations from across Australia will participate in a roundtable discussion on the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of surrogacy laws. This review will shape national policy affecting women and children for years to come. Yet the process through which this review is being conducted raises fundamental questions about impartiality, democratic participation, and compliance with Australia’s international human rights obligations.

Women’s organisations have been systematically excluded from early policy development, whilst those with direct financial interests in surrogacy expansion have shaped the review’s direction. The result is a predetermined framework that will be difficult to challenge, even as evidence of exploitation and harm mounts.

Based on an analysis of publicly available information, the ALRC’s advisory committee includes eight members with direct professional or financial interests in surrogacy expansion: fertility specialists, specialist surrogacy lawyers, surrogacy counsellors, and organisations advocating for surrogacy access.

This creates what governance scholars term ‘structural capture’: those advising on regulation of an industry are the professionals whose livelihoods depend on that industry expanding.

The governance failures documented above raise fundamental questions about the integrity of this review — questions that the Feminist Legal Clinic and other organisations in the coalition are also raising. The Commission should explain on the public record how the advisory committee was selected and assessed for independence from industry interests; how material and perceived conflicts of interest were managed for each member; why the Discussion Paper contemplates commercial surrogacy arrangements when the formal Terms of Reference direct the ALRC to focus on altruistic surrogacy; and on what legal and ethical basis private contracts between commissioning adults can override fundamental human rights protections.

Furthermore, the Commission cannot proceed with proposals to facilitate surrogacy without violating Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the sale of children: the Commission must explain to the Australian public why it is contemplating reforms that would breach these fundamental human rights protections, rather than upholding them.

Source: ALRC surrogacy review: why process matters as much as principle – AAWAA

The case of Kirralie Smith and how NSW’s anti-vilification laws are being weaponised against women | Women’s Forum

[F]or campaigning to protect women’s sport, Smith has now been subjected to nine separate rounds of litigation, including three applications for Apprehended Violence Orders (only one was upheld on appeal) and, most recently, two findings of unlawful vilification relating to her commentary about Stephanie Blanch and Riley Dennis – both trans-identifying male players competing in the women’s soccer category. This is the first time someone has been found guilty of “transgender vilification” in NSW.

The main judgments were handed down in August, but on Friday the Court imposed a $95,000 penalty ($55,000 to be paid to Blanch and $40,000 to Dennis), which doubles if not paid within 28 days, and ordered Smith to issue a public apology. She has said she intends to appeal.

Under NSW’s transgender vilification law (section 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977), a person commits unlawful vilification if a public act is capable of inciting “hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule” of someone because they are transgender, even if that was not the speaker’s intention.

Crucially, the test is purely objective: the Court does not need to find actual hatred, actual incitement, or any intention to cause harm. It is enough that the words could hypothetically cause someone to react strongly.

In Smith’s case, Deputy Chief Magistrate Freund found that describing trans-identifying male players as “he”, “male”, “man”, “fella”, “bloke”, “bloke in a frock”, posting or sharing publicly available images and sports statistics enabling identification of the players, and framing the participation of males in women’s sport as unfair, unsafe or deceptive “evoked fear” and could lead others to harbour “contempt”, “hatred” or “ridicule” of the players. What’s more, because Smith used real examples to illustrate the policy failures and did not have the players’ feelings front of mind, her advocacy was not protected by the Act’s section 38S(2)(c) exemption for acts done “reasonably and in good faith” for genuine discussion in the “public interest”.

[P]ersonal comments against Blanch and Dennis posted by others on Smith’s social media posts submitted in evidence and which contributed to the finding against her, highlight the importance of keeping criticism focused on policy, not people.

One of two things must happen in Smith’s case: The decision must be overturned on appeal, or NSW’s vilification laws must be reformed to ensure that genuine harassment is prohibited while political debate – especially advocacy for women’s sex-based rights – remains lawful. Women must be free to describe sex-based harms and use real examples without fearing financial ruin or prosecution. This is not merely a legal issue; it is a democratic one. The future of women’s sport, the rights, safety and dignity of women and girls, and free speech in Australia depends on restoring this balance.

Source: The case of Kirralie Smith and how NSW’s anti-vilification laws are being weaponised against women

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: