u/Stompy2008

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has issued an “unequivocal” apology after comments he made on the Bush Deep podcast caused widespread condemnation.

Asked by the podcast host to play a game of “shag, marry, date” involving Kylie Minogue, Nicole Kidman and Rhonda Burchmore, he declared he would choose “all of the above” with pop icon Kylie Minogue.

The apology came quickly. But what if those same words were said at work?

I am not a political commentator. I am a workplace lawyer. And the answer, in my professional view, is that conduct of this kind in a workplace would very likely constitute sexual harassment, and the aggrieved person could, and often does, go straight to human resources demanding an investigation.

Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), sexual harassment occurs when a person engages in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in circumstances in which a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the recipient would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.

Critically, the test is objective. It does not require proof that the perpetrator intended to cause offence – only that a reasonable person would have foreseen that possibility.

A common misconception is that sexual harassment requires physical contact. It does not. Verbal conduct alone is sufficient. A game in which named individuals are ranked by whom a participant would have sex with, marry, or date is objectively offensive because it is a hypothetical exercise of a sexual and romantic nature directed at real people who have not consented to being ranked in that way.

“Cultures are informed by the worst behaviours leaders are willing to tolerate. Men in positions of power and influence must do better.”

It may pass as informal entertainment among teenagers, but the moment equivalent conduct is directed at named colleagues in a workplace, it almost certainly crosses the line. The law does not carve out an exception for conduct dressed up as a game.

In the 2014 case of Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd, the full Federal Court awarded $130,000 in general damages to a victim of verbal sexual harassment. This landmark decision put beyond doubt that Australian courts treat verbal conduct with the same seriousness as physical harassment. Courts and tribunals assess the nature and impact of conduct, not how the perpetrator chose to characterise it.

Internationally, a United Kingdom employment tribunal found last year that a “snog, marry, avoid” game played by Derbyshire police officers using images of sex workers constituted sexual harassment under the UK Equality Act, describing it as “crass and inappropriate”. There is every reason to expect a comparable outcome in Australia.

The legal framework around the prevention of sexual harassment in Australia has grown stronger under the Albanese government. Following the Respect@Work reforms of 2022, employers now carry a positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment before it occurs, not merely to respond to complaints after the fact.

Organisations must actively foster a culture in which this kind of conduct is unacceptable. Employers who fail face vicarious liability under section 106 of the Sex Discrimination Act and increased regulatory scrutiny from the Australian Human Rights Commission.

The Respect@Work reforms were championed by the Albanese Labor government itself. The prime minister stood behind laws requiring employers and leaders to proactively eliminate exactly this kind of conduct. He did so rightly because words matter and culture starts at the top.

His apology was swift. But apologies do not change the underlying conduct. If a manager or colleague made these comments in any Australian workplace tomorrow, they may well lose their job. If I were advising the employer, they certainly would because to eliminate sexual harassment, there must be zero tolerance and tough consequences.

Workplace cultures are informed by the worst behaviours leaders are willing to tolerate. Men in positions of power and influence must do better. The standard the law demands is not a high bar. It is simply basic respect.

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy sparked chaos in federal parliament on Thursday after branding Liberal Party founder Sir Robert Menzies a “Nazi appeaser” to burnish his claim that “only Labor can be trusted with our ­national security”.

Mr Conroy lashed the conservative icon who took Australia into World War II, telling the ­National Press Club that Labor’s defence commitments were grounded in an ethos of “progressive patriotism”.

The attack prompted a furious response from the Liberal Party hours later in the House of Representatives, where Manager of Opposition Business Dan Tehan was twice hit with gag motions as he sought to censure Mr Conroy over the comment.

Amid the uproar, Labor member for Gellibrand Tim Watts branded Menzies a “coward” – a comment he later withdrew following an opposition request.

As Mr Tehan and Leader of the House Tony Burke argued over the censure motion, Mr Conroy was standing ready to table a letter from Menzies to Australia’s high commissioner in London mulling over negotiations with Adolf Hitler just eight days after committing Australia to war.

The September 11, 1939, letter, marked “Secret”, was first released in 2001 and has formed the basis for the “appeaser” claim, which is challenged by conservatives.

In it, Menzies said he was confident “Hitler has no desire for a first class war” and “it is really quite indefensible for us to be dictating to the German people what sort of government they shall have”.

“My great hero is John Curtin,” he said. “I consume his bio­graphies. I’m very interested in disclosing what really happened before World War II and during World War II, where it was a choice between John Curtin and Nazi-appeaser Robert Gordon Menzies.

“This is really important stuff that the Left needs to embrace more fully.”

He said when the Nazi leader offered to negotiate, “we will have a choice: we can either say ‘Yes’ or we can say ‘No’.

“If we say ‘No’, we must settle down to a war in which Germany’s defensive position is incredibly strong, in which, in the long run, millions of British and French lives will be lost, and in which the economic force which will be our ultimate weapon will tend to affect us almost as severely as it does ­Germany.”

A post on the Robert Menzies Institute website says Menzies “was essentially thinking out loud to a friend, but this aspect of the letter was inevitably downplayed by those who wished to claim its significance”.

In the same Press Club address, Mr Conroy mistakenly referred to Labor’s “Chris Fisher” rather than Andrew Fisher, as the founder of the Royal Australian Navy, but said that as a “bipartisan sort of dude” he was happy to acknowledge the role of Liberal prime minister Alfred Deakin, who laid the groundwork with Britain to establish the fleet.

The Albanese government is seeking to stamp out criticism of AUKUS within its own ranks and believes it has headed off a revolt over the $368bn submarine program at the upcoming ALP nat­ional conference. It has also sought to discredit those who argue its defence budget is insufficient to deliver on its capability ambitions.

Mr Conroy spruiked a suite of reforms, including stripping the Defence Department of responsibility for procurement and maintenance through the creation of a new Defence Delivery Group, and making Vice-Chief of the ­Defence Force Robert Chipman responsible for capability development.

He said the changes would ensure “accountability will be king”, revealing at least $29bn had been wasted over the past decade – including four years under Labor – because the department’s systems were “not fit for purpose”.

“These reforms are essential, and show that only Labor can be trusted with our national security,” he said.

He struggled when tackled on whether “accountable” meant commanders and senior executives would be sacked if they failed to perform, accusing a journalist of trying to snare him in “hypotheticals”.

“Well ‘accountable’ is taking responsibility for decisions, learning from those decisions and ultimately if decisions are made poorly, changing personnel at some stage,” Mr Conroy said. “You’re trying these word games, but it’s the nature of these positions that we want them to succeed.”

Opposition defence spokesman James Paterson called on Mr Conroy to apologise for what he branded a “baseless and grubby smear … As prime minister between 1939 and 1941, Menzies prepared Australia for war and did not hesitate to join the fight against the Nazis on September 3, 1939, the same day the UK did so,” Senator Paterson said.

“In opposition, he loyally supported the Curtin government in Australia’s fight against fascism. A minister in the defence portfolio should never engage in partisan historical revisionism no matter how desperate they are to distract from their own failings.”

A spokesman for Mr Conroy said he would not apologise and would continue to argue the point.

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy sparked chaos in federal parliament on Thursday after branding Liberal Party founder Sir Robert Menzies a “Nazi appeaser” to burnish his claim that “only Labor can be trusted with our ­national security”.

Mr Conroy lashed the conservative icon who took Australia into World War II, telling the ­National Press Club that Labor’s defence commitments were grounded in an ethos of “progressive patriotism”.

The attack prompted a furious response from the Liberal Party hours later in the House of Representatives, where Manager of Opposition Business Dan Tehan was twice hit with gag motions as he sought to censure Mr Conroy over the comment.

Amid the uproar, Labor member for Gellibrand Tim Watts branded Menzies a “coward” – a comment he later withdrew following an opposition request.

As Mr Tehan and Leader of the House Tony Burke argued over the censure motion, Mr Conroy was standing ready to table a letter from Menzies to Australia’s high commissioner in London mulling over negotiations with Adolf Hitler just eight days after committing Australia to war.

The September 11, 1939, letter, marked “Secret”, was first released in 2001 and has formed the basis for the “appeaser” claim, which is challenged by conservatives.

In it, Menzies said he was confident “Hitler has no desire for a first class war” and “it is really quite indefensible for us to be dictating to the German people what sort of government they shall have”.

“My great hero is John Curtin,” he said. “I consume his bio­graphies. I’m very interested in disclosing what really happened before World War II and during World War II, where it was a choice between John Curtin and Nazi-appeaser Robert Gordon Menzies.

“This is really important stuff that the Left needs to embrace more fully.”

He said when the Nazi leader offered to negotiate, “we will have a choice: we can either say ‘Yes’ or we can say ‘No’.

“If we say ‘No’, we must settle down to a war in which Germany’s defensive position is incredibly strong, in which, in the long run, millions of British and French lives will be lost, and in which the economic force which will be our ultimate weapon will tend to affect us almost as severely as it does ­Germany.”

A post on the Robert Menzies Institute website says Menzies “was essentially thinking out loud to a friend, but this aspect of the letter was inevitably downplayed by those who wished to claim its significance”.

In the same Press Club address, Mr Conroy mistakenly referred to Labor’s “Chris Fisher” rather than Andrew Fisher, as the founder of the Royal Australian Navy, but said that as a “bipartisan sort of dude” he was happy to acknowledge the role of Liberal prime minister Alfred Deakin, who laid the groundwork with Britain to establish the fleet.

The Albanese government is seeking to stamp out criticism of AUKUS within its own ranks and believes it has headed off a revolt over the $368bn submarine program at the upcoming ALP nat­ional conference. It has also sought to discredit those who argue its defence budget is insufficient to deliver on its capability ambitions.

Mr Conroy spruiked a suite of reforms, including stripping the Defence Department of responsibility for procurement and maintenance through the creation of a new Defence Delivery Group, and making Vice-Chief of the ­Defence Force Robert Chipman responsible for capability development.

He said the changes would ensure “accountability will be king”, revealing at least $29bn had been wasted over the past decade – including four years under Labor – because the department’s systems were “not fit for purpose”.

“These reforms are essential, and show that only Labor can be trusted with our national security,” he said.

He struggled when tackled on whether “accountable” meant commanders and senior executives would be sacked if they failed to perform, accusing a journalist of trying to snare him in “hypotheticals”.

“Well ‘accountable’ is taking responsibility for decisions, learning from those decisions and ultimately if decisions are made poorly, changing personnel at some stage,” Mr Conroy said. “You’re trying these word games, but it’s the nature of these positions that we want them to succeed.”

Opposition defence spokesman James Paterson called on Mr Conroy to apologise for what he branded a “baseless and grubby smear … As prime minister between 1939 and 1941, Menzies prepared Australia for war and did not hesitate to join the fight against the Nazis on September 3, 1939, the same day the UK did so,” Senator Paterson said.

“In opposition, he loyally supported the Curtin government in Australia’s fight against fascism. A minister in the defence portfolio should never engage in partisan historical revisionism no matter how desperate they are to distract from their own failings.”

A spokesman for Mr Conroy said he would not apologise and would continue to argue the point.

A Victorian man has been ­arrested after the murder of a teenage girl whose naked body was found inside a suitcase alongside a railway line in Thailand.

Simon Carman 46, reportedly of Ballarat, was arrested in Thailand over the killing of 17-year-old Thai girl Tunchanok Donhomla as he tried to board a Jetstar flight to Perth at the Suvarnabhumi International Airport in Bangkok on Friday evening.

His arms and neck bore scratch marks at the time of his arrest, according to Thai media.

Investigators say Mr Carman picked up the teenager from the Beach Rd vice strip in Pattaya – a popular coastal ­resort city about two hours from Bangkok – in the early hours of Thursday before the pair travelled to the man’s hotel.

CCTV footage shared online by Thai media shows the pair holding hands while walking past a security guard and into an elevator at 3.30am on Thursday.

Colonel Anek Sarathongyu, superintendent of the Pattaya City police station said: “The cameras show that nobody else entered the (hotel) room. There were signs of a struggle inside.”

Hours later, a man believed to be Mr Carman can be seen in footage leaving the hotel with a black suitcase about 9.30pm and then riding a motorcycle with the luggage strapped to the back.

Ms Donhomla was reported missing by her friends at 5pm on Friday. Two hours later, police ­arrested the Australian at the airport and took him back to Pattaya.

About 11pm, officers reportedly found Ms Donhomla’s naked body bent double in a 66cm black suitcase alongside a railway line – about 10 minutes from the hotel where the man had been staying.

A murder conviction in Thailand can carry the death penalty or imprisonment of up to 20 years.

Colonel Sarathongyu said: “The victim went to the hotel room with the suspect, but she was not seen leaving. Then, later, the Australian came out with a suitcase.

“The victim was found dead inside the same suitcase. She was completely naked, her face showed signs of severe assault, with swelling and bruising covering the entire face, and blood was flowing from her mouth and nose.

“The physical characteristics and tattoos on the body matched those of the girl on CCTV with the suspect.”

Footage shared online shows members of the police forensics team gathering around and examining the luggage. In a video taken while he was in custody, Mr Carman speaks to the camera saying he felt “very bad”.

“I feel bad for what happened to your daughter, it was out of my control,” he said.

“Um, I know you will be very sad, upset, same me. It shouldn’t happen and I hope you OK. I know you’re not, but I hope. Please tell other girls … just to be careful,” he added.

Another video showed a reporter at the police station asking Mr Carman if he killed the girl.
“No,” he replied.

When questioned about visible scratches on his neck, he said: “I have the same on the other side; I think it’s a spider, they always get in here.”

Colonel Sarathongyu said the suspect “has initially been charged with taking a minor for the purpose of committing an indecent act”. “We believe he killed her, and he is being questioned on suspicion of murder,” he said.

“He has fingernail scratches across his body that are consistent with a struggle, but he denies killing her. He said that ‘she disappeared from the room while I was asleep and unaware of anything’.”

In Thailand, murder can carry the death penalty or life in prison.

A Canberra spokesman said: “The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is providing consular assistance to an Australian detained in Thailand.

Owing to our privacy obligations we are unable to provide further comment.”

This video addresses whether a person who has a YouTube channel or a Facebook page, or another social media or internet site, can be held liable for comments made by others on their site, if those comments are viewed by other people and breach the law by being defamatory, or inciting hatred on the basis of certain attributes.

It discusses the Voller case concerning defamation, and a number of other cases concerning anti-hatred laws.

All credit: Professor Emrita Anne Twomey, the Constitutional Clarion

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody has been accused of twisting legal protections for biological women “beyond all recognition” after she said trans women who are born male should be protected against discrimination from potential pregnancy.

Using the example of a job interview, Dr Cody said trans women are protected under existing discrimination laws if she is “asked whether or not she intends to have children … then doesn’t get the job because that employer doesn’t want to employ women who may be of child-bearing age, then she may have been subjected to unlawful discrimination on the basis of potential pregnancy.

“If someone is treated unfairly on the basis of pregnancy or potential pregnancy, then that is unlawful discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” she said.

The clash unfolded during Senate estimates on Tuesday with Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash repeatedly stating “a biological male can’t become pregnant”.

“It makes no sense. A biological man can’t get pregnant, Am I correct? Because if I’m not
“I’ve got to go back to school. I seriously do, because I missed that lesson in biology. I went to a convent school. The nuns may not have told me about it, but you said a biological man can’t get pregnant.

“So what stops a man putting on a dress, walking in and claiming the protections?”

Dr Cody said it would be “up to a court to decide whether or not it was discrimination” to which Ms Cash argued it showed a failing of the law.

“It is the absurdity of the law yet again, which shows it does need to be changed because for the record, biological men … cannot get pregnant

“It is an insult to women … when they biologically can get pregnant, but the good news is what we’re proving today is the law needs to be changed.”

It comes after Giggle for Girls app founder Sall Grover lost a Federal Court appeal to overrule a finding it discriminated against a transgender user Roxanne Tickle after she was excluded from the app based on a selfie submitted to the site.

Nationals MP Alison Penfold is also set to move a bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to include explicit protections for female services, spaces, and activities and say sex is biological and binary.

The Federal court has found Coles misled shoppers with illusory discounts including on baby formula and butter, vindicating the landmark court action taken by the competition cop.

The ruling puts Coles on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in penalties as its reputation on prices is shredded.

Federal Court judge Michael O’Bryan ruled on Thursday morning that 13 out of 14 sample products listed on “Down Down” promotions between 2022 and 2023 were misleading.

The “Down Down” tickets would not have been misleading if the products were held at a price for a period of 12 weeks immediately before they were placed on sale, Justice O’Bryan said.

“I have concluded that 13 of the 14 Down Down tickets … were misleading because the relevant products were not sold at the ‘Was’ price stated on the ticket for a reasonable period,” he said.

While Coles was accused of misleading customers with “Down Down” tickets on 245 household products, a two-week trial in February examined 14 sample products to determine the case.

One product was Karicare baby formula, which was available to consumers for $18 for about two years before it was hiked to $24 for three weeks. The formula was then placed on a “Down Down” discount for $21.

This is one of the 13 products Coles mislead consumers with following Justice O’Bryan’s ruling on Thursday.

The remaining 12 products, whose “Down Down” tickets mislead shoppers included a two-litre bottle of Coca Cola, multipacks of Arnotts Shapes, Rexona deodorant, Colgate toothpaste, YoPro vanilla yoghurt, Coles brand quince paste, Lurpak butter and Viva paper towel.

Justice O’Bryan ruled Coles did not mislead shoppers with its “Down Down” promotion on the Nature’s Gift dog food tins because a “Was” price was not included on the ticket.

The ruling means for the first time, it is clear that products must be available at one price for three months before they can be placed on a genuine discount.

It is a huge victory for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and its chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb who staked her reputation on a bombshell case against Coles as well as Woolworths that saw her battle the country’s two most powerful supermarket chains in a winner-takes-all court case.

Coles now faces a further hearing to determine fines and penalties it will face, as well as a battered reputation in the eyes of consumers after it was found that its promised discounts as part of a highly publicised “Down Down”.

Woolworths case

The decision could have huge ramifications too for rival Woolworths which is facing its own Federal Court ruling on a similar case brought by the ACCC.

In September 2024 the ACCC launched its high-stakes court case against the nation’s two largest supermarket chains Coles and Woolworths by accusing both retailers of promoting “misleading” discounts on hundreds of common supermarket products in a blockbuster court case.

The ACCC’s separate proceedings in the Federal Court alleged a breach of the Australian Consumer Law by “misleading consumers through discount pricing claims” on hundreds of popular food and grocery products.

The allegations related to products sold by Coles and Woolworths at regular long-term prices, which remained the same, excluding short-term specials, for at least six months and in many cases for at least a year.

The products were then subject to price rises of at least 15 per cent for brief periods, before being placed in Woolworths’ “Prices Dropped” promotion and Coles’ “Down Down” promotion, at prices lower than during the price spike but higher than, or the same as, the regular price which applied before the price spike.

The Federal court first dealt with the Coles court action which kicked off in February and was followed by the separate ACCC case against Woolworths which started in late April.

A Victorian man who said his feelings had been hurt after being told to cover up his “plumber’s crack” has been berated by the Fair Work Commission for filing an unfair dismissal case that wasted the workplace arbiter’s time.

In a decision published last week, Fair Work Commission deputy president Alan Colman said he threw out a case filed by a Woolworths employee seeking compensation from the supermarket giant for a dismissal that never occurred.

“Anyone wanting insight into the phenomenon of unmeritorious claims in the Fair Work Commission may wish to consider [this case],” Colman said, noting such cases compounded the commission’s “burgeoning workload”.

Earlier this year, Fair Work Commission president Justice Adam Hatcher said he expected close to 55,000 cases to come across the arbiter’s table this financial year, up 70 per cent in the space of three years. “There is no sign of this growth trend plateauing out, and we have no idea what the ‘new normal’ will be,” he said at the time, blaming applicants’ use of AI tools.

The worker who filed the case against Woolworths said he was told by a co-worker during a casual shift – in rude terms – to cover up his so-called “plumber’s crack” (or, as Colman described it, “the cleft of his bottom [which] was protruding from his trousers”).

“[He] was upset,” Colman said. “His feelings were hurt. He lodged an application alleging that he had been dismissed in breach of his workplace rights.”

However, Colman said Woolworths was not aware of any dismissal involving the man, and that he was never dismissed.

“[Woolworths] said that [he] continued to work shifts after lodging his claim and that he later stopped turning up for work,” he said. “This case had nothing to do with dismissal. It was evidently a speculative claim made in pursuit of a monetary settlement that would spare Woolworths the nuisance of defending it.”

Colman said the man ignored his direction to attend the telephone hearing for the case and noted that this was the individual’s fifth application in two years.
Cases such as this one are unfair, Colman pointed out because the claimant often has little to lose and because they use up the commission’s resources and waste time.

“This is unfair to respondents who have no case to answer,” he said.

“It is unfair to applicants with cases of substance waiting their turn to be heard. There is no effective disincentive for speculative claims, and so they come, in great numbers, compounding the commission’s burgeoning caseload.”

Hi all - we’re travelling in later this week via LA and have 2 days a planned in SEKI. I understand we’ll need to have snow chains in the car, and depending on conditions and if we’re in a AWD/4WD as to whether they’re required, however how are road conditions at the moment? The idea of driving through any sort of snow or ice scares the daylights out of me, we’d be visiting sometime over the next 7 days so any on the ground feedback would be great.

We’re staying in Three Rivers, on day 1 was planning to go to General Sherman, Congress Trail and possibly Moro Rock, Day 2 we were planning to go to an early morning hike up to the Watchtower and then continue on to part of the lakes trail (Heather lake, possibly on to emerald lake), and in the afternoon head into kings canyon (General grant, grant grove, grizzly falls etc) - also keen for any feedback on this plan.