Jury to deliberate after Kiama MP's eight-week trial
Gareth Ward, the NSW independent MP for Kiama, was charged in March 2022 with three counts of assault with act of indecency, an alternative charge of common assault against an 18-year-old man at Meroo Meadow in 2013, and intercourse without consent against a 24-year-old man in Potts Point in 2015.
Since his arrest three years ago, the 43-year-old has denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty to all counts.
In the Darlinghurst District Court on Tuesday, Judge Kara Shead SC finished her summing up of the case, and reminded the jury the onus of burden to prove each of the counts remains on the prosecution.
After eight weeks of evidence, the jury are expected to begin their deliberations on Wednesday morning.
In her closing address, Crown prosecutor Monika Knowles told the jury it is 'not a coincidence' that two men came forward with similar allegations.
However, defence barrister David Campbell SC told the jury the crown had not discharged the burden it has in either of the two complainant's cases.
The barrister urged the jury to find the MP not guilty on all counts.
Mr Ward is alleged of assaulting a man, who had just turned 18 at the time of the alleged assault at Mr Ward's South Coast home in February 2013.
It is also alleged the MP sexually assaulted another man – who was 24 at the time – at his Potts Point apartment in September 2015.
The 43-year-old was charged by police in March 2022.
Beginning his political career in 2011, Mr Ward was a councillor on the Shoalhaven Council before becoming the Liberal member for Kiama in 2011, a seat he has held since.
He also held the role of NSW Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services for just over two years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
28 minutes ago
- ABC News
Labor seeks to legislate to protect penalty rates for award workers
Workers employed under the award system could not have penalty or overtime rates bargained away under new government legislation to be introduced in the House of Representatives today. The bill is a response to a proposal from the retail employer lobby to allow some low-paid retail managers to opt out of those entitlements in exchange for a 35 per cent pay rise, a matter currently before the Fair Work umpire. The Albanese government took the unusual step of making a submission to Fair Work, arguing that pay loadings in awards were a safety net for low-paid workers and should be protected, and had foreshadowed legislation to override the matter. The bill would prevent Fair Work from varying any award to reduce or substitute either overtime or penalty rates, which Workplace Relations Minister Amanda Rishworth said would protect the "safety net" for Australia's 2.6 million award workers, roughly one in every five of the total number employed. "Hard-working Australians rely on penalty rates and overtime rates to keep their heads above water, which is why this bill is so critical," she said. The award system, which sets out minimum pay and conditions for all workers in certain sectors, has declined in usage over time as the alternative approach of bargaining has grown, but it remains common for staff in retail, hospitality, and the care sector. The proposal to vary the retail award applied to store managers earning between roughly $54,000 and $62,000, and was backed by Coles, Woolworths, Kmart, and Costco. The legislation is likely to draw frustration from industry groups and support from unions and the Greens, although a party spokeswoman told the ABC it had not made a decision yet. Shadow Industrial Relations Minister Tim Wilson said the Coalition had been briefed on the bill, and is not yet guaranteeing his party's support either. "When it comes down to it, we have concerns about making sure it doesn't hurt small businesses. "When the Minister was asked whether it was going to have impact on small business, she gave a very explicit firm commitment that it wouldn't. "But we are not going to know that until we have a clear consultation with small business." The issue also dovetails with ongoing discussions about how workplace contracts should accommodate working-from-home rights. Fair Work is considering that question in the context of the award for clerical and administrative workers, and business groups have argued that those given the right to work flexibly should not be entitled to overtime or weekend pay loading, since they can choose when they want to do their work. Unions have instead suggested the right to work from home should be presumed unless an employer can offer a compelling justification for refusing it. Depending on the details, a bill protecting penalty rates and overtime rates in all circumstances for award workers could prevent Fair Work from adopting the business groups' suggestions. The government has given some indication that it may consider legislating work-from-home rights, but has not suggested it favours any particular model for doing so.
ABC News
28 minutes ago
- ABC News
Albanese wants childcare to be his legacy but the problem is bigger than access
It was during the election campaign, at the ABC's leaders' debate, that Anthony Albanese declared the political achievement he'd most like to be remembered for: "the universal provision of affordable childcare." For parents facing the frustration of trying to find a childcare place and the money to pay for it, elevating this issue to the stuff of prime ministerial legacy-building was no doubt welcome. A sign of Labor's seriousness. Albanese described his vision for a world in which "it is as natural to have your child have access to childcare as it is to have access to a public school". But this was also a limited goal. The focus on improving access is only one part of the problem when it comes to childcare, as the government has discovered. Improving safety and quality standards has now become an even bigger immediate concern. The ABC's Adele Ferguson has been exposing systemic failures in childcare standards for months, but it was the case revealed three weeks ago involving shocking allegations of abuse by a childcare worker in Victoria that finally spurred state and federal governments into urgent action. In the first Question Time of the new parliament yesterday, there was a concerted show of bipartisanship to lift standards. One of the first bills introduced aims to strengthen powers to carry out spot checks and strip funding if centres aren't meeting minimum standards. Further steps will be taken next month when the Commonwealth, states and territories meet to discuss a national register of childcare workers, mandatory child safety training, and the roll-out of CCTV cameras. Details are still to be thrashed out, but there's now widespread acceptance the system is broken, regulation has been too loose, and a range of steps must be taken. Spot checks, funding threats, and greater transparency around the work history of staff will all help. But will it be enough to fix a sector that's evolved (or devolved) into a confusing mess of not-for-profit and stock-exchange-listed operators, regulated by different state and federal bodies, and largely funded by taxpayer-funded subsidies? "They will likely have a positive short-term impact on safety and quality, but they won't address the deeper, systemic problems that got us to this point," says Andrew Hudson, CEO of public policy think tank the Centre for Policy Development, which was chaired by Sam Mostyn until her appointment as governor-general last year. Hudson gives the government credit for its efforts to guarantee families three days of subsidised care, improve the pay of childcare workers, and provide $1 billion to expand services where they're needed. But ultimately, he says, the government must "stop treating early learning as a market — and start building it as a universal public service". That means "directly funding providers" rather than relying on subsidies to parents that "inflate costs without improving outcomes". It means "stepping in to establish public or not-for-profit options in communities where access is limited". The idea is not to completely ban on private operators. Rather, it's about the government playing a much more direct role in funding low-fee, high-quality providers. But the think tank isn't the only one identifying the profit motive as a problem in childcare. The government's own newly appointed Minister for Early Education Jess Walsh agrees, at least in part. "There are some repeat offenders who continue to put profit ahead of child safety," the minister said yesterday. Indeed, Walsh has repeatedly made this point since taking the portfolio. She is acknowledging the profit motive is, in some cases, putting child safety at risk. Education Minister Jason Clare, who's responsible for childcare at the cabinet level, says "overwhelmingly higher levels" of quality are found in the not-for-profit sector. But he's not yet flagged any move to push profit makers out of the industry. More than 90 per cent of the centres opened over the past decade are run by providers trying to make a profit, chasing taxpayer funds now worth $16 billion every year. This is what makes the childcare sector nothing like the public school system. The prime minister wants improving access to childcare to be his legacy. Andrew Hudson from the Centre for Policy Development reckons he could be far more ambitious. "This is the moment to transform early learning from a patchy, profit-driven market into a universal system — one that delivers affordable, high-quality care for every child, in every community". David Speers is national political lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Concerns family intervention orders 'designed for adults' are being placed on young people
Luke and Claire never expected they would be fighting to remove an intervention order placed on their own child. Their names have been changed to protect the identity of their teenager, but they wanted to share their experience in the hope it would lead to change. After a move to regional Victoria, the couple became concerned about the behaviour of their child, which eventually led to a desperate call to authorities for help. "We were in crisis, needed the police to come to help settle the crisis situation down," Luke said. "Three police officers came fairly quickly, and I think the way they managed the situation was good," he said. It was what came next that shocked the family. An interim family violence intervention order was placed on their 15-year-old child, with the father, Luke, named as the person in need of protection. "They told us pretty clearly that there was no option … we took the advice we were given, even though we made it pretty clear we didn't want [the intervention order]. The family felt like they had lost one of their avenues for much-needed crisis support. "I just asked them, how does this help?" Luke said. Across Australia, each state has different family violence and restraining order laws, which makes it difficult to get a national picture of how many young people are being placed on these intervention orders. In a number of jurisdictions, data shows domestic violence orders are increasing, but it's not always clear how many young people this involves. However, a new report from Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) found in that state since 2018, there has been a 34 per cent increase in the number of children VLA has assisted with intervention order applications made against them. The Feeling Supported, Not Stuck report, reviewed 101 closed files and found 39 per cent of families did not support the family violence intervention order made against their child. The problem is that the intervention order system is designed for adults, said VLA's associate director child protection, Elicia Savvas. "Police can choose to make an [intervention order] application to the court, and that's frequently what's happening, and then ultimately it's up to a magistrate to make a decision," she said. "That system is just not appropriate for [young people]. They can't understand the order and often it's a matter of actually needing help to deal with whatever's driving that behaviour, and the court system can't do that." Advocates have warned Victoria's extremely robust family violence law might be penalising vulnerable children who need more social support. "In 2008, Victoria forged ahead with one of the most expansive definitions of family violence in Australia, and at the time that was seen as really groundbreaking because we're recognising the diversity of experiences of victims, survivors of family," said Elena Campbell, Associate Director at RMIT's Centre for Innovative Justice. Those laws mean no consent is required for police to file family safety intervention orders, but this approach, "suitable for adults," may have inadvertently created issues for children and families, she said. The authors of VLA's report believe there are nationwide lessons from their research. "The interventional system looks different in every state around Australia, but children and young people have similar experiences, particularly of violence or trauma across Australia," Ms Savvas said. The ABC reached out to Victoria Police for comment. The overall rise in VLA's child clients responding to intervention orders was partly driven by the increase in school-based disputes leading to court action. The report examined young people's experiences of not only family safety intervention orders, but also personal safety intervention orders. Eighty-one per cent of personal safety intervention order files at VLA were related to incidents between children in school. In Victoria, parents or members of the public can apply for personal safety intervention orders to be placed on children. Serena is a proud First Nations woman who had two of her teenage children placed on intervention orders over school-based incidents. "It was really stressful, not just for my kids but me too … it affected us in every way," she said. She said her daughter was being bullied and targeted at school, which ultimately led to a fight that resulted in intervention orders being filed against both her children. Serena felt more could have been done to remedy the situation. "They should have got together with both families, spoke about it and worked with both of us, to see how we could all fix this. "My daughter had to go in separate entrance from the other [child] at the school, they put my daughter in an upper year level where she didn't understand the work at all, so then she started failing subjects." Serena and her children attended court and were able to have the orders withdrawn. The VLA report included previously unpublished Crime Statistics Agency analysis of Victoria Police data, which showed an 8 per cent increase in intervention orders against 10 to 17-year-olds since 2018. It found a more significant increase in personal safety intervention orders, which rose by 28 per cent between 2018 and 2023. "Resolving conflicts between students at school is something that we acknowledge is really hard for schools to do," Ms Savvas said. Fifty per cent of intervention order applications were withdrawn or revoked once they reached the Victorian Children's Court in 2023-2024, the report found. "The decline in final orders suggests that police are making applications that may not be necessary or Magistrates are acknowledging that a final order will not address the needs of the parties," it said. Legal and community justice experts say reforms are needed to protect vulnerable children who need social support, not legal interventions. "There's no evidence that we can see to show that children are becoming more violent," Ms Savvas said. Ms Campbell, who advised both state and federal governments on domestic and family violence, said intervention orders were a blunt instrument. "Intervention orders are a very useful device or mechanism that we have in our legal toolkit, but in terms of using them in relation to young people, they're a very, very blunt instrument," she said. She is calling for a review and reform. "There's a huge and very urgent need for reform of the Family Violence Protection Act (Vic) as a whole wholesale review, and then to look at the Personal Safety Intervention Act (Vic) as well." Luke and Claire were able to support their child in court to have the intervention order dismissed but are still looking for extra support. "I think family counselling at that point in time was what we needed. Raising teenagers today is extremely difficult." The ABC reached out to Victoria's Minister for Prevention of Family Violence Natalie Hutchins for comment.
