The Jurist 2014 Issue 3

2|

Help Fill This Space!

The Jurist needs contributors. So send us your articles, reviews, artwork, poetry, and so on — basically anything that can be printed. If you’re fresh out of creativity but want to get involved, email us at publications@flsa.org.au. We will send you ideas, grand ambitions, suggestions... the works. It’ll look great on your resume and even better on the page.

The Jurist

|3

Contents: Fair Use in Publishing Interning through the Aurora Project

Kate Ellis The Politics of Disability

Prof Kim Economides: Dean of Flinders Law Sarah Hanson-Young

4 6 8 10 12 14 17 18 20 22 24 28 30 34 The Jurist

Editorial Paul Keating and good policy

Jamie Oliver, the Law, and You Monarchy versus Republic

The Morals of Meat Asylum Seekers

Reviews Games

4|

Editorial

Sarah Gates Brittany Shelton Mara Morrigan

P

olitics have been a hot issue as of late, with the election of the Liberal Government and subsequent release of the budget. Between these pages you will find an article

by Robbie Peschel comparing former Prime Minister Paul Keating with current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott; Sarah-Hanson Young and Kate Ellis discuss some of their objections to the Abbott budget; student Lauris Buckley’s struggles with morality and veganism; and a disucssion of a monarchy versus an Australian republic by Mara Morrigan.

Also in this issue, you will find an unfortunate lack of Liberal articles or perspectives. This is certainly not from lack of trying. We received no reply from attempts to contact Liberal members or Liberal-leaning students. So if you would like to rebut an article or opinion expressed here, please send us an email at publications@flsa.org.au so we can even the unbalance in Issue 4.

the Newstart Allowance, child care, GP payments, and so on. Combine that with the social justice issues, such as treatment of asylum seekers and LGBTQIA rights, and you have a budget that many students will feel passionately about—one way or another. We thank those that contributed their opinions to this issue. It is a wonderful privilege to read your thoughts and arguments. Special thanks to the politicians who not only responded to our emails, but also sent us their take on the issues and policies close to their hearts.

With one last issue to go this year, please seize your chance at publication in The Jurist. We’re especially seeking academic articles—so if you’re working on your thesis (or just in it for fun), test run your research in an extended article/ very tiny thesis in The Jurist.

Thank you for reading and best of luck with Semester 2.

The budget has been hardhitting for most students, with cost cutting measures such as the changes to education,

Deadlines: Issue 4: September 7

Haven’t contributed yet this year? This is your last chance. Send your articles, reviews and artwork to publications@flsa.org.au

The Jurist is operated and funded by the Flinders Law Students Association. Any opinions expressed are those of the author alone and are not representitive of FLSA or the editors. Images used within are licenced under Creative Commons or permission by the copyright holer has been attained.

The Jurist

|5

Features “The legal system is often a mystery, and we, its priests, preside over rituals baffling to everyday citizens.�

- Henry Miller

The Jurist

6|

“Good policy is good politics” – Former Prime Minister Paul Keating

by Robbie Peschel

I

n late May 2014, a certain Murdoch News Corp newspaper published an article illustrating that Tony Abbott is not the most unpopular Prime Minister. That title, the article claimed, goes to former Prime Minister Paul Keating.

Either it was a slow news day, or the newspaper must believe that their readership possesses low IQs and short memories. Were they really comparing polls of two vastly different people in different eras and, tellingly, a very different Parliament? In comparing the politics of today with the Keating era, you can see how laughable this premise is.

The fame and controversy of former Prime Minister Paul John Keating has been enjoying somewhat of a revival as of late. Whether it is the current parlous state of politics or the fact that the economy needs to undergo major reform— or perhaps it is the current representatives’ lack of style, personality and vigour—to blame for people’s nostalgia for the Keating era.

Recently, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s 15 May 2014 budget reply speech was received with applause—unusual in today’s rather dry question time sessions. The speech was praised as political, but lacking in policy and vision. Several commentators, however, noted the inclusion of some ‘vintage Keating’ lines. It soon turned out that Keating had a hand in editing the speech, although Labor insisted it was only a few smalll edits. If our current leaders feel the need to engage our former prime ministers as speech writers, then our political climate is in a very dire state indeed.

So who is Keating and why does he seem so relevant today?

Keating’s pathway to politics was not as conventional as many of today’s politicians. He came from a working class family and did not complete high school. He started working as a clerk at Sydney’s electricity authority. His sartorial sense was impeccable; a senior employee later commenting that Keating dressed even better than the CEO. Keating’s sense of dress was to be a hallmark in his later years as one of our more unique prime ministers. While most politicians at the time held a university law degree, Keating came from

working with the Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union. He eventually joined the Labor party, soon becoming the president of the youth council in 1966.

In 1969 he was elected to the House of Representatives, as the elected member for Blaxland, at just 25 years of age. His peers would have only just graduated from university.

Though he moved through the ranks quickly, he remained a backbencher during the Whitlam years; until Whitlam was infamously dismissed in 1975. While the Whitlam dismissal was a blow for the party, it was the point at which Keating launched his success. Once he became an opposition spokesman, other parliamentarians became aware of his aggressive and acerbic style of debating. This too became a hallmark of the Keating leadership.

When Bob Hawke became the Labor leader in 1983 and lead Labor to a convincing victory a few weeks later, Keating was awarded the portfolio of Treasurer. It gave birth to one of the biggest and most important political partnerships in Australia. This is where a possible link to the current nostalgia arises; the Hawke government had ‘inherited’ a large debt from the ‘frivolous’ spending of the preceding Liberal government, whose Treasurer was none other than John Howard.

Keating used Howard’s legacy to undercut the opposition’s credibility as to be able ‘to balance the books.’ This could be compared to today’s Liberal strategy of discrediting the current opposition to justify the savage cuts that have been outlined in the budget.

During the 1980s, Australia was experiencing a downtown in the Australian dollar. Trade was heavily regulated, along with the banking system. Inflation was high along in a stagnant economy. One of Keating’s first tasks was to cut tariffs on trade, opening Australia to the global market. This was followed by the ‘floating’ of the dollar in 1983, bringing Australia into the modern financial market we have today.

The privatisation of government-owned entities, such as Qantas, and the introduction of enterprise bargaining, as opposed to fixed-wages, was something that would have made the Liberals wring their hands in glee.

The Jurist

|7 There is no other Australian politician with as many Youtube clips as Keating.

“...a banana republic” In 1986, Keating saw a looming recession, stating in that changes needed to be made or Australia would become “...a third rate economy, a banana republic.” Tax cuts were postponed; adjustments to the pension were placed on hold; students were hit with administrative fees in what was previously a free university system, to which the current Treasurer, Joe Hockey, protested at the time.

All very similar to what is happening today. But why is the current government struggling to sell this budget? It comes down to something that Keating describes as ‘political capital.’ Bob Hawke was a popular prime minister. The Australian public could relate to him. He held a Guinness Record for sculling two pints of beer and once stated that an employer was a ‘bum’ if he sacked an employee following the America’s Cup win. Keating was astute enough to trade on Hawke’s popularity to divert attention from politically unpopular strategy. He would be the “bean counter” while Hawke sold the policy. Keating had a gift of explaining to the Australian public, at a level they could understand, why a policy was needed and how it was going to work, without ‘speaking down’ to the public. Furthermore, Keating’s budget spread the burden across all demographics—big business and people who earned over $250,000 were not exempt from the burden.

Today’s government has no political capital. The smidgen they had vanished when the party broke every single preelection promise. They didn’t win on the merits of their (lack of) vision, but the fact that Labor had shot itself in the foot by focusing on leadership quarrels instead of policy. The current government seems to be making excuses rather than explanations, blaming a looming debt crisis.

“...the recession we had to have” In 1989, Keating signalled the start of the recession with this comment. This almost cost him the election later on.

Hawke suffered poor polling and by the end of 1991, Keating replaced Hawke as Prime Minister. There was no weak Opposition party, like today. Former Liberal party leader, John Hewson was a formidable leader who introduced the ‘Fight-Back’ campaign, delivering a new economic model to tide over the recession. Abbott was one of the developers of this campaign.

“..I did not slither out of the Cabinet room like a mangy maggot” — to John Howard Question time was arguably different then. Of course, immaturity was as prevalent as the present, however politicians actually did talk about policy and politics—and they did so with conviction. Keating was exciting to watch during question time, tearing apart the opposition while delivering convincing arguments on policy. It was intellectual showmanship laced with biting humour and colourful oneliners. Even the Opposition relished Keating at the lectern.

Question time today is different. You have a leader of the Opposition running to the door to avoid a floor vote (due to disgraced Liberal MP, Craig Thomson), even banging on the doors to be let out. You have an excellent (although it never should have happened) speech on misogyny. You have distasteful remarks that a leader’s parent ‘died of shame.’ All the while yet, you have two parties that lack vision.

Keating had vision. He created the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation conference bringing Australia closer to Asia, introduced superannuation, and started a discourse on republicanism. In 1992, following the Mabo decision, he stood in the economically-disadvantaged suburb of Redfern, Sydney, in front of a huge crowd and delivered what is known as the ‘Redfern Speech.’ He was initially booed but, as it became apparent he was acknowledging the wrongs done, the booing became murmurs of agreement. This speech is now considered one of the most important speeches of all time. Following Redfern, he implemented the Mabo decision into Australian legislation, now known as Native Title.

Keating went on to win the ‘un-winnable’ election in 1993, beating Hewson. He strengthened the welfare system. He then implemented the ‘four pillars’ banking system which prevented the four major banks from merging, ensuring the banking system was competitive and solvent. This undoubtedly is one of the factors that buffered Australia’s banks from the Global Financial Crisis.

Keating lost the prime ministership in 1996 to the then Liberal party leader, John Howard, due to the recession and the fact that Labor had been in power for 13 years. It is arguable that Keating’s reforms begat the boom times we have experienced in the last two decades.

Keating was hardly your average Labor member. He wore $5000 Zegna suits, listened to classical music, and admired antique clocks. Yet he implemented policies for Australia rather than shaping them for the benefit of a few.

Tony Abbott could learn a lot from Keating instead of using international conferences as a forum for domestic issues, acting as a statesman rather than making personal statements, and lurching from gaffe to gaffe. Abbot should be clearly explaining his policy and why it is good politics, instead of waving off questions with a wink. All the while, standing next to him is the party’s best weapon and someone who seems to possess the equivalent of Keating’s vision and intellect: Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

It is easy to be nostalgic about previous prime ministers; it is unrealistic to compare polls today to an era where there was legitimate competition, with two brain cells rubbing against each other in Parliament.

The author is not affliated with, nor does he support, any particular political party

The Jurist

8|

Would Fair Use Hurt Australian Publishing?

by Simon Collinson

T

he Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) recently released a report proposing that a ‘fair use’ exception be introduced to Australian copyright law, moving from a closed list of exceptions to the open-ended fairness test which has characterised US copyright law since 1978.

Many in the publishing industry, both in Australia and overseas, have expressed significant concerns about the ALRC’s proposal. This piece will discuss these concerns and consider the proposal’s longer-term implications.

Australian law currently provides for a number of exceptions to copyright law, collectively known as ‘fair dealing’ rules.

These rules relate to uses of copyright material for the following: • Research or study • Criticism or review • Parody or satire • Reporting news • The provision of professional advice Limited use of copyrighted material for any of these purposes is permitted without a licence, so long as it passes a ‘fairness test’. The ALRC’s fair use proposal is aimed at simplifying this system by providing that any use which meets a four-step fairness test – almost identical to that in US law – will be protected.

The Jurist

|9

Australia is a tiny publishing market, so why is this debate being followed so closely by the international publishing community? Part of the reason is that it may presage coming changes to the law in other jurisdictions: recent copyright reviews in the UK and Ireland have also expressed support for fair use. Fair use principles underpin the business models of companies like Google and Facebook, too, which may lead users of their services to favour their expanded applicability.

Publishers are also concerned that introducing fair use to a country they see as having no experience in the concept will be problematic. This argument deserves attention: Australian copyright law is built on a different foundation and aimed at different purposes than US law. However, Australian judges are becoming increasingly comfortable with citing international authorities, and they would doubtless draw upon the substantial body of US case law to establish Australian fair use principles.

Indeed, there is a trend towards increasing international uniformity within every area of the law, but it is particularly strong within copyright law – which may not be an altogether bad thing. These days, it isn’t just large publishers who have to worry about foreign countries’ laws: any publisher distributing ebooks on the global market is vulnerable to the legal quirks of far-flung territories. In this respect, a greater degree of international uniformity will reduce publishers’ transaction costs.

In fact, for foreign publishers accustomed to dealing with the US provision, fair use would offer greater certainty than current Australian legislation, which the ALRC has called ‘nearly indecipherable’. The current ‘fair dealing’ exceptions can apply in unpredictable ways to different media, so it may be difficult for a publisher to judge whether – say – an interactive or electronic version of a title will be treated differently than its hardcover edition.

There is a parallel debate about whether making ‘transformative’ but fair uses of copyrighted works – such as Google Book Search – should be open to all, or just copyright holders. While transformative products based on publishers’ property, like Google Book Search, have the potential to increase discovery of backlist titles, many publishers see them as intrusions on their right to exploit their copyright.

As the Australian Publishers’ Association pointed out in its submission to the ALRC review, discussion of ‘text mining’ and other transformative uses of copyrighted property tends to suggest that the works involved are

In any case, Australia’s recently elected conservative government has indicated that it is unlikely to accept the ALRC’s proposals, so the risk of a sudden shift to fair use is small. At most, we may see an extension of the closed list of ‘fair dealing’ exceptions. This is a pattern Australia has followed before, with no small amount of success: in response to changes in technology, we introduced fair dealing provisions relating to ‘time shifting’ of TV and radio broadcasts, parody and satire, and reverse-engineering of computer programs.

The problem? In these cases, Australian legislative action lagged judicial updates to US fair use doctrine by between seven and twenty-two years. Unless a new means of updating copyright law is implemented, one capable of reflecting emergent standards about use as they happen, there is a real risk that the gap between law and popular practice will increase popular disregard for copyright.

As an industry we are entitled to demand the strongest possible protection for our property. Australian publishers are particularly motivated to do so, since Australians’ disrespect for copyright is arguably the most intense in the world, as data on television piracy shows. As the popularity of ebooks grows in Australia, it is not difficult to picture this nightmarish scenario playing out with popular new releases.

In the long run, then, this disrespect for copyright has the potential to harm the industry far more than any judicially mediated fairness test could. Arguably, Australian – perhaps even global – adoption of fair use principles is now a matter of when rather than if. We should not be afraid, but we will need to be ready.

This article originally appeared in Publishing Perspectives.

You may view it at http://publishingperspectives. com/2014/02/explaining-australias-fair-use-publishingconundrum/

somehow just a passive or natural resource – raw materials – from which others (including large, privately owned forprofit corporations) may extract value without sharing that value.

Ensuring publishers receive fair compensation for the value derived from transformative uses of their property should be a priority for the industry. However, prohibiting such uses outright is not an appropriate means to that end.

The Jurist

10|

Interning through the Aurora Project

by Geeta Sidhu

Organisation: Andrew Collett, Barrister Round: Summer 2014 Stream: Legal

T

he Aurora Project encompasses a broad range of Indigenous affairs development schemes. At its forefront, the Project offers an internship program hosted by various organizations including Native Title Representative Bodies for law and anthropology students interested in native title, as well as Indigenous related public policy.

Initially my interest in native title law was triggered through volunteer work with the Blackwood Reconciliation Group, which I began in early 2013. Through my participation with this organisation, I gained an understanding of how this committee administers the care of Colebrook Park by way of promoting awareness to local schools and other community members concerning the significance of this site.

Although a diverse range of placements are on offer, participants are carefully guided by the Aurora organisation in accepting their appointments and given comprehensive material including an internship handbook complete with references for information concerning native title issues.

Familiarizing yourself with this information, I believe, is essential. Prior to my internship, I was able to participate in a summer course in native title anthropology, which allowed me to maintain a realistic perspective as to the nature of the work that was awaiting me. By the end of my first week, I found myself ensconced in a varied and highly eventful placement.

My six-week placement shadowing the eminent Adelaidebased barrister Andrew Collett was an awakening moment in my law degree. Andrew Collett received an Order of Australia in April of this year in recognition of his longstanding commitment and continuous supporter of Indigenous legal rights and work with native title. Throughout my internship, Andrew emanated both an extensive knowledge of the law

and professionalism towards his Aboriginal clients. I felt extremely privileged to have been given the opportunity to work with a practitioner of his caliber.

During my placement, Andrew and I visited the Yalata community for a Maralinga Tjarutja Council meeting. My chance to be ‘on country’ invoked a visceral reaction to the uniquely Australian landscape, which I felt was so far removed from what we are accustomed to in our urban surroundings. The basic conditions apparent in the remote community of Yalata were a stark reminder of the prosperity of Adelaide only a few hours away.

The purpose of Andrew’s visit was to advise and consult with committee members on issues that were flagged on the council’s agenda. Despite my observations of lively and possibly heated discussions there, I later learned that this meeting was considered quite successful given that all the items on the agenda had been addressed without any disruptions. This trip made me aware of how important it was to observe cultural protocol and be mindful of my oral interaction with the council members. It was evident throughout the council meeting and later through the remainder of my placement that the years of hard work and building of relationships with key members of the Indigenous community have afforded Andrew a type of trust and respect that is perhaps not so easily given to a non-Aboriginal person. It is likely that Andrew’s status as legal practitioner is held akin to an Indigenous law-boss. I witnessed on many occasions various Indigenous community members seeking out and listening carefully to the advice provided by Andrew on a range of legal issues.

Along with native title related matters, I also had the opportunity to learn about and be involved in other areas

The Jurist

|11

such as criminal law, civil litigation and personal injury. I believe that I will be able to translate what I’ve learnt from my placement with Andrew into a more confident approach towards legal research and refined analysis. Although elements of my internship (such as the long work hours) were challenging, I was invited to ask as many questions as possible, which I did on a frequent basis. I was truly impressed by Andrew’s ability to manage a successful legal practice whilst maintaining a close family life, travelling and other much loved past times. Often whilst walking to court or a meeting, we would discuss the matter at hand or legal reforms and how to maintain longevity in the legal industry. Our conversations also helped me understand Andrew’s lateral approach to analyzing problems across a broad spectrum, particularly his navigation through the legal minefield of native title law where claims are highly complex, possibly nebulous and always culturally nuanced.

At times I was struck by the civility and informality between colleagues and their adversaries during meetings as well as in court. Despite many exciting moments in my internship, one particular matter concerning an injunction process over an Indigenous art exhibition is something that I am unlikely to forget. I was fascinated by the swiftness at which solicitors and barristers were required to work within the Supreme Court.

internship program was extremely rewarding and I strongly recommend it to other law students as a way to become involved and raise their awareness of Indigenous issues in relation to the law.

The Aurora internship program has certainly deepened my interest in native title; anthropology and Indigenous related policy issues. I hope to seek employment within the native title field and remain affiliated with the Aurora Alumni Service.

Summer and winter rounds of the Aurora Project internships are available every year.

Further information about the program and the application process can be found at: http://www.auroraproject.com.au/ Applications for the Summer 2014/15 round of placements are open from Monday 4th August through Friday 29th August 2014.

My exposure to intensive research, observing client meetings and assisting in drafting legal opinions for a range of matters allowed me to gain new skills and reinforce those that I had previously built. The importance of this placement is long lasting and provides a dimension to your law degree that is invaluable. Students are in a position to gain realistic and practical experience not only in an office environment, but also in the court process. My time in the

The Jurist

12|

Jamie Oliver, the Law and You I

think a lot about the learning process; not just because I teach for a living, but also because I am learning all the time myself. My most recent learning curve has been initiated by the arrival in my house of Jamie’s 15-Minute Meals (Penguin Group, 2012). I must exist smack-bang in the middle of Jamie’s demographic: a busy working mother who loves to cook, loves good, healthy food, and wishes food preparation could take less time. The promise of Jamie Oliver-quality food in 15 minutes is irresistible to me.

I’ve now made the following dishes, in the following times: • Prawn Linguine with Sicilian Shaved Fennel Salad (30 minutes) • Seared Asian Beef, Best Noodle Salad and Ginger Dressing (45 minutes) • Veggie Chilli, Crunchy Tortilla & Avocado Salad (45 minutes) • Ricotta Fritters, Tomato Sauce and Courgette Salad (60 minutes) • Golden Chicken, Braised Greens and Potato Gratin (90 minutes)

by Elizabeth Handsley

process will flow. I certainly won’t need to stop every three minutes to consult the book!

Now I have gotten pretty responsible in my old age and I did read each recipe through before starting to cook. That helped, but it wouldn’t matter how many times I reread it.

And although I hadn’t seen the relevant television episodes where Jamie demonstrated these recipes, it wouldn’t have mattered how many times I’d viewed those either.

My learning couldn’t get to the next level—and I certainly couldn’t start to get close to the 15 minute mark—until I actually cooked the dish.

Well, there is no revelation there. We all know that people learn best by doing. But what lessons does all this hold for the study of law? Two aspects speak directly to the experience of a lot of my students in constitutional law, as they learn how to apply the principles to solve a problem.

At this point, you might think I would be pretty cranky with Jamie, with his promise of 15 minute meals—but, luckily, I’ve been in this learning business for a while, so I am able to put it in perspective. Having cooked each dish once, I am now confident that I can cut the time substantially next time.

I now know how the recipes work, and how they work in my kitchen. Although Jamie instructs on the utensils I will need. I now know exactly which knife best cuts a particular vegetable and which bowl is good for mixing those ingredients. More importantly, I know how the whole process hangs together. The next time I make each dish, the

First, one shouldn’t expect it to be easy the first time; any more than I should have expected to get 15 minutes the first time. But it’s never too soon to start trying and every time gets you a little closer to your goal. This is part of the reason why I encourage students to test their learning before they set foot in the classroom, primarily through completing quizzes and registering answers to choice questions on FLO. It’s in the process of trying, and seeing what does and doesn’t work—in particular what does and doesn’t work for each individual student—that learning happens.

Second, it helps to be clear about the steps between where you are now and what you are trying to achieve. I may never get that chicken dish down to 15 minutes, but I’ll get better and enjoy it more each time. As long as you are moving towards your goal—whether it be 15 minute meals or crafting

The Jurist

|13

a thorough response to a constitutional law problem—then it’s been worthwhile, and it’s worth continuing.

Just a couple more points (at the risk of belabouring the metaphor): the style of cooking Jamie is propagating here has changed the way I cook generally.

One change is that he encourages you (or actually requires you) to assemble all the ingredients before you start. Even after all the years I’ve been cooking—and knowing, in principle, that it’s what you should do—I never realised how sensible this is. I think I’m going to do it all the time from now on; it really helps. Maybe there are things that the Law School has been recommending for some time, but you just haven’t believed they would really help? I’ll leave it with you.

The other is that Jamie got me using my food processor, which usually sits in the corner of my kitchen collecting dust.

I think I felt shy about using it; often it seems like so much mess for such a small amount of food. Well, okay, he gets me preparing a lot more food than usual (more vegetables, anyway, which is what you mostly use the machine for). But he also gives me permission and confidence to use it. Maybe you also have resources that could be quite powerful, but you haven’t used them because you’re not confident about what the result could be? On behalf of all my colleagues, I give you permission to use them.

If you’ll wish me happy cooking, I’ll wish you happy learning!

Image credit: Nomadic Lass, Flickr

The Jurist

14|

Monarchy versus Republic

by Mara Morrigan

D

espite the return of knighthoods and the recent Royal visit, there remain republican rumblings within Australia.

Since 1987, the role of the monarchy and the English State on our shores has been downgraded significantly, but not wholly. Australia remains one of the 53 countries to make up the Commonwealth and as one of the 37 of those countries to continue with the Queen as its Head of State, we remain a constitutional monarchy. In actuality, the Governor-General represents the Queen in that role and she is considered little more than a nominal executive, since the Australian Governor-General is actually appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister and senior members of the executive.

Pro-monarchy

Constitutional monarchists’ major reasons to leave things as they are include the obvious aspect of the system working as it currently stands, the historical relationship (not all positive) that exists between the countries, and the expense of changing everything from the system itself, the Constitution and the monetary units. The current situation is considered relatively cost-effective, since Australia is not called upon to pay the monarch’s way. However, we do pay for the Governor-General ,so a switch to a President would probably only be of similar cost.

A common assertion is that the monarch doesn’t meddle in Australian politics, but acts as a mere figurehead. Although once the province of crowned heads, such interference or sway in politics lies beyond their scope now. Certainly, we have yet to see a monarch intercede in Australian politics and their powers to do so are lesser than those provided to them in the UK. When Scholes, then speaker, wrote to the Queen in the wake of Gough Whitlam’s dismissal, her private secretary replied by stressing the queen’s inability to intervene. He explained that, “the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia.” The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the GovernorGeneral must take in accordance with the Constitution.

Things were entirely left to the Australian political scene to sort out, but the argument that such a hands off approach cannot always be assumed to be made in the wake of

The Jurist

|15

Prince Charles’ potentially meddling letters to UK ministers regarding policy matters.

Republicanism

Pro-republicans argue that our clinging to the monarchy is outmoded, that it hearkens back to an unsavoury past and that it is preferable to have an Australian Head of State.

At the time of the referendum, Malcolm Turnball told the Parliamentary Committee that this would be the most important and necessary change in the referendum. The last is not a particularly strong argument when examined, since Australia, unlike America, doesn’t restrict top political job candidates to those born exclusively in that country.

The republican perception is that severing ties completely with the British monarch would allow Australia to be a freer and more independent democratic union. TThe executive being a hereditary ruler of another country certainly does seem both undemocratic and outdated. Australians like to imagine Australia as a classless society, but having a queen as the Head of State belies egalitarian rhetoric.

In real terms though, it seems unlikely that this one change would make any real difference to levels of freedom and democracy within Australia. And since we already have a system which separates the Head of State and the Head of Government, a change to a republic would not actually alter that separation, just change the form and name of the Head of State.

Thwarted Attempts

Section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution allows for alterations or amendments to the Constitution only via a popular vote that results in a double majority of both the overall votes and State votes. Referendums have been notoriously difficult to pass in Australia overall, due in part to the original drafters careful construction of the Constitution, in order to safeguard it from unnecessary changes. There are potentially as many versions of a republic as there are republicans, starting with the choice of Heads of State (presidents or governor-generals) then their appointment (political or apolitical, elected or appointed).

public was asked to vote yes or no to ‘should Australia alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?’

Approximately 55% thought not, although not all through a desire to maintain the current model. Many rejected the compromised components of constitutional alteration outright and voted no rather than get changes they did not want.

Current Realities

The main bar to any alterations to our current system remains the difficulty of passing referendums for constitutional change. Galligan and Wright argue that the low success rate of referendum proposals in Australia is due to the government “control[ling] the framing and initiation of proposals…[seeking] to expand its own powers or to put questions lacking popular support.” Couple this with the impossibility of all factions coming to an agreement over the form a republic would take and the talk since the 1850s of the inevitability of an Australian Republic begins to seem naïve.

There is often talk of bringing up the issue only after the current Queen dies since she is viewed as a positive figure, connected with Australia’s colonial past, wartime camaraderie and charity works. This may also be due to an image problem with future generations of royals being perceived as questionable on many levels.

While there is an awful lot of citing tradition and Australia’s bond with Britain, many Australians have no direct ties with the UK and many more have no desire to maintain the relationship. However, we currently have a PM who feels that “our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government.” Consequently, the monarchy and traditions of Anglo-Australian unity appear to be safe from republicans for the time being.

To complicate matters further, the 1999 referendum did not have bipartisan support and the party bringing it to the polls was pro-constitutional monarchy. Ultimately, the Australian

The Jurist

16|

The Jurist

|17

Kate Ellis

Labor Member for Adelaide on the Liberal Budget

C

hild Care Cuts

The Abbott Government has introduced legislation with the sole purpose of cutting the Child Care Benefit, relied on by more than 80 per cent of Australian families who use child care. The Education Department estimates this will leave more than 500,000 families worse off, even impacting on families earning as little as $42,000 a year.

Early Childhood Australia modelling suggests some of the lowest income families will have to pay between $3,000 and $5,000 extra. These cuts will be yet another blow to household budgets.

This is unprecedented: no previous Government has ever moved to cut the Child Care Benefit. These cruel and unfair cuts will hurt the families who can least afford it.

These changes are imminent, but not unstoppable. Every family, every child care provider, every educator, everyone who cares about decent access to affordable child care, has the chance to make their voice heard. What sort of government will make families on low and middle incomes pay up to $5,000 a year extra for child care—at the same time as giving $50,000 to wealthy families to have a baby?

These latest cuts will mean over $1 billion in child care support has been cut by this government since it came to office—including cuts to outside school hours care, family day care, the Child Care Rebate, the Child Care Benefit, Indigenous child and family centres, qualifications and professional development support for educators among other cuts.

This is another attack on the most vulnerable in our community who are already feeling the pain of Tony Abbott’s cruel budget through the new petrol tax, cuts to family assistance and the GP tax. A single income family with two children earning $65,000 a year will be more than $6,000 a year worse off because of Tony Abbott’s unfair budget.

Youth Unemployment

At a time of rising youth unemployment, Tony Abbott has cut the only programs designed to help young people get into the workforce and prevent them from slipping through the cracks.

This budget of twisted priorities axed all three education programs aimed at helping disadvantaged young Australians at risk of falling into unemployment to finish school and get a job. Just $130 million was needed to maintain the Youth Connections, Partnership Brokers and National Career Advice programs which by the end of the year would have helped 100,000 young Australians.

This funding is distributed in small amounts to organisations across the nation; with an over 80 per cent success rate—it is such a small investment for a big return.

Tony Abbott is displaying his wrong priorities by punishing rather than supporting young Australians most at risk of falling into unemployment. With youth unemployment over double the average unemployment rate, Australia needs a plan for job creation which must involve preventing youth unemployment.

These cuts show that Tony Abbott has no plan for Australian jobs and that young people are not a priority of this Government.

Students with Disability

Despite promising to deliver extra funding for students with disability the Abbott Government has cut all dedicated support. The More Support for Students with Disability program, worth $100 million a year, has been terminated, and has not been replaced with the Gonski disability loading the Government promised before the election.

Before the election, the Abbott Government promised “more funding for people with disability through the ‘disability loading’ in 2015” and that “on schools, those loadings will be fully delivered.”

Students with disability, parents and teachers have been abandoned and betrayed by this Prime Minister. There were clear promises made by Tony Abbott as part of disability reforms that there would be additional funds for disability education from 2015.It is sickening that students with disability are today paying the price for Tony Abbott’s broken promises. The Abbott Government’s betrayal will be extremely distressing for families around the country who were promised their children would finally get access to education that meets their needs: “A typical school experience for students with disability involves limited choice of school, discrimination, bullying, limited or no funding for support and resources, inadequately trained staff and having to contend with a culture of low expectations” (Stephanie Gotlib, CEO, Children with Disability Australia, 12 May 2014).

Teachers were counting on additional support so they could meet the needs of students with disability, but they will be left without the resources they need to deliver the best education for every child in the class.

These cruel cuts will be nothing but a fast-track to a life on the Disability support Pension for students who will simply never get the change to realise their potential.

The Jurist

18|

The Poltics W

hen people start to talk about politics and policy and funding, particularly around election time, we are all aware that politicians focus on the issues that will get the most coverage and votes. This means that time and time again disability is left out. I once questioned Penny Wong on why it seemed that disability was so often overlooked when it came to additional funding or policy reform despite the dire need. She told me that it’s never a choice between two bad policies; it’s always having to make a hard choice between two good policies, both of which are sorely needed. Although this makes a lot of sense, it seems that it is always disability that is left out. Perhaps it’s not an issue that will score a lot of votes and lacks sufficient advocates and lobbyists.

This all seemed to change when Julia Gillard pushed through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) last year. Whilst it was rushed, it was a very welcome reform.

I’ve been in the disability industry for over five years, and this seemed to me to be the first time that we as a society seriously looked at how we were treating the most vulnerable in our society and how this needed to change. But what on the face of it looks like a fantastic policy change, was rushed through without considering how the implementation will actually occur. Now, with the change of government there is even more uncertainty and disorganization in a reform that we can’t afford to get wrong. So let’s break down the three main concerns organizations and those with disabilities are facing:

Uncertainty

With the change of governments, and the consequent changes to policy, projected budget reforms and allocations, etc., there is so much uncertainty as to if this will come through, how it will be accomplished, by whom and when. According to the government, as of July 1st 2014, individuals up to the age of 13 will go through the process of getting individual funding based on needs, rather than having to desperately harass Disability SA when a crisis arises or the family is at breaking point. In theory, this will be a much better system, but with the government consistently pushing back dates, it looks like those who need it the most will have to wait even longer for these projected reforms.

You would think in the meantime other services would run as normal, but this isn’t possible. One service has been in the middle of a telephone conference with the top officials running the individual insurance scheme being told do not accept any respite referral’s for under 13s, at the same time another department is emailing a referral for a person who is 10. And neither could give a straight answer as to what was supposed to happen.

Fairness

Individual funding based on needs seems like a pretty simple concept, until you realise that people have literally been on a waiting list for support accommodation for 13+ years. The only way for families to get help, is by relinquishing care of their children, which means they no longer have a say in what

The Jurist

|19

of Disability

by Angela Deas

happens with them. Another consideration is an individual’s ability to communicate. Some people will know exactly what to say in their individual funding meeting to get what they need, others who are less equipped to work a convoluted system could end up worse off than they currently are, not a positive outcome at all.

Cost

No one wants to hear that things are going to cost more, especially in these austere times. It doesn’t seem fair to tax payers. Nonetheless, as a society we should be supporting the most vulnerable - surely a better way to spend our tax dollars than paying people to write legislation that is confusing and just references cases! This is not a cheap reform; the projected amount per person is roughly $12,000. That’s IF funding isn’t cut for this again, a very big if right now. To get respite care alone for just one weekend every 6-8 weeks costs at the very least $12,000 per person annually. A rate this low would only be possible if people pooled their resources to share accommodation and support staff with others. Of course, if just one person pulls out of this arrangement, the cost will go up for everyone else. The biggest complaint I get from people using respite care options is that they are desperate for more respite, but based on this projected cost, only the luckiest will get what they are currently receiving.

Also, the cost of care doesn’t include other costs such as specialist equipment, day options, transport, etc. This is a major concern, and despite repeated attempts to get

answers from those running the NDIS offices, there is still no reply on how this will affect services. I know that people have gone into offices to speak to NDIS workers to get an answer multiple times, only to be turned away again and again.

Individual funding and government reform on how we look at the opportunities and rights we give those with disabilities is a good thing. While we have come a long way from taking a decade after ‘the year of the person with a disability’ to put a disability discrimination act through parliament, we have so much further to go. The resources we are giving the most vulnerable are still being rushed and pushed through without any consideration to the effect on the people that will have to live with these changes.

Image credit: Anjan Chatterjee, Flickr

The Jurist

20|

The Morals of Meat

by Lauris Buckley

S

tanding at the bus stop along Portrush Road, I was watching the cars go by when a livestock truck passed.

Crammed into this huge vehicle were bleating lambs, falling over each other as the truck lurched forward in the heavy traffic. One sheep was facing outwards, confused by the outside world that was moving by so fast. It could have been a figment of my imagination, but I swear that sheep looked directly at me. It was at that moment that I decided to never eat meat again. That lasted a whole week until I could no longer ignore my cravings for a supreme pizza with extra peperoni. I felt ashamed eating every slice, yet it was the best pizza I’d ever had.

I often think about that short phase in my life when I made an effort to change something I felt, and still do feel, strongly about. Although veganism is something I’d like to aspire towards, I don’t think I have the willpower, time, or energy to completely change my lifestyle. Yet, speaking to three friends who know this topic inside and out, they all had one thing in common to say: “if you properly understood where meat and animal products come from, you couldn’t justify eating it.” It shocked me to think that all this time I thought I wasn’t ignorant, when in fact I was the worst offender. I know enough about the food industry to realise it isn’t right, but I keep myself in the dark just enough to justify my meateating ways.

Animal welfare awareness has increased over recent years due to the amount of knowledge consumers now have regarding the products they buy. Jamie Oliver’s shocking programme Jamie’s Fowl Dinners delivered some confronting truths about the egg and poultry industry causing free-range eggs to outsell caged eggs for the first time and sales of organic chickens to surge. But the information we are given is still not the full story and, without your own research, it’s likely you’ll never be confronted with the horror stories. It’s a battle wading through the government-funded adverts endorsing meat filled diets, whilst wrapping your head around the confronting campaigns of PETA that make you

regret typing ‘why should I be vegan’ into Google. I think this is where I’ve stalled.

Making that conscious decision to switch to a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle is confronting—and the more you think about it, the scarier it becomes. What works for one person doesn’t work for another. Some swear by slowly cutting out meat and animal products over a couple of years, whilst others say the fast and definitive way is easier. There are resources out there that can help you adjust to the switch, like the free pack from PETA (may contain preachy material) and numerous Instagram accounts with inspiring recipes.

But is it enough? I’m yet to order the pack and my Instagram feed lacks recipes for anything other than cocktails. It’s the hotdog effect—I know damn well what’s going into those sausages, but they taste so good I can’t say no.

But the lifestyle change isn’t restricted to changing the food you eat, you have to become one of ‘those’ people; the awkward friend at dinner parties who can’t eat anything and who tries not to lose their patience explaining “yes, I am getting enough calcium and iron.” Once you’ve survived the dinner parties, how do you tackle your wardrobe? Should you throw away those leather boots you recently bought?

What about your favourite woollen scarf? Then there’s makeup, toiletries, alcohol and even tattoo ink to consider.

It’s hard to draw the line. But as long as you stay away from the Tumblr haters, no one is going to make you feel bad for not going the whole hog.

Adelaide is a lot more cosmopolitan than it used to be and vegetarian and vegan eateries are quickly becoming the new ‘thing,’ meaning social outings don’t have to be a thing of the past. It’s a godsend for everyone—vegetarians/ vegans no longer have to feel guilty dragging their friends out to another laksa place and everyone can bypass the tofu for something a little more satisfying. Here are some of my favourite vegan friendly eateries, still good even if you don’t intend to give meat the flick.

The Jurist

|21

Two-Bit Villains

Serving up burgers, nachos and sloppy joes, this is perfect hangover food if you want to stay away from McDonalds.

Catering for food allergies as well as vegetarians/vegans, this is a one stop shop. You hardly notice the replacement of meat for beans and the vegan cheese is delicious. The homemade sodas come in several mind blowing flavours, with cute flamingo stirrers.

Cherry Darlings Bakehouse

Pies, pasties, cupcakes and coffee... this place serves all your favourite guilty pleasures without the guilty conscience.

The pies can be a little dry, but with a lashing of tomato sauce the problem is solved. The cake display will have your mouth watering and any choice you make will be exceptional.

Remember to get there early, the small shop fills up fast and sells out even quicker.

San Churros

Fancy a late night dessert date? The churros here are vegan friendly as long as you choose dark chocolate dipping sauce窶馬o one would even know. Ask for your hot chocolate with soy milk to complete your indulgence.

Image credit: Alpha, Flickr

The Jurist

22|

Dangerous Waters: Seeking Asylum in Australia

by Callum McBrae

A

sylum seekers are classified as those who have sought international protection, but have not yet received refugee status. Refugees are recognised under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention); its 1967 Protocol; or those classified by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) as refugees. UNHCR figures show that, as of 2012, over 45 million people have been displaced.

It is important to stress that asylum seekers do not break Australian or international law by seeking asylum or arriving by boat. While entering another country without a valid visa would normally be an issue, Article 31 of the Refugee Convention confirms that those seeking asylum should not be penalised for falling outside normal travel parameters.

However, those attempting to arrive by boat in Australian waters have come under particularly harsh scrutiny by our lawmakers.

Leading up to the federal election of last year, both Labor and the LNP took a very tough stance on allowing asylum seekers to enter Australia; people were to be ‘processed’ offshore and the granting of refugee status for those arriving by boat became more uncertain. Now, in delivering on their election promise to ‘stop the boats,’ the Coalition have revealed themselves to be very callous of human suffering.

Although praised by Julie Bishop, conditions in the offshore detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island have been described as unacceptable by Amnesty International inspectors and classed as inhumane by the UN. Inadequate facilities and healthcare were cited by the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) inquiry into children in detention.

Mandatory detention for asylum seekers was first used in 1992 under Keating and the then Immigration Minister described it as only ‘an interim measure.’ Sadly, indefinite mandatory detention is still being used and it would appear that habeas corpus is not applicable in immigration detentions since they are for administrative purposes, therefore not punitive (see 2004’s High Court judgment, AlKateb vs Godwin, for more on this fascinating overturning of the common law and international treaty obligations). The

Howard government introduced a ‘Pacific Solution’ in which those seeking asylum would be taken to offshore detention facilities away from prying eyes. Last year, the Abbott government launched ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ which uses the navy to head off asylum seeker boats and take them to Indonesia for processing. The current Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, has claimed that no boats have reached our shores since then, although no one seems willing to provide further details or logs as proof. They may even be intercepting boats outside of Australian territorial waters.

Very recently, the government was under fire for having returned 41 asylum seekers to Sri Lanka. These asylum seekers were then prosecuted by Sri Lankan authorities for having left the country illegally, despite such prosecution being contrary to Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Subsequently, when a similar handover was to be attempted with 157 Tamil asylum seekers, there was a public and legal outcry. It seemed clear that it violated their human rights to hand those escaping the horrific unrest of civil war and violent repercussions in Sri Lanka back to the very government that had failed to protect them and intended to prosecute them for leaving. The High Court intervened and has placed a temporary injunction on their transfer since it potentially violates the Refugee Convention. A statement issued by 53 legal experts across 17 Australian universities (our own Tina Dolgopol among them) stated that “Australia’s reported conduct under Operation Sovereign Borders clearly violates international law, is inconsistent with Australia’s position as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and adherence to the United Nations Charter.” The full bench of the High Court will hear the case on August 5.

In the meantime, the asylum seekers are being held in the far from ideal conditions of separated family members spending 21 hours of every day inside a windowless holding area of a naval vessel.

This hands-off approach towards assisting those in need coupled with offshore processing plants is a shameful violation of human rights and wilful refusal to assist those we can and should.

The Jurist

|23

The Jurist

24|

An Interview with

T

he federal budget will deregulate university fees from 2016, allowing universities to charge fees of their choosing for courses. How do you think this will impact Flinders University staff and students, in particular the Flinders Law School?

My latest understanding is that we don’t actually know at this stage what precise changes will go through Senate in terms of fee deregulation, cluster funding, interest rates etc.

So far as changes to law funding are concerned, I suspect the changes will be relatively small as law students are already paying the set amount. Students doing the BJS or Criminology could be treated differently but whatever the outcome, this University remains committed to the value of enhancing educational opportunity and our Vice Chancellor has announced that there will be no change in fees for 2014.

So far as I am aware, the fee position for 2015 remains under active consideration.

The interest rate on student loans will also be increased and the income threshold for repayments will be lowered, meaning that students upon completion of their chosen degree will be facing bigger HECS debts at lower incomes.

Due to the shortage of jobs in the legal profession, does the

law school anticipate any decrease in student enrolments into the law degree as a result of the diminishing job opportunities, now coupled with an increase in HECS debts?

Not really. Our unique courses, which provide students with a wide range of intellectual and life skills obtained through academic study, work placements and clinical experience, give them an edge in any competitive job market. Because graduates of Flinders Law School are highly employable and adaptable I do not anticipate a decline in student enrolment and, indeed, I would not be surprised if there was a marginal increase provided we are effective in getting across to prospective applicants the strengths of our courses and the success of our graduates.

The Law degree is increasingly being called ‘the new arts degree’ with many students who choose to study the course never intending to practice in the legal field. Do you think the budget cuts will have an inf luence on students who don’t intend to practice choosing to study law?

Well, I have never seen university law schools as just primary schools for the legal profession and if students are only studying law as a kind of ‘meal ticket’ to a perceived lucrative profession then I would not be too worried if these

The Jurist

|25

Prof Kim Economides: Dean of Flinders Law

students decided not to come to Flinders. My colleagues and I aim to educate and train rounded individuals who may or may not qualify as lawyers. Our job is to provide training in legal and other skills and communicate something of the excitement of studying our discipline that does not fit neatly into any academic pigeonhole.

for? There are many ways to express dissent and I believe public debate is vital to the health of any civilised society.

How do you feel about the budget reforms in both your capacity as Law School Dean and in a personal capacity? Is there anything that you Are you pro or anti student protesting? particularly do or do not agree with?

Do you believe that it is a valid form of resistance to political reforms, or As Dean of the Law School I am disappointed that if the do you think that it could be done in Government’s proposal to reduce direct support for Australian a more civilised way? Have you ever students by 20% goes ahead fee increases, whether great been involved in student protests? or small, will almost inevitably follow. In my view this is poor Students, as well as other citizens, have a right of peaceful protest and assembly, and students have often acted as the conscience of a nation by leading public opinion in either defending or asserting social and democratic values. While I support the right to protest, I would wish to reserve judgment as whether I would support all student protest: it really does depend on the issue. As a student in London I was involved in demonstrations opposing apartheid, the Vietnam war, nuclear weapons, unemployment, military dictatorships and other causes, but was fortunate to have a state grant so had no need to protest over fees. But I would not assume that all student protest has to be directed against political reforms; what reforms should students actively campaign

public policy and, to the contrary, Government should be investing in higher education and not undermine the knowledge economy. Any reduction of direct investment in higher education and in the skills the nation needs is myopic and likely to put Australia behind its competitors.

The Jurist

26|

Image credits: Royce Kurmelovs

Help us make The Jurist the best law mag in the state Write about:

domestic affairs international politics Israel/Palestine Ukraine/Russia media law family law criminal law legal sanctions the constitution human rights women’s rights changes in the law the law portrayed by media all other areas of law mental health

student experiences/advice study abroad/work experience student politics the state of education alternate careers law in everyday life how to date a lawyer procrastination why we need more/fewer lawyers in the world the ultimate lawyer’s soundtrack internet is the modern day Satan We need serious, investigative, casual, fun, hilarious, thoughtful, and poignant articles. So use one of these ideas or come up with your own.

Also wanted: reviews, artwork and academic articles.

The Jurist

|27

The Jurist

28|

Sarah Hanson-Young Senator for South Australia on the Liberal Budget

T

he Budget

In regards to the budget specifically, the Australian Greens strongly oppose many of the Abbott Government’s budget proposals and are working hard to block what we can in the Senate. This budget targets the people who can least afford to pay; the poor, young and the sick and will widen the already unfair gap between the rich and the poor. The only people who will benefit are big-businesses, big miners, big polluters and big banks whilst investment in clean jobs, health and education has been completely neglected.

Perhaps one of the most perplexing things that has come out of the ‘harsh but necessary’ budget, is the fact that asylum seeker management has grown from $7.5 billion to $8.3 billion, when compared to last year's Budget papers.

The Government’s own Commission of Audit figures show that it is far cheaper to process people in the community.

Their estimates show that it costs the Australian Taxpayer $439,000 per year to detainee someone off shore, in conditions that have been strongly criticised by numerous human rights organisations, while processing someone in the community costs approximately $20,000 per year, per person.

Rather than treating asylum seekers and refugees humanely, by offering them a safe place for them and their families to live, the Government is proposing that we spend more money locking them up in third world countries.

Asylum Seekers

It is more apparent than ever that we are fighting a Government who refuses to consider their obligations to asylum seekers and refugees, which were implemented in 1951 under the UNHCR Refugee Convention and are still relevant and apply today. This is why asylum seekers and refugees need our continuing support, and the Australian Greens will continue to advocate for these vulnerable people, who have fled to our country from war and persecution.

The Greens have introduced a Bill in the Senate that prevents the Government from deporting vulnerable newborn babies to offshore centres like Nauru. This Bill rules out the possibility of the Government sending babies offshore into conditions that are unsuitable for new born babies. The Bill will ensure that the rights of children who are born in Australia to asylum seeker parents are upheld and protected.

Nauru is not an appropriate place for these babies to grow and be cared for; I have seen these conditions for myself, and it is no place for a child to be raised. They are here, these children were born in Australia, and they deserve to be cared for and protected from harm. These children and their families are already here in Australia, so the argument of deterrence doesn't affect them.

Waking up pregnant women and children in the middle of the night and sending them to Nauru, or Christmas Island, is no way to treat people who have sought help from our country. In years to come, we will look back on this period of Australian history with shame and disbelief. Children are our future and I hope my Parliamentary colleagues will see the value in giving these children a better start in life.

Homophobia and equality for LGBTI

Regarding the recent incident of homophobic comments made on social media by an employee of Opera Australia, we are pleased to see that Opera Australia finally took a strong stance on this issue—and that they had the courage and integrity to terminate their contract with Mrs Iveri. There is absolutely no room for homophobia in our society.

They made a very difficult but important choice to end their relationship with Mrs Iveri. Mrs Iveri’s comments were inappropriate and showed a serious lack of judgement and good character. I am saddened to hear that incidents of homophobia are still happening today, but I’m glad they are not going unnoticed. I am pleased to see her employers took the right steps to end their relationship with her. I hope this event will encourage and teach others to stand up for equality.

The Greens have a vision of a caring Australia, where every person is able to realise their highest aspirations, free from discrimination in our laws and in our minds. That's why the Greens have always stood up for full equality for LGBTI Australians, and always will.

It was Christine Milne's Bill that decriminalised homosexuality in Tasmania in 1997, after more than a decade of campaigning and negotiating. Only the Greens are resolute in standing for full equality for LGBTI people in Australia. Every Green MP has voted for marriage equality, every time it has come before a Parliament.

The Jurist

|29

Minter Ellison

At Minter Ellison, we invest in our people. Your growth is our growth; your success is our success. We’ll support you to advance your career and help you to develop the legal and business skills needed to become a ‘trusted adviser’ to clients anywhere in the world. Our lawyers become innovative thinkers, strategists, and tacticians. As one of our lawyers, you’ll be part of an elite team – closing deals, resolving disputes and solving problems.

Clerkship Program The selection process for our clerks is designed to be informative and interactive. We want to ensure that this important decision making process is two-way, enabling us to find out more about you, and you to decide whether our firm is right for you.

Our vacation clerkships run for 8 weeks over summer, and offer you real life work experience. A comprehensive induction program and learning on the job will help you build a foundation of skills fundamental to your legal career.

You will work closely with partners and lawyers on active matters. Clerks are allocated two supervisors, usually from two different practice areas who help you to manage your workload, and a ‘buddy’ for extra insight and advice.

Our clerkship program serves as the main pipeline for our graduate program. It is a great way for us to get to know you better and for you to find out if Minter Ellison is the right place for you.

Graduate Program

Graduate positions are, in general, offered to selected current summer clerks at the conclusion of their clerkship in late January each year. A few additional graduate positions may be offered during the year as needed.

Additionally we offer a number of PLT placements for March, June and September, usually to students who were selected to be interviewed for a summer clerkship but were unsuccessful. Our summer clerks, graduates and our PLT students take part in our Graduate Program which provides tailored development and training in technical and commercial skills.

Practice teams

Practice teams in the Adelaide office are:

• Commercial Litigation • HR & IR (including Workplace Health & Safety) • Insurance & Corporate Risk • Workers Compensation • Real Estate (including Property, and Environment & Planning) • Financial Services (including Insolvency) • Corporate (which includes Energy & Resources;

Major Projects, Construction & Infrastructure;

Regulatory & government etc) • Corporate Advisory (including Tax, Superannuation

& Estates)

How to apply

To apply please visit the careers section of our website at www.minterellison.com/careers. Only applications made through our online recruitment program will be considered.

Key application dates Applications open: Friday 4 July 2014 Applications close: Monday 28 July 2014 at 5.00pm Interviews commence: Tuesday 12 August 2014 Offers of clerkship: Tuesday 9 September 2014 from 9.00am Offers accepted/declined: Wednesday 10 September 2014 from 9.00am

The Jurist

30|

Reviews Yes, there are more than one.

The Jurist

|31

Book Reviews

by Tilly Williams

Inside Out, Will Elliot (HarperCollins, 2014)

T

here are many people who have studied law, but chosen to write fiction instead. Some famous examples are John Grisham, Harper Lee, Franz Kafka, Kerry Greenwood, Alexander McCall Smith, and John Mortimer (who managed to combine both vocations).

Author of Inside Out, Will Elliot, never finished his degree because schizophrenia intervened. He has made clever use of fictionalised worlds in which voices are heard and the psyche is splintered over the course of eight books.

Inside Out is his latest novel where readers first meet the protagonist, Denton, who is an eight year old described as fragile and dim-witted by the adults around him and who will inherit a wealthy aunt’s estate. The story then jumps forward approximately twenty years and it becomes apparent that Denton has a host of characters living inside his teeming mind. There’s Mr. Scott, the logical office administrator cleaning up anything amiss, clinging tightly to a semblance of order and clutching the keys to a room that houses Denton’s memories. There’s a groundskeeper known as Jud, setting traps for ads and suggestions filtering through to Denton’s unconsciousness. Wetpatch is Denton’s unbridled libido, never unleashed, but prone to leaving soiled underwear about the place. Then there is the mysterious creator of dreams and the sinister maker of nightmares upstairs in the

castle of inside. They all manage to keep Denton sane until the memory bank is breached.

The narrative weaves from the outside to the inside. On the outside, Denton has been targeted by a strange cult that manages to unite karma, pseudo-science, prophets from every conceivable spiritual stream, and the space-time continuum to part the vulnerable from their money. While on the inside, Mr. Ace is sent by the sect to infiltrate and take over Denton’s seemingly brainwashed mind. Mr. Scott’s safeguards prove tricky to short circuit and it is an interesting reading of religions to showcase the suspension of belief involved in accepted the tenets of faith (Ace must shut down Denton’s ‘Common Knowledge Filter’ to make him a true believer) and getting the nightmare maker inside to plant visions of hellish horror about life outside the cult.

It is apparent what the novel hopes to achieve; the sort of no-hoper led, magical realism narrative with humour and pathos that garners awards. It just wasn’t good enough to transport you into this world or make you care about Denton or his strange menagerie of helpers. Even the cult managed to be both unfunny and unmenacing when it was apparent that Elliot had intended them to have the opposite effect.

The Jurist

32|

Film Review

by Brittany Shelton

22 Jump Street

2

2 Jump Street is the inevitable sequel to the 2012 hit comedy, 21 Jump Street. After the major success of the first Jump Street, the producers have ‘recreated’ the same story with new jokes and new twists. If you had any doubts about Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill both producing and starring in a decent comedy, then 22 Jump Street might pleasantly surprise you.

The movie follows Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Schmidt (Jonah Hill) as they are re-assigned, this time to college.

They continue with their previous identities as Brad and Doug (of course) with a mission to “infiltrate the dealers, find the supplier” of the new drug on campus, ‘WHYPHY.’ Their only lead, once again, is a dead student. The pair fall in with different crowds, only this time Jenko finds himself starring on the football team and pledging for the campus jocks, whereas Schmidt is drawn to the art clique by a poetry major, Maya. The two fight through the battle of separation in their relationship, seeking the guidance of a counsellor, as they continuously fail to “infiltrate the dealers, find the supplier.”

The movie ends with a number of plot twists and a setting shift for spring break in Mexico. And the comedy doesn’t end there; the ending credits display a frightening number of sequels, stretching to 55 Jump Street and beyond, including sojourns in Medical School, Dance Academy and Culinary Apprenticeships, one of which stars Seth Rogen as the new Schmidt.

Outstanding performances are given by all actors. The comic chemistry between Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill is almost unbearably ridiculous throughout the movie.

However, the best performance was given by Ice Cube as the ‘angry black captain,’ outshining the rest in his uncanny ability to play the stereotype of his role.

Typically, as a rule, any sequel that attempts to ‘recreate’ the story line of the first movie is doomed to be a painful let down of the original you once enjoyed. However, this is not the case in 22 Jump Street. If you enjoyed the first, you will enjoy the second. The movie is packed full of selfdirected insults, and turns the ‘just like the first movie’ joke into a theme the audience can enjoy. The dream-team of Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill create the perfect balance of action and comedy to ensure you fill your laugh quota for the day, with enough action to keep you entertained whilst snorting your drink out through your nose (it happened). The movie is packed with references to 21 Jump Street, and so will be funnier if you have seen the original. However, it is not necessary to your understanding or enjoyment of 22 Jump Street, which is a hilarious comedy on its own. If you are looking for a bad movie that will keep you laughing (just like the first one) and requires essentially no thought, this is the movie for you.

The Jurist

|33

Dance Review

by Mara Morrigan

Cinderella

C

inderella is a well-worn fairy tale, so injecting new life into the proceedings takes effort. Hats off to Jerome Kaplan for the clever set pieces and effortless changes of scene, especially the surreal effect of the trees transforming into metronomes in front of our eyes. Much of this is informed by surrealism, particularly Dali. Cinderella’s home features a couch that mimics in all but colour Dali’s famous 1937 The Mae West Lips Sofa. Kaplan goes perhaps a little too far with projecting computer-generated images that emulate famous surrealist works (I caught myself wondering what construed copyright infringement more than once over the course of the evening) to act as shorthand for travel or desire.

Although animals or fairies were avoided as helpmates for Cinders’ transformation—the solar system was invoked instead—the Fairy Godmother is dressed and played as a stock pantomime character. Perhaps the reference is for the young since she resembles Nanny McPhee, even down to the nose.

The production suffers from a strange unevenness of both talent and costume. At the ball, all the women aside from the Stepfamily are dressed in silk pyjama suits, which seems strange for an elegant ball. If we discount the surrealist flourishes (a movement that actually spanned the twenties through the sixties anyway), the silk pyjamas are also the production’s only true nod to the 1940s setting that we have been promised. After Cinderella shows up as belle of the ball, the female corps de ballet leave her to dance with the Prince, only returning when they too have dresses on.

These ball gowns are uniformly drab—variations on rust, green, yellow and brown, seemingly mixed in with grey in the wash. Evidently, Cinderella’s less than stellar white, shot with sparkling gold, gown could not suffer the comparison with brighter fare. Of course, the Stepsisters who had originally come to the ball in brightly coloured gowns now return in sumptuous pyjamas to blend in, now stand out ridiculously against the sea of gowns.

Overall, the soloists’ performances lack nuance. While Kevin Jackson as the Prince injects some fun into his role, without being too heavy-handed, Madeline Eastoe overplays the role of Cinderella by grinning and grimacing through pantomimed emotions. Fortunately, the Stepmother (Laura Tong is the standout performer in this show, perfectly balancing humour and skill). The Stepsisters, including their gauche outfits, provide comedy without overly broadening Prokofiev’s tendencies towards the music hall. Choreographer Alexei Ratmansky does an adequate job, but no performer, aside from the Stepfamily, comes alive in their role or dance in a way that conveys exceptional skill, verve or passion.

For a prestigious Australian Ballet production this was somewhat disappointing as a whole, with disparate parts that didn’t blend well. Cinderella, her father and the Fairy Godmother seemed to have come straight from a panto, while the Stepfamily’s superior talents are squandered.

However, the nods to Dali and his psychologically ominous work in Hitchcock’s Spellbound remain a highlight.

The Jurist

34|

Sudoku

Easy Puzzle 1 (Easy, difficulty rating 0.43)

Puzzle 1 (Medium, difficulty rating 0.52)

1 5

9

7

7 3

8 6

2

9

8

2

1

1

7 6

9

4

7

4 7

Medium

3

9

8

7

4

8

9

7

9

6

2

4

4

2 3

5

4 7

3

1 1

Generated by http://www.opensky.ca/~jdhildeb/software/sudokugen/ on Tue Jul 22 02:22:25 2014 GMT. Enjoy!

8

9

6

7

6

4

9

1

4 4 1

2 1

9

2

9

5

5

9

6

4

8

7

4 5

3

8 7

3

1

6 1

2

1 7 9

Generated by http://www.opensky.ca/~jdhildeb/software/sudokugen/ on Tue Jul 22 02:22:36 2014 GMT. Enjoy!

2 4

5

8

3

1 4

9

8

9

3

1 2

8

6 6

4

7

5

Puzzle 1 (Very hard, difficulty rating 0.79)

7

1

2

Very Hard

Puzzle 1 (Hard, difficulty rating 0.71)

7

9

Generated by http://www.opensky.ca/~jdhildeb/software/sudokugen/ on Tue Jul 22 02:22:31 2014 GMT. Enjoy!

Hard

2

4

7

2 5

4

5

1

6

6

6 5

2

3

7

8 1 6

Generated by http://www.opensky.ca/~jdhildeb/software/sudokugen/ on Tue Jul 22 02:22:41 2014 GMT. Enjoy!

The Jurist

Tony Clive Tanya Barnaby Christine Maslin Beach Coober Pedy Snowtown Flinders University Roxby Downs

Caravan

Shack

Kennels

Commune

Logic Puzzle Youth Hostel

Maslin Beach Snowtown

Flinders University

Roxby Downs

The Jurist

1.

Tony has a barrel of a time at his destination!

2.

Clive had an ore-some holiday, except for the incessant barking in his accommodation.

3.

Tanya got to know Trim, while bemoaning her hovellike living conditions.

4.

Barnaby was beset by red dust in this region, but felt thankful that he didn’t have to come to grips with the level of communal living that another male politician was subjected to.

5. Christine stayed in digs that traditionally have wheels although she had to make do with bricks instead.

In an effort to share the heavy lifting burden around, senior Australian politicians have been asked to trial Big Joe’s Budget Breaks’ SA hotspots.

Coober Pedy

|35

36|

The Jurist