Head over to kategalloway.net for more blogging goodness

I've been posting on this blog since 2011. The time has come for me to upgrade my blogging platform - so now I won't be posting on this blog any more. You can still find me, however, over at kategalloway.net in my new online home. I'll be blogging as katgallow.

Thank you for visiting my blog here - and I hope that you visit me at katgallow.

Government v citizen: who is the vigilante?

In an action brought by Mackay Conservation Group, the Federal Court of Australia recently ruled that the Australian Government had failed to follow the law in granting approval to the Carmichael Mine. The Australian Government conceded this. The application will now need to be reconsidered by the relevant Minister in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Following this decision, the mining industry called on the Government to 'close the loophole'. The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, criticised the Court for standing in the way of development and economic growth. The Attorney-General, George Brandis, called the action 'vigilante law'. Supported by the Industry Minister, Ian MacFarlane, the Attorney-General is planning to bring forward amendments to the law that prohibit environmental groups from appealing environmental decisions. The Industry Minister has said 'We're just saying if people live 600 kilometres away from a coalmine or from a development proposal, what right do they have to prevent that proposal providing an economic boost to the region?'

This post analyses this issue, arguing that it is the collective approach of the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, and the Industry Minister that is 'vigilante' action. In particular, I argue that the concept of legality within our legal system is intrinsically linked with citizens' rights to challenge executive power. Importantly, the concept of 'standing' to challenge environmental decisions has an ancient connection with environmental sustainability.

Marriage Equality: Taking the Liberal out of Liberalism

The same sex marriage debate in Australia is deeply strange. On the one hand, advocates of 'traditional marriage' paint marriage equality as a radical departure from morality. On the other hand, those in support of same sex marriage argue that 'love has no boundaries'. Neither of these positions grapple with the rationale for the law's involvement in certifying relationships. Arguments on both sides of the debate could probably be satisfied by removing the certification of intimate unions from the law altogether. This need not interfere with religious or personal observances, otherwise known as 'marriage'. This is a radical solution outside the framework of the current debate. But it does highlight the inherent conservatism of both sides of the issue - where the legal institution of marriage has universal support. This can be seen in the arguments by both parties in the US Supreme Court decision of Obergefell v Hodges.


Accepting that the law's involvement in marriage will remain, this post seeks to unravel the different aspects of the marriage equality debate through the lens of liberalism. It has been the rather extraordinary process of the Federal coalition joint party meeting on 11 August that raises a lot of questions in my mind. In particular, I wonder about what this debate says about the law and political process, and what it says about liberty and the operation of government control over personal actions.

Landholders' right to refuse: Protecting property

Landowners may get the right to refuse entry to miners

Senator Larissa Waters has introduced a private members bill into the Senate to deal with the stand off between landowners and miners, and to stop fracking. The Landowners Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 ('Bill') seeks to achieve two aims (section 3):

• To stop hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) by constitutional corporations; and
• To require informed landholder consent to entry onto land for the purpose of gas and coal exploitation.

The legal issues underlying the Bill’s aims are twofold. First is the Commonwealth power to legislate for land use and mineral exploitation, both of which are a state concern. I won't be dealing with this issue here, assuming the Commonwealth's corporations power enlivens its jurisdiction.

Of interest to me is the second question, of framing rights between two interest-holders in the same land: the miner and the landholder. Miners’ rights are directly derived from the State and are an expression of the bounds of the State’s original grant of land. Therefore this second question potentially involves redistribution of the boundaries of ownership between the State and the landholder. I have made a submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee that focuses on the latter issue of distribution of property rights between miners and landholders, and the purpose of the Bill in terms of property. I use Queensland law to illustrate my argument.

The case for a bill of rights in Queensland

 

Unlike many jurisdictions internationally, neither Australia nor the states operate under a bill of rights - with the exception of Victoria and the ACT.  While there is currently an investigation into 'traditional' freedoms at the instigation of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, there is no sign that a bill of rights will be coming any time soon at the national level. Indeed it is Coalition policy to do away with the human rights framework. The Prime Minister is reported as having said: 'Bills of rights are left-wing tricks to allow judges to change society in ways a parliament would never dare.'

But the question of a bill of rights can be framed a little differently in the Queensland context. Perhaps in recognition of that, following the 2015 Queensland election the government has indicated that it will seek advice from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to allow 'public discussion' on the question of a bill, or charter, of rights. I think a public discussion on a bill of rights in Queensland is important and overdue. In this post I explain why.

The gift: characterising exchange within intimate relationships

 

I am presently working on chapter two of my thesis on intimate partner constructive trusts. My thesis explores the gendered nature of the law in this area, asking whether it effects a just distribution of property between spouses - through equity, not through statutory family law. In this chapter I establish that the law focuses on the parties' acquisition of the matrimonial home in a way that privileges the parties' exchange in terms of a transaction. The reason for the law's inconsistency over time in my view, is because the acquisition of the home is an aspect of a complex relational exchange. The law thus falls short of encompassing the relational aspects of property distribution.

The law's emphasis on transactions is a manifestation of market liberalism and is hardly surprising in Australian private law. However while the transactional approach may serve a purpose in a commercial market context it demonstrates the poverty of legal thinking in terms of a just property distribution within an intimate context. 

In working on chapter two of my thesis I have read Richard Titmuss' The Gift Relationship (1970). In this post I set out some early thoughts on the utility of Titmuss' work in terms of explaining distribution of finances, property and services within an intimate relationship. I note that there is a considerable literature following publication of Titmuss' work in 1970, but this post relates only to my initial reactions on reading this text.

And now for something completely different: Statutory interpretation

And now for something completely different*

I started my LLM thesis when I was still in private practice. My thesis was designed to tackle a very practical black-letter law problem I had encountered in my practice as a property lawyer. In analysing the issues however, I branched out way beyond my comfort zone into some theoretical areas - law and economics, feminist legal theory and critical legal studies. Before developing my thesis proposal I had not even known that such things existed. This was a product of my largely doctrinal undergraduate experience and my immersion in commercial law practice.

During this time however I read Nick James' 'Brief History of Critique in Legal Education' - before I knew that legal education was even a thing. Now that I know a little more about legal education, Nick's paper continues to inform my thinking. It is a useful reminder to me that despite the monolithic appearance of the law and the appearance of solidity of the term 'the profession', that they are subject to change. As Nick's paper makes clear also, Australian legal education has been characterised by shifts between the practical and the academic, culminating in the ascendancy of the professional legal academic.

The degree remains subject to judicial oversight through the Law Admissions Consultative Committee ('LACC'). Its structure, moreover, must conform with the so-called Priestley 11, the 11 core subjects considered to represent the cohesive body of discipline knowledge requisite for legal practice.

Since the Priestleys were mandated in 1992 there have been a number of seismic shifts that have generated debate about their utility and relevance. There are greater numbers of law students not going on to practice; increasing globalisation of legal practice; increasing specialisation of practitioners; and growing emphasis on legal skills and soft skills rather than doctrinal content alone. LACC is presently considering whether to do a small adjustment to the Priestleys, but the question I'm interested in pursuing here is possibility of a Priestley 12 - the inclusion of statutory interpretation.

Has the Queensland election offered a reprieve for the environment?

I wrote late last year of changes to Queensland's Water Act. The Water Reform and Other Legislation Amendment Act was passed on 26 November 2014, and proclaimed on 5 December. The changes included a shift in the Act's purpose from one of sustainable management of water, to one of efficiency and productivity in water management. This underlines the tenor of the substantive provisions which include 'reducing assessment and regulation of water taken by mining projects.' Both environmentalists and farmers have criticised the amendments, in recognition of the risk for local and regional environment and farming. The amendments have also been criticised for their likely adverse effects on the Great Barrier Reef.

While the amending bill was passed, not all parts of the Act have come into force. Under the amending act, changes to the Water Act will come into force on a date to be proclaimed. According to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, the staggered commencement dates for different parts of the amending act are to ensure the 'Department's systems are ready to support these reforms.'

Only a matter of weeks following the commencement of the amending act, the Newman government called an election and lost. In the meantime, the Water Act amendments have not been proclaimed. If nothing further occurs, the Water Act changes will become law on 6 December 2015, through the application of the Acts Interpretation Act.

On the basis that the ALP spoke out against the changes, it is hoped that the relevant provisions will be repealed before they come into force.

Lady Budgets: An Explainer

Every woman's dream*

The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, again today finds himself the subject of attention following comments on a morning TV show. Asked for his greatest achievement yet as the Minister for Women, the PM said that it was 'repealing the carbon tax'. He went on to say:

'As many of us know, women are particularly focused on the household budget and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550 a year benefit for the average family.'

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who herself does not view the world through the 'prism of gender', defended the PM by saying 'women's policy is everyone's policy'. She is of course correct. We would all benefit from advancing women's interests, giving substance to formal equality, ending feminised poverty and violence against women. Except that there is one thing remarkably absent from the PM's statement and indeed the government's own policies. And that is women themselves.

The PM's statement is a clear statement of the government view that equates women's economic standing with that of the household. This is incorrect and reinforces women's dependence at a structural level.

Law reform is a 'frontline service'

Integrated frontline services

Under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) ('LPA'), the Minister may approve grants for the purpose, amongst other things, of 'the advancement of law reform.' Grants come from the Legal Practitioner Interest on Trust Accounts Fund ('LPITAF'). In 2012 the Attorney-General ordered a review of the application of these funds ('LPITAF Review'). The focus of the review was the alignment of fund distribution with the government's strategic objectives of 'front line' service delivery.

On 26 November, the Queensland government introduced the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 ('Bill'). The omnibus bill seeks to amend over 30 Acts including s289(1)(h) of the LPA - the provision for grants to advance law reform. Instead, the proposal is that funds may be applied under this subsection only for the purpose of:

facilitating access to the legal system, legal information and education and legal services for members of the community, particularly economically or socially disadvantaged members of the community.

This captures many of the previous purposes of the grants, but not the advancement of law reform.  The Bill states that this amendment

reflect[s] changes as a result of the implementation of recommendations resulting from the Review of the Allocation of Funds from the Legal Practitioner Interest on Trust Accounts Fund

The LPITAF Review, however, did not recommend removing law reform from the purview of the fund. Even if it did so, this amendment ignores substantial evidence about the strategic nature of investment in law reform work in the efficient and effective delivery of justice, particularly to economically and socially disadvantaged members of the community.

In other words, the proposed amendment directly contradicts the government's stated strategic objectives. This proposed amendment should be rejected.

Planning law is not property: Sea level change in Queensland

The Torres Strait is already suffering sea level rises*

Queensland's Infrastructure Minister, Jeff Seeney, has ordered a local government authority to remove from its regional plan any references to climate change induced sea level rise. The stated objective of this directive is 'to ensure residents' rights to build and develop their properties were maintained and not restricted by their local council'. The Minister confirmed that he had intervened to protect property rights.

I suggest that instead, the Minister has a confused understanding of appropriate government authority to regulate land use, thus undermining government's own legitimacy in this area. Additionally he has generated a dissonance between the real-world market practice of insurers and the ideological myth of property as dominion. In doing so he may be exposing the local authority (and state government) to liability in the future. All in the name of property.

Does his argument have foundation? Or does it simply reflect an ideological position?

Changing Academic Requirements for Lawyers - Yes Please!

 

Better get a lawyer, son.

The Law Admissions Consultative Committee ('LACC') has called for submissions in its review of the academic requirements for admission to legal profession in Australia ('Review'). The Review is the latest in a series of discussions and mini-reviews over the past decade or so about Australian admission requirements. This has occurred largely against the background of calls by the judiciary for more emphasis on statutory interpretation in Australian law schools. The sequence of events: reports, submissions, recommendations etc as to statutory interpretation is canvassed in the Review.

At the same time, the Australian Productivity Commission has handed down a report into access to justice ('Report'). Chapter seven of the Report covers legal education and makes recommendations including that the Priestley 11 be reviewed (recommendation 7.1). The Priestley 11 are the core academic requirements for admission to practice in Australia, and must be taught by a law school to become an accredited degree.

The Report and the Review are interesting to read together. While obviously they are addressing different purposes, they contain inconsistencies that perhaps lay bare the conflicted status of the law degree. I might observe that Margaret Thornton has been exposing this for some decades now.

In this post I will focus on the LACC Review. In particular I respond to some of the questions it poses about the academic requirements. As a starting point though, I will outline the conflicts inherent in the very notion of legal education.

The Disgrace of Western Australia's Treatment of Aboriginal People

Pivot West*

The Western Australian government has commenced a program of closing down about half of the state's 274 remote communities. The program will, the Premier acknowledges, 'cause distress' to the more than 12,000 Aboriginal people who live there. Premier Colin Barnett cites the 'existing high rates of suicide, poor health and a lack of jobs' as well as the 'abuse and neglect of young children' as the reason for these measures. He says that the latter is 'a disgrace for the state'.

The Western Australian government is somehow managing to make this disgrace even worse. What is unclear about these extraordinary measures is how replacing one government disgrace with another provides any kind of solution to the endemic social problems of these communities. Sadly this act of institutional racism in pursuit of so-called economic outcomes is unsurprising. The signs are all around us that government, at all levels, has failed society in its metamorphosis from state to business.

The cost of 'regular' freehold over Indigenous land in Queensland

Opening up land for development*

There is perhaps a tension within the way we understand these communities as both an expression of Indigenous autonomy but also with a more oppressive colonial past. This tension is implicit in the complicated relationship between ideas of being treated the same - having a 'regular' freehold title - and recognising communal title and traditional ownership as prevailing norms within Indigenous communities.

The Queensland government has now passed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land (Providing Freehold) Act 2014. The Act's primary purpose is to enable the freeholding of land in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Presently much of this land is held as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander freehold or on trust for the community. The current arrangements limit the grant of these interests to traditional owners or other Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander inhabitants of the community. The existing freehold is therefore a limited type of freehold.


The aims of this reform is to 'introduce the option of ordinary freehold title into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities'. According to the government, this will 'provide greater economic development opportunities and remove barriers to home ownership in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.' While this may well be the effect, it raises the question: at what cost?

Terror: abstract and embodied

How do women respond to threats of violence?*

Over the last two days, Australian media have been filled with reports of the execution of search warrants in a number of locations in Brisbane and Sydney. Two have already been charged with terrorism-related offences as a result, and investigations continue. Security at Parliament House in Canberra has been 'ramped up' after 'chatter' revealed a security threat. These events follow the upgrading (downgrading??) of Australia's security status to 'high risk'. For all the talk of terror plots, security experts say that 'lone wolves' pose the greatest threat to our safety.

The public has been told to be alert, but reassured of our safety. The Queensland Premier has gone as far as to proclaim Queensland as the 'safest place in the world'. These reassurances only seem to me to feed into an alarmism surrounding these so-called terror threats. I note also that these events and political responses to them are proximate to the introduction of 'sweeping new powers' for Australian security agencies under the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill. Of some concern, these powers, according to Senator David Leyonhjelm will 'open the door' to torture.

In the face of the wall-to-wall coverage of these recent events, I am left unable to assess either the nature or the extent of the risk of the types of crimes described by authorities. That is principally, random acts of violence. I realise that these possible crimes are truly awful, and that the police and authorities must take action to protect the community.  I cannot, however, seem to stem a skepticism about the reality of the so-called 'threat'. I think my skepticism is borne out of seeing how police so frequently fail to respond to actual and reported threats of violence against women.

Ending Feminised Poverty

Here is my piece in Eureka Street on ending feminised poverty. 

Progressive institutional reform requires setting a clear direction confirming the value of women in all social and institutional contexts: the workplace, the home, the parliament, courts and executive, in education, sport, media and culture.

Women's property - the case for ambitious change

Were they ambitious enough?

The proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is in the news again, with Tony Abbott putting the brakes on anything that looks like a 'bill of rights'. At the moment, it's looking like a split argument as between 'minimalists' and others - just as occurred with the republic referendum all those years ago.

I've written about my own views on constitutional recognition, suggesting that a full suite of changes is necessary to achieve the goal. In this post though, I'll explore another minimalist change to rights - that of married women's property. My suggestion is that in failing to be ambitious in the change ushered in, what looks like a win only really reinforces the status quo.

Bring back the cane: revisiting patriarchy

The head of the government's curriculum review, Kevin Donnelly, said yesterday that corporal punishment in schools was an effective way of disciplining children. The conversation continued, leading to the implication that Donnelly is not averse to reintroducing corporal punishment into Australian schools.

Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Australia therefore has obligations to protect children from violence or abuse, by their parents or anyone caring for them (article 19); and discipline in schools should respect children's human dignity (article 28). There is no overarching statute however that implements the provisions of this Convention and regulation of schools and criminal laws that may apply, are left to the states.

A number of news outlets have conveniently summarised the legal framework on corporal punishment in schools - see eg Crikey's explainer. There seem to be examples in both West Australia and Queensland where corporal punishment is integral to some schools' program - including in one reported case, the requirement for parents to accept corrective punishment as a condition of enrolling their child.

For a government appointee ostensibly holding expertise in education and charged with advising government on matters of education, these comments and their implication are concerning. This is so despite Minister Pyne's rejection of the idea. What these views really tell us about the state of play in Australia at the moment is the resurgence of patriarchal views and patriarchal control. These views are apparent, for example, in the government's discourse around 'lifting and leaning'. Donnelly's views play into this discourse.

I'm interested in this post to explore the way in which this patriarchal attitude underpins support for corporal punishment in schools, and the lack of logic in Donnelly's ideas.

Unsettled Great South Land? 'Um' indeed

Australia: settled? Unsettled?

The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in a speech concerning foreign investment is reported as having said 

I guess our country owes its existence to a form of foreign investment by the British government in the then unsettled or, um, scarcely settled, Great South Land.

Similarly, this week New Matilda reported on Rolf Harris' racism, noting his 2008 comments that

The attitude is that in their [ie Aboriginal peoples'] original way of life they would really wreck the surrounding countryside that they lived in and they would leave all the garbage and they would go walkabout to the next place.

Without addressing the implications of the Prime Minister's equating English acquisition of Australian territory with the benign sounding 'foreign investment', the allegation of a 'scarcely settled' land deserves correction. Like Rolf Harris' statement, it represents a misunderstanding of the nature of connection, occupation and use of land by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. While I cannot speak for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, I believe that I can point out the obvious mistake in these outdated notions.

Steps to generate (digitally enhanced) change in legal education

Information exchange the old way*

My last two posts have featured a developing argument in favour of designing legal education within a 'digital context'. Initially I argued that the degree requires a shift from the silos of disciplinary categories to a more contextual approach to teaching and learning law. I then suggested that the imperatives of contemporary (and future) digital technologies and their integration into the fabric of our lives demanded a re-imagining of law and legal education within a digital context. Others have articulated this in different ways. See for example Paul Maharg; the IT Countrey Justice; Kris Greaves; and Richard Grant and Marc Lauritsen in the US context.

So far these are justifications for changing what we do but without much direction in how we might go about it. I'm cognisant of the reality for many academics that a lot of change is just hard work. However I believe that it is our job, our responsibility to keep abreast of change, to evaluate, to experiment and to lead. In this post I suggest a few steps that each of us can surely take to kick off a more wide-ranging change within the discipline.