Legal Herald - World Legal Issues

Government - Legal Herald

Senate Estimates And Other Parliamentary Committees

December 27th 2008 04:45

While the proceedings of Senate Estimates Committees are often reported as just another piece of political theatre, they do represent an important accountability mechanism.

Senator the Hon John Faulkner, Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary, has described Senate Estimates Committees as the "best accountability mechanism of any Australian Parliament" (Senate Hansard, 13 May 2004, p. 23209). It is difficult to take issue with the Senator's sentiment.

The real issue for public servants who appear before Senate Estimates or other Parliamentary Committees, and the many more who prepare briefs for those who do appear, is how to best discharge their duties within the matrix of Parliamentary Committees processes. What follows is a high level survey of those processes.

Read more...

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Craig Hill - Category: Government

Email this Post to a Friend

Down Syndrome Family Wins Six Year Visa Battle

November 19th 2008 11:20

Perth midwife Tracey Robinson and her husband, Paul, have won a six-year battle against the Immigration Department to stay in Australia with their Down syndrome son. Immigration Minister Chris Evans has foreshadowed reform of the visa process for families with disabled children after using his discretion this week to grant the Robinsons permanent residency.

Senator Evans conceded that health requirements, which reduce the chances of families with disabled children being allowed to stay because of potential costs to the taxpayer, were "a bit inflexible".

Senator Chris Evans, Australian Immigration Minister

"I don't think it gives the department enough discretion, and I have actually argued for more discretion for the department and less ministerial intervention more generally," he said.

"I will have something to say on the broader treatment of these matters some time in the short future."

The Robinsons' son, David, was eight in 2001 when Ms Robinson was granted a 457 work visa that enabled the family to move to Perth from Southport in England.

Mr Robinson is a painter and found work quickly.

Ms Robinson became emotional as she told The Weekend Australian that when she and her family decided they wanted to make their home in Perth, it became a long and stressful challenge to obtain permanent residency.

The department refused visas on the basis that David would be a burden on the Australian health system.

"It's been six years of having a feeling of not belonging," she said. "You have to be a strong family to go through that completely unscathed."

The Robinsons' good news comes after child health expert and former Australian of the Year Fiona Stanley revealed that she had advocated in the visa application process for the parents of several Down syndrome children.

This week, she told how she helped obtain permanency in Australia for petroleum engineer Mike Buchanan, his wife, Yvonne, and their Down syndrome daughter Sarah, 14, from Scotland.

The issue made national headlines this month when German doctor Bernhard Moeller told how he had been denied permanent residency in Australia because his son Lukas has Down syndrome.

Professor Stanley says the existing rules for parents such as Dr Moeller are discriminatory and shameful.

Down syndrome children were usually healthy, made a valuable contribution to Australian society and did not burden the health system, she said.

Acting pro-bono for the Robinson family, Freehills lawyers took their fight to the Federal Court and appealed twice for ministerial intervention.

The second appeal was successful, and Senator Evans overturned the department's ruling.

Freehills partner Steven Penglis said Senator Evans should be commended for assessing the Robinsons' case on its merits.

But there remained serious problems with the application process, he said.

Mr Penglis urged a review of the rules.

"The minister got it right, the department got it wrong," he said. "While it's a pleasing outcome for the Robinsons, the problem is that the department's approach still continues to be one that, until fixed, will continue to discriminate against families such as Tracey's."

Mr Penglis said applications for permanent residency by families with Down syndrome children were effectively always refused, because the medical officers assessing such requests assumed the children would be a significant cost to Australian taxpayers.

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Craig Hill - Category: Human Rights, Government

Email this Post to a Friend

Glass Ceiling For Women Lawyers

November 17th 2008 14:42

Just 90 years after winning the right to practice law, woman currently make up 68% of all law graduates, which is a remarkable achievement. However, females account for only 16% of partners, and less than 3% of managing partners and/or CEO's which raises questions of gender equality at the senior management level within Australian law firms.

According to sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, the system of billable hours employed by the majority of law firms in private practice could amount to sexual discrimination if it acts as an impediment to women seeking partnership.

Australia Law News Glass Ceiling For Women Lawyers

Indeed, one of the traditional selection criteria for achieving partnership in most law firms is a calculation of the amount of 'billable hours' each partnership candidate has charged out.

"The question [of sexual discrimination] would depend on the circumstances in any given case. The issue the court would be concerned with is: Is the system employed by the firm [of billable hours in this case] reasonable under the circumstances?" she said.

Senior partnership recruitment consultant Marianna Tuccia of Naiman Clarke is of the view that many women seeking partnership have long been disadvantaged by the system of billable hours.

"One of the criteria for partnership is how much you bill. If you are working part-time you are not going to bill as much, and this has worked to the detriment of women seeking partnership." she said.

In 1998 the human rights and equal opportunity commission found that requiring partners or aspiring partners to work fulltime would inevitably disadvantage women. Therefore to regard this as a 'reasonable requirement' would perpetuate and institutionalize indirect discrimination against female practitioners. (Hickie v Hunt & Hunt)

In spite of this, many within the sector are not prepared to blame the system of billable hours for the low proportion of women being appointed to partnership level in Australia. According to Hays senior recruitment consultant Andrew Rees:

"While billable hours form a component of the criteria for appointment as a partner, other criteria are considered."

He goes further to dismiss the low proportion of females in partnership roles a result of 'tradition' rather than discrimination on the grounds of sex.

"Traditionally there were a larger percentage of male partners in law firms. As a result, whilst there remains a disproportionate number of female partners, the number of female partner appointment have increased in recent history. Law firms have acknowledged the disparity, and have acted and continue to act, to alleviate the gap. He said.

One thing remains certain. That is, the path for women seeking partnership is clearly littered with obstacles which are simply not confronted by their male counterparts. Some are attitudinal whilst others systemic. Hence, it appears that choosing the right firm, with a supportive and flexible culture is the first step towards women achieving partnership and beyond. Equally importantly is the development of technical skills, hard work, and passion for the law. Finally, it would take a brave soul indeed to resist the collective rethink of the system of billable hours currently being advocated by commissioner Broderick.

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Craig Hill - Category: Government

Email this Post to a Friend

[ Legal Herald Home ] [ Create A New Post ]