After Saturday’s election in South Australia, Labor might cling to power in a minority government. Although counting continues, it is expected that two independent MPs will hold the balance of power in the lower house. The Liberal Party is complaining that although it won almost 53% of the statewide two-party-preferred vote, it did not translate into a majority of seats. This occurs when a party performs strongly in its own safe seats, but narrowly loses in marginal seats. Former SA premier John Olsen wants the system changed: “The fact that we have now had 1989, 2002, 2010 and 2014 (elections) where the Liberal Party has got 52 or 53 per cent of the vote and hasn’t been able to form government is clearly indicating that the process by which the boundaries are drawn is not producing a result that the majority of South Australians want.” The Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission is required to draw the borders between electorates “fairly”, and says this is a difficult and imprecise task.
Prime Minister grilled by Year 9s
Students from Sydney’s Newtown High School on a trip to Canberra were surprised by an impromptu question-and-answer session with Prime Minister Tony Abbott. After two female students grilled him on the repeal of the carbon tax laws and his opposition to same-sex marriage, the Prime Minister suggested, “Let’s have a bloke’s question, okay, [like] what football team do you support?” Instead, a schoolboy asked him why his government turned back asylum seeker boats. The final question: “Not saying I don’t trust you or anything, [but] a simple question, why is a man the Minister for Women?” A video of the exchange has been viewed over 60,000 times.
Debate over free speech and new Tas abortion protest ban
Constitutional law experts disagree about whether a Tasmanian law would be struck down by the High Court. The Reproductive Health (Access to Abortions) Act 2013 establishes “access zones” prohibiting protests “within a radius of 150 metres from premises at which terminations are provided”. Michael Stokes of the Unitersity of Tasmania says that because the ban on protests is total, “[t]he provision breaches the freedom of political communication and is therefore outside the powers of the parliament”. The University of Melbourne’s Adrienne Stone disagrees, because “the protection is conferred on only political communication relevant to federal politics” and abortion law is a matter for the States. At this stage, the debate is theoretical; no challenge to the law has been announced.
Abortion clinic sues to remove anti-choice protesters
Melbourne’s Fertility Control Clinic is suing the city council for failing to remove protesters from outside its premises. Maurice Blackburn solicitor Lizzie O’Shea explained she would be “asking the court to make an order in mandamus, or perform a duty imposed by law”. Specifically, “[u]nder section 60 [of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008], a council has a duty to remedy as far as is reasonably possible all nuisances existing in its municipal district. The definition of nuisance includes activities that are dangerous to health.” The applicants will argue that the health of patients and staff is harmed by harrassment by the anti-choice protesters, who have been picketing the site for a decade.
Outdated software forces secret court hearings
The Victorian Magistrates’ Court has begun to allow “silent listings”, in which the scheduled hearing of a criminal matter will not be published on any of the Court’s lists. Although this conflicts with the principle of open justice, Chief Magistrate Peter Lauritson explains that “[i]n some cases, it is necessary for the safety of the accused that his or her name does not appear in such listings.” The same is true in other jurisdictions, such as the Family Court of Australia, where the use of pseudonyms is common. However, that solution is not available to the Magistrates’ Court: “Owing to the limitations of its electronic case management system, it is technically impracticable for the Court to use a pseudonym for an accused person.”
Separation of powers threatened in Nauru
The chief justice of the island nation of Nauru, Geoffrey Eames QC, has resigned, saying “I could not be assured that the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary would be respected.” In January, the Nauru government deported its chief magistrate, ignoring a Supreme Court injunction. It also banned Chief Justice Eames from returning to Nauru from Australia, saying it would not issue him a new visa “under any circumstances”. New magistrates have been appointed for just six months, raising concerns about the executive’s influence over the judiciary.
Environmental defenders funding cuts favour Goliath
A former judge on SA’s Environment, Resources and Development Court, Christine Trenorden, has criticised the Commonwealth Government’s decision to cut $10 million in funding for non-profit environmental lawyers: “When residents from the tiny town of Bulga won a three-year court battle to stop Rio Tinto expanding an open-cut coalmine beside them, it was hailed as a victory for David over Goliath. Yet the type of legal aid that helped those Hunter Valley residents last year may soon be much less widely available.” She says Environmental Defenders Offices are an important counterbalance to well-resourced governments and corporations in disputes about the impact of projects on local environments.
Mooted reform might weaken critical judge
Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie is considering reforms to the hierarchy of courts, splitting the Court of Appeal: “Mr Bleijie could introduce a civil and criminal court of appeal, allowing him to choose which judges hear criminal cases.” It is reported that the move “could weaken the position of [Court of Appeal] President Margaret McMurdo”. Last year President McMurdo wrote to Bleijie to express concerns about his changes to sentencing law. She has not been consulted by the Attorney-General about his latest proposal.
Anti-“move on” protesters moved on
Protesters against a controversial anti-protest law were forcibly removed from the Legislative Council’s public gallery last night. Police used parliamentary precinct “move on” powers to remove the group, and video of the incident shows police dragging one man by the neck. The protesters argue that the Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment Bill, which gives the police broader “move on” powers throughout the State, will shut down peaceful demonstrations. The bill was passed last night and now awaits royal assent.
Palmer says Tas Electoral Act unconstitutional
The Palmer United Party has been accused of breaching Tasmanian electoral laws by publishing the names and photos of political opponents without their consent. Clive Palmer said the law “was only directed at people who published, printed or distributed, and of course our party has not printed, published, or distributed anything—it’s all been done by the Hobart Mercury“. Palmer may have a point: while some rules extend to people who “permit or authorise another person to publish” material, section 196 is narrower. However, a letter sent directly to voters by Palmer also apparently breaches the law. He declared: “I intend to write another one tonight you know, because nobody is going to stop me as a Member of the House of Representative having a dialogue with the Australian people.” He suggested the High Court’s decisions on freedom of political communication would protect him: “There’s no legal problem. Any first-year lawyer can tell you that. You’ve only got to read the high court judgments on it and you’ve only got to read the Act.”