DOCSLIB.ORG

The Law Defeats Justice – Again – in Australia's Deep South [Barbara

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Law Defeats Justice – Again – in Australia's Deep South [Barbara The law defeats justice – again – in Australia’s deep south By CLA CEO Bill Rowlings The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania has effectively denied noted pro bono lawyer, Barbara Etter, her ability to be a member of the legal profession…on a technicality of legislation. She will no longer practise law. She has “quit the profession”. Mrs Etter (photo) made that announcement after the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal against a ruling of the Legal Profession Board (LPB) of Tasmania* last month. The ruling effectively ordered her to hand over the complete contents, gathered over many years, of her privileged communications with a client in a coroner’s court matter, the Greer case. The LPB had already decided – after remarks by coroner Olivia McTaggart – that the LPB would not (repeat, not) proceed against Etter over the coroner’s disparaging comments. But then one angry half of an inter-sibling dispute that was at the heart of the bitter coronial case made a personal complaint against Etter, who had represented the complainant’s sister. So the LPB effectively re-activated the complaint mechanism on the matter that it had decided to not proceed with, and sooled its in-house investigator on to the case. The LPB investigator demanded the entire case file, that is all documents relating to the case. So, the LPB dispute recently decided by the Supreme Court ended up being over whether or not Etter would hand over all the documents, hard and electronic, both legal and ‘isn’t it a lovely day’ emails, in her case file. The LPB would not step back, and ask for just the relevant files, probably because it had not closely assessed the new, personal complaint and decided what precise evidence was required from Etter. Anglers might comment that the LPB and its investigator had appeared to go fishing, using a drag net rather than a rod. The LPB appears to have not equally demanded any proof of allegations, or files evidence, from the complainant. The effect of the Supreme Court judgement is that Etter is ordered to hand over all the files. Fiasco finally finished In other words, this idiosyncratic Tasmania legal fiasco is finally finished…with nobody “winning”. Certainly Etter has not been found guilty of any ‘professional misconduct’ as is normally in question in such lawyerly cases. The LPB is a ‘kangaroo court’. The LPB’s own barrister, Chris Gunson, described its powers as ‘extreme’. It can stop a lawyer practising her or his profession instantly, without giving the person any chance to put their case before members of the board at a hearing of the LPB. That was what happened here: Etter was deprived the right to put her case personally before the board members, and at no stage did the LPB or its members or officials provide any evidence that she had misbehaved in a professional sense. Etter was hauled before the board originally, some years ago, because someone from the local legal profession complained about her commenting in a TV interview that there was no relevant blood discovered by Tasmania Police forensic scientists in a dinghy. The blood, and whether there had been a body in it, was a key question in the alleged murder case involving Sue Neill-Fraser (SNF), for whom Etter was pro bono lawyer at the time, and for more than five years. SNF is in her ninth year of prison for the alleged “crime” (the body of her husband, Bob Chappell, has not been found). Civil Liberties Australia believes she is innocent, and victim of yet another major Australian miscarriage of justice trial. In a 2018 Supreme Court hearing on the SNF matter, Etter’s comments were backed up by a renowned forensic scientist, resulting in front page confirmation of her TV statement in The Mercury, Hobart’s daily newspaper. In the current case, the Tasmanian LPB arbitrarily took away her licence to practise law in October 2017, in relation to her not providing the LPB investigator with all the Greer files. Greer was a long-ago cold case, which resulted in a more recent inquest: it remains another possible miscarriage of justice case, but is unconnected to the SNF case. Etter claimed, as she was entitled to by law, that she had “reasonable excuse”, which is the phrase in the relevant legislation, to not hand over the requested Greer case file. But the LPB would have none of it, even though it never heard her out on her claims of reasonable excuse. Instead, the LPB hopped off quick time to the Supreme Court to exercise the full swing of its over-muscled tail against someone acting in the public interest. Of course, acting in the public interest is often seen as a ‘crime’ upsetting the status quo by elements of the unaccountable elite who run the tiny island political/legal system. The treatment of then anti-discrimination commissioner, ‘imported’ into Tasmania two decades ago, is a case in point. Dr Jocelynne Scutt said attempts were made from the start to destabilise her office and she had been bullied and coerced. She was shown no duty of care by her employer, and the Tasmanian government also denied her support in her job, and natural justice. She said a small number of Tasmanian lawyers habitually used abusive and unprofessional language: on one occasion she was sent correspondence with a pornographic image and a brutal statement, apparently from within the legal profession**. The then-shadow Attorney-General for Tasmania, Michael Hodgman, said at the time that the government owed Dr Scutt an apology. His son, Will (also a lawyer by training), who is now Premier of Tasmania is in a position to offer Etter an apology, which you might think he would do in such similar overall circumstances if he had the integrity and courage of his father***. Three Supreme Court judges made the decision against Etter, which was handed down by one of them, Helen Wood. However Stephen Estcourt wrote the judgement: Wood and acting judge Shane Marshall merely agreed with it, without giving independent reasons. Judge says not a serious matter…but very serious sanction In the initial Supreme Court hearing, from which came the recent appeal, judge Greg Geason commented that, “on any view of it” the matter being investigated was not serious in the range of matters that would come before the LPB. Judge Geason also acknowledged that suspension was a “very serious sanction”. So, over a relative trifle, the Tasmanian legal profession has lost probably its champion campaigner against injustices, such as wrongful convictions and other inappropriate legal decisions, and one of its strongest civil liberties and human rights supporters. Of course, that may have been the result the staid legal profession on the devilish island preferred. It is certainly the result achieved by the combination of actors who played their accustomed roles, in this case against Etter, in a series of events over a many years. After the Supreme Court judgement, Etter made a formal statement: “I have at all times acted in the best interests of my client, in accordance with my understanding of administrative law, and what I considered to be the public interest. ‘However, here in Tasmania it appears that there are too few checks and balances on the powers of the Legal Profession Board. I agree with the Board's counsel that their powers may be viewed as "extreme". ‘I urge Parliament to take steps now to ensure that the proper checks and balances are imposed by amendments to the Legal Profession Act. Should the Law Society wish to contribute to that debate then, of course, I am happy to share my experiences with them. ‘If that does not happen then other lawyers of integrity will be subject to the harrowing and stressful experience that I have had since 2014, including the taking of actions which prevented me earning an income (despite no findings of misconduct), and involving expensive litigation. ‘The result of this experience is that I have quit the profession. Fortunately I have my integrity, my wonderful partner and family, a network of good and supportive friends, and many other challenging, interesting, and rewarding tasks to keep me busy here in Tasmania.’ ENDS * For some background on the case and the LPB, see ‘A law unto themselves, absent model principles’ https://www.cla.asn.au/News/a-law-unto-themselves-absent-model-principles/ NB: The LPB Tasmania has – after this article was published – posted its Model Litigant guidelines to its website. You can access a copy under ‘Policies, Rules and Guidelines’. ** https://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667833360.html *** Michael Hodgman, a former federal minister and also Tasmanian MP, was a member of Civil Liberties Australia when he died aged 74 in 2013. Note: Barbara Etter is a member of Civil Liberties Australia .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • $Fu the Federal Redistribution 2008 .*
    TheFederal Redistribution 2008 $fu .*,,. s$stqf.<uaf TaSmania \ PublicComment Number 6 HonMichael Hodgman QC MP 3 Page(s) HON MICHAEL HODGMAN QC MP Parliament House Her Maj esty's ShadowAttorney-General HOBART TAS TOOO for the Stateof Tasmania ShadowMinister for Justice Phone: (03)6233 2891 and WorkplaceRelations Fax: (03)6233 2779 Liberal Member for Denison michael.hodgman@ parliament.tas.gov.au The FederalDistribution 2008 RedistributionCommittee for Tasmania 2ndFloor AMP Building 86 CollinsStreet HOBART TAS TOOO Attention: Mr David Molnar Dear Sir, As foreshadowedin my letter to you of 28 April, I now wish to formally obiectto the Submissionscontained in Public SuggestionNo.2 and Public SuggestionNo. 16 that the nameof the Electorateof Denisonshould be changedto Inglis Clark. I havehad the honour to representthe Electorate of Denisonfor over 25 yearsin both the FederalParliament and the State Parliamentand I havenot, in that entire time, had onesingle elector ever suggestto me that the nameof the Electorateshould be changedfrom Denisonto Inglis Clark. The plain fact is that the two southernTasmanian Electoratesof Denisonand Franklin havebeen known as a team,a pair and duo for nearly a century; they havealways been spoken of together; and, the great advantageto the Australian Electoral systemof the two Electoratesbeing recognised as a team,a pair and a duo,would be utterly destroyedif oneof them were to suffer an unwarrantedname change. Whilst I recognisethe legaland constitutionalcontributions of Andrew Inglis Clark the plain fact is that his namewas never put forward by his contemporariesto be honouredby havinga FederalElectorate named after him. Other legal and constitutionalcontributors like Barton, Parkes, Griffith and Deakin were honoured by having Federal Electoratesnamed after them - but Inglis Clark was not.
    [Show full text]
  • Ceremonial Sitting of the Tribunal for the Swearing in and Welcome of the Honourable Justice Kerr As President
    AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED ABN 72 110 028 825 Level 22, 179 Turbot Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 PO Box 13038 George St Post Shop, Brisbane QLD 4003 T: 1800 AUSCRIPT (1800 287 274) F: 1300 739 037 E: [email protected] W: www.auscript.com.au TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS O/N H-59979 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CEREMONIAL SITTING OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE SWEARING IN AND WELCOME OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE KERR AS PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE KERR, President THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE KEANE, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BUCHANAN, Presidential Member DEPUTY PRESIDENT S.D. HOTOP DEPUTY PRESIDENT R.P. HANDLEY DEPUTY PRESIDENT D.G. JARVIS THE HONOURABLE R.J. GROOM, Deputy President DEPUTY PRESIDENT P.E. HACK SC DEPUTY PRESIDENT J.W. CONSTANCE THE HONOURABLE B.J.M. TAMBERLIN QC, Deputy President DEPUTY PRESIDENT S.E. FROST DEPUTY PRESIDENT R. DEUTSCH PROF R.M. CREYKE, Senior Member MS G. ETTINGER, Senior Member MR P.W. TAYLOR SC, Senior Member MS J.F. TOOHEY, Senior Member MS A.K. BRITTON, Senior Member MR D. LETCHER SC, Senior Member MS J.L REDFERN PSM, Senior Member MS G. LAZANAS, Senior Member DR I.S. ALEXANDER, Member DR T.M. NICOLETTI, Member DR H. HAIKAL-MUKHTAR, Member DR M. COUCH, Member SYDNEY 9.32 AM, WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2012 .KERR 16.5.12 P-1 ©Commonwealth of Australia KERR J: Chief Justice, I have the honour to announce that I have received a commission from her Excellency, the Governor General, appointing me as President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
    [Show full text]
  • AAT 4537 AR Final Online.Indd
    Administrative Appeals Tribunal Annual Report 2003–04 © Commonwealth of Australia 2004 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Australian Government, available from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Intellectual Property Branch, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, GPO Box 2154, Canberra ACT 2601, or posted at www.dcita.gov.au/cca. ISSN 1035-3161 Editorial services provided by WordsWorth Writing Designed by Spectrum Graphics sg.com.au Printed by National Capital Printing Administrative Appeals Tribunal iii Annual Report 2003–04 Contents Reader’s guide V Chapter 1: The year in review 1 President’s overview 2 Registrar’s report 4 Chapter 2: Overview of the Tribunal 11 Chapter 3: Workload and performance 21 Chapter 4: Our users and our partners 35 Chapter 5: Our people and our organisation 45 Financial statements 63 Appendices 103 Annual Report 2003–04 Report Annual Appendix 1: Members of the Tribunal 104 Appendix 2: Staff of the Tribunal 123 iv Appendix 3: Statistics for the year ending 30 June 2004 124 Appendix 4: Tribunal application fees 137 Appendix 5: Changes to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction 139 Appendix 6: Decisions of interest 142 Appendix 7: Freedom of information 151 Endmatter 153 Glossary 154 Contacting the Tribunal 157 Indexes 159 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Appeals Administrative Compliance index 160 Alphabetical index 163 Reader’s guide Chapter 1: The year in review – comprises the President’s overview and Registrar’s report.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter [2021] No
    NEWSLETTER [2021] No. 7 l 2 9 July 2021 Welcome to the seventh Newsletter for 2021. COVID-19 restrictions permitting, the venue will be the Federal Court Level 20 (small) conference room, A scheme whereby academics may Queens Square, Sydney. The room will be set up with spend a day or two with a judge 25 chairs around the table. The proposal is to establish a system whereby I am grateful to Chief Justice Allsop for making this (generally) junior academics may spend a day or two room available. with a judge to gain, or renew, firsthand experience Fellows are invited to register for this event here. of how a court runs. The committee’s proposal for a pilot scheme has been approved by the Board. Roundtable in Canberra – Wednesday, 18 The Chief Justices of the Supreme Courts and of the August 2021 Federal Court of Australia have been consulted by me This Roundtable will be a presentation by Professor and support the proposal. Peta Spender under the title: Class actions in Australia: What is necessary now, to get the pilot scheme Controversy and Critique. Covid-19 restrictions underway, is for those Fellows who are trial judges of permitting, it will take place in the AGS conference superior courts and who are willing to host an academic for a room, 4 National Circuit, Barton from 5 to 6:30 PM. day or two to let me know by email. This is an in-person event and will not be webcast. If you will be in Canberra on that date, please put the So far I have had two positive responses, both from event in your diary.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Alumni Educators Their Utas Memories and Careers Utas
    NEWS DEC 2012 • Issue 42 OUR ALUMNI EDUCATORS Their UTAS memories and careers UTAS ARCHITECTS UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA Building the world CONTENTS Alumni News is the regular magazine for Contents graduates and friends of the University of Tasmania. UTAS alumni include graduates and diplomates of UTAS, TCAE/TSIT, AMC and staff of three years’ service. Alumni News is prepared by the Communications and Media Office for the Advancement Office. edited by sharon Webb Writers Aaron Smith, Amal Cutler, Cherie Cooper, Eliza Wood, Lana Best, Peter 5 12 Cochrane, Rebecca Cuthill, Sharon Webb Photographers Lana Best, Chris Crerar Design Clemenger Tasmania Advertising enquiries Melanie Roome Acting Director, Advancement Phone +61 3 6226 2842 27 Let us know your story at [email protected] Phone +61 3 6324 3052 3 Michael Field 19 Ava Newman Fax +61 3 6324 3402 Incoming Chancellor “Everyone who can possibly UTAS Advancement Office do so should go to university” Locked Bag 1350 4 Damian Bugg Launceston Tasmania 7250 Departing Chancellor T erry Childs “Teaching studies took 5–8 UTAS architects precedence because of Building the world Tasmania’s teacher shortage” NEWS DEC 2012 • ISSUE 42 5 Benjamin Tan, Vietnam 0 2 Professor Geoffrey sharman Legacy in the genetics of 6 Brennan Chan, Singapore the black-tailed wallaby 7 Ben Duckworth, Switzerland and the potoroo 8 Charles Lim, Malaysia 21–23 UTAS in business 9–11 Alumni News Big Read 21 Lucinda Mills James Boyce 22 John Bye, Trish Bennett and Bonnie Reeves 12–14 UTAS in the arts 23 Penelope’s Produce OUR ALUMNI 12 Pat Brassington to the People EDUCATORS Their UTAS Wayne Hudson Jade Fountain memories and careers 13 Benjamin Gilbert UTAS ARCHITECTS 24 Scholarships UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA Building the world 14 Alan Young S pringing into higher education Cover: At the end of WW2 the University Shaun Wilson of Tasmania dispatched newly trained 25–26 6 Degrees teachers to educate the next generation, 15–20 Our alumni educators Helping us all keep in touch after they gained degrees at the Domain campus in Hobart.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Tasmanian Chapter
    Chapter(7(–((Tasmania( Roller-coaster ride for local liberties Rights and liberties were probably uppermost in the minds of the first prisoners transported to Van Diemen’s Land (VDL) in 1803, but convicts don’t write the histories of peoples or states. What the prisoners of Port Arthur thought about the principles involved is not well documented, and lies buried like the bodies on the Isle of the Dead. Details of the floggings, escapes, burials – things that can be counted and tabulated – are generally available, but not the philosophies of inmates in what was one of the world’s first “model prisons”. In the future, the period from first English settlement in 1803, through becoming a colony separate from New South Wales in 1825, to the official naming of the island as Tasmania in 1856, will be explored in detail from a liberties, rights and freedoms perspective, but that task awaits other historians and commentators. For this telling, snapshots of the system are all that is gleanable. One unlikely champion of civil liberty in the first century of the European occupation of the island was the State Governor, Sir Henry Edward Fox Young (photo), in 1855. He stepped in when the Legislative Council (LC)1 tried to order Dr Hampton, comptroller-general of prisons, to appear (before it) to give evidence. Hampton refused, so the LC issued a warrant for his arrest. Hampton retaliated by serving a writ of habeas corpus on the Speaker and the serjeant-at-arms. The LC applied to the governor to authorise the police to apprehend Dr Hampton.
    [Show full text]
  • Hutchins School Magazine, №136, 1983
    13?S~c-;-h~o-;--ol~s~prinr--t _r_e_co_r_ds THE HUTCHINS SCHOOL MAGAZINE f' Friends', Number 136 WI Angus zs Dt C< A Chronicle of the year's events at the Hutchins School, Hobart, Tasmania , Jftw{D)l, j Xlm'"'"'"""' IInder I 1n cli(F)2, M OOmundul top medal clash l.G Bone ! prospect Parents told David seeking to lobby SCHOOL OFFICERS \ national title CAPTAIN OF SCHOOL A . Atkins I against PREFECTS A . Barnes, P. Bobrowski, G. Eagling, M. Elias, I I R. McDougall, J . Omond, R. Page, S. Parsons, P. Reynolds, D.J. Scrivener, D. Tennant, M . Triffitt. school cuts SUB-PREFECTS D. Bloomfield, D. Bullock, A . Docking, C. Hartley, S. Hodgson, J . Morrisby, S. Menzie, M. Turnbull. TASMANIAN parents with children in non-Government MAGAZINE COMMITTEE Master in Charge: L. Clipstone Esq . Joint Editors: D. Bloomfield, C. Hartley Committee: G. Braithwaite, M . Burbury, A. Campbell, :~,T-ITLE M . Cochrane, S. Hodgson, R. Matterson, M. Simpson, B. Tiefholz. LIBRARY COMMITTEE Master in Charge: R. Curnow Esq. Librarian: R. Roberts-Thompson Committee: A. Campbell, S. Hookway, L. Johnstone, R. Matterson, K. May, E. Ralston. STUDENTS' REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL Master in Charge: P. Carey Esq . President: A. Barnes Vice-President: P. Bobrowski I Youth of Year Treasurer: J . Omond Secretary: R. McDougall CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEE Master in Charge: C. Smith Esq . •TlrfO:'(nl l),s\ tJ T :Nn:ln13TennJnl ll \Ootllth~.: n:monal\c.t\C tr;J.I:Y'I outh ofIll asmanian I th< 1.,.., con<<"- h<.ng hdd '"cnnJUn~::;;,~ DovtdtoT Tcnoont ( 17). of Mtd· D•vtd who;· , ;0 h;s ''" · Prefect in Charge : J .
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter [2021] No
    NEWSLETTER [2021] No. 6 l 2 8 June 2021 Welcome to the sixth Newsletter for 2021. “It is with great sadness that I write of the death of James Crawford on 31 May 2021 in The Hague where Congratulations he had served on the International Court of Justice The Australian Academy of Law celebrates the (ICJ) since 2015. Described as “the pre-eminent recognition of seven Fellows of the Academy in the international lawyer of our times”, he was also Queen's Birthday 2021 Honours List and endowed with a gentle sense of humour, generosity congratulates each of them: of spirit, and kindness, from which generations of students from Australia and around the world : For distinguished Professor Philip Alston AO benefited, among many others. service to the law, particularly in the area of international human rights, and to legal education. James undertook his undergraduate degrees at the University of Adelaide, where he later taught after : For The Honourable Patricia Bergin AO SC completing his doctorate at Oxford on the creation distinguished service to the law, and to the judiciary, of States in international law. to legal administration, and as a mentor and advisor. He subsequently held the professorial chair in : For The Honourable Michael Grant AO international law at the University of Sydney before distinguished service to the law, and to the judiciary, he was appointed Whewell Professor of International particularly as Chief Justice of the Northern Law at Cambridge University in 1992. During his Territory. time in Cambridge, he also served as Chair of the Professor Jane McAdam AO: For distinguished Faculty of Law and Director of the Lauterpacht service to international refugee law, particularly to Centre for International Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Process by Which Judges Are Appointed to Office Has Been
    JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS A comparative study April 2015 Judicial appointments: criteria & processes April 2015 Published by the Judicial Conference of Australia Secretariat Office: Faculty of Law Building – F10 The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia © Judicial Conference of Australia ISBN: 978-0-9941739-2-8 i Judicial appointments: criteria & processes April 2015 Table of Contents Abbreviations v Introduction vi Preface viii Summary of the current situation in Australia x 1 THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR FEDERAL COURTS IN AUSTRALIA 1 1.1 Authority to appoint 1 1.2 Eligibility for appointment 2 1.3 Criteria for appointment 2 1.4 The selection process 3 1.4.1 Advertising or calls for expressions of interest 3 1.4.2 Consultation 4 1.4.3 The use of assessment or selection panels 5 1.4.4 Formal interviews 6 2 THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS IN AUSTRALIA 7 2.1 Appointments in the Australian Capital Territory 8 2.1.1 Authority to appoint 8 2.1.2 Eligibility for appointment 8 2.1.3 Criteria for appointment 8 2.1.4 The selection process 10 2.2 Appointments in New South Wales 13 2.2.1 Authority to appoint 13 2.2.2 Eligibility for appointment 13 2.2.3 Criteria for appointment 14 2.2.4 The selection process 15 2.3 Appointments in the Northern Territory 18 2.3.1 Authority to appoint 18 2.3.2 Eligibility for appointment 19 2.3.3 Criteria for appointment 19 2.3.4 The selection process 20 2.3.5 Appointment of Masters and Acting Masters 24 2.4 Appointments in Queensland 25 2.4.1 Authority to appoint 25 2.4.2 Eligibility for appointment
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2012–13
    DPACAnnual Report 2012–13 Department of Premier and Cabinet © Crown in the Right of the State of Tasmania For copies or further information regarding this Report please contact: Department of Premier and Cabinet GPO Box 123 Hobart TAS 7000 Telephone: 6272 7142 Email: [email protected] Website: www.dpac.tas.gov.au ISSN 1448 9023 (print) ISSN 1448 9031 (online) Department of Premier and Cabinet - Annual Report 2012-13 Lara Giddings, MP PREMIER Dear Premier In accordance with the requirements of Section 36(1) of the State Service Act 2000 and Section 27 of the Financial Management and Audit Act 1990, I enclose for presentation to Parliament the 2012-13 Annual Report for the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Yours sincerely Rhys Edwards Secretary 17 October 2013 Department of Premier and Cabinet - Annual Report 2012-13 Contents Secretary’s report .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Departmental overview ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Financial and human resource summary ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Governance .......................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • House of Assembly Wednesday 2 May 2018
    Wednesday 2 May 2018 The Speaker, Ms Hickey, took the Chair at 10 a.m., acknowledged the Traditional People, and read Prayers. QUESTIONS Royal Hobart Hospital - Emergency Department Issues Ms WHITE question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN [10.02 a.m.] Did you know that yesterday there were 63 patients stuck in the emergency department at the Royal Hobart Hospital, patients were being treated in three corridors, and there were 10 ambulances ramped? This is bad for patients and bad for stressed staff. If anything, it looks like this winter will be worse than last winter. Why was the hospital not escalated to level 4, as staff were asking for? Was there political pressure not to escalate due to the parliament resuming? ANSWER Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question but would cast a very healthy level of scepticism over any suggestions from her as to what this Government might do other than ensure we get on with the job of delivering on our record level of investment and commitments that will go to delivering the health service, which is improving under our Government and that we promised in the election. That is what we are focusing on. We recognise that there are pressures on the health system. That is why, with our budget back in balance, we have been able to commit a record amount over the last four years, $7 billion in the last budget and $750 million, to boost our efforts to improve the health system Tasmanians need. We will need to not only build the health system and the infrastructure to support it - Members interjecting.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. the Sex Discrimination Act and Its Rocky Rite of Passage
    1. The Sex Discrimination Act and its Rocky Rite of Passage Margaret.Thornton.and.Trish.Luker Through an analysis of the parliamentary debates on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983–84, this chapter underscores the anxiety that preoccupied the opponents of the Bill. Their fear that the Bill would give rise to a totalitarian regime, reminiscent of an Eastern bloc country, is clearly apparent from their own words. Not only would the passage of the Bill signal a blow to democracy, it would result in the creation of a unisex society and, most significantly, the demise of the nuclear family. Introduction Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to Australian women that neither the Government’s proposed sex discrimination Bill nor ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women will in any way discriminate against women who choose life within the family, will not force them to go out to work, separate them from their children or break up their families, as some people have recently been suggesting?1 The passage of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) represents a high political moment in the history of gender relations in Australia. The seemingly protracted debates of 1983–842 were marked by a deep anxiety about sex roles, the patriarchal family and the wellbeing of children. The hysterical propaganda campaign and the fear engendered by the Bill were out of all proportion to its modest liberal intent that women be ‘let in’ to certain domains of public and quasi-public life, including employment, on the same terms as men.
    [Show full text]