I race into the office at 9:07am, applying the final touch of lipstick and making sure I had brushed off the crumbs from my suit (breakfast in the car). And there was my peer, let’s call him Ben, diligently and peacefully working away with big Bose headphones on. He had evidently been at work for a while already, at least long enough to have finished his large long black.

And so my day started – just like any other day at the law firm – madly whizzing through the work as if the Looney Toons Tassie Devil had a law degree.

At 4pm I start to feel the anxiety building. I had got through a few of the super-duper-urgent tasks already, but I was not going to be able to even think about the very-overdue-but-client-not-chasing-us things. I need to leave at 5pm. It is non-negotiable. Daycare closes at 5:30pm. Those tasks will have to go on the backlog, again and again, until they bubble up to the top of the to-do list.

But Ben will keep working away, until 7:30 or 8 in the evening. Clocking up his standard 11-12 hour day, staying largely on top of the backlog, and free to go on that business trip to Melbourne or Tokyo.

At some point – when I stepped out of the tornado – I realised that I couldn’t compete with Ben on billable hours. I couldn’t even get close. I had daycare pick up, sleepless nights, breaks to pump breastmilk, weekends full of playdates and swimming lessons.  I didn’t see how I could possibly squeeze in the extra 20 hours of work to keep up. Maybe I could, but it would probably be from getting 3 hours less sleep each night – and that was premised on the very perilous assumption that my small children would actually stay asleep at night. Or I could spend an extra $20,000 a year on nannies to buy me a few extra hours at work. In any event, I would burn out pretty damn fast.

But then things became clear …

Working longer and harder simply wasn’t my competitive advantage anymore.

I needed to find what I could do to “add value”, that didn’t involve an arms race of 6 minute increments. So instead I decided to aim for what I could do: I could be efficient. I could become a leader of a team. I could train and develop young lawyers. I could be a creative problem solver. I could use technology to my advantage. I could have innovative ideas. I could recruit great people to the business. I could develop my strategic vision. I could make meaningful connections with clients.

In fact, what I had seen as a terrible constraint – having to leave at 5pm – was actually a powerful transformative force. It propelled me to explore what my competitive advantage is. It has helped me start developing the non-legal and ‘soft’ skills which make me a more well-rounded and high-performing employee.

It is also ‘future proofing’: many of these attributes are the trending skills in demand for 2022 (lawyers are listed as a “redundant role” for the future). 

Are you doing something that allows you to have the most impact? Step back from the “busyness” of life and consider what your competitive advantage is. You may have more to contribute than you realise. 

by Ingrid Bremers

Ingrid Bremers is a corporate lawyer and mum of two based in Canberra, Australia. Ingrid is also the Company Secretary of Campbell Street Children’s Centre. Her work has been featured in Governance Directions, Women’s Agenda, Mamamia and The Pulse.

by Elias Tabchouri, Principal Lawyer at Macquarie Law Group

As a lawyer accustomed to spending every working day in court I sit contemplating what the future holds for the legal industry. What is not in dispute is that the legal industry is an essential service and therefore must continue. The way it will proceed is the real question that many of us are still coming to terms with.

Different areas of law offer different challenges and solutions for the lawyers that practice within them.

Technology allows most lawyers to work on most of their matters from home. The days of requiring face to face meetings have been replaced by any number of different audio visual programs, alleviating the need to be in one room.

Lawyers that practice in areas that centre primarily on drafting contracts and agreements will find working from home a fairly simple transition of what they already do in their offices, to their homes.

All resources required are available electronically, as the days of requiring access to books left us some time ago.

In theory, then it seems that all can go on smoothly, or so it seems.

The courts have now implemented procedures wherein physical appearances are now the exception rather than the rule. All jury trials have been vacated in all jurisdictions. Local court hearings for defendants on bail have been vacated. All mentions and adjournments are essentially being done electronically without the need for lawyers to attend court.

There is currently being put in place procedures for lawyers to attend to matters requiring argument in court to be done via audio visual capabilities, with all parties in different locations.

Even the High Court has decided that it will not hear cases until August 2020.

We live in a different legal world. What the future holds will be dictated by what happens in relation to the COVID-19 virus. Lawyers, like the rest of the community, are now in the greatest fight they have seen in 100 years.

The industry will rationalise and probably make changes that will become the norm well after the virus is gone.

About the author

Since the start of his legal career, Elias Tabchouri has practiced in a number of areas of law including Criminal Law, Commercial Law, Property Law, and Family Law.  Elias founded Macquarie Lawyers in Parramatta with partners in 1998. In 2006, he left the partnership and opened his own branch office in Burwood called Macquarie Law Group. An expert primarily in criminal law, Elias has been recognised as an accredited specialist in the area by the Law Society.

The TV series, “13 Reasons Why” was released on Netflix in March 2017 to a storm of criticism and backlash from experts, parents, and teachers. Everyone seemed to have an opinion on the series … and that is significant.

It got people talking about suicide, suicide prevention, suicide rates, and suicide strategies. The series held up a mirror to society and, through its graphic depictions of suicide, sexual assault and bullying, it brought subjects that many still consider taboo, into mainstream dialogue. Whether you like the show or not, it has generated a strong reaction and this is precisely what it was created to do.

The show centres around the character, Hannah Baker, a teenager who we learn has committed suicide and left 13 audio tapes that recount her story – the “13 reasons why” she has taken her life. We follow the journey of protagonist, Clay Jensen, as he listens to the tapes and learns more and more about Hannah, one of his so-called closest friends. The show covers very heavy, but very important topics that affect teenagers today.

It is easy to see why the show has sparked such widespread controversy and criticism. Towards the end of the first season, we see the moment Hannah Baker takes her own life. It is graphic, brutal and harrowing. Initially, Mental health groups and child psychologists slammed the show’s portrayal of suicide on the basis that it romanticises the act and could inspire teenagers to commit suicide.

Creators of the show defended the decision to show Hannah committing suicide. Writer Brian Yorkey said:

We worked very hard not to be gratuitous, but we did want it to be painful to watch, because we wanted it to be very clear that there is nothing, in any way, worthwhile about suicide.”

The effect of the series was tangible. Google searches relating to suicide – both prevention and ideation – spiked by 19% for the 19 days following the release of the series compared to the days immediately prior to its release. Headspace experienced an increase in calls where the impact of the show on the mental health of callers was specifically mentioned.

Thematically, the “13 Reasons Why” is not breaking new ground

Teenage suicide is not a new concept in television, film or literature.

In the 80s, “Degrassi Junior High” explored the gamut of controversial themes from domestic violence, drug use and teen pregnancy to alcohol abuse, safe sex, and the suicide of classmate, Claude Tanner.

In the 90s, Heartbreak High and Beverly Hills 90210 filled similar roles in exploring very real and important teen themes such as bullying, harassment, addiction, depression, and suicide.

More recently, “The Virgin Suicides” movie was released in 1999. The film follows the lives of five high school-aged sisters who plan and carry out a suicide pact.

Similar to “13 Reasons Why”, the story of “The Virgin Suicides” is told from the perspective of those left behind as they struggle to understand why.

The 80s and 90s are, however, a far cry from the social media-fuelled world that teenagers now live in.

While many adults have argued that “13 Reasons Why’s” graphic depictions of violence, assault, sexual assault, and bullying is grossly irresponsible, teenagers have continued to watch the show in droves. This is because many young viewers can relate to the show’s themes, having experienced similarly horrific acts of bullying or harassment themselves.

As parents, teachers, and counsellors have not grown up surrounded by social media and its impact, arguably, the show’s content is confronting to adults in a way dissimilar to that of high schoolers.

Tracy Kirk, an Interdisciplinary Researcher into Child and Adolescent Rights, watched the series after being urged by a 16-year-old student. She said in an article to The Conversation:

“The issues highlighted will horrify parents … but these are issues many young people are experiencing. And some parents may simply not be aware of it”

For the last few years, youth suicide rates have been stable in Australia. Up until 2016, according to the ABS, 2.3 suicides per 100,000 persons aged between 5-17 years have been recorded. In 2012, there were 2.1 per 100,000.

Statistics from 2017, the year “13 Reasons Why” was released, has not yet been published.

13 Reasons Why is not the problem

The problem of youth suicide is not born out of the release of the series “13 Reasons Why”. Youth suicide has been a growing problem both in Australia and internationally for many years.

In 2012, I spoke with Windermere Child and Family Services, a community group based in the electorate of Casey in the south-east suburbs of Melbourne. The area had experienced a high number of youth suicides, many as a result of suicide “pacts.”

The suicide program ASIST (Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training), was developed and implemented in schools. Bronwyn Owen, a Project Manager at the time said suicide is:

“So frightening to talk about, so people don’t talk about it and hope it goes away, but as we’ve seen, it’s not going away.”

The ASIST program is still listed on the Windermere website and has trained over 5,000 parents, carers, teachers, medical professionals, students and friends since its inception in 2011.

A mechanism to raise awareness 

In May 2018, the second season of “13 Reasons Why” was released and it has become a tool for awareness.

In Australia, Netflix collaborated with Headspace to develop resources and warnings before the show aired. The site 13reasonswhy.info provides crisis numbers and resources in 62 countries. The Australian content is extensive given the collaboration with Headspace. Resources include discussion guides and videos featuring the cast, speaking as themselves, on the issues they depict.

Interviews with everyday Australians about their mental health stories are also featured.

Controversy continues

The second season continues to be graphic and controversial.

Challenging yet another issue in its characteristic unrestrained fashion, one scene involving student photographer, Tyler, has sparked outrage yet again.

Tyler, who is the victim of bullying in both seasons, experiences his head shoved in a toilet by three students who go on to sodomise him with a mop handle. It is shocking and horrific to watch, but Yorkey has again defended the graphic nature of the scene in an interview with Vulture:

As intense as that scene is, and as strong as reactions to it may be, it doesn’t even come close to the pain experienced by the people who actually go through these things.”

It may be easy to accuse shows like “13 Reasons Why” for an increase in suicide, self-harm and risky behaviour by teenagers, however, suicide rates have been steadily growing for years, particularly in the 20-24-year-old age bracket.

Statistics as far back as 2010 highlight that 24% of male deaths (between the ages of 15-24 years of age) are due to suicide.

Many still consider the topic of youth suicide to be taboo. The value of “13 Reasons Why” is that it has changed this by challenging our preconceived ideas and forcing the community to confront the issue and talk about it.

While the number of google searches went up 19% after the series launched, it is significant that many of those searches were about suicide prevention.

The show was designed to be a mouthpiece for issues which have been ignored, and the graphic content and harsh delivery have been successful in promoting discussion.

Season one broke records being the most discussed TV Program on social media in its opening week. In its first week, the show clocked up 3,585,110 tweets. This means that 3,585,110 people were starting conversations, opening up, and discussing a difficult and painful topic. It also encouraged many people to reach out and seek help.

A platform for change

“13 Reasons Why” is an opportunity for schools, parents, and friends to start a dialogue with the young people they know. The show provides the impetus to start talking and to find help in the right places.

When you stop to think about it, one of the most famous pieces of literature, often taught at high school, centres around youth suicide. It is talked about as one of the greatest love stories ever. The names of this couple move in popular culture with a reverence for their passion and devotion to one another. The term “star-crossed lovers” was born from their tragedy, and their story is echoed as a literary masterpiece.

“13 Reasons Why’s” character, Hannah Baker, cuts her wrists in a bathtub and viewers watch as she bleeds to death. Romeo & Juliet drink from a poisonous vial while they speak of their love for one another.

Only one of these stories romanticises teen suicide.

Further Information

If you, or someone you know, has been the victim of sexual assault:

Local police assistance line: 131 444

• New South Wales
• Queensland
• Western Australia
• Australian Capital Territory
• Victoria
• Tasmania
• South Australia
• Northern Territory

Get in touch with a counselling service:

• National Counselling Helpline: 1800 737 732 (1800 RESPECT) (National)
• Beyondblue – 1300 22 4636 for free counselling and support
• Headspace
• MensLine Australia — 1300 789 978 for support and advice for men
• National Sexual Assault & Domestic Family Violence Counselling Service
• Sexual Assault Services Throughout Australia
• Reach Out
• Centre Against Sexual Assault

Corporate office culture continues to evolve and, as the work-life balance remains a priority, the line between what is business and what is personal can become blurred. Buzzwords like “work wife” and “work husband” have been created to describe these office relationships.

The influential power of a Chief Executive Officer (CEO)’s Executive Assistant (EA) has long been recognised. EAs don’t just hold the key to the CEOs diary, whereabouts, and preferences, but they are also privy to confidential information about the CEO’s personal matters.

Large corporations with multiple stakeholders and shareholders need to develop strategies to safeguard their business from future damage and to ensure that confidential information is contained.

Stringent employment policies and thorough hiring procedures will assist in this. It is also critical for corporations to include a Deed of Confidentiality with employment documents to protect the organisation from potentially damaging future personal information leaks.

The Deed of Confidentiality needs to become as commonplace as a standard employment contract and should be issued and signed at the time employment commences.

It also needs to be revised and reissued if the staff member transfers to a different role within the organisation. Exit interviews are another occasion where it is relevant to remind a staff member of his/her obligations under the Deed they have signed.

Professional legal advice is imperative to ensure that the Deed of Confidentiality is structured in such a way as to protect the confidential business and personal information of all officers of the company and that it aligns with employment legislation.

Large corporates who ignore the growing power and influence of “work wives” and “work husbands” do so at the risk of leaked confidential information which could potentially damage or ruin a corporation’s reputation.

This article is sponsored by Vobis Equity Attorneys. 

How does a society balance the values of freedom and safety? And what role do political leaders have in maintaining that balance? If we take recent comments from our political leaders seriously, then they either don’t care about these questions, or consider themselves helplessly unable to resist the demands of the nation’s law enforcement agencies. Either reality is concerning.

In early October this year, leaders from Commonwealth, state and territory governments agreed to a new package of anti-terrorism laws. Four of these reforms, in particular, have caused a stir since the announcement:

• Laws allowing police to hold terrorism suspects as young as 10 years of age without charge for up to two weeks
• Laws introducing a National Facial Biometric Matching Capability program making passport, visa, citizenship and driver’s licence photos available to authorities in real time to identify criminal suspects
• The new crime of carrying out terrorist hoaxes; and
• The new crime of possessing instruction manual material for carrying out terrorist acts.

Taken by themselves, these proposed laws are worrying. There are serious concerns about the implications of expanding the scope of detention without charge and of a nation-wide biometric information sharing network. It is unclear whether these changes will add anything meaningful to the existing legal framework.

It’s when these laws are put into the context of Australia’s long-running fixation with security-based law reform, however, that their true significance for the overall health of Australian society becomes clear.

Some context

It’s not as if the state and federal governments’ agreement this month marks a new turn towards the expansion of law enforcement powers in the name of security. Instead, it is yet another step down a path we’ve been moving steadily along for at least 15 years.

The creeping expansion of law enforcement powers comes at a cost, namely the protective buffer of civil liberties. Civil liberties are a collection of freedoms that need to be protected if the dignity, integrity and well-being of individuals are to be kept safe from the demands of the community.

When the welfare of the collective is perceived to be threatened, there is a temptation to just do whatever needs to be done to meet the threat.

Being the confused, biased creatures that we are, we often accept measures that trample on the well-being and dignity of individuals or minority groups, in the name of communal safety.

This is one reason why civil liberties are so important; they go some way to protecting individuals against the fears of the group.

This means that in any society that cares at all for the importance of individual autonomy in the face of collective fear, there is going to be an ongoing struggle between the demands of security and the demands of civil liberty. Both are indispensable, and both have to be accommodated, somehow, side by side. People need to be protected from the violence of terrorists, and they need to be protected from the violence of the majority. Balancing these two goals is one of the most important and difficult responsibilities that political actors, from leaders to voters, have to manage.

Succumbing to the idea that ‘anything is acceptable as long as it keeps us safe’ means renouncing responsibility for maintaining that balance. Once that renunciation is made, there isn’t much that is going to resist the slide towards the lawless comfort of a police state.

To stop that slide, we need to acknowledge that the balancing of security and civil liberty relies on continuous dialogue and debate, and relies on institutional resistance to those arms of government tasked with keeping us safe.

What was most alarming about the October meeting was the insistence from our leaders that there is no debate to be had at all. For example, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews stated:

Notional considerations of civil liberties do not trump the very real threat, the very real threat of terror in our country today.”

According to Andrews, this balance of ‘security versus civil liberties’ is not a debate we can afford to have. This idea of safety outweighing all else has been a recurring theme from our political leaders in recent years.

In September 2014, Tony Abbott told Parliament how Australians would have to accept reductions in freedom “for some time to come” as a consequence of increased security aimed at saving lives from the threat of terrorism. He ultimately justified the limiting of freedom as a necessary part of achieving a more fundamental freedom:

After all, the most basic freedom of all is the freedom to walk the streets unharmed and to sleep safe in our beds at night.”

The bipartisan nature of this attitude was evident in Opposition leader Bill Shorten’s reply when he noted that “keeping our people safe is above politics.”

This mindless assertion, that security is an automatic trump over all other considerations, strangles the debate that must be had about the appropriateness of eroding civil liberties in the name of safety.

Andrews also said:

What I would be worried about is if we, heaven forbid, had another terrorist attack in this country and it became clear that we had technology available to us – tools and powers and laws and resources available to us – and we had squibbed it because of notional concerns about civil liberties, overlooking something if terrorists strike.” 

These comments suggest that he is worried about opening himself up to blame for a future terrorist attack, should he resist any law or technology proposed in the name of keeping us safe. In a way, he is probably right to be scared, as his opponents and voters could well blame him and his colleagues personally after an attack.

However, there are going to be future terrorist attacks, and the argument will always be available after each one that politicians could have done more to prevent it. That makes the ‘security at any cost’ very attractive to a political leader. But resisting that fearful slide into ‘security at any cost’ is something we need from them. Acknowledging the possible personal consequences of taking a principled stand is one of the things that makes someone a leader.

If our leaders don’t resist their own fears, then they are followers.

This image of our leaders as meek followers is brought home more fully by Andrews’ suggestion that he and his colleagues have no option but to consent to whatever law enforcement agencies ask for:

The luxury that no political leader in Australia has is to say no to law enforcement, ‘No, we won’t give you what you say you need, we won’t give you the technology that you need to keep us safe … Please go and keep us all safe but we won’t give you what you need.” 

Of course, law enforcement agencies are in a position to know what they need to get their jobs done. But law enforcement agencies can’t be relied upon to know when the powers they demand upset the security/civil liberties balance to an unacceptable degree. ‘What law enforcement agencies want’ cannot be the standard by which we decide what is acceptable; the obvious and stark conflict of interest rules that out.

This issue highlights a double-sided nature of law. On the one hand, the law gives politicians and law enforcement the powers they need to maintain order. On the other hand, the law places restrictions on how they can go about their duties. This dimension of law as an impediment to action is important if we want to make sure that the power we delegate to the state isn’t handled arbitrarily.

Australia is particularly weak when it comes to protective and corrective mechanisms to provide protection against the accumulation of executive power. Andrews is telling when he calls our civil liberties ‘notional’. Unusually for a Western society, Australians do not have many legally-entrenched civil liberties. For example, there is no nation-wide Bill of Rights. This is why discussion and debate are so important, and why the demands of law enforcement require pushback from other actors in society.

Going too far?

October’s agreement is a further step down the path of ‘security above all else’. How can we tell when we’ve gone too far down that path? Identifying proposals for laws that are troubling in themselves, like the pre-charge detention of children, is one way. The Law Council has called the pre-charge detention laws ‘extraordinarily draconian’.

Another way is to listen to those who are trying to communicate the wider context of Australia’s turn towards the unshackling of executive power in the name of safety. Former President of the Australian Human Rights Commission Gillian Triggs is one such prominent voice:

Questions of national security, justified by a fear of terrorism, often conflated with a fear of unauthorised arrivals of immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees, even a fear of Islam itself, have shielded government measures from political challenge as a taboo subject, creating a vacuum of silence in the absence of strong leadership.“

It doesn’t require any imagination to see what an imbalance of executive power, handled by Australian authorities without independent oversight, would look like. In Australia’s archipelago of detention centres, there is a long-running reign of abuse and violence.

Civil liberty is already a shaky, ‘notional’ concept in Australia, especially for individuals belonging to groups marginalised from political power. Our obsession with crime and safety has its costs, and whether the unshackling of executive power should continue unchecked is a matter of urgent national debate. Sadly, it seems as though our leaders aren’t even prepared to acknowledge there is a discussion to be had.

What do you think about the balance between security and civil liberties? Do the ends justify the means? Let us know in the comments!

The wheels of government have churned out a postal plebiscite as the answer to the same-sex marriage (SSM) debate. For people like me who have become tired of the hackneyed slippery slope arguments being trotted out by those who oppose SSM, this was initially welcome news.

Dig a little deeper though, and you’ll realise as I did that a postal plebiscite is just about the furthest thing from an ideal solution the Government could’ve gone done and thought up.

As it turns out, most people aren’t happy with the whole shebang, except perhaps the more right-leaning members of the Coalition. Former Justice of the High Court Michael Kirby has initially publicly stated his intention to boycott the vote, saying it sets a “dangerous precedent”. He joins countless others who rejected the idea of a SSM postal plebiscite on principle. Former Justice Kirby has, however, subsequently indicated that if there is no High Court challenge, or if there is no successful High Court challenge, he will be voting in the postal survey. And while I’ll still be voting, in spite of the Charlie Foxtrot that this has become, I think it’s important that people are informed before they decide whether or not to vote. So here goes my attempt to guide you through the minefield that is the SSM postal plebiscite.

A ‘novel’ approach (and a dangerous precedent)

A vote of this nature is unheard of in the Australian context.

By definition, it’s not even a plebiscite – it’s a national, non-binding, voluntary survey (which is reflected in its formal name: The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey). This is a totally novel approach and one that bypasses parliamentary process. Legislation does not need to be passed to hold a national survey of this nature – that’s why it can happen in spite of opposition from the other major parties in Parliament.

Whoever came up with this is a pretty smart cookie, albeit one who perhaps lacks an appreciation for ethics and human rights.

Symbolically, the SSM postal plebiscite subjects the rights of a minority group to the will of the majority, despite the fact that such rights are typically considered to be fundamental and inalienable.

This is a backwards step in terms of social progress, and that’s without even mentioning the vilification that a vote of this nature is likely to expose LGBTI people to. In fact, what Malcolm Turnbull maintained would be a respectful debate has already turned very nasty, and the postal plebiscite isn’t even guaranteed to happen yet (more on that later).

Anti-LGBTI posters featuring the slogan “stop the fags” (not to mention some horrendously inaccurate statistics) appeared in Melbourne last week, prompting Malcs to come out and plead with both sides of the debate to be respectful.

There’s even bigger issues at stake here. The SSM postal plebiscite sets a dangerous precedent that may see other minority rights subjected to a voluntary postal vote in the future. Being in Government is not supposed to be all smooth sailing – if our politicians can’t make the decisions they are elected to make, what is the basis for the social contract between citizen and government?

Show me the money

Under normal circumstances, the Government can only spend money if it has been authorised to do so by statute or where such spending is incidental to the executive power of the Commonwealth. Since the postal plebiscite has no legislative underpinning and does not satisfy the ‘incidental to the executive power of the Commonwealth’ provision, the Government had to find another way to fund the plebiscite.

Enter Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.

The Government is planning to fund the postal plebiscite under the Finance Minister’s Advance, which is provided for in the Appropriation Act and allows the Finance Minister to make $295 million available under certain circumstances. Still with me? Okay, good.

Constitutional challenges

That brings us to the Constitutional challenges that have been brought against the postal vote, which will be heard by the High Court in early September. The postal plebiscite is being challenged on two grounds, the first being whether the Government has the authority to spend money on an ABS-run postal survey. It appears that Minister Cormann may not have saved the day just yet.

The second challenge centres on the constitutionality of directing the ABS to run the survey, and in particular the meaning of ‘statistical information’. Even though ‘statistical information’ is not defined in the Census & Statistics Act, the ABS can’t just conduct surveys willy-nilly. The Bureau can only collect statistical information by means other than the Census on a list of topics, which is contained in the regulations that the ABS is administered under. Even when directed to do so by Government, the ABS cannot stray from this exhaustive list of topics. And while ‘marriage’ is on the list, some experts are questioning whether voters’ opinions can be classed as ‘statistical information’.

This already doesn’t bode well for the Government’s stroke of genius.

For something to be ‘statistical’, it must be weighted to counteract any skewing. This ensures that the views of all demographics are accurately and proportionately represented in the result. The Government is yet to reveal any plans it has to correct the results of the postal plebiscite for the likelihood that it will over-represent the opinions of baby boomers, and under-represent those of the homeless, silent electors, rural populations, and people overseas. Further, the only way to ensure the integrity of the voting process would be to issue voting papers with personal identifiers, which flies right in the face of privacy laws that dictate how the ABS can use the data they collect about us.

This is a recipe for High Court failure if I ever heard one.

What exactly are we to make of all this?

If either (or both) of the High Court challenges are successful, we’ll be back to a Parliamentary deadlock on same-sex marriage. This deadlock would likely persist until the next change of Government.

Even if the postal plebiscite does go ahead, the result will not be binding on the Government, and we could end up back where we were before the phrase ‘postal plebiscite’ was even so much as uttered.

This is an undemocratic, unjust, and downright backwards proposal. I’m living in New Zealand at the moment and, to be honest, I’ve been trying to avoid telling people where I’m from. The accent is a bit of a giveaway but, fortunately, I lived in the UK for 12 years so it’s passable for British (although then I have to answer questions about Brexit so it’s a bit of a Catch-22). New Zealand politics is much more sensible, even with an election fast approaching. Trying to explain how Australia got where it is regarding SSM as if it’s anything but an absurd reality has been painful, to say the least.

In an ideal world, we’d settle this with a fight to the death between Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turn- I mean, uh, a conscience vote on the floor of Parliament. Jokes aside, this is a sad moment for Australian politics and democracy. But, ultimately, any shot at legalising same-sex marriage is better than nothing.

That’s why I’ll be voting if the postal plebiscite goes ahead.

*Editor’s note: BucketOrange Magazine supports marriage equality and encourages our readers to vote in the upcoming postal plebiscite.

Further Information

• How To Enrol To Vote In The Same-Sex Marriage Plebiscite
• Same-Sex Postal Plebiscite: Where The Circus Is Headed From Here
• Everything You Need To Know About The Same-Sex Marriage Plebiscite

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent visit to Australia prompted Prime Minister Turnbull to reignite discussions around the importance of technology, science and investment. In his address at a luncheon recently held in honour of Netanyahu, Turnbull more specifically reiterated their joint commitment to

deliver the resilience and integrity of all the digital platforms on which our 21st century economies are built.”

The Government is right to focus on fostering an environment for better digital intelligence but the real challenge is paving the way for Australia to become a place where people want to own and retain intellectual property, not take it overseas.

Whilst Australia has a mature and desirable market, we still have a way to go in creating a digital intelligence environment conducive to strong capital growth.

Other countries cannot be criticised for having better ways of preserving capital. Experts and digital labor will continue to follow this capital abroad unless significant changes are made here in Australia.

Any government-backed programme to retain smart businesses in Australia, needs to be coupled with a new wave of tax reforms that encourage the creation and retention of intellectual property.

Governments around the world are trying to navigate taxing intellectual property in a borderless environment and there is tough competition between countries.

Home grown intellectual property should be encouraged to remain in Australia. Tax reform is a necessary tool when other countries are desperately trying to attract great ideas using concessional taxation of intellectual property. The people that have conceived those ideas will surely follow.

The Australian government’s $11.2 million initiative to establish “Landing Pads” in Berlin, San Francisco, Shanghai, Singapore and Tel Aviv, was designed to provide market-ready startups with a 90 day operational base located in one of the five global innovation hotspots.

While such an initiative could equip start-ups with the necessary tools to get their foot in the door, it also raises issues of integrity and security of that Intellectual property and whether sufficient protocols and measures are in place to ensure that it can be both commercialised and safeguarded abroad.

The state and federal governments should place greater importance on implementing long-term initiatives that dovetail with models of proven initiatives at a local level.

For example, Brisbane is leading the way in terms of creating a prosperous local environment for digital businesses to form.

Brisbane was only the second city in the world to appoint a Chief Digital Officer who worked with the business community to form a digital first strategy which aims to drive digital uptake and use in Brisbane.

Critical ingredients to the success of these up and coming business hubs are international transport links, high quality internet services and simple and easy work environments.

Start-ups would also benefit from having access to the distribution platforms of established players. If the federal government were to support larger digital businesses with distribution by encouraging them to keep their IP here, these larger businesses would be better placed to support the startup economy.

It’s time that the industry has a shake up and Australia should be looking at ways to keep the digital sphere close to home.

An IP style hub located in regional Western Australia, for example, could provide a gateway to strengthening Australian-Asian ties while also compensating for our deteriorating mining industry.

Business development, skills and information sharing are all key drivers in industry growth and it’s time that we focus on supporting and driving these elements within our own country to bolster businesses, big and small. More importantly, it’s imperative that local, state and federal initiatives are coordinated to ensure Australia’s best and brightest ideas are not lured away from our digital sphere when they are on the brink of commercialisation.

From a young age, we are conditioned to have a fixed and certain view about our careers and the persona that society attaches to it. Questions like “what do you want to be when you grow up?” or “what does your partner do for a living?” all feed into this psyche. But this is dated and dangerous.

Gone are the days of a job for life, and thank God, how boring. Today we must all be ready to adapt and embrace change. The only certainty in our professional and personal life is that things will change whether we are ready or not. So instead of fighting it, make it happen the way you want. Consider the benefits of slash careers, write your own story and don’t be limited by the scepticism and fears of those around you. And remember, even when you feel lost and uncertain and second-guess yourself, don’t worry, it’s normal, we’ve all been there. Just hold strong and have faith in yourself and if all of that is too hard, then just pretend until your ego catches up to your success!

I wanted to be a famous actress

For me, the attributes of embracing change, remaining adaptable and having a love and understanding of language have all been integral to my career. These attributes were incubated in the performing arts. Yes, I wanted to be a famous actress. I know, not the most common starting point for a lawyer.

Or … maybe a lawyer

After studying performing arts at UWS Theatre Nepean and taking up acting, I then found myself
teaching … something I had never planned on doing. Then, with the intervention of a good friend, I decided to take the leap and study law.

I remember being terrified because I really didn’t think I had the brainpower. I was always the fun, bubbly, arty one … not the serious lawyer. Thankfully, my brain cells managed to multiply and I ended up practising law for about nine years before moving from the legal arm at one of the big four banks to the frontline as a bank manager.

Now I am thankful for the skills I’ve picked up along the way because they enhance my client-centric focus in my current role at Nexus.

Opportunity doesn’t knock, it whispers!

To me, life is like reading a book. You don’t turn to the last page to find out how it pans out. You want to see how it develops.

If someone pointed me out to you in the theatre while portraying Hermia in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream and said, “Wow… she’d make a great general manager for a bank in 20 years’ time”, you’d laugh. For me, this is the most exciting thing about my career to date. I never saw any of it coming.

As my father once said to me, “opportunity doesn’t knock, it whispers, and you have to be listening.”

My journey into the law was amazing and a turning point for how I saw myself and my potential. Can you believe it? I was awarded first-class honours! And while I loved law and its practice, I didn’t like the way the traditional firms operated so, embracing change yet again, I moved to Hobart and began a PhD in bioprospecting.

Eventually, I came back to Sydney and worked in a couple of law firms including Truman Hoyle, which embraced my non-traditional lawyer personality. The more I practised law the more I became interested in what my clients did. I used to call it the “so-what” factor.

The law books say you can’t do it, but so what?

Really … a banker?

I contemplated work in business and ended up as legal counsel at Westpac. My inquisitive nature is never quelled and I started looking on the bank’s intranet to better understand its business. I thought the frontline sales team could do with some co-ordinated support, so I put together a proposal for a new job for myself. It coincided perfectly with Gail Kelly’s move to create a customer-centric culture. A series of secondments upskilled me to the extent I was then appointed as the bank manager at Hurstville, one of the top four branches in the country.

It was amazing. I loved it. Again I could feel my brain cells multiplying. It was a completely different skill set. Everything I had learnt as a lawyer actually hindered me. I had to learn to retrain a lot of things, even just simple communication.

I realised that legal language is terrible. After my experience as a bank manager, I now approach it differently. I can appreciate the mindset you get into as a lawyer, it is challenging, but it doesn’t work for everyday Australians, and that is who we are servicing. Communication fascinates me and I learnt that bankers are very good communicators because they are sellers. Lawyers traditionally aren’t.

And back to law … but no longer a “handbrake!”

Now back working as a lawyer I appreciate just how difficult it is to run a business unit. It’s a completely different skill set and I have huge respect for my clients and the work they do. What we do as lawyers is such a tiny facet of their business. It’s not everything, not the be all and end all. When you’re in a law firm you can trick yourself into thinking it’s a really important thing. It’s not, and for business it’s a headache and they don’t even want to think about the headache. No one wants to know about it.

The challenge is to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

When I was moving into the business arm of Westpac, the people who gave me a shot were more interested in my performing arts background. That’s what gave me the edge. My legal background was a concern to them. A lawyer in their minds was a handbrake. But a lawyer can be part of the solution.

What people think they need isn’t necessarily what they do need, and that’s where the skill set of the lawyer and the skill set of the banker come in. The theatrical background and love of teaching were integral to my success in the national manager role at Westpac, especially upskilling regional bank managers. Everything is simply a problem to be solved.

Many businesses and legal firms talk the talk when it comes to collaboration and collective wisdom, but few walk the walk. They baulk at bringing in people with different skill sets. That’s not the case at Nexus. It’s all about complete collaboration and striving for success. It’s all client-centric. Law is the only industry that thinks it doesn’t have to concentrate on customer service. My skill set from Westpac is a perfect fit – for me, the client is at the centre of everything.

Good business structure involves flexibility and strength. Those attributes apply to a good lawyer and a good law firm.

So remember … enjoy the journey, own your path and don’t apologise for taking a different route. Often it’s the choices that fill us with the most fear and make the least sense that end up defining our success and happiness.

What do you think about the prospect of sticking with one career for your entire professional life? Is the diversity and constant interest of a slash career something that interests and excites you? Let us know in the comments!

Cicero said, ‘the more laws, the less justice’, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the criminal arena, where picking the victim in a criminal offence is not always as easy as it seems.

Take two examples that St Johns Legal Centre has dealt with recently.

A young woman, Jan, staying in a hostel, is harassed over a period of weeks by a man who is steadily becoming more insistent. For a while he’s been making sexual advances and now he’s pressuring her to let him into her room. Unbeknownst to the man, Jan was sexually abused as a teenager and finds his approaches terrifying. She’s also suffering from an undiagnosed bipolar disorder. One morning, in the hostel dining room, the man makes another sexual advance and, in front of appalled onlookers, Jan cracks and smashes a piece of crockery in his chest.

Here’s another one. Max, living in a small town, befriends a young woman who has never used drugs and has just recently moved to the town. He introduces her to his good friend, Anthony, who uses heroin and when the young woman is found dead from an overdose on Anthony’s lawn, Max is racked with remorse. He blames himself for introducing the two, attends Anthony’s house to talk about what has happened and ends up seriously assaulting him.

In both of these cases, the offenders were charged and convicted. It is not possible, or desirable, to argue that their crimes were not very serious and warranted the proper criminal sanctions. But both offenders served the sentences meted out to them and, in Max’s case, a significant amount of jail time. In both cases, the offenders were truly remorseful and had done a lot of work to ensure that the offences did not recur.

As a result of the offence, Jan received a diagnosis of her bipolar disorder. She commenced on-going psychological and psychiatric treatment and started taking mood stablising medication. Her psychiatrist considered that it was “virtually inconceivable” that she could commit a similar offence in her present, treated, state.

Max completed a 56 hour anger management program upon his release, as well as an 18 month program designed to prevent reoffending and addiction relapse. He voluntarily saw a psychologist for six months and entered into, and maintained, a methadone program. In other words, Max and Jan took responsibility for their role in the offences.

Both of the victims received pay outs under the NSW Victims Support Scheme which makes a payment to victims in recognition of their injuries and provides them with financial support.  As part of the Scheme these payments are recovered, wherever possible, from the offenders. The Commissioner of Victims Rights makes a ‘provisional order for restitution’, requiring the offender to repay the amount awarded to the victim under the Victim Support Scheme, but first offering the offender the opportunity to object to the repayment, or to object to repaying the full amount. If no objection is received, the Commissioner generally confirms the provisional order.

Jan and Max received provisional orders to pay hefty amounts of restitution shortly after completing their sentences – $17, 000 in the first case and $10, 000 in the second.

Payment of a restitution order by an offender does not prevent the victim from also taking civil action and, in that event, damages against the offender are assessed without regard to the restitution already paid.

In these two instances, St Johns Legal Centre was able to get the amount of the restitution orders substantially reduced to $1, 500 and $2000 respectively. It is not specifically stated in the Commissioner’s reasons, but it is likely that the work each of the offenders had done on themselves to ensure the conduct would not reoccur played a significant part in persuading the Tribunal to reduce the restitution amounts.

Still, it is fortunate that the offenders were able to access free legal assistance. Objecting to the orders effectively would challenge most ordinary educated people, and was simply beyond the capacity of our clients. In each case, we gathered thick piles of financial and other documents, requested reports from psychologists and doctors and wrote detailed submissions. These were then collated and attached to affidavits and statutory declarations and each document and annexure required certification by a solicitor or Justice of the Peace. It was a process which in itself required significant commitment from the clients, both of whom were required to attend our centre in person on three separate occasions.

It is worrying, then, that free legal assistance for offenders like Jan and Max is so difficult to obtain.

Legal aid is not available for restitution orders, and the prospects of obtaining free legal assistance from elsewhere in the legal assistance sector are not good. Already chronically underfunded, the Federal Government plans to reduce funding to the legal assistance sector by about 30% in 2017-2018. Funding cuts to some community legal centres have already kicked in. Yet, hefty restitution orders like those made against Jan and Max can derail a life. This is especially so when the person subject to the orders is already impoverished and teetering due to mental illness, or reeling from a stint in prison.

In all the circumstances, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the victim and the offender apart.

* Names and circumstances have been changed to protect the identity of the persons involved.

Australia’s international legal obligations to refugees 

Australia has international legal obligations in relation to refugees in accordance with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention) and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Protocol). Australian legislation acknowledges our protection obligations towards refugees.

The particular legal definition of refugee is contained in the Refugees Convention, as well as relevant Australian law.

This essentially says that a refugee is a person who has a genuine and well-founded fear of serious harm amounting to persecution. Any such persecution must occur because of one or more of several reasons set out in the Convention. These are: religion, ethnicity, nationality, political opinion or as a member of some particular group in society.

Australian law provides that if any asylum seeker is not a refugee under the Refugees Convention definition, they may be entitled to protection in Australia under other international obligations as set out in Australian law – this is known as ‘complementary protection’. The requirement is essentially that there must be substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the person will suffer significant harm if they return to their home country. This does not need to be for one of the particular reasons detailed in the refugee definition. (However, there are important exceptions to the complementary protection provisions – including where the real risk of harm is one affecting the population generally).

Two distinct groups – How does asylum-seeker processing operate in practice?

The normal procedure for an asylum-seeker in Australia is that an initial application is assessed and determined by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the primary decision). Review of a negative decision on the merits can be sought through the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (this Division was formerly the Refugee Review Tribunal). Further, judicial review can be sought on grounds of legal error. Broadly speaking, Australia is faced with two distinct groups of asylum-seekers:

1. There are those (who in past years have overwhelmingly been the majority) who arrive in Australia legally with visitor, student or temporary business visas and who subsequently apply for refugee status in order to remain in Australia. Most of this group are unsuccessful in substantiating their asylum claims.
2. The other group, which has received the most attention in recent years, are those who seek to arrive directly by boat without visas: “irregular maritime arrivals”. These come from a relatively small group of countries, most prominently Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka – generally through Indonesia – but sometimes directly from Sri Lanka.

Off-shore detention of irregular maritime arrivals

Australia now intercepts this latter group at sea, and removes them directly to Nauru or Manus, where they are detained and processed by the Nauru and Papua New Guinea governments. Detention there is financed and controlled by the Australian authorities. Australia also effectively funds the determination process.

The review function is undertaken largely by Australians who have previously carried out the same function in Australia.

Although increasingly significant numbers of detainees on Nauru have been found to be refugees, Australia has refused to resettle them and has failed to take up New Zealand’s offers of resettlement. Resettlement has been offered in Cambodia, but very few have taken this up. The intention appears to be that resettlement should not be offered anywhere that might be seen as an improvement on conditions in their home countries. In consequence, even those found to be refugees, and released from detention, find themselves without a future – effectively trapped on a very small island with very limited education and employment opportunities and medical facilities. They often face open hostility from local people.

Rationale behind the government’s offshore detention policy

No elaboration is needed in relation to the physical, mental and physical security issues faced by those in detention on Nauru and Manus. These have been well documented and are chilling. As envisaged by successive Australian governments, it seems clear that such detention is consciously intended to be worse than the situation the asylum-seekers have fled, in order to discourage others from undertaking travel to Australia.

Australia is responsible for treatment of these people which is very much worse than how we treat serious criminals in Australian prisons, convicted through due process.

But these asylum-seekers are victims, not criminals.

The overwhelming majority of boat arrivals whose cases have been finally determined are consistently found by rigorous legal processes to be refugees.

Australia is responsible for subjecting them to serious and significant harm for reasons which a court would undoubtedly find comes within the Refugee Convention definition:

[bctt tweet=”Australia, as a consequence of deliberate government policy, is persecuting those fleeing from persecution.”]

How much longer can our politicians trash the reputation and self-respect of our country and its people, and persecute vulnerable people? The ends do not justify the means. We cannot knowingly and certainly destroy lives in order to (arguably) save others. As Australians, we cannot evade responsibility for what is happening to asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus. History will not absolve us.

There are no easy answers. The alternatives are difficult and complex. But anything is better than our complicity in Nauru.

A way forward?

There are certainly other avenues which could be explored that would impact on boats moving through the region to Australia.

To check the flow of boats through the region to Australia in a constructive way, rather than simply trying to create an impassable moat draconically enforced, we should revive a genuine cooperative regional approach (not ad hoc bilateral arrangements with selected regional countries). We have failed to make any real effort in this direction in recent years, and have also failed to engage constructively with Indonesia on a bilateral basis.

There is, in fact, a very successful precedent for such an approach which, while not entirely analogous, offers enough parallels to merit some attention.

The Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indo-Chinese Asylum-Seekers (CPA) implemented over several years from the late 1980s was a hugely successful program, coordinated by UNHCR, which directly involved countries of origin, countries of first asylum, countries of resettlement (including Australia) and other interested countries and agencies. Australia took a leading role in this exercise.

In response to a flow of Indo-Chinese asylum-seeker boats through the region in the late 1980s (a number reaching Australia), the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indo-Chinese Asylum-Seekers (CPA) was adopted at the International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees held in Geneva in June 1989. It was established as a framework for international cooperation at a time when asylum in South-East Asia was in crisis.

During its seven-year lifespan to June 1996, the CPA provided temporary refuge within the region, reduced clandestine departures, expanded legal departure possibilities and introduced region-wide refugee status determination procedures which helped stem the flow of asylum-seekers.

Regional countries such as Indonesia hosted very large UNHCR-run camps where processing took place resulting in both resettlement and returns.

Any new regional approach now would have to be negotiated under the aegis of UNHCR and eventually coordinated, if not run, by the UNHCR. Given recent policies and interactions, the region, and Indonesia in particular, is unlikely to embrace any purely Australian-run exercise.

Indonesia is the key to any such approach. Indonesia was left with some grievances at the end of the earlier CPA process, in particular, because of the slow clearance rate and any progress in this direction would have to be carefully negotiated and fully involve UNHCR from the start. Indonesia will not be bullied or patronised or taken for granted. It was deeply offended by the unilateralism of the Abbot government and will not accept some kind of semi-independent Australian operation in Indonesia or Indonesian waters. Screening in the region will have to be under the aegis of UNHCR (as it was for the CPA), not a thinly-veiled Australian operation.

Nor will Indonesia be easily bought off by simply being offered money to keep the asylum seekers in Indonesia. Indonesia is not a poor undeveloped country which will fall over backwards for a few million dollars of aid, but an increasingly dynamic South East Asian economy. However, very substantial resources will need to be provided as part of any arrangements, as a necessary but not sufficient condition.

An absolute pre-condition for Indonesia would be iron-clad guarantees that it will not be stuck for extended periods with large numbers of asylum seekers, but that they will be resettled elsewhere (if screened in) or returned home (if screened out). Some direct assistance to Indonesia to enable it to better police its waters, including its sea border with Malaysia where many asylum-seekers enter, would also be a very useful element in the mix.

There would need to be serious guarantees from appropriate countries about resettlement including, in particular, Australia.

It will not be sufficient to simply set up holding centres and screening in Indonesia. In a sense, that will of itself become a magnet while conditions in source countries continue to impel flight. There will need to be parallel efforts in potential countries of first asylum, through which asylum-seekers pass en route to Indonesia. As the CPA showed, this can be achieved and made to work even where such countries are not signatories to the Refugee Convention. Malaysia would have to be included. Pakistan, home to a huge Afghan diaspora in recent years (especially Hazaras), will be much more problematic.

It is difficult to see what might be done in the short term to mitigate push factors in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. The international community is already frustrated in making any progress in either country.

Iran produces many well-educated secular-minded people whose rising expectations lead them to look to the West rather than, in many cases, being motivated by persecution. A targeted skilled migration intake might well have an impact there.

In the case of Sri Lanka, the other large source country, there is evidence that economic conditions, particularly among the Tamil population of the west and north, are playing a large part and there are prospects for a large and targeted aid program to have some impact on this.

Conclusion

The above is not a blueprint for detailed arrangements about whose efficacy one can be confident. Rather, they are indications of a few directions which offer some prospects for improvement and amelioration of the present situation.

As noted above, any approach should be multilateral or regional, not bilateral and certainly not unilateral and will almost certainly have to be conducted in full cooperation with, and under the aegis of, the UNHCR if any such approach is to prove acceptable within the region.

Over the past year, and with increasing intensity since the Paris attacks in November 2015, debates have raged in the EU, the United States, and elsewhere as to how to address and manage the flood of Syrian refugees fleeing violence in their country – “the world’s largest humanitarian crisis since World War II” according to the European Commission on Humanitarian Aid. A recent article refers to the struggle to identify the “true” refugee in an exodus such as this. At the same time, the countries immediately surrounding Syria strain under the weight of the millions of migrants who have sought safety within their borders.

As the world struggles to address the crisis caused by 9 million people fleeing their homes in the span of four years, increasing attention has turned to the role that the oil-rich emirates of the Persian Gulf are playing – or not playing – as part of the international response.

The statistics demonstrate why eyebrows are being raised:

• 3 million: according to the European Commission on Humanitarian Aid, this is the number of Syrians who fled to the country’s immediate neighbors – Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq -since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011.
• 681,000: the number of Syrians who have arrived in Europe and applied for asylum between 2011 and November 2015 according to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, a number that grows by the day.
• Zero: According to Amnesty International, that is the number of Syrian refugees allowed into the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE) since the conflict began.

Demographics and Fear of Instability Drive Immigration Policy

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have pushed back on the claims that they have stood idly by during the crisis, pointing to millions of dollars they have given to relief efforts, and asserting that they have admitted hundreds of thousands of Syrians as migrant workers.

The distinction between whether a Syrian is allowed into one of the Gulf States as a “worker” or a “refugee” may seem like an issue of semantics, but it reveals the complicated nature of immigration policies in the Gulf States.

Much of the growth and development in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States over the past decades has been accomplished through the labour of hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals admitted to the countries on work permits. In fact, foreign workers in many Gulf States are by far the largest part of the population. In the UAE, for example, foreign nationals outnumber citizens by more than five to one.

While such large numbers of foreign workers have been necessary for economic reasons, fears of political instability and demographic imbalance have made Gulf governments wary of expanding the number of work visas they will grant to workers from other Arab nations. According to rights groups, the reality is that visa restrictions make it difficult if not impossible for Syrians to enter and stay in Gulf countries, and their rights are extremely limited while they are there. Foreigners are only allowed residency if they or their spouse have full-time jobs in the country, they cannot stay in the country without work, and once their contracts are up almost all migrants are forced to leave.

Furthermore, critics also say the numbers of Syrians cited by the Gulf States as proof of their assistance with the crisis are not in fact families escaping violence and squalor but rather wealthy Syrians who can pay handsomely to sit out the war.

No “Refugees” Admitted to – or Recognised By – the Gulf States

The same fears of upsetting a delicate demographic balance and importing political instability or violence that drive the limits on foreign workers in the Gulf States also explains, at least in part, the reluctance of the Gulf States to take in Syrians as “refugees.”

But another reason is the fact that the Gulf States are under no legal obligation to assist with the crisis. Unlike the vast majority of nations, including the countries of the EU, the US, and Australia, the Gulf States are not signatories to the 1951 international convention on refugee rights which establishes the status and rights of refugees as well as the obligations of participating nations. As such, the Gulf States do not even recognise the concept of “refugees” and therefore take the approach that Syrians wanting to enter their countries must meet the same standards and comply with the same burdensome rules as any workers wishing to be admitted.

Europe and the West are Seen as the Only Options

Given both the challenges of gaining entrance to the Gulf States and the limitations on their rights if they somehow are allowed in, Syrian refugees have largely eschewed any efforts to get to the Gulf States, focusing instead on the treacherous journey to Europe or other Western countries.

While politicians and populations in many such countries have appeared less than welcoming, especially in the wake of the Paris attacks, the fact remains that the benefits available and the chances of receiving permanent asylum away from their war-torn homeland are substantially better in Europe and the West than they are in the Middle East.

Post-Paris, U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to veto proposals by Republicans to put a halt on admitting Syrian refugees. French President Francois Hollande has reaffirmed his country’s commitment to accepting Syrian migrants, and in Australia, the first of an expected 12,000 Syrian refugees have begun to arrive.

Conclusion

With the Gulf States giving no indication that they will be making any significant changes to their immigration or refugee policies in the foreseeable future, Syrians fleeing war will continue to focus their efforts on making it to other countries – Europe, the U.S., and Australia primarily – for safety and the chance of a new life.

2015 has been a year of mass migrations.

Between January to August 2015, 350,000 irregular migrants entered Europe. An estimated 800,000 migrants seeking asylum are expected to arrive in Germany alone this year.

With only four mass migrations occurring in Europe in recorded history, what can be done with so many people in a modern migrant crisis?

And who can pick a true refugee within the context of mass flows of people into Europe from middle eastern countries in war situations or experiencing political or social upheaval?

What Caused The Migrant Crisis And What Is Europe Doing About It?

According to BBC News, the mass exodus of people from the Middle East and Africa is being fuelled mainly by civil war and terror with conflicts raging in Syria and Afghanistan as well as human rights abuses in Eritrea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhBlYwxcaLY

What Is A Refugee?

Under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees, a refugee is:

Any person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.”

If it were possible to identify many of the people fleeing into Europe as refugees under the Refugees Convention and Protocol, what recognition under these international instruments should now be given to them? What protection should be afforded to them and what can, and should, be done for them as well as the large number of people who have been dubbed migrants rather than refugees?

Australia’s Position

Australia’s past response to a mass influx of people from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma and Sri Lanka in ‘turning back the boats’ was successful. It did, however, sublimate our international convention obligations by denying many true refugees the protection to which they were entitled.

At the time, this deliberate avoidance of our international obligation was, perhaps, considered ‘justifiable’ in order to save the lives of many people, including families undertaking such a dangerous sea voyage.

Which raises the question: Is this stance a proper or permanent position for Australia to adopt? According to international or domestic law, can we lawfully (or even morally) maintain this position while still adhering to our current international refugee obligations? The jury is still out on these questions.

Is There A Solution For Europe?

Whatever the legality or morality of Australia’s policy position on refugees, this type of ‘turn back the boats’ response is simply not available to landlocked European countries which are now desperate to find a viable solution for hundreds of thousands of people arriving at their borders daily.

Short of using unpleasant or violent state measures, there is no way to physically prevent mass people movements into Europe across open EU borders.

The migrant crisis is unlikely to improve in the near future without regime change, or complete political and economic solutions emerging overnight in countries being fled.

Who Are The True Refugees?

It is impossible for anyone to say now how many of these desperate people from war torn or repressive Middle Eastern countries are genuine refugees. But does it matter what label is given to them?

For Germany, France, the UK or other affected countries, there is no way to assess such numbers of people properly under their usual refugee assessment processes. Any attempt to do so would take many years and result in significant cost to affected countries, the claimants and their families.

Even Australia faces a herculean administrative and expensive task, under well-developed refugee assessment procedures, to resolve the refugee claims of tens of thousands of boat people who arrived in Australia more than two years ago. Refugee claimants who were removed to Nauru and Papua New Guinea are also still to be resolved.

Legal Change Needed

It is clear that the idea and legal definition of who is a refugee and, therefore, entitled to protection is no longer viable in 2015.

In recent years, Australia has introduced an additional form of protection called Complementary Protection. This is an extension of protection that can be given to asylum seekers. It is used for people who were not previously recognised as a refugee under Australia’s refugee assessment process, but whom the Minister finds substantial grounds for believing that they could face a real risk of suffering significant harm if removed from Australia. This is a positive step forward but does not go far enough.

Mass movements of people across the globe in response to political, social and economic crises as well as religious persecution that is unique to the 21st century require a new and robust solution.

Conclusion

The global approach to who is entitled to refugee protection, or other forms of protection, is in pressing need of review.

It is time for the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), perhaps, to review the obsolete definition of who is entitled to refugee protection and what obligations are imposed on countries that have ratified the Refugees Convention and Protocol.

Most importantly, the UNHCR needs to make a strong case to the United Nations for nation states to:

• find effective and enforceable solutions to mass people movements
• strive to remove their root causes more effectively; and
• resolve to develop ways to help people in need in their home countries.

This should be a priority, regardless of whether persons seeking asylum qualify for protection under the current outdated refugee definition; or under a new definition; or simply because law and order is breaking down in their home country and remaining there is not feasible without serious threat to life.

What do you think Governments should do about mass movements of people into their countries? Is there an easy answer, or will this issue continue to be placed in the ‘too hard’ basket? Let us know what you think in the comments section below!

For Information About Refugee & Asylum Seeker Policies And Processes Visit:

• Refugee & Immigration Legal Centre (RILC)
• Refugee Council
• United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR)
• Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC)
• Department of Immigration and Border Protection

The breakdown of any relationship is a traumatic experience.

But what if the person you once trusted intentionally reposted intimate pictures or videos of you without your consent? The misuse of technology as an emergent tool of degradation and punishment has become alarmingly common in Australia.

It’s a devious and perverted form of post-breakup warfare that is being waged online.

This is the dark and insidious world of revenge porn.

History and pathology

It began in a relatively isolated way. Several websites, mainly US-based publications, popped up to cater for malicious reposting with an ever-growing community of actively engaged users supplying sexually explicit content to site administrators.

In the last few years the revenge porn business has boomed. Photos are usually sent in by spurned ex-partners (mostly men) seeking an avenue for revenge against former girlfriends. Many images posted on specially dedicated sites specify the victim’s full name and are linked to social media profiles. Some go as far as including personal details such as employer information. In other cases, sexually explicit images are posted on social media or emailed to friends, family or even work colleagues without the knowledge or consent of the victim.

The intention is to humiliate, harass or blackmail.

Widespread use of social media and smart phones among young people who capture selfies for the purpose of ‘sexting’ has paved the way for the actions of few to easily spiral out of control. ‘One click’ access and publication of personal information on social media has, perhaps, groomed an entire generation to accept abuse of information as the new norm. What was once reserved exclusively for the private domain has now become part of an increasingly private ‘public dialogue.’

More than ever, the internet is providing ill-intentioned perpetrators with a dangerous platform to not only air grievances but also to find a similarly-inclined audience.

The rapid proliferation of this form of sexual exploitation has occurred for two main reasons:

1. ease of publication; and
2. lack of accountability.

As a growing practice, this unconstrained freedom to publish explicit media has, and continues, to go largely unchecked.

The trend has given rise to a problem that has not been faced by any other generation – and the results can be devastating.

Impact on victim

Unlike other forms of abuse, revenge porn involves no physical harm to the victim.

The emotional and psychological toll can, however, closely mirror the impact of a sex crime. The victim is left feeling helpless, violated, humiliated and without recourse. In some reported cases, intimate images are used to manipulate and blackmail current partners within the context of a domestic violence situation.

In the past, victims of sexually explicit photo hacks have experienced harsh public backlash. Disney star Vanessa Hudgens, for example, made a public apology after explicit photos surfaced on the internet. Nowadays, victims (particularly celebrities) of photo hacks are calling attention to revenge porn and online photo attacks for what they truly are – a sex crime. A changing mainstream media dialogue spearheaded in large part by Jennifer Lawrence following a nude photo hack late last year now rightfully redirects blame, attention and shame to the shoulders of the perpetrator.

State of the law in Australia – Is it doing enough?

Like most countries, Australia has no laws specifically designed to combat revenge porn or malicious reposting. Current privacy laws deal mainly with abuse by corporations or government bodies but mention nothing about breaches made by private individuals. State and territory criminal laws, on the other hand, deal with physical assault rather than virtual behaviour that causes similar and serious and ongoing psychological harm.

Victoria is leading the charge against revenge porn in Australia by amending existing sexting laws. Recently passed legislation makes it a criminal offence to distribute, or threaten to distribute, intimate images or videos of a person without consent.

In a Federal context, the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 makes it an offence to use the internet to menace, harass or offend. As a broad spectrum law, it has been used to prosecute cases of cyber bullying. Some commentators argue that it may be used to prosecute perpetrators of revenge porn. However, as a newly emerging area of cybercrime there is no legal precedent and no criminal prosecutions that have used this legislation to date.

This is not the first time the law has lagged.

When it comes to the rapidly-evolving area of cyber crime, the actions of individuals often overtake the ability of policy makers and legislators to keep pace. From the Silk Road online black market used for the sale of illegal drugs to other deep web and darknet services, there is no shortage of ways for extremest groups, child pornographers or illegal goods distributors to engage in untraceable illegal activity hidden from relevant authorities.

The UK and several states in the US have now regulated against revenge porn. In the UK it is now an offence punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment.

What if it happens to you, or someone you know?

If you become aware of a picture that has been published online without your consent, move quickly! The longer your images are online, the more people will see them and the further they are likely to spread. Taking immediate action is the best way to ensure that the pictures are removed successfully.

1. Report the crime to local police;
2. If the picture has been posted on social media, report the abuse through appropriate channels immediately and request that the image is removed;
3. If the images have been posted on social media, depending on the nature of your relationship with the perpetrator, you may wish to contact him/her directly to request the pictures are taken down. Sometimes the most effective strategy is the simplest: appealing to a person’s better nature may well produce the outcome you seek without the need to pursue further action;
4. If the picture has been posted on a specially dedicated revenge porn website, however, contact the site’s administrator and request the picture is removed;
5. Seek advice from a lawyer who specialises in cyber crime.

Some suggested wording you may wish to consider using when requesting the removal of an image:

Dear [insert name of site administrator]

I have recently become aware of explicit images of myself that have been posted on your website without my knowledge or consent.

I am writing to request the immediate removal of these images.

If my images are not removed within 24 hours I will be forced to report your website to the authorities and to pursue legal action.

Thank you

Regards

[insert your name]

Another possible legal avenue could involve suing website owners for breach of copyright under civil Copyright Protection laws. Copyright protection in Australia is automatic as soon as an image is captured.

This means that if  you took the explicit image yourself, it belongs to you.

Virtual reality

A good defence is the best offence.

Be mindful of the information you share. Abuse – whether virtual or physical – almost always happens at a time and in a way that we cannot anticipate.

Report any online attack immediately and talk about it with friends and family.

The only outcome to be achieved by remaining silent is to allow the perpetrator to win.

Have you or anyone you know been victimised by revenge porn? Do you think legislation should punish perpetrators of online assaults in the same way as other sex crimes? Let us know what you think in the comments section below!

Further information

If you or someone you know has been the victim of revenge porn contact:

• Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (ACORN)
• Local police assistance line: 131444
• National Counselling Helpline: 1800 737 732 (for assistance and practical strategies on how to cope with the ongoing effects of revenge porn) or
• To explore a remedy for copyright infringement seek advice from a copyright lawyer.