# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated July 27, 2016 17:27:06

There are calls for the royal commission into Northern Territory juvenile detention to be broadened, with claims the practices depicted on the Four Corners program are occurring nationwide.

Monday's night's Four Corners contained graphic footage of children being mistreated at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in Darwin, including the tear-gassing of six boys in an isolation unit in August 2014.

There are now claims such mistreatment has occurred nationally, with girls in detention having "their clothes cut off and left naked in cells".

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced a royal commission to look into the NT allegations and focus on the Territory's youth detention system.

Attorney-General George Brandis confirmed on Tuesday night that the royal commission would not examine claims outside the NT.

"We don't propose to take it beyond the Northern Territory, because that's the particular problem that has been exposed," he told 7.30.

"And I think one of the things about these royal commissions is: if they're going to be useful, if they're going to provide practical solutions to real and urgent problems, they should be focused."

But Indigenous advocates want a broader scope, claiming abuse in youth detention centres is widespread.

Sisters Inside chief executive Debbie Kilroy, a non-government organisation that advocates for the rights of women and girls in the criminal and justice system, said she was "not surprised" by the Four Corners report.

"As a young person who was in and out of youth detention in my teenage years, that violence occurred there and it continues today in a number of, if not all, youth prisons across this country," Ms Kilroy said.

"Girls have informed me that they have been held down, had their clothes cut off and left naked in cells, that they have been over-medicated, that they have been assaulted by staff.

"I'm talking about girls in Queensland and girls in other jurisdictions across Australia."

Ms Kilroy's concerns have been echoed by Siyavash Doostkhah, director of the youth body Youth Affairs Network, who has written to Mr Turnbull today to argue the royal commission should examine youth detention centres across Australia.

"In the past 20 years I've heard thousands of cases of young people being abused," Mr Doostkhah said.

"We've written to the Prime Minister and the concern is we're not talking about a one-off incident, this is a systemic problem that's been going on for far too long.

"This is an opportunity to look at this issue across Australia and look at it in a way that allows people to come forward under a royal commission."

Royal commission has to 'look nationally'

Ms Kilroy agreed that the royal commission "has to have a national scope".

"If it's only narrowed down to the Don Dale Detention Centre, the commission will miss not only discovering, but exposing the systemic and structural fundamental issues with our youth and, for that matter, our adult prison system," she said.

Aboriginal and Torres Islander social justice commissioner Mick Gooda also said the royal commission should look beyond the Northern Territory.

"I think they've got to look nationally," Mr Gooda said.

"I think you've got to look at why there are so many of our kids in detention. The Northern Territory's worse, but they're by no means alone in that.

"We keep on saying imprisonment is a last option, [but] we must have a lot of kids in those systems right throughout Australia who are there for minor offences."

Ms Kilroy said she had been trying to bring the issue of abuse to the attention of authorities for "decades".

"But because we don't have the ... CCTV footage evidence we are usually dismissed, the young people are dismissed, the women are dismissed," she said.

"We're either claimed to be over-exaggerating or actually just blatant liars."

Lawyers support calls for national inquiry

Indigenous barrister Joshua Creamer said he "totally agrees" the royal commission should be expanded.

"The word torture's been used quite rightly today, I think that's a very accurate description of the incidents that occur in some of these centres," Mr Creamer said.

"We really need to work to address these issues and these issues are systemic across the entire system."

The Law Council of Australia said it supported a royal commission into the abuse of children in detention in the NT and director Arthur Moses said the issue should be examined more broadly.

"There is no doubt that this is a national crisis," Mr Moses said.

"Other jurisdictions must now examine their youth detention practices for compliance with international standards to ensure that such conduct is not occurring in their institutions."

First posted July 26, 2016 16:40:10

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NT royal commission not enough, make it national, advocates say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated July 27, 2016 17:27:06 There are calls for the royal commission into Northern Territory juvenile detention to be broadened, with claims the practices depicted on the Four Corners program are occurring nationwide. Monday's night's Four Corners contained graphic footage of children being mistreated at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in Darwin, including the tear-gassing of six boys in an isolation unit in August 2014.

# data[].attributes.body
Is this a threat to the rule of law in Australia?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated October 06, 2016 14:18:29

On Wednesday, a Senate committee took evidence in an inquiry investigating the issue of a direction from Attorney-General George Brandis to the solicitor-general, Justin Gleeson.

By the end of the day, the shadow attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, was calling on Brandis to resign for misleading parliament and lying to the Australian people, or for the prime minister to sack him.

So what has Brandis done - or is alleged to have done - that has led to these calls?

The law officers

In Australia, the attorney-general and the solicitor-general are the first and second law officers of the crown.

The attorney-general holds a largely political office, sitting in cabinet and often holding other portfolios. To fulfil their responsibilities for providing legal services to the government, the attorney-general is assisted by the solicitor-general.

The solicitor-general is a statutory office established under the Law Officers Act. The solicitor-general has three functions. While there is some disagreement about how these functions overlap, generally speaking it can be said the solicitor-general represents the government in legal matters and advises the government on legal questions.

The solicitor-general is given some level of independence under the act. This is of fundamental importance, because the solicitor-general advises the government on highly significant legal questions and must exercise independence from government in this role.

The solicitor-general sits at the top of the vast numbers of lawyers who advise and act for government agencies, departments and officeholders. Their advice is respected as final and authoritative within government, subject to being overruled by the courts or, in very rare circumstances, by the attorney-general.

However, an inherent tension is built into the relationship between the attorney-general and the solicitor-general. The attorney-general is the minister responsible for the solicitor-general. But it is imperative that the solicitor-general can advise the government independently, including from the more political attorney-general.

It is also imperative that those across government - including the prime minister - have ready and unhindered access to the solicitor-general.

How this inherent tension is negotiated rests on the integrity of the individuals who hold the two offices, and the mutual respect and trust between them.

The submissions and evidence before the Senate committee's inquiry revealed this relationship has fallen to unprecedented lows.

The solicitor-general raises his concerns

Attached to Gleeson's submission to the committee was a letter to Brandis dated November 12, 2015, in which he sought a meeting to discuss several concerns he had regarding his advisory function.

These included a statement by Brandis to Dreyfus on the government's proposal to suspend or revoke a person's citizenship that Gleeson considered possibly inaccurate. The statement was much quoted in the media, and was to the effect that Gleeson had advised:

... there is a good prospect that a majority of the High Court would reject a constitutional challenge to the core aspects of the bill.

Similar statements were reported from the prime minister.

Gleeson had explained in his letter that, in the full context of the extent to which he had and hadn't provided advice on the bill and amendments to it, the statements:

... are capable of being understood as statements about the solicitor-general having advised on the current bill, and about the content of that advice. If so understood, they are inaccurate.

Gleeson's concerns included that he had not at that stage been requested to advise the government on proposed amendments to achieve marriage equality, and a failure by Brandis and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to seek his previous advice in relation to the release of correspondence between Sir John Kerr and the Queen in 1975.

Gleeson's concerns over inaccurate representation of the solicitor-general's advice are not new. The status and reputation of the office and the officeholders is such that governments are keen to rely upon them - before parliament and the public - when the legality of their actions is uncertain or called into question.

However, parliament has its own constitutional responsibilities to assess the legality of its actions. It may be failing in these where it relies only upon assurances by the government about the nature and strength of the solicitor-general's advice.

MPs ought to insist on seeing the solicitor-general's advice referred to so they can assess these things for themselves. Gleeson's concerns about the possibly inaccurate representation of his legal advice to parliament (and the public) on the citizenship-stripping legislation demonstrate the importance of the full release of advice in such circumstances.

The recent report by the UK's Chilcot inquiry into the legality of the Iraq War also highlights the dangers of parliament relying upon a summary form of the law officers' opinion. There, a summary of the attorney-general's advice was provided to parliament. The caveats and preconditions provided in the full advice on the war's legality were removed.

This summary provided insufficient information for the parliament to take a vote on whether to authorise Britain's entry into that conflict.

The attorney-general responds

Brandis made the direction at the centre of the current storm on May 4, 2016 - almost six months after Gleeson first raised his concerns.

It purports to require that all persons or bodies seeking an opinion of the solicitor-general on a question of law must first obtain the attorney-general's written, signed consent. All briefs to the solicitor-general must include a copy of the attorney-general's signed consent.

There is some disagreement among experts as to whether the direction is legally valid. While an important legal question, it may prove ultimately to be unnecessary to resolve.

It appears likely the direction will be disallowed in the Senate next week. This would also resolve the concerns about the effect of the direction: that it may deter or prevent Commonwealth entities from seeking legal advice from the solicitor-general.

Brandis has not directly explained why, given the nature of previous arrangements the solicitor-general had put in place, the direction was required at all.

Prior to the direction, the practice of the solicitor-general was governed by a less-formal protocol that was captured in a guidance note. Whenever a request for advice came to the solicitor-general, he wrote to the attorney-general to inform him of the request and allow him to confirm it. A copy of the advice was, in most instances, also provided to the attorney-general.

When Brandis made the direction, he issued an explanatory statement to the effect that he had fulfilled his statutory duty to consult with those affected by it. More specifically, it said:

The attorney-general has consulted the solicitor-general.

The two in conflict

In his submission, Gleeson denies that consultation occurred.

Documents released by Gleeson indicate a number of weeks of discussions and consultation took place between his office, the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Government Solicitor about a possible change to the guidance note. But there is no indication in these documents that a direction was proposed.

Further, Gleeson has denied there was any discussion about a requirement to seek the formal approval of the attorney-general before seeking his advice. In contrast to the direction, the guidance note was not a legal instrument; it was not enforceable in any way.

While Brandis' submission to the committee has not yet been publicly released, it appears he disputes this version of events. He claims that on November 30, 2015, when he met Gleeson, Gleeson was consulted on the possible direction, and not just an amendment to the guidance note.

Gleeson and Brandis appear to be at a stalemate over the nature and scope of the consultations that took place. Regardless of where the truth lies, we now have an extraordinary position where the two law officers are in conflict. It demonstrates an unprecedented, very public breakdown in the relationship between the two officeholders.

To fulfil its potential for fostering the rule of law in government, the solicitor-general relies on others respecting and understanding their office. This respect and understanding ought to be exemplified and encouraged by the first law officer, the attorney-general.

The current situation demonstrates such a loss of openness, trust and respect between the attorney-general and the solicitor-general that there are serious doubts the solicitor-general can fulfil his fundamentally important function within government.

It is a situation with potentially serious repercussions for government under the rule of law.
Gabrielle Appleby, Associate Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW Australia
Originally published in The Conversation.

Topics: federal-government, law-crime-and-justice, federal-parliament, australia

First posted October 06, 2016 13:47:51

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brandis-Gleeson standoff threatens rule of law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated October 06, 2016 14:18:29 On Wednesday, a Senate committee took evidence in an inquiry investigating the issue of a direction from Attorney-General George Brandis to the solicitor-general, Justin Gleeson. By the end of the day, the shadow attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, was calling on Brandis to resign for misleading parliament and lying to the Australian people, or for the prime minister to sack him.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you think the claimants will be successful?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted September 23, 2016 12:54:51

Lawyers say a class action in Queensland over unpaid wages to Aboriginal people is setting a national precedent, as dozens more come forward in other states to say they were not paid properly.

More than 300 people are suing the Queensland Government in the Federal Court, which held money in a trust that should have been paid to them as labourers or domestic workers more than half a century ago.

Rebecca Jancauskas, from Shine lawyers, said the class actions first directions hearing this week had revealed that the litigation proceedings would be speedy because of the advanced age of the claimants.

"It was clear that these claims are being taken seriously by federal court bench," she said.

"And proceedings have set the tone for litigation in other states where protectionist legislation was in place and wages were withheld from Indigenous people.

"Dozens of individuals have contacted Shine from across Australia wanting to register to be a part of action in their state.

"So what we're doing at Shine is investigating bringing proceedings in other states - including the Northern Territory, Western Australia and NSW."

'We were sometimes paid three pounds'

Violet Perry was 15 years old when she and dozens of other girls were taken from a mission in central New South Wales to become domestic workers in Sydney.

"The welfare board walked in one day and she said to my mother: 'I've got a job for your daughter'," she said.

"My mother nearly screamed the house down, I was crying and I didn't know what to say or do."

Ms Perry worked in homes in Sydney's eastern suburbs for years in the early 1960s.

She said she was "sometimes" paid three pounds a week, but said there were times where she and the other workers would not get paid at all.

"Because we had a room down the back we never asked questions, because they might have done something to us," she said.

Ms Perry, now 71 years old, is one of the dozens of people around Australia who have come forward wanting to be part of the class action.

2002 claimants received a 'fraction of what they were owed'

The Queensland Government did set up a reparations scheme in 2002, but Ms Jancauskas said claimants only received between $2,000 and $7,000 for decades of work as labourers, stockmen or domestic servants.

"The amount they received through the reparations scheme was but a fraction of the money that the Government is holding in trust for them," Ms Jancauskas said.

"Had people received their entitlements through reparations schemes, then there would be no need for litigation to be pursued."

Those who took part in the scheme had to sign a deed of release, stopping them from taking further action.

But Ms Jancauskas said that would not stop them from participating in the litigation.

Topics: indigenous-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander, indigenous-policy, government-and-politics, community-and-society, federal---state-issues, states-and-territories, law-crime-and-justice, courts-and-trials, australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indigenous 'stolen wages' class action setting a 'national precedent'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Posted September 23, 2016 12:54:51 Lawyers say a class action in Queensland over unpaid wages to Aboriginal people is setting a national precedent, as dozens more come forward in other states to say they were not paid properly.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is it legitimate to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it legitimate to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality?

# data[].attributes.body
Should the majority vote on minority rights?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fresh doubt surrounds the plebiscite on same sex marriage, with the Government set to ditch its plan to hold the vote this year on the strong advice of the Australian Electoral Commission.

Labor and the Greens are stepping up the pressure to abandon the plebiscite altogether and put the question to a vote in Parliament instead.

Marriage equality groups are warning the likely delay will mean more confusion and anxiety for the LGBTI community.

Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby has expressed grave concerns about the constitutional basis for a plebiscite, which would be the first in almost a century to be held on a policy issue.

Michael Kirby joins Fran Kelly on RN Breakfast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Michael Kirby dismisses same-sex marriage plebiscite, calls on Parliament to address marriage equality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fresh doubt surrounds the plebiscite on same sex marriage, with the Government set to ditch its plan to hold the vote this year on the strong advice of the Australian Electoral Commission. Labor and the Greens are stepping up the pressure to abandon the plebiscite altogether and put the question to a vote in Parliament instead.

# data[].attributes.body
Look what Rob Katter is planning...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated September 15, 2016 15:16:58

Katter's Australian Party (KAP) is pushing ahead with its call to split Queensland into two states, proposing a boundary be decided by the Queensland Redistribution Commission or another independent body.

Rob Katter will move to debate the idea in Parliament tonight.

"I give notice that I shall move that the Queensland Legislative Assembly supports in accordance with section 124 of the Commonwealth constitution the separation of Queensland into two states," he said.

"That the boundary of the two states is to be as recommended by an independent body such as the current Queensland Redistribution Commission."

Mr Katter has previously told the ABC the split was needed to address what he described as a "sinkhole" of funding to "keep building aquariums in Brisbane and office buildings and to buy votes".

The constitution, section 124, allows a state parliament to approve the separation of that state.

However, even if the motion is passed it would not be a binding decision - just an expression of MPs' opinions.

Mr Katter said if that happened, the next step would be to bring in legislation.

"If the House decides to support this as a principle then we'd be motivated to take it further [with legislation] down the track," he said.

But fellow party member Shane Knuth was not confident the motion would pass.

"We've got quite a few south-east Queensland MPs in the House and I don't think the numbers are going to stack up, but we're going to put the fight on," Mr Knuth said.

Cairns-based independent MP Rob Pyne supports the split, which has been discussed many times.

"Townsville has the V8s and the Cowboys, I think the administrative capital would be well placed in the tropical city of Cairns," Mr Pyne said.

"But this is a very serious issue because Cairns has very high unemployment, and many administrative positions [of government] are in Brisbane."

The recent LNP state convention voted down a motion to hold a referendum, although it was backed by Senator Matt Canavan and MP George Christensen.

'North Queensland' would not survive on its own: Byrne

Central Queensland MP Bill Byrne said the north could not survive economically on its own.

The KAP and Cairns MP Rob Pyne argue that mining royalties from the north do not get spent in the north, but Mr Byrne said that did not add up.

"It's a $50 billion state budget. Let's just say all mining royalties for example went to the new northern state. That'd be $2 to $3 billion," he said.

"Significant, but it's still a modest component of how the state budget is put together.

"In straight budgetary terms I would say that if you tried to split the state in half you're going to see a northern state that fundamentally does not have the financial wherewithal to sustain the level of service that's currently there.

"Can you imagine what it would cost to deliver power across northern Queensland without the [subsidy] support that consumers in the south-east provide?

"So I think the real issue here is not one of passion or loyalty or parochialism ... the reality is that the state needs to stay together in order to ensure our collective economic wellbeing."

Topics: state-parliament, parliament, government-and-politics, activism-and-lobbying, regional, qld, brisbane-4000, townsville-4810, cairns-4870, mount-isa-4825

First posted September 15, 2016 11:53:35

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rob Katter pushes to split Queensland into two states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated September 15, 2016 15:16:58 Katter's Australian Party (KAP) is pushing ahead with its call to split Queensland into two states, proposing a boundary be decided by the Queensland Redistribution Commission or another independent body. Rob Katter will move to debate the idea in Parliament tonight.

# data[].attributes.headline
When is a majority government not a majority government?

# data[].attributes.subject
When is a majority government not a majority government?

# data[].attributes.body
When it has a minority of members on the floor in the House...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Malcolm Turnbull, Christopher Pyne and Scott Morrison look at Speaker Tony Smith after the government lost two divisions in the House of Representatives on Thursday. Mick Tsikas/AAP

The government has ended its first parliamentary week deeply embarrassed after losing a number of House of Representatives votes because of complacency and bad management.

Labor members had given the impression they would agree to the House adjourning at the normal time of 5:00 on Thursday, so several ministers left and one Liberal backbencher reportedly went for a walk.

Seizing its opportunity, the opposition quickly resurrected its push for a royal commission into banking. Its banking motion had been defeated in the House on Wednesday but passed in the Senate on Thursday.

With numbers depleted, the government lost its narrow majority and was defeated in three votes. In the fourth, Speaker Tony Smith had to exercise his casting vote to continue the debate, allowing the government more time to round up its people. Finally it mustered enough and the debate was adjourned.

The shambolic end to the week left Labor taunting the government over Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's confidence about his majority.

Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke said: "Malcolm Turnbull told Australians he had a 'very solid working majority'. It took just two sitting days for this stable majority to collapse. Malcolm Turnbull is the first prime minister of a majority government to lose a vote in the House in over 50 years."

NSW Liberal Trent Zimmerman summed the situation up when he said: "It's not the type of thing you want to have happen in the first week."

The shemozzle has reflected badly on the highly experienced leader of the house, Christopher Pyne, and the government whips, all of whom should have been more careful in ensuring Coalition MPs stayed ready for any last-minute tactical ploys by Labor.

The incident has demonstrated that the government will have its discipline continually tested by an aggressive Labor Party.

Bill Shorten told the House: "We will never, never, never give up seeking justice for the victims of banks and financial services. We will never, never, never give up seeking a banking royal commission."
This story has been corrected to change the normal adjournment time from 4:30pm to 5:00pm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Turnbull government loses discipline and votes in House chaos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The government has ended its first parliamentary week deeply embarrassed after losing a number of House of Representatives votes because of complacency and bad management. Labor members had given the impression they would agree to the House adjourning at the normal time of 5:00 on Thursday, so several ministers left and one Liberal backbencher reportedly went for a walk.

# data[].attributes.body
Could the Commonwealth Parliament legislate to impose a quota on female representation? Or a race quota? Or some other quota?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated August 25, 2016 09:23:44

Australia has continued its slide in the international league table for representation of women in national parliaments.

In 1999, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) ranked Australia 15th in the world, but by June 2016, before the federal election, Australia had slipped to 56th place.

Cathy O'Toole's narrow win in Herbert helped boost the proportion of women in the House of Representatives by a small margin, from 26.7 per cent to 28.7 per cent.

This will lift Australia a few places in the international rankings. However, most of these women are on the opposition benches.

The proportion of women among Coalition MPs fell to 17 per cent after the 2016 election. This is the lowest point since 1993. The gap between rhetoric and reality is palpable: the federal Liberal Party has adopted an "aspirational" target of 50 per cent women MPs by 2025.

Despite making international commitments to achieve gender balance in public decision-making, Australia is lagging behind other countries in adopting practical measures.

Admittedly, international donors have offered incentives to some countries to improve.

Nevertheless, 118 countries now have some form of electoral quota to ensure greater female participation in public decision-making.

Are quotas the answer?

Historically, women party members mobilised to achieve changes to party rules, particularly in parties on the left of the political spectrum.

Scandinavian countries were the first to adopt party quotas. They became the norm among parties belonging to the Socialist International, such as the ALP.

Particularly in electoral systems based on proportional representation, a process of "contagion" may see rival parties adopting party quotas to remain competitive. While this was important in countries such as Sweden and Germany, research has shown that contagion in other countries is low.

This is certainly the case in Australia, where the Coalition parties have shunned the use of party quotas despite the existence of quotas in their organisational structure.

Today, legislated gender quotas across party divides are increasingly common. More than 60 countries have introduced statutory quotas since Argentina led the way in 1991. These include a significant number of European Union countries, including France, Belgium, Spain and - most recently - Ireland.

In 2012, the IPU found legislated quotas were more effective than party quotas in increasing women's parliamentary representation. In the absence of any quotas, the IPU found women held only half as many seats.

To be effective, there must be a good fit between the quota and the electoral system, as well as placement mandates relating to party lists (for example, "zipping" - where every other candidate on the list must be a woman), and sanctions for non-compliance. Sanctions may include rejection of the party list or loss of election funding, as in France and Ireland.

Reformers have also long been concerned about the impact of electoral systems on the legislative representation of women and minorities. Global research has confirmed more women are elected to parliament under proportional representation than under single-member electorate systems.

There are a number of reasons for this. Proportional representation (PR):

Enables parties to construct a balanced ticket that appeals to different sections of the community and appeases different sections of the party;

Facilitates the representation of minor parties, which may have less inherited gender bias than long-established major parties; and

Is a better fit for the introduction of quotas than single-member electorate systems, where they may be implemented at the expense of local party democracy.

Internationally, the effects of PR in improving women's political representation was an important part of the argument for introducing mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral systems in New Zealand and Scotland.

In addition to electoral reform and/or the use of quotas, there are other means to boost women's parliamentary representation. Increasingly, reformers are looking at regulation of political financing and how this can be leveraged to promote gender equality.

For example, public funding of parties may include fiscal incentives for the promotion of gender equality within the party organisation. In Finland, 12 per cent of parliamentary parties' annual subsidies must be used to fund their women's wings.

Elsewhere, for example in Georgia, Bolivia and Croatia, rewards are provided within party funding systems where a certain proportion of women candidates are nominated or elected. Both the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and the OECD recommend public funding of political parties be conditional on gender ratios.

Apart from earmarked or conditional party funding, the regulation of private campaign money can also be important. There is a gender gap in campaign finance, with women usually having less access to private campaign money.

Caps on political donations and campaign expenditure can thereby help to promote gender equality, as well as a level playing field.

Internationally, many different paths are being pursued to promote gender equality in public decision-making.

Australian parties should move beyond "aspirational targets" to adopt some of the practical measures proven effective elsewhere.
Marian Sawer is Emeritus Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, at Australian National University. Originally published in The Conversation.
Topics: women, community-and-society, political-parties, government-and-politics, australia, new-zealand

First posted August 25, 2016 08:50:24

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia should look overseas to get more women into Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated August 25, 2016 09:23:44 Australia has continued its slide in the international league table for representation of women in national parliaments. In 1999, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) ranked Australia 15th in the world, but by June 2016, before the federal election, Australia had slipped to 56th place.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the mechanisms for ensuring political equality in our system?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated August 23, 2016 00:33:33

Momentum is building to consider a ban on political donations from overseas, after an ABC investigation of Chinese-linked payments to the major parties.

The ABC has revealed that between 2013 and 2015 Chinese-linked companies and individuals made more than $5.5 million in donations to both Labor and the Coalition.

The donations include $850,000 given to the ALP by a businessman whose address is shared by a centre for retired Communist Party officials.

Former treasurer Wayne Swan has warned foreign donations could be "skewing" political decision-making.

"I certainly think we should be having a stronger debate about the role of political donations and how that potentially is leading to political decision-making being skewed in favour of foreign countries," Mr Swan told the ABC.

"I'm all in favour of that, and I'm all in favour of looking at tighter control in that area."

He has an ally in Independent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon, who wants to make overseas payments illegal.

The influential crossbench senator said he was writing to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to ask for immediate action.

"114 countries have banned political donations from foreign donors, it's high time Australia was the 115th," he said.

"The fact that we're still in a minority of nations that don't think that this is important I think speaks volumes for our lack of action and lack of consideration of what this can do to our democracy."

Professor George Williams from the University of New South Wales Law School said Australia's political finance laws are in "very bad shape" compared to other nations.

"We have a system that's open to the possibility of undue influence and of determining outcomes that aren't in the best interests of the community," he said.

Topics: foreign-affairs, government-and-politics, world-politics, australia, china, asia

First posted August 22, 2016 18:20:24

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Foreign donations could be 'skewing' Australia's democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former treasurer Wayne Swan says there needs to be a debate about foreign influence on Australian politics, as momentum builds to consider a ban on political donations from overseas following an ABC investigation of Chinese-linked payments to the major parties.

# data[].attributes.body
Do parliamentarians have an obligation to exercise their legislative powers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Tom McIlroy

Updated first published at

Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

Former High Court justice Michael Kirby says a plebiscite on same-sex marriage will create a dangerous political precedent in Australia where MPs avoid making decisions on controversial issues, instead opting for unnecessary and expensive popular votes.

The government is expected to try to pass enabling legislation for a nationwide plebiscite in coming weeks, before a possible vote in February asking Australians if they agree people of the same sex should be allowed to marry.

But Justice Kirby, who served at the High Court from 1996 until 2009, said plebiscite votes were "alien" to Australia's system of representative democracy and the campaign would drive hatred and abuse towards gay and lesbian Australians.

He said Australian voters had rarely supported referendum questions and there was no reason a plebiscite would be any different.

Former Justice of the High Court of Australia Michael Kirby.
Photo: Reuters

"It will mean any time that there is something that is controversial, that's difficult for the parliamentarians to address or they don't want to address, they'll send it out to a plebiscite.

"I think that's a very bad way. Our Parliament, our parliamentary institutions in Australia and elsewhere are really not working all that well at the moment and what we should be doing is strengthening Parliament and ensuring it gets on with the job," Justice Kirby told ABC radio.

"It's time Parliament did address itself to the issue of marriage equality and giving it out to a plebiscite is simply an endeavour to delay or defeat the measure.

"It hasn't been done by friends to equality."

Communications Minister Mitch Fifield is reportedly considering a ban on gambling ads.
Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

The Western Australian government has warned the possible February timing would be a distraction a month before voters go to the polls in the state election, but the federal government says it is based on advice from the Australian Electoral Commission.

Justice Kirby - who has lived with his partner Johan van Vloten for 47 years - said Britain's Brexit vote had showed unexpected outcomes were possible.

"This is going to be, if it goes ahead ... running out the old issues of hatreds and animosities, abominations and all the old arguments against gay people.

"We didn't do this for the Aboriginal people when we moved to give equality in law to them, we didn't do it when we dismantled the White Australia policy ... we didn't do it in advances on women's equality, we didn't do it most recently on disability equality.

"Why are we now picking out the LGBT, the gay community? It's simply an instance of hate and dislike, hostility to a small minority in our population. It's unAustralian."

Communications Minister Mitch Fifield said the government hadn't broken a promise to hold the plebiscite in 2016 but AEC advice had strongly recommend against a vote this year.

"We always said it would be held as soon as possible, so our commitment hasn't changed," he said.

"We always said when talking about this commitment, that we would want to do it as soon as possible, as soon as practicable, as soon as we can, also recognising that legislation would always first need to pass the Parliament," he said.
Follow us on Twitter

Tom McIlroy is a political reporter for the Financial Review in the federal press gallery at Parliament House.

Morning & Afternoon Newsletter

Delivered Mon-Fri.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Michael Kirby warns against 'dangerous' political precedent of a gay marriage plebiscite

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Tom McIlroy Updated first published at Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size Former High Court justice Michael Kirby says a plebiscite on same-sex marriage will create a dangerous political precedent in Australia where MPs avoid making decisions on controversial issues, instead opting for unnecessary and expensive popular votes.

# data[].attributes.body
Can the PM make it national?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated July 27, 2016 17:27:06

There are calls for the royal commission into Northern Territory juvenile detention to be broadened, with claims the practices depicted on the Four Corners program are occurring nationwide.

Monday's night's Four Corners contained graphic footage of children being mistreated at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in Darwin, including the tear-gassing of six boys in an isolation unit in August 2014.

There are now claims such mistreatment has occurred nationally, with girls in detention having "their clothes cut off and left naked in cells".

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced a royal commission to look into the NT allegations and focus on the Territory's youth detention system.

Attorney-General George Brandis confirmed on Tuesday night that the royal commission would not examine claims outside the NT.

"We don't propose to take it beyond the Northern Territory, because that's the particular problem that has been exposed," he told 7.30.

"And I think one of the things about these royal commissions is: if they're going to be useful, if they're going to provide practical solutions to real and urgent problems, they should be focused."

But Indigenous advocates want a broader scope, claiming abuse in youth detention centres is widespread.

Sisters Inside chief executive Debbie Kilroy, a non-government organisation that advocates for the rights of women and girls in the criminal and justice system, said she was "not surprised" by the Four Corners report.

"As a young person who was in and out of youth detention in my teenage years, that violence occurred there and it continues today in a number of, if not all, youth prisons across this country," Ms Kilroy said.

"Girls have informed me that they have been held down, had their clothes cut off and left naked in cells, that they have been over-medicated, that they have been assaulted by staff.

"I'm talking about girls in Queensland and girls in other jurisdictions across Australia."

Ms Kilroy's concerns have been echoed by Siyavash Doostkhah, director of the youth body Youth Affairs Network, who has written to Mr Turnbull today to argue the royal commission should examine youth detention centres across Australia.

"In the past 20 years I've heard thousands of cases of young people being abused," Mr Doostkhah said.

"We've written to the Prime Minister and the concern is we're not talking about a one-off incident, this is a systemic problem that's been going on for far too long.

"This is an opportunity to look at this issue across Australia and look at it in a way that allows people to come forward under a royal commission."

Royal commission has to 'look nationally'

Ms Kilroy agreed that the royal commission "has to have a national scope".

"If it's only narrowed down to the Don Dale Detention Centre, the commission will miss not only discovering, but exposing the systemic and structural fundamental issues with our youth and, for that matter, our adult prison system," she said.

Aboriginal and Torres Islander social justice commissioner Mick Gooda also said the royal commission should look beyond the Northern Territory.

"I think they've got to look nationally," Mr Gooda said.

"I think you've got to look at why there are so many of our kids in detention. The Northern Territory's worse, but they're by no means alone in that.

"We keep on saying imprisonment is a last option, [but] we must have a lot of kids in those systems right throughout Australia who are there for minor offences."

Ms Kilroy said she had been trying to bring the issue of abuse to the attention of authorities for "decades".

"But because we don't have the ... CCTV footage evidence we are usually dismissed, the young people are dismissed, the women are dismissed," she said.

"We're either claimed to be over-exaggerating or actually just blatant liars."

Lawyers support calls for national inquiry

Indigenous barrister Joshua Creamer said he "totally agrees" the royal commission should be expanded.

"The word torture's been used quite rightly today, I think that's a very accurate description of the incidents that occur in some of these centres," Mr Creamer said.

"We really need to work to address these issues and these issues are systemic across the entire system."

The Law Council of Australia said it supported a royal commission into the abuse of children in detention in the NT and director Arthur Moses said the issue should be examined more broadly.

"There is no doubt that this is a national crisis," Mr Moses said.

"Other jurisdictions must now examine their youth detention practices for compliance with international standards to ensure that such conduct is not occurring in their institutions."

First posted July 26, 2016 16:40:10

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NT royal commission not enough, make it national, advocates say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated July 27, 2016 17:27:06 There are calls for the royal commission into Northern Territory juvenile detention to be broadened, with claims the practices depicted on the Four Corners program are occurring nationwide. Monday's night's Four Corners contained graphic footage of children being mistreated at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in Darwin, including the tear-gassing of six boys in an isolation unit in August 2014.

# data[].attributes.body
Is this an example of responsible government?

# data[].attributes.body
When is an unwritten rule a constitutional convention?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated August 16, 2016 22:47:28

The Federal Opposition has rejected a request from the Turnbull Government to allow 'pairing' of votes in the new Parliament, adding an extra degree of difficulty for the Government with a one-seat majority.

Pairing would see a Labor MP abstain from a vote in the House of Representatives, when a Government MP cannot attend for a vote.

Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke told the ABC's PM program Labor would not allow the arrangement.

Mr Burke said Labor would test the Government's one-seat majority every time an MP was away.

"Malcolm Turnbull has told his own party room and told the Australian public he believes his government has a working majority in its own right," he said.

"He's said they've got a working majority, he's said this is not a problem, and so we'll hold him to his word."

Mr Burke's Government counterpart, Christopher Pyne, has labelled the move as "Dickensian".

Mr Pyne has called on Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to intervene, telling the ABC politicians should be able to have time off for illness if needed.

"In the situation where a member of parliament is ill or in hospital or has a family emergency, pairs have always been granted," he said.

"Labor is either acting out of a breathtaking ignorance or a malicious and mendacious approach to the Parliament."

Mr Pyne called the move unprecedented, but Tony Abbott did back out of a deal to pair the Speaker's vote when Opposition Leader during the hung Gillard Government.

The following year, in 2011, the Coalition had threatened not to grant a pair for then Labor backbencher Craig Thomson, whose wife was due to give birth during the debate on carbon pricing legislation.

The pair was later granted.

A similar back and forth occurred two years later when then Labor backbencher Michelle Rowland's request for a pair so she could be with her sick child was refused.

It was later granted, though then Opposition chief whip Warren Entsch labelled the request "a stunt".

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce conceded the incident with Ms Rowland had not been wise.

"If those decisions were made, then I think those decisions were also wrong, there you go," Mr Joyce told 7.30.

"So I don't think two wrongs are ever going to make a right, I think we have to be realistic and decent in how we operate."

Pairing only happens in hung parliament: Burke

Mr Burke said the only time a pairing arrangement had been in place was for the hung parliament under former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard.

He said it was not normal practise for a majority government.

"The House of Representatives normally doesn't have pairs, with the exception of a hung parliament," he said.

"That's the only time that's happened."

Mr Burke confirmed the Government would have to go without the vote of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop or Trade Minister Steve Ciobo even if they were required to be overseas for an important international meeting.

"If the Government is not as stable as the Prime Minister has claimed then he needs to fess up to the Australian people, not try to do some side deal with us," he said.

The new Parliament will sit for the first time in a fortnight, on August 30.

Topics: federal-government, federal-parliament, australia

First posted August 16, 2016 15:37:52

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'No pairs': Opposition to play hard ball in new Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated August 16, 2016 22:47:28 The Federal Opposition has rejected a request from the Turnbull Government to allow 'pairing' of votes in the new Parliament, adding an extra degree of difficulty for the Government with a one-seat majority. Pairing would see a Labor MP abstain from a vote in the House of Representatives, when a Government MP cannot attend for a vote.

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of political communication v freedom of speech? What's the difference and why should freedom of political communication be protected?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Senator David Leyonhjelm has labelled people complaining about the slogans on Wicked Campers vans as "authoritarians disguised as hippies or feminists".

The Byron Shire Counciltoday passed a suite of motions in response to a community backlash against the vehicles.

They include a ban on vans with offensive slogans from council-owned caravan parks.

The neighbouring Ballina Shire Council is alsoconsidering a call to approach the State Government to take action on issue.

The councils were spurred into action after a Byron Bay man spray-painted over a slogan describing a sexual act.

A Facebook community called Boycott Wicked Campers now has more than 4,000 likes.

Wicked Campers slogans include: "A wife: an attachment you screw on the bed to get the housework done", "A blowjob a day keeps the breakup away" and "In every princess there is a little slut that just wants to try it once".

Wicked Campers slogans are 'funny', Senator says

But Senator Leyonhjelm said the company had done nothing wrong.

"They make some very funny statements, which obviously have sexual connotations," Senator Leyonhjelm said.

"But surprise, surprise sexual connotations are part of life.
Wicked Campers do not use slogans like "suck away" to promote sexism, but instead gain free publicity, a media commentator says.

"You need to be a particularly wowserish type of person to not find them funny."

Senator Leyonhjelm said people were free "not to like" the slogans, but they should simply "mind their own business".

"If you want to take offense that's your choice and you've got to remember it's a choice and other people make different choices," he said.

"Most of the statements I've read from the vans are able to be interpreted in a couple of ways and they require a degree of sophistication to know what they're getting at."

Senator Leyonhjelm said those complaining about the slogans were "authoritarian" because they were trying to enforce their views on the rest of the community.

"They're purporting to make up rules for the rest of us," he said.

"What they're trying to do is tell us what's good for us."

Ballina MP says slogans incite hatred

However, State Member for Ballina Tamara Smith said the slogans may incite hatred and violence towards women.

Ms Smith said community outrage warranted an all-of-government response.

"I've had a number of representations made to me by members of the community who are really outraged saying 'why hasn't anything been done'," she said.

"In terms of the Australian Standards Bureau, it has the power, but it doesn't seem to exert the power. I think the Federal Government could strengthen the legislation around the advertising standards."

Ms Smith, a Greens MP, said the issue was about vilification, not freedom of speech.

"This is inciting hatred towards women, it's also heteronormative," she said.

"These are things that are inciting violence, condoning violence and they could be seen as vilification."

She congratulated the Byron and Ballina shire councils for attempting to take a stand against Wicked Campers.

"There's a lot local government can do and there's also a role for the State and Federal governments," she said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wicked Campers critics 'authoritarians disguised as hippies or feminists': Senator Leyonhjelm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senator David Leyonhjelm has labelled people complaining about the slogans on Wicked Campers vans as "authoritarians disguised as hippies or feminists". The Byron Shire Counciltoday passed a suite of motions in response to a community backlash against the vehicles. They include a ban on vans with offensive slogans from council-owned caravan parks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Chiropractor sentenced for racist Facebook posts

# data[].attributes.subject
Chiropractor sentenced for racist Facebook posts

# data[].attributes.body
Is there a line between freedom of political expression and racism?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chiropractor Chris Nelson sentenced for racist posts on Nova Peris' Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Central Coast chiropractor and former Liberal Party member has pleaded guilty to posting racist and offensive messages on the Facebook page of former Senator Nova Peris.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pauline Hanson calls for a ban on Muslim immigration

# data[].attributes.subject
Pauline Hanson calls for a ban on Muslim immigration

# data[].attributes.body
Could the Commonwealth parliament make a law banning Muslims?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated July 21, 2016 13:16:31

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has rejected the policies of senator-elect Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party, after a Coalition backbencher suggested banning Muslim immigration from areas considered hotspots of "violent extremism".

Mr Joyce criticised One Nation's calls to ban Muslim immigration, saying: "What happens if we turn that on its head and start banning people because they're Catholics or because they're Protestants or because they're Jewish?"

"I'm not into banning people on the premise of their belief. How they see their god is completely and utterly their personal reason," Mr Joyce told Sky News.

He also said he was opposed to Ms Hanson's calls for security cameras in mosques.

"If you can put them in mosques, then when I go to mass we're going to have one in a Catholic church?" Mr Joyce said.

"Every group has their ratbags, even Catholics. We had, in the past, the IRA (Irish Republican Army) but if someone says every Catholic is a member of the IRA, I'd say no.

"They have nothing to do with the religion that I practise. Islam at the moment also has a lunatic fringe."

Queensland MP George Christensen has defended Ms Hanson's stance against Islam, saying it reflected the views of some voters who were concerned about terrorist attacks carried out by extremists.

While he said he did not agree with Ms Hanson's policy of banning all Muslim immigration, he said a more targeted approach of stopping travel from extremist hotspots would be more measured.

"It worries them [voters], and I know that Pauline might for instance say the reaction to that is that we should ban Islamic immigration," Mr Christensen said.

"I disagree with that, but that's her right to actually suggest that.

"There could be a measured approach where we ... ban immigration from countries where there is a high level of radicalism and violent extremism, and that would be taking the precautionary principle and putting that into play when it comes to national security."

Ms Hanson's views on Islam dominated ABC's Q&A on Monday night, when she was asked to explain whether her "Islamophobia" was driven by ignorance or hate.

Ms Hanson said the community was concerned about terrorism.

"People in Australia are in fear because they can't walk in the streets, they're in fear of terrorism which is happening around the world. Why? Because of Islam. Because you have the radicalisation - radicalisation is actually happening in Australia," she said.

Ms Hanson is pushing for a royal commission into Islam and a ban on new mosques in her return to politics.

Shortly after the election, Ms Hanson told reporters she wanted zero-net immigration, so the number of people coming into Australia equalled the number leaving.

Topics: federal-elections, federal-government, federal-parliament, defence-and-national-security, terrorism, religion-and-beliefs, australia

First posted July 21, 2016 08:10:18

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Every group has their ratbags': Joyce rejects calls to ban Muslims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated July 21, 2016 13:16:31 Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has rejected the policies of senator-elect Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party, after a Coalition backbencher suggested banning Muslim immigration from areas considered hotspots of "violent extremism".

# data[].attributes.headline
Extrajudicial killings in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.subject
Extrajudicial killings in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.body
Is there a separation of  powers (judicial and executive) in the Philippines?

# data[].attributes.body
Who has sovereign power in South Sudan?
Forced recruitment of child soldiers = valid law (positivist perspective), or not law (natural law perspective)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tens of thousands of people have fled a fresh outbreak of violence in South Sudan, reporting mass killings, looting and forced recruitment of child soldiers, UN agencies say.

Key points:

About 60,000 have fled over past three weeks

Residents report sharp rise in fuel, vegetables and flour

Two years of ethnic fighting has plagued the country

Many of the refugees pouring into neighbouring Uganda, Kenya and Sudan have been carrying malnourished children, the refugee agency the UNHCR added, the victims of a humanitarian crisis exacerbated by food shortages and a cholera outbreak.

UN agencies said refugees had reported gunmen trying to block their flight and harassing them on the way.

"Armed groups operating across different parts of South Sudan are looting villages, murdering civilians and forcibly recruiting young men and boys into their ranks," UNHCR spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told a briefing in Geneva.

About 60,000 people have fled as violence mounted over the past three weeks, she said, the bulk of them to Uganda, doubling the flow over that border over the past 10 days.

"We are very concerned about quickly having the capacity to treat the increasing numbers of malnourished children who are coming across," Ms Fleming said.

The world's newest nation has been caught up in more than two years of ethnically charged fighting between supporters of President Salva Kiir and his long-time rival Riek Machar that has raised fears of wider instability across East Africa.

Loss, death, and tragedy, are all captured in the conflicting faces of South Sudan. But so too is a hope for peace and a belief in the possibility of a future.

Mr Machar's supporters said at least nine people had died in the latest clashes on a road in Central Equatoria state, the region that includes the capital Juba, over the weekend.

Government spokesman Michael Makuei Lueth played down those reports, insisting that a frequently broken peace deal signed last year was still on track.

"People must understand that the peace agreement doesn't belong to Riek Machar," he said.

The personal rivalry between Mr Kiir, from the Dinka group, and Mr Machar, a Nuer, has worsened ethnic splits in a country awash with weapons since the long civil war that led to its separation from Sudan in 2011.

Mr Machar, who returned to the capital in April under the terms of the troubled peace deal, left again last month as new clashes broke out between his men and Mr Kiir's.

Government military helicopters flew over the capital over the weekend, but the streets were quiet on Tuesday.

Residents reported sharp rises in the prices of fuel, vegetables, flour and other basic foods, with traders blaming shortages on blockages on the main trade route to Uganda.

Banks close, families shelter outside UN compounds

Banks closed their branches and many families stayed in shelters outside UN compounds across the city.

Further afield, local militias, who often fight over control of land, grazing and oil-producing areas, have been taking advantage of the chaos to step up their operations.

A further 1.6 million South Sudanese are displaced people within their country, said Jens Laerke of the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

"These are really very vast numbers, it's a massive crisis," Mr Laerke added, noting that in all 900,000 refugees have fled South Sudan since December 2013.

A cholera outbreak is spreading in South Sudan, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said, with 35 new admissions being recorded in Juba county daily, WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib said.

There have been signs of a split within Mr Machar's movement since he left the capital, and analysts have questioned whether both men have full authority over their followers.
Reuters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
South Sudan: Tens of thousands flee, reporting mass killings, recruitment of child soldiers, UN says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tens of thousands of people have fled a fresh outbreak of violence in South Sudan, reporting mass killings, looting and forced recruitment of child soldiers, UN agencies say.

# data[].attributes.headline
Would a plebicite on same sex marriage be a failure of parliament's responsibility?

# data[].attributes.subject
Would a plebicite on same sex marriage be a failure of parliament's responsibility?

# data[].attributes.body
Does the 'marriage power' in s51(xxi) of the Constitution permit the making of laws about 'same sex' marriage?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bill Shorten has introduced a bill into parliament to amend the Marriage Act and allow same-sex marriage in Australia. AAP/Mick Tsikas

The legislative reform required to allow same-sex marriage in Australia is not complicated. There is relative consensus on how it can be achieved. And since the High Court's explanation that federal parliament has the power to legislate with respect to same-sex marriage, the remaining impediments for parliament are political and moral - not legal.

On Monday, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten introduced a bill into parliament to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage.

Shorten's bill is not the first to come before federal parliament that seeks to allow same-sex marriage. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm have each introduced similar legislation. Bills have come before the previous parliament: another Hanson-Young bill in 2010, a co-sponsored bill of Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt in 2012 and Labor MP Stephen Jones' bill of 2012.

Are there any significant legal differences in the three bills currently before parliament? If not, why is Shorten introducing his bill?

The definition of 'marriage'

"Marriage" is defined in Section 5 of the Marriage Act as:

... the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

The Howard government inserted the definition of marriage into the act in 2004 to prevent the courts from interpreting marriage more broadly. These amendments also made sure that same-sex marriages conducted overseas would not be recognised as "marriage" in Australia.

Shorten's bill removes the words "a man and a woman" from the definition and redefines marriage as a relationship between "two people". The proposed definition of marriage would read:

... the union of two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Hanson-Young's bill and Leyonhjelm's bill also redefine marriage as a union of "two people".

All three bills make similar minor changes that are necessary to give effect to this change. Other references to "a man and a woman" within the act are replaced with "two people".

All three bills would also amend the act so that same-sex marriages conducted overseas would be recognised in Australia.

The current act makes a marriage between a brother and a sister void. A change to the definition of "marriage" to include same-sex unions requires this section to be amended so that marriages between two sisters or two brothers are also void. The change is made by making marriages between "siblings" void.

All three current bills make this change to the act. Curiously, the three bills before the previous parliament had not proposed this change.

Will ministers of religion be forced to solemnise same-sex marriages?

Shorten's bill inserts a note into Section 47 of the act that:

... a minister of religion cannot be required to solemnise a marriage where the parties to the marriage are of the same sex.

The drafting note, while not part of the wording of the section, is intended to assist in the interpretation of the relevant section. It will appear in the act.

This is a slight change from the approach taken in Jones' 2012 bill, where an additional sub-section had been included to make this point expressly. The inclusion of the note is not as much a change in the law as a clarification of the existing law. The act does not currently impose any obligation on religious ministers to solemnise any and every marriage.

The current Hanson-Young bill also recognises that Section 47 does not require religious ministers to solemnise a marriage. To avoid any doubt, her bill expressly states that these proposed amendments to the act are not intended to limit the existing operation of Section 47 in any way. However, the wording within her bill would not appear as a note in the act.

The 2010 Hanson-Young bill did not include this "avoidance of doubt" clause. It comes about after the 2012 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Report recommended that such a clause be included. It was a feature of the 2012 Adam Bandt-Andrew Wilkie co-sponsored bill.

The Leyonhjelm bill takes a slightly different approach to who must solemnise marriages - and who can decline a request to solemnise a marriage. The bill amends Section 47 so that religious ministers and registered marriage celebrants are not required to solemnise a marriage.

Thus, the Leyonhjelm bill would allow religious ministers and civil celebrants to choose which marriage ceremonies they conduct and to decline those that might be inconsistent with their beliefs. This extends the current law, which grants this discretion only to religious ministers.

However, the Leyonhjelm bill ensures that if a couple cannot find a minister or celebrant to marry them, they will always have the option of having their marriage solemnised by an authorised state or territory officer, who cannot refuse to do so for any reason other than that the marriage would not be a lawful marriage. In this respect, the Leyonhjelm bill is different from the other two current bills.

The Leyonhjelm bill also makes a specific amendment with respect to defence force chaplains. Where a defence force chaplain refuses to solemnise a same-sex marriage on the basis that it is not a marriage between a man and a woman, the chaplain must - if possible - substitute another chaplain who is willing to marry the couple.

What makes the Shorten bill different?

Of the three same-sex marriage bills before parliament, the wording of the Shorten bill and the Hanson-Young bill are the most similar.

There are perhaps two issues - unrelated to the wording - that make the Shorten bill different. These are the timing and who is introducing the bill.

The vote in the Irish referendum has clearly been a catalyst for Shorten's bill, whereas the senators' bills predate the Irish vote. That a once religiously conservative country such as Ireland has allowed same-sex marriage has brought the issue back to the centre of public debate in Australia. Polling also shows growing support for same-sex marriage. More than 70% of Australians support it.

That a bill was introduced into the House of Representatives by the opposition leader has led to discussions between the two major parties on whether a bill co-sponsored by both major parties could be introduced.

A private member's bill introduced by the opposition leader on any topic is unlikely to receive great support from the government. However, a bipartisan bill is likely to have a greater chance of passing parliament. The greatest hurdle remains whether Liberal and National MPs will be allowed a free vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explainer: how Australia can legalise same-sex marriage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The legislative reform required to allow same-sex marriage in Australia is not complicated. There is relative consensus on how it can be achieved. And since the High Court's explanation that federal parliament has the power to legislate with respect to same-sex marriage, the remaining impediments for parliament are political and moral - not legal.