LSB December 2021 HR
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
THE<br />
BULLETIN<br />
THE LAW SOCIETY OF SA JOURNAL<br />
VOLUME 43 – ISSUE 11 – DECEMBER <strong>2021</strong><br />
IN THIS ISSUE<br />
Protecting pets in<br />
domestic violence<br />
situations<br />
Renting with pets<br />
Therapy &<br />
assistance animals<br />
ANIMALS & THE LAW
INTRODUCING<br />
With a wide range of apps available from the LEAP Marketplace, you can<br />
increase your productivity and extend LEAP’s capabilities to suit your firm.<br />
leap.com.au/marketplace
This issue of The Law Society of South Australia: Bulletin is<br />
cited as (2020) 43 (11) <strong>LSB</strong>(SA). ISSN 1038-6777<br />
CONTENTS<br />
ANIMAL LAW<br />
8 Animals and intervention orders:<br />
tree hugging nonsense or natural<br />
evolution of domestic violence laws?<br />
By Ronan O’Brien & Diana Thomas<br />
10 Renting with pets in SA<br />
By Renée Evans<br />
22 Therapy or assistance animals:<br />
What’s the difference? – By Renée<br />
Evans & Diana Thomas<br />
30 The existing legal safeguards for<br />
experimental laboratory animals in SA<br />
– By Ross Templeman<br />
31 Animal Welfare Laws leave pet fish<br />
up the creek – By Ronan O’Brien<br />
32 Turkeys & the law<br />
By Diana Thomas<br />
FEATURES & NEWS<br />
12 Know your Council Member:<br />
Melanie Tilmouth<br />
14 Vale: Mark Glencraig Nicholls<br />
By Michael Roder QC<br />
16 More collaboration between legal<br />
profession and disability community<br />
key to breaking down barriers<br />
By Catia Malaquias<br />
18 Encouraging law students to work with<br />
regional and Aboriginal communities<br />
– Dr David Plater, Chloe Winter, Charlotte<br />
Ordynski & Cayleigh Stock<br />
25 Event wrap-up: Mock Trial final<br />
By Stephanie Moore<br />
REGULAR COLUMNS<br />
4 President’s Message<br />
5 From the Editor<br />
6 From the Conduct Commissioner:<br />
Overview of the LPCC annual report<br />
By Greg May<br />
15 Members on the Move<br />
24 Young Lawyers: Committee holds<br />
interactive ethics and wellbeing<br />
seminar – By Meghan Fitzpatrick<br />
26 Wellbeing & Resilience: It’s OK to<br />
grieve, and to reach out for support<br />
By Amy Nikolovski<br />
28 Risk Watch Culturally and<br />
Linguistically Diverse Clients:<br />
Ongoing Challenges for Lawyers<br />
By Grant Feary<br />
34 Tax Files: DGRs that are not<br />
already charities – By Paul Ingram<br />
35 Bookshelf<br />
36 Family Law Case Notes<br />
By Craig Nichol & Keleigh Robinson<br />
37 Gazing in the Gazette<br />
Complied by Master Elizabeth Olsson<br />
Executive Members<br />
President:<br />
R Sandford<br />
President-Elect: J Stewart-Rattray<br />
Vice President: A Lazarevich<br />
Vice President: V Gilliland<br />
Treasurer:<br />
F Bell<br />
Immediate Past<br />
President:<br />
T White<br />
Council Member: M Mackie<br />
Council Member: M Tilmouth<br />
Metropolitan Council Members<br />
T Dibden<br />
M Tilmouth<br />
A Lazarevich M Mackie<br />
M Boyle<br />
E Shaw<br />
J Marsh<br />
C Charles<br />
R Piccolo<br />
M Jones<br />
Country Members<br />
S Minney<br />
(Northern and Western Region)<br />
P Ryan<br />
(Central Region)<br />
J Kyrimis<br />
(Southern Region)<br />
Junior Members<br />
vacant<br />
Ex Officio Members<br />
The Hon J Teague, Prof V Waye,<br />
Prof T Leiman<br />
Assoc Prof C Symes<br />
KEY LAW SOCIETY CONTACTS<br />
Chief Executive<br />
Stephen Hodder<br />
stephen.hodder@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
Executive Officer<br />
Rosemary Pridmore<br />
rosemary.pridmore@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
Chief Operations Officer<br />
Dale Weetman<br />
dale.weetman@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
Member Services Manager<br />
Michelle King<br />
michelle.king@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
Director (Ethics and Practice)<br />
Rosalind Burke<br />
rosalind.burke@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
Director (Law Claims)<br />
Kiley Rogers<br />
krogers@lawguard.com.au<br />
Manager (LAF)<br />
Annie MacRae<br />
annie.macrae@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
Programme Manager (CPD)<br />
Natalie Mackay<br />
Natalie.Mackay@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
Programme Manager (GDLP)<br />
Desiree Holland<br />
Desiree.Holland@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
THE BULLETIN<br />
Editor<br />
Michael Esposito<br />
bulletin@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
Editorial Committee<br />
A Bradshaw P Wilkinson<br />
S Errington D Sheldon<br />
J Arena D Weekley<br />
B Armstrong D Misell<br />
M Ford<br />
The Law Society Bulletin is published<br />
monthly (except January) by:<br />
The Law Society of South Australia,<br />
Level 10-11, 178 North Tce, Adelaide<br />
Ph: (08) 8229 0200<br />
Fax: (08) 8231 1929<br />
Email: bulletin@lawsocietysa.asn.au<br />
All contributions letters and enquiries<br />
should be directed to<br />
The Editor, The Law Society Bulletin,<br />
GPO Box 2066,<br />
Adelaide 5001.<br />
Views expressed in the Bulletin<br />
advertising material included are<br />
not necessarily endorsed by The<br />
Law Society of South Australia.<br />
No responsibility is accepted by the<br />
Society, Editor, Publisher or Printer<br />
for accuracy of information or errors<br />
or omissions.<br />
PUBLISHER/ADVERTISER<br />
Boylen<br />
3/288 Glen Osmond Road,<br />
Fullarton SA 5063<br />
Ph: (08) 8233 9433<br />
Email: admin@boylen.com.au<br />
Studio Manager:<br />
Madelaine Raschella Elliott<br />
Layout: Henry Rivera<br />
Advertising<br />
Email: sales@boylen.com.au
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE<br />
Another challenging year comes<br />
to a close, but commitment to<br />
welfare of the profession continues<br />
REBECCA SANDFORD, PRESIDENT<br />
As the end of <strong>2021</strong> approaches,<br />
I’m finding it hard - despite the<br />
reminders each time I walk through<br />
Rundle Mall and enjoy the Christmas<br />
decorations - to believe how fast this year<br />
has gone, and how much has occurred in<br />
only 12 short months.<br />
At the start of my Presidential term,<br />
I indicated an intention to focus on a<br />
few key priorities this year - in particular,<br />
mental health and wellbeing support for<br />
the profession; increasing diversity and<br />
taking further steps to address sexual<br />
harassment, bullying and discrimination<br />
in the law; and considering the use of<br />
and role for technology in the delivery of<br />
legal services. I’m pleased that I’ve been<br />
able to take steps to address each of those<br />
throughout this year.<br />
I have been especially proud of work<br />
the Society has undertaken in relation to<br />
wellbeing, resilience and mental health<br />
support for the profession. Early in my<br />
Presidency, the Society commissioned<br />
a mental wellbeing survey, in a similar<br />
vein to the 2020 survey conducted by the<br />
International Bar Association, to ‘take the<br />
temperature’ of the local profession on<br />
this important topic. The survey results<br />
have already been discussed in articles in<br />
this publication, and continue to be the<br />
subject of consideration by the Wellbeing<br />
and Resilience Committee, with the<br />
Society maintaining a focus on further<br />
strategies to ensure legal practitioners<br />
can be better supported in managing<br />
and maintaining their mental health and<br />
wellbeing into the future.<br />
Whilst in some respects this year has<br />
been less tumultuous than 2020, it has<br />
certainly not been without its challenges,<br />
and there have been plenty of reminders<br />
of the importance of appropriate help<br />
and support being accessible to all of us<br />
- including during our short lockdown in<br />
July. I know that for many, dealing with<br />
the uncertainties and restrictions arising<br />
from the pandemic has been very difficult,<br />
and your resilience and endeavours in<br />
dealing with those challenges are to be<br />
commended. I have found it reassuring<br />
that many of the practitioners I spoke with<br />
have, or are gaining, an increased awareness<br />
of the importance of mental health<br />
support and are actively taking steps to<br />
embed a wellbeing focus in their approach<br />
to legal practice. I have been grateful for<br />
the chance to speak with many of you,<br />
including many of our small practice<br />
solicitors, during the course of <strong>2021</strong> and I<br />
thank each of you who generously shared<br />
your experiences with me.<br />
For that reason, amongst others, I am<br />
also glad to have chosen the Breakthrough<br />
Mental Health Research Foundation as<br />
the President’s charity for <strong>2021</strong>. I have<br />
thoroughly enjoyed the relationship that<br />
has been built between the Society and<br />
the Foundation during the year and the<br />
opportunity to learn from the important<br />
work of the Foundation. Raising over<br />
$11,000 at the Legal Profession Dinner in<br />
August to help the Foundation kick off its<br />
Big Talks for Little People program in SA<br />
schools was definitely a highlight of my<br />
year (not to mention that it confirmed my<br />
long held view that wine walls really are<br />
the adult version of a lucky dip - and just<br />
as popular!), and it was also very pleasing<br />
that this year saw the victorious return of<br />
the Great Debate during Mental Health<br />
Week - a well-attended, and well received,<br />
event that allowed us to take a more<br />
humorous look at some aspects of the last<br />
12 or so months, with our speakers doing<br />
an excellent job of debating whether WFH<br />
= LAW (i.e. Work From Home really<br />
means Living At Work).<br />
Work on the topic of sexual<br />
harassment, bullying and discrimination<br />
has also been a top priority throughout<br />
this year. As I have said in various<br />
forums, including in each of the multiple<br />
presentations I have delivered or chaired<br />
this year, we all have a part to play in<br />
transforming the culture of the legal<br />
profession to make it more inclusive<br />
and welcoming, and to ensure we can<br />
each feel safe, valued and respected in<br />
our workplaces. It has been heartening<br />
to see how the profession has grappled<br />
with this challenge and taken real steps<br />
to implement change and provide<br />
support. I am particularly proud that<br />
since its introduction in June <strong>2021</strong>, the<br />
Society’s “Sexual Harassment - Changing<br />
Workplace Culture” workshop has been<br />
attended virtually by over 1850 lawyers in<br />
SA, with a further 120 practitioners also<br />
attending a bystander intervention session<br />
by Trish Lowe in November. Multiple<br />
CPDs have also been run by other bodies<br />
both prior to and since the delivery<br />
of the (Acting) Equal Opportunity<br />
Commissioner’s comprehensive Report<br />
in April this year, all of which can only<br />
help to inform and educate the profession<br />
about this issue and what needs to be<br />
done to address it.<br />
The Society, and others within the<br />
profession, have also taken meaningful<br />
action towards other recommendations in<br />
the Inquiry Report, including amending<br />
the Legal Profession Conduct Rules to<br />
ensure a single set of Rules applies to<br />
the entirety of the SA profession (and<br />
incorporating a new, more expansive<br />
prohibition against bullying and<br />
harassment), and work undertaken at both<br />
a state and national level for legislative<br />
change and with respect to model policies<br />
and procedures. Before <strong>2021</strong> concludes,<br />
my expectation is that the Law Council’s<br />
National Model Policy Framework and<br />
accompanying Guidance Notes - the<br />
development of which the Society has<br />
contributed to as a constituent body of the<br />
Law Council throughout this year - will be<br />
available for practitioners to commence<br />
using as a ‘best practice’ approach or<br />
reference tool.<br />
4<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE<br />
I look forward to continuing to work<br />
with the Council next year as Immediate<br />
Past President to keep this important<br />
momentum going, aiming to eliminate<br />
improper conduct from within the<br />
profession, further develop our education<br />
and training offerings in this critical<br />
area, and ensure we continue to increase<br />
diversity in legal leadership.<br />
On a lighter note, I have been pleased<br />
and proud to represent the Society at<br />
a range of events throughout the year,<br />
including sharing in hosting duties for the<br />
Margaret Nyland Long Lunch (held jointly<br />
with the Women Lawyers’ Association<br />
of SA) and the Legal Profession Dinner,<br />
each of which were attended by over<br />
300 people. I have also been privileged<br />
to speak at a large number of ceremonial<br />
sittings throughout the year, including<br />
to celebrate the commencement of the<br />
Court of Appeal, to welcome several new<br />
judges and justices in the Supreme, District<br />
and Federal Circuit and Family Courts as<br />
well as the South Australian Employment<br />
Tribunal, and to commemorate the<br />
Honourable Justice Strickland’s career<br />
upon his retirement from judicial office. I<br />
have enjoyed all the opportunities I’ve had<br />
to meet with members of the profession at<br />
events and conferences throughout <strong>2021</strong>.<br />
Of course, the Society’s key advocacy<br />
work, via submissions, media, and<br />
appearances at parliamentary committees,<br />
has also formed a substantial part of my<br />
and the Society’s work - the breadth of<br />
topics has been significant, and included<br />
such varied matters as privacy and<br />
technology law, road traffic law changes,<br />
the age of criminal responsibility, domestic<br />
violence reform and vaccination policies.<br />
The Society’s comprehensive election<br />
issues platform, prepared out of the many<br />
and varied contributions offered by the<br />
Society’s members and committees this<br />
year, will continue to be of great interest<br />
and a key focus in the lead up to the state<br />
election in early 2022.<br />
This year has been a fascinating,<br />
busy, engaging, at times challenging, but<br />
consistently rewarding experience for<br />
me, and one I’m immensely proud and<br />
humbled to have had the opportunity<br />
to undertake. I’m looking forward to<br />
having the chance to thank in person<br />
many of those that have provided me and<br />
the Society with support and assistance<br />
throughout the year at the President’s<br />
Christmas Cocktail event in early<br />
<strong>December</strong>, and otherwise hope to see<br />
many of you at functions and events as<br />
the year winds down. Thank you for your<br />
ongoing support of the Society during<br />
<strong>2021</strong>, and I wish you and your families all<br />
a safe, relaxing and happy Christmas and<br />
New Year. B<br />
Patience & understanding are<br />
virtues during these times<br />
MICHAEL ESPOSITO, EDITOR<br />
It’s rather fitting that this edition contains<br />
a strong focus on animals, as we have<br />
relied on the companionship of animals<br />
more than ever during the pandemic.<br />
The growing area of law around<br />
animals reflects an increasing recognition<br />
of the value and rights of animals.<br />
The spike in pet ownership during the<br />
pandemic is unsurprising but it naturally<br />
carries the risk of more animals being<br />
mistreated in numerous ways, including<br />
being neglected, abused, or being collateral<br />
damage in broken relationships.<br />
But mostly, pets bring joy, they<br />
encourage exercise, and they are great<br />
for helping humans to socialise with each<br />
other. They have been a source of comfort<br />
in what has been another extremely<br />
challenging year.<br />
With COVID-19 stubbornly resisting<br />
all our best efforts to suppress it, <strong>2021</strong> has<br />
been a real test of resilience.<br />
We all hoped that things would go<br />
back to normal this year, but Covid has<br />
continued to wreak havoc around the<br />
world, and SA, which has by in large kept<br />
the virus at bay, now faces a surge in cases<br />
as we open up our state, and contend<br />
with the real prospect of widespread<br />
disruption to our Christmas plans due to<br />
the quarantine and isolation guidelines<br />
currently in place.<br />
While this has been another difficult<br />
year for the profession, we have<br />
collectively risen to the occasion, earnt<br />
a holiday and are now looking forward<br />
to a long overdue return to something<br />
resembling business as usual.<br />
As we approach what I hope will be<br />
a holiday season spent with family and<br />
friends, we would all do well to remember<br />
that many people are struggling, scared,<br />
and uncertain as the virus and the<br />
attendant mandates and restrictions still<br />
form a dark cloud over our lives. So let’s<br />
be kind to one another (including our<br />
animal friends) and try to conquer this<br />
thing once and for all. B<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 5
FROM THE CONDUCT COMMISSIONER<br />
Overview of the<br />
LPCC Annual Report<br />
GREG MAY, LEGAL PROFESSION CONDUCT COMMISSIONER<br />
recently presented my annual report for<br />
I the financial year ended 30 June <strong>2021</strong><br />
to the Attorney-General and the Chief<br />
Justice. Once the Attorney has tabled it<br />
in Parliament, it will be available on my<br />
website (at lpcc.sa.gov.au).<br />
In the expectation that not everyone<br />
in the profession will spend as much<br />
time as they should reading my annual<br />
report, I thought I should just take this<br />
opportunity to mention a few things that<br />
are highlighted in the report that are in my<br />
view particularly relevant and important.<br />
From 1 November 2020, complainants<br />
have had to pay a fee of $110 (including<br />
GST) before I will consider their<br />
complaint. There are though a number<br />
of circumstances in which I will, or may,<br />
waive the payment of that fee.<br />
The introduction of that fee paying<br />
regime has in my view been the main,<br />
if not the sole, reason for complaint<br />
numbers reducing from over 500 on<br />
average per year to just over 400 in 2020-<br />
21. And I now expect complaint numbers<br />
from now on will be less than 400 per year.<br />
The reduction in complaint numbers<br />
has enabled me to reduce my staff<br />
numbers without impacting too much on<br />
the way in which we deal with complaints.<br />
The expense incurred in running my office<br />
has reduced from $4.3m in 2017-18 to<br />
just under $4m in 2020-21, and my budget<br />
for this current financial year is just over<br />
$3.6m.<br />
During 2020-21, I made 45 findings<br />
of misconduct – 33 of unsatisfactory<br />
professional conduct and 12 of<br />
professional misconduct. I also laid 2<br />
charges against 1 practitioner in the Legal<br />
Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.<br />
That number of findings of<br />
misconduct is considerably higher than<br />
in previous years. In 2019-20, I made 31<br />
such findings and also laid charges against<br />
4 practitioners). In 2018-19 it was 22<br />
findings and 8 charges, and in 2017-18 it<br />
was 21 findings and 7 charges.<br />
A significant contributor to the<br />
increased number of misconduct<br />
findings was my findings in relation to<br />
practitioners who had failed to comply<br />
with their costs disclosure obligations<br />
under Schedule 3 of the Legal Practitioners<br />
Act (Act). There were 8 such findings<br />
during 2020-21. I refer the profession to<br />
my article about those obligations and the<br />
way I view them in the April 2020 edition<br />
of the Bulletin.<br />
It is also perhaps worth me<br />
summarising the conduct that resulted in<br />
my other misconduct findings in 2020-21:<br />
• a lack of courtesy in correspondence;<br />
• failing to pay superannuation for the<br />
firm’s employees;<br />
• using a costs agreement that was legally<br />
incorrect and potentially misleading<br />
in relation to the firm’s entitlement<br />
to increase its costs if the client<br />
complained about its fees or asked for<br />
an itemised account;<br />
• having a conflict when advising a<br />
client who had a number of different<br />
capacities in relation to a deceased<br />
estate;<br />
• misleading a client as to whether a<br />
judgment debt had been obtained in<br />
recovery proceedings;<br />
• threatening action against another<br />
party without having instructions to<br />
do so;<br />
• failing to act on a client’s instructions<br />
in a sufficiently timely fashion, which<br />
led to the client terminating the firm’s<br />
instructions – and then billing the<br />
client for the work that was done<br />
(despite it being of no use to the<br />
client) and filing a credit default entry<br />
when the bill wasn’t paid;<br />
• failing to administer and distribute a<br />
deceased estate in a timely fashion;<br />
• providing mortgage financing services<br />
in contravention of the Act;<br />
• commencing to practice as an<br />
Incorporated Legal Practice without<br />
giving notices required under the Act;<br />
• acting for two executors of an estate,<br />
and then acting for one against the<br />
other despite then having confidential<br />
information about the other;<br />
• having direct contact with the client of<br />
another practitioner, in breach of the<br />
ASCRs;<br />
• allowing a client to view certain<br />
documents despite a court order<br />
requiring them to be destroyed;<br />
• preparing a revocation of a Power of<br />
Attorney and a new Power of Attorney<br />
without having obtained instructions<br />
direct from the client to do so or<br />
assessing her capacity;<br />
• misinterpreting a Will, maintaining that<br />
incorrect interpretation despite viewing<br />
advice to the contrary, and charging for<br />
that incorrect work;<br />
• charging a fixed fee up front for certain<br />
work that was to be done, and then not<br />
doing it;<br />
• obtaining a report for a client without<br />
instructions to do so, and without first<br />
obtaining a fee estimate;<br />
• failing to resolve an outstanding trust<br />
account balance within a reasonable<br />
time;<br />
• failing to progress a client’s claim<br />
within a reasonable time;<br />
• failing to comply with undertakings<br />
given to the Law Society as part of a<br />
“low income fee earner” application;<br />
• failing to comply with Court orders<br />
and to appear at hearings;<br />
• failing to comply with various<br />
employment obligations;<br />
• failing to comply with my orders;<br />
• in relation to an estate of which the<br />
practitioner was the executor, charging<br />
fees without being authorised to do so,<br />
charging for travel expenses without<br />
being entitled to do so, breaching<br />
fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries,<br />
and failing to maintain adequate<br />
records of instructions;<br />
• backdating a letter, misleading the<br />
other party about it, and blaming a<br />
junior employee for the “need” to<br />
do so;<br />
• failing to maintain a trust account<br />
despite receiving trust money; and<br />
• failing to administer an estate in a<br />
timely fashion. B<br />
6<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
ANIMAL LAW<br />
Animals and intervention orders:<br />
tree hugging nonsense or natural<br />
evolution of domestic violence laws?<br />
RONAN O’BRIEN AND DIANA THOMAS, ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE<br />
The statistics don’t lie. The link between<br />
domestic violence and animal abuse<br />
is well known with some studies showing<br />
53% of women escaping domestic violence<br />
report their pets were harmed and 35%<br />
state they delayed seeking refuge out of<br />
concern for the welfare of their pet. 1<br />
The Royal Commission into Family<br />
Violence in 2016 heard testimony from<br />
numerous victims illustrating how animals<br />
are often used in coercive control: 2<br />
• Once he cut the head off my mother’s pet<br />
to ‘teach her a lesson’.<br />
• He regularly beat – and I mean beat<br />
– the shit out of our dogs.<br />
• He killed my animals.<br />
• He would say to me, ‘Here’s your precious<br />
dog, this is what you do to me’, and pretend<br />
to snap her neck. 3<br />
Animal abuse cases, often prosecuted<br />
by state-based RSPCAs, regularly involve<br />
an element of domestic violence.<br />
• In Bond v RSPCA 4 the appellant was<br />
fighting with his girlfriend. During<br />
the argument, he picked up her dog,<br />
slashed its throat and stabbed the dog<br />
four times. He then threw the bloodied<br />
body of the dog in the bin.<br />
• In a 2019 ACT case 5 CCTV footage<br />
shows the abuser smiling as, instead<br />
of feeding his ex-girlfriend’s dog, he<br />
punched, kicked, and hit the animal<br />
with a shovel for 20 minutes. The dog<br />
was euthanised due to its injuries.<br />
ABUSED ANIMALS TREATED AS DAMAGED<br />
PROPERTY<br />
Animals are specifically mentioned<br />
within the Intervention Orders (Prevention<br />
of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) (“the Act”)<br />
regarding examples of emotional or<br />
psychological harm: 6<br />
…an act of abuse against a person resulting<br />
in emotional or psychological harm may be<br />
comprised of any of the following:<br />
causing the death of, or injury to, an animal.<br />
The legislation allows for intervention<br />
orders to be issued for the protection of<br />
a person if it is “reasonable to suspect that the<br />
defendant will, without intervention, commit an<br />
act of abuse against a person.” 7<br />
Whilst the above clauses show there<br />
can be preventative measures put in place<br />
for the safety of a protected person, the<br />
current legislation is not specific in its<br />
ability to protect the actual animals that<br />
are at risk of abuse.<br />
Given that animals are regarded as<br />
property in SA, it is possible for animals<br />
to fall within the provisions of the Act<br />
that state: 8<br />
An act is an act of abuse against a person if<br />
it results in or is intended to result in—<br />
damage to property in the ownership or<br />
possession of the person or used or otherwise<br />
enjoyed by the person.<br />
Further, given the proprietary status<br />
of animals, the following intervention<br />
terms within the Act may be relevant to<br />
protecting specified animals: 9<br />
• Prohibit the defendant from damaging<br />
specified property;<br />
• Prohibit the defendant from taking<br />
possession of specified personal<br />
property reasonably needed by a<br />
protected person;<br />
• Require the defendant to return specified<br />
personal property to a protected person.<br />
Specifying animals as requiring<br />
protection<br />
Rather than implying that animals may<br />
fall within the preventative measures of<br />
the Act used to protect property, South<br />
Australia could look to other jurisdictions<br />
that have specifically identified animals as<br />
requiring protection.<br />
The NSW parliament addressed this<br />
problem in March <strong>2021</strong> by specifically<br />
recognising the intersection between animal<br />
abuse and domestic violence in their Crimes<br />
(Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. 10<br />
Every apprehended violence order<br />
in NSW is now taken to specify that the<br />
defendant is prohibited from harming<br />
an animal that belongs to or is in the<br />
possession of the protected person with<br />
whom the protected person has a domestic<br />
relationship. 11<br />
Victoria has taken a further step<br />
forward, specifically recognising that the<br />
animal threatened with harm may not<br />
necessarily be a pet of the victim. Their<br />
definition of family violence includes:<br />
“causing or threatening to cause the death of,<br />
or injury to, animal, whether or not the animal<br />
belongs to the family member to whom the<br />
behaviour is directed so as to control, dominate<br />
or coerce the family member.” 12<br />
This overcomes circumstances where<br />
an abuser may obtain for themselves a<br />
new animal with the intent to threaten or<br />
coerce the protected person, or indeed<br />
circumstances where they may threaten to<br />
harm a stray animal or wildlife.<br />
In Queensland, as a condition of a<br />
domestic violence order, the court may<br />
prohibit the respondent from possessing<br />
a thing used, or threatened to use, in<br />
committing domestic violence. 13 Whilst<br />
the legislation extends the definition of<br />
“things” to include animals, this would<br />
not prevent a perpetrator from obtaining<br />
a new animal to harm as the restriction<br />
8<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
ANIMAL LAW<br />
only applies to the animal used within the<br />
alleged offence.<br />
The way forward<br />
Along with the measures introduced<br />
interstate, South Australia could consider<br />
further legislative amendments to prevent<br />
a perpetrator of domestic violence having<br />
immediate access to an animal to threaten<br />
harm.<br />
In circumstances where an animal has<br />
been threatened or harmed, a condition<br />
of an intervention order could be that the<br />
defendant is forbidden from being the<br />
owner of any animal. Further, the definition<br />
of “owner” should include “a person<br />
who has the custody and control of the<br />
animal” to be consistent with the definition<br />
of owner within the Animal Welfare Act<br />
1985 (SA). This prevents scenarios of<br />
defendants attempting to avoid ‘ownership’<br />
of an animal by simply registering the<br />
animal in another person’s name.<br />
The correlation between cruelty<br />
to animals and domestic violence is<br />
increasingly being recognised and<br />
greater legislative measures should be<br />
implemented to ensure the safety of<br />
animals in the same vein as protecting<br />
partners and children escaping violence. B<br />
Endnotes<br />
1 Is there a link between Domestic Violence<br />
and animal abuse? RSPCA 8.10.2019, https://<br />
kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/is-there-a-linkbetween-domestic-violence-and-animal-abuse/<br />
2 Royal Commission into Family Violence – Final<br />
report (March 2016), http://rcfv.archive.<br />
royalcommission.vic.gov.au/MediaLibraries/<br />
RCFamilyViolence/Reports/RCFV_Full_<br />
Report_Interactive.pdf<br />
3 https://www.abc.net.au/news/<strong>2021</strong>-03-01/<br />
calls-for-domestic-violence-pets-legislation-invictoria/13199928<br />
4 Bond v Royal Society For the Prevention Of Cruelty to<br />
Animals (SA) [2011] SASC 19.<br />
5 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-12/<br />
canberra-man-jailed-for-fatally-beating-dog-withshovel-handle/11595670<br />
6 Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009<br />
(SA) S 8 (4)(d).<br />
7 Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009<br />
(SA) S 6(a).<br />
8 Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009<br />
(SA) S 8 (2)(d).<br />
9 Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009<br />
(SA) S 12.<br />
10 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007<br />
(NSW) s 9 (3) (f2).<br />
11 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007<br />
(NSW) s 36(c).<br />
12 Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 5 (2) (e).<br />
13 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012<br />
(QLD) s 81.<br />
EXCLUSIVE MEMBERSHIP DISCOUNT AVAILABLE ON<br />
GOODLIFE HEALTH CLUBS<br />
MEMBERSHIPS FOR YOU AND YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY*<br />
• ACCESS TO ALL GOODLIFE HEALTH CLUBS NATIONALLY<br />
• VIP ACCESS AT ADELAIDE CBD LOCATION<br />
• 2 COMPLIMENTARY SESSIONS WITH A FITNESS PROFESSIONAL<br />
• FREE TOWEL HIRE<br />
• FREE GUEST PASS: FRIDAY-SUNDAY<br />
21-DAY FREE MEMBERSHIP WHEN<br />
PRESENTING THIS FLYER/VOUCHER.<br />
*option to trade the voucher in for huge savings.<br />
SCAN TO<br />
REDEEM.<br />
P 08 7420 2200<br />
E cgmadelaidecity@goodlife.com.au<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 9
RENTING WITH PETS<br />
IN THE DOG HOUSE? RENTING<br />
WITH PETS IN SA<br />
RENÉE EVANS, SENIOR SOLICITOR, CROWN SOLICITOR’S OFFICE & MEMBER, ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE<br />
Finding a suitable rental property to call<br />
home can be a stressful and difficult<br />
process at the best of times, but even more<br />
so for a prospective tenant with a pet.<br />
The law concerning pets and the rights<br />
and obligations of residential tenants<br />
(prospective and existing), landlords, and<br />
strata and community title owners can be<br />
complex. Below I consider some of the<br />
common questions and issues regarding<br />
pets in rental properties, by reference to<br />
the relevant legislation in South Australia.<br />
WHAT IS A PET?<br />
Currently, the term ‘pet’ is not defined<br />
in the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. In<br />
its submission on the Residential Tenancies<br />
(Renting with Pets) Amendment Bill 2020 (the<br />
Bill), the Society (informed by the Animal<br />
Law Committee) suggested including a<br />
definition in the Bill to provide clarity<br />
and distinguish ‘pet’ animals from various<br />
other animals defined in legislation, in<br />
particular assistance dogs and therapeutic<br />
animals. 1 The Bill was negatived by the<br />
Legislative Council on 31 March, <strong>2021</strong>.<br />
THE LANDLORD’S DISCRETION?<br />
A landlord can refuse a tenancy based<br />
solely on the prospective tenant owning<br />
a pet, unless the animal in question is a<br />
therapy or assistance animal.<br />
An ‘assistance animal’ is a dog that is<br />
an accredited assistance dog under the Dog<br />
and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA), or an<br />
animal of a class prescribed by regulation. 2<br />
Pursuant to section 66(e) of the Equal<br />
Opportunity Act 1984 (SA), it is unlawful to<br />
10<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
discriminate on the grounds of disability<br />
by treating a person with a disability<br />
unfavourably because the person possesses,<br />
or is accompanied by, an assistance animal,<br />
or because of a related matter. 3 This<br />
provision will apply in the context of<br />
rental property applications. Refusing an<br />
application for a rental property on the<br />
basis that the applicant has an assistance<br />
animal and that animal is to be kept on the<br />
rented premises is unlawful.<br />
A ‘therapeutic animal’ is an animal<br />
certified by a medical practitioner as<br />
being required to assist a person as a<br />
consequence of the person’s disability,<br />
or an animal of a class prescribed by<br />
regulation. 4 It is unlawful to refuse an<br />
application for accommodation (unless the<br />
refusal was reasonable in the circumstances<br />
of the case) or defer an application, on the<br />
ground that the applicant intends to keep a<br />
therapeutic animal at that accommodation. 5<br />
Depending on the property title,<br />
there may be considerations other than<br />
the landlord’s discretion which dictate<br />
whether a pet can be kept at the premises.<br />
If the rental property is strata titled,<br />
animals (except for therapy or assistance<br />
animals) 6 may not be kept without the<br />
strata corporation’s consent. 7 For rental<br />
properties on community title, the<br />
individual by-laws of the community title<br />
corporation will state whether the consent<br />
of the corporation is required to keep<br />
an animal (noting therapy and assistance<br />
animals are excepted 8 and by-laws may not<br />
unfairly discriminate against the ‘owner’<br />
of a pet). 9<br />
Pets are generally accepted in Housing<br />
SA properties provided they are suitable<br />
for the accommodation and the tenant<br />
undertakes the animal will not:<br />
• Disturb the neighbours with excessive<br />
barking<br />
• Be a nuisance or annoyance to the<br />
neighbours<br />
• Cause danger to any other person by<br />
wandering unsupervised<br />
• Is restrained on a leash when any<br />
person authority by Housing SA is on<br />
the premises<br />
• The property and yard are kept clean,<br />
tidy and free of animal waste. 10<br />
SHARE HOUSES & ROOMING HOUSES<br />
The obligations of a rooming house<br />
resident set out in the Residential Tenancies<br />
Act 1995 (SA) include not keeping<br />
an animal without the consent of the<br />
proprietor. 11<br />
In addition, it may be prudent (not to<br />
mention courteous) to consult the other<br />
residents in the house and obtain their<br />
consent for the pet to join the household.<br />
Introducing a pet to the household<br />
without the consent of other residents<br />
may expose the pet owner to risk. What<br />
if another resident is allergic to the pet<br />
and suffers a serious skin reaction and<br />
breathing problems? The most pressing<br />
argument in the share house may quickly<br />
pivot from whose turn it is to do the<br />
dishes or clean the bathroom to who is or<br />
is not liable for a claim from the allegedly<br />
injured resident for personal injury and<br />
resulting economic loss.
RENTING WITH PETS<br />
AS QUIET AS A MOUSE - KEEPING A PET IN<br />
BREACH?<br />
Existing tenants may be served with<br />
a breach notice if a pet is discovered and<br />
the tenancy agreement specifically states<br />
‘no pets’. 12 A landlord could also make<br />
an application to the South Australian<br />
Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking<br />
termination of the residential tenancy and<br />
an order for possession of the premises,<br />
alleging that the tenant has caused or<br />
permitted a nuisance or an interference<br />
with the reasonable peace, comfort or<br />
privacy of another person who resides in<br />
the immediate vicinity of the premises. 13<br />
Pointon v Champion & Champion 14 is a<br />
tragic example of just how badly breach<br />
situations can end. In this case, the tenant<br />
kept a pet dog on the premises in breach<br />
of the tenancy agreement. The landlords<br />
failed to give notice of intention to enter<br />
the property. When the landlord and a<br />
tradesperson entered the property, the<br />
pet dog escaped. Sadly, the dog was later<br />
struck by a vehicle and died. The Tribunal<br />
found that the landlords were not liable<br />
to pay compensation for the death of the<br />
dog and awarded compensation to the<br />
tenant in the amount of $200 in respect<br />
of the landlords’ breach of the tenancy<br />
agreement (above, and on one other<br />
occasion).<br />
A “PET BOND”?<br />
A landlord cannot require more<br />
than one bond for the same residential<br />
tenancy agreement. 15 A landlord could<br />
however decide to charge a higher bond in<br />
anticipation of pet damage as long as the<br />
bond does not exceed the relevant limit<br />
permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act<br />
1995 (SA). 16<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
The special place that pets hold<br />
in people’s lives should not be<br />
underestimated, and it follows that laws<br />
regulating pets and renting with pets in<br />
particular can have significant impact. For<br />
example, victims of domestic violence<br />
often delay leaving abusive circumstances<br />
due to a lack of available pet friendly<br />
accommodation and a fear the pet will<br />
be subject to violence and abuse after<br />
the victim has left. 17 In this regard, one<br />
of the objectives of the ‘Safe Kennels<br />
DV Project’ of the RSPCA South<br />
Australia is to advocate for an increase<br />
in pet friendly rental accommodation. 18<br />
Each of the States and Territories have<br />
approached the challenge of striking<br />
a balance between the position of pet<br />
owners and the rights of landlords and<br />
neighbours differently. 19 As recently as<br />
14 October, <strong>2021</strong>, Queensland passed<br />
the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill<br />
<strong>2021</strong>, a Bill which includes reforms<br />
aimed at encouraging more pet friendly<br />
rental accommodation and providing a<br />
framework for negotiations about renting<br />
with pets. Whether legislative reform<br />
ultimately occurs in South Australia<br />
remains to be seen, but it is clear that<br />
issues concerning the resident pet are<br />
here to stay. B<br />
Endnotes<br />
1 https://www.lawsocietysa.asn.au/pdf/<br />
L161120toHonMarkParnellreResidential.pdf<br />
2 Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA), s 5<br />
3 Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA), s 66(e).<br />
4 Ibid s88A. Note ‘therapeutic animal’ does<br />
not include an assistance animal, a dangerous<br />
dog within the meaning of the Dog and Cat<br />
Management Act 1995 (SA) or a dog of a<br />
prescribed breed within the meaning of the Dog<br />
and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA).<br />
5 Ibid s 88A.<br />
6 Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA), s 19(4)(c), (d).<br />
7 Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA), Schedule 3, article 4.<br />
8 Community Title Act 1996 (SA), s 37(1)(d), (e).<br />
9 Community Title Act 1996 (SA) s 38(1)(b)<br />
10 https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/housing/publicand-community-housing/tenants/pets-inhousing-sa-properties<br />
11 Section 105R(1)(b).<br />
12 Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA), s 80.<br />
13 Ibid s 90.<br />
14 [2015] SACAT 13 (6 October 2015).<br />
15 Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA), s 61(1)(a).<br />
16 Ibid s 61(1)(b).<br />
17 Renting with pets landlord fact sheet (www.<br />
sa.gov.au)<br />
18 Safe Kennels DV project - RSPCA South<br />
Australia (rspcasa.org.au)<br />
19 The Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT),<br />
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) and Residential<br />
Tenancies Act 1999 (NT) provide processes which<br />
are arguably more ‘pet friendly’, where tenants<br />
give notice or seek consent of the landlord<br />
and the landlord has a period within which to<br />
make an application to refuse or object. Cf<br />
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), Residential<br />
Tenancy Act 1997 (Tas), Residential Tenancies Act<br />
1987 (WA) and Residential Tenancies Act 1995<br />
(SA). Queensland is in the midst of legislative<br />
reform – see the Housing Legislation Amendments<br />
Bill <strong>2021</strong> and the Residential Tenancies and Rooming<br />
Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld).<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 11
Q&A<br />
Know Your Council Member:<br />
Melanie Tilmouth<br />
The Bulletin spoke to Melanie Tilmouth, who was recently<br />
appointed Vice President (Female) of the Law Society for<br />
<strong>2021</strong>-22, about her career to date, the value of giving<br />
back to the profession, and the burning issues in the law<br />
that she thinks need to be addressed.<br />
Can you please give a brief overview of<br />
your career to date?<br />
am a Family and Divorce Senior<br />
I Solicitor working at Resolve Divorce<br />
Lawyers.<br />
I initially undertook my clerkship with<br />
Tony Kerin, who was then at Johnston<br />
Withers and it was Tony who sparked my<br />
interest in practice, for which I will be<br />
forever grateful.<br />
I then worked for a medium sized firm<br />
firstly in one of their county offices before<br />
moving to their city office a few years<br />
later. I always recommend working in the<br />
country to graduate lawyers. It is such a<br />
fantastic way to have immediate, handson<br />
experience and work out where your<br />
passion lies without being pigeon holed<br />
early on in your career. I slowly gravitated<br />
towards family law and it was then that<br />
I realised that I wanted to be mentored<br />
to refine my skills and I moved to work<br />
within Jane Miller’s family law team in a<br />
large firm. The resources of a large firm<br />
allowed us to work on very interesting and<br />
complex matters and Jane was such an<br />
inspiring leader and continues to be a great<br />
mentor. When Jane was called to the bar I<br />
then moved to my current position.<br />
What drew you to a career in law?<br />
Initially, I chose to study law in<br />
conjunction with a degree in international<br />
studies with the hope of a career<br />
in international diplomacy. It was a<br />
requirement of my degree at Flinders<br />
University that I undertake a clerkship. My<br />
clerkship under supervision of Tony Kerin<br />
was transformative. He sparked my interest<br />
in practice and helped me understand that<br />
legal practice is being in the service of<br />
others and your community.<br />
What drew you to your current<br />
workplace/area of law?<br />
Early on in my career I had no in<br />
interest family law but working in general<br />
practice in the country meant that I had<br />
no option but to give it a go. I then found<br />
it so rewarding to help people at some<br />
of the most challenging times of their<br />
life, particularly given that the decisions<br />
I helped them make could have such<br />
significant impact on their future.<br />
I was drawn to working at Resolve<br />
Divorce Lawyers as it was female led with<br />
my director recently having returned from<br />
maternity leave like me. The firm sees the<br />
opportunity to improve the way in which<br />
clients experience family breakdown. I<br />
also am a strong believer in the firm’s<br />
philosophy that the law is only a part<br />
of the puzzle of family breakdown and<br />
you need to help your client build a team<br />
of support people around them such as<br />
psychologists, financial and other advisors<br />
to support them to help them achieve their<br />
best outcome.<br />
Why did you nominate for Council?<br />
When I began practice in the country,<br />
I felt disconnected from the profession so<br />
I joined the Young Lawyers Committee<br />
(YLC) as a way of reconnecting. This<br />
was the start of my journey with the<br />
Law Society and when I decided to step<br />
down at co-chair of the YLC I wanted<br />
to continue to remain closely connected<br />
with the profession, and Council felt like<br />
a natural step. I feel strongly about giving<br />
Melanie Tilmouth<br />
back to the profession, supporting each<br />
other and the community and Council<br />
provides those opportunities.<br />
What have you got out of being a<br />
Council Member?<br />
I was gained a much deeper<br />
understanding of various functions of<br />
the Society and the significant amount of<br />
work it does for the profession. There is<br />
momentous amount of work that goes<br />
on behind the scenes. I have been able<br />
to connect with other members of the<br />
profession, outside my area of practice,<br />
which has had positive impact personally<br />
and professionally.<br />
What do you see as the key challenges<br />
for the legal profession?<br />
Some of the key challenges facing the<br />
profession include:<br />
• The ongoing under funding of the<br />
justice system both at a state and<br />
federal level.<br />
12<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
Q&A<br />
• Up-skilling lawyers and graduates as<br />
the profession evolves. It is no longer<br />
enough to know the law. You need<br />
to be adequately equipped to provide<br />
excellent service to your clients.<br />
• The retention of women beyond their<br />
early 30s in the law and particularly in<br />
leadership roles.<br />
• Meeting the challenges that have<br />
recently under the spot light<br />
including bullying, harassment and<br />
discrimination within the profession.<br />
What do you see as the key<br />
opportunities for the legal profession?<br />
With the increased reliance on<br />
technology and artificial intelligence our<br />
role as lawyers is less about explaining the<br />
law and more about the journey that our<br />
client experiences throughout their legal<br />
problem. As lawyers we therefore have<br />
great opportunities to be creative and<br />
offer an experience to our clients, not just<br />
an outcome.<br />
What key issues do you think the<br />
Society should be advocating for?<br />
Key issues that I think the Society<br />
should be advocating for include:<br />
• Improved workplaces for lawyers<br />
that address the bulling, harassment,<br />
discrimination and cultural issues that<br />
the profession currently faces.<br />
• The underfunding of the justice<br />
system at state and federal levels.<br />
• The proper funding of the Fidelity Fund.<br />
• Legislative reform to make it faster and<br />
more cost effective for clients in the<br />
legal system.<br />
• Access to Justice.<br />
What advice would you give to<br />
practitioners who are interested<br />
in serving or improving the legal<br />
profession and justice system?<br />
Join a special interest committee of<br />
the Society to test the water and see if<br />
being involved in the society is something<br />
for you. There is such a diverse range of<br />
committees to be involved it.<br />
I also an advocate for practitioners<br />
being kinder to each other. Great<br />
outcomes are achieved for our clients<br />
through respectful dialogue, not big egos<br />
and aggressive communication.<br />
What are some of your interests<br />
outside of the law?<br />
I have a 10 week ago old (at the time<br />
of print) and a toddler both of whom are<br />
keeping me very busy at the moment.<br />
My husband is a winemaker so I<br />
have no choice but to enjoy good food<br />
and wine.<br />
Yoga and gardening are fantastic<br />
antidotes to the busyness that comes with<br />
juggling work and parenting. B<br />
New Adelaide Judge of the<br />
Federal Circuit and Family Court<br />
Dr Anna Parker has been appointed as<br />
a Judge of Division 2 of the Federal<br />
Circuit and Family Court of Australia<br />
(FCFCOA), Adelaide.<br />
Judge Parker graduated with a Bachelor<br />
of Arts (Hons) and Bachelor of Laws<br />
(Hons) in 2005 from Monash University.<br />
She has subsequently also completed a<br />
Master of Laws from the University of<br />
Melbourne and a Doctor of Juridical<br />
Science from Monash University.<br />
Judge Parker completed her Articles<br />
of Clerkship at Harwood Andrews<br />
Lawyers and subsequently practised<br />
as a solicitor in the area of family<br />
law at specialist family law firms for<br />
approximately 10 years, including as a<br />
Partner of a family law firm.<br />
Judge Parker was accredited as a Family<br />
Law Specialist by the Law Institute of<br />
Victoria in 2011. She was called to the Bar<br />
in May 2016 and practised as a Barrister<br />
exclusively in family law from 2016 until<br />
her commencement as a Senior Judicial<br />
Registrar and National Operations Judicial<br />
Registrar – Judicial Case Management<br />
with the Federal Circuit and Family Court<br />
of Australia in <strong>December</strong> 2020. While a<br />
Senior Judicial Registrar with the Court,<br />
Judge Parker was a member of the Rules<br />
Harmonisation Working Group and played<br />
a critical role in the development of the<br />
Court’s new Central Practice Direction<br />
and new case management pathway.<br />
Three recent judicial appointments<br />
to the FCFCOA announced on 26<br />
November are:<br />
• Barrister Richard Schonell SC,<br />
appointed to Division 1 of the<br />
FCFCOA, Sydney<br />
• Barrister Andrew Strum QC,<br />
appointed to Division 1 of the<br />
FCFCOA, Melbourne<br />
• Barrister Dearne Firth, appointed to<br />
Division 2 of the FCFCOA, Brisbane<br />
These appointments follow the<br />
appointment of 11 new judges to the<br />
Court that were announced in October. B<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 13
IN HONOUR<br />
Vale: Mark Glencraig Nicholls<br />
MICHAEL RODER QC<br />
Michael Roder QC reflects on the life of his great friend<br />
Mark Nicholls (25 August 1963 - 13 August <strong>2021</strong>), whose<br />
immense contribution to the community belied his<br />
genuine modesty.<br />
first met Mark Nicholls in 1974 at St<br />
I Peters College in Adelaide. I was lucky<br />
to do so.<br />
During his years at St Peter’s College<br />
Mark excelled. He became a school prefect<br />
and house captain in 1979.<br />
He had many outside interests,<br />
including sport, all outdoor activities,<br />
scouting, and the Air Force.<br />
After completing school he told me<br />
that he had been shortlisted for a Rhodes<br />
scholarship, but as usual he told me this<br />
news without a hint that he thought this<br />
was anything remarkable.<br />
He did not end up heading to Oxford<br />
to study. He commenced a law and<br />
economics degree at the University of<br />
Adelaide in 1980.<br />
During his time at university he<br />
continued to love sports, scouts and was<br />
involved in many other activities, not least<br />
of all dancing in a trademark enthusiastic<br />
style of most of the early 1980s Adelaide<br />
discos.<br />
He and his lifelong friend Bill Reid<br />
became scout leaders at Rose Park at the<br />
age of 18. Bill remembers them speaking<br />
with bewilderment about what those<br />
parents of the late 1970s were doing<br />
entrusting their young ones’ safety to two<br />
teenagers on bush hikes and camps.<br />
Mark also worked when he was at<br />
university, from a full three-month stint at<br />
a silo, hay fever and all, to a volunteer in a<br />
mission that he told me was supposed to<br />
be located in Vanuatu, but he ended up in<br />
Peshawar on the Afghanistan border at the<br />
age of 19.<br />
Mark was popular throughout his law<br />
school days, not least for his beautifully<br />
14<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
written lecture notes, which he was always<br />
willing to share. It never worried him if<br />
others got a better score on open book<br />
exams with the benefit of copying his<br />
notes.<br />
Mark graduated in 1985 with an<br />
honours degree in law and a degree in<br />
economics. He later completed a masters<br />
degree in law in 1989 whilst working full<br />
time as a lawyer.<br />
On graduating, there were many<br />
professional opportunities for Mark. The<br />
family law firm run by his mother Illa and<br />
father Chris awaited and he practised there<br />
for a short period.<br />
But he chose his own path. He gained<br />
a position, based in Canberra, as a High<br />
Court judge’s associate to His Honour<br />
Justice Dawson. It was, and is, highly<br />
unusual for a graduate from Adelaide law<br />
school to obtain such a position. As a<br />
young associate, he undoubtedly impressed<br />
Justice Dawson, it being notable that<br />
he was given co-authorship credits on a<br />
published journal article with the learned<br />
Judge in his first year as an associate.<br />
Mark always had the view that he was<br />
incredibly fortunate in his life. He would<br />
often say that he had already “won the<br />
lottery” just by being born here. He was<br />
always motivated by “giving something<br />
back”.<br />
His opportunity came in the early<br />
1990s, a few years after the Human Rights<br />
and Equal Opportunity Commission<br />
(<strong>HR</strong>EOC) was established. He was<br />
appointed as General Counsel of the<br />
Commission.<br />
The principles enshrined and the<br />
remedies now provided for in the<br />
Mark Nicholls<br />
Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Racial<br />
Discrimination Act 1975and the Disability<br />
Discrimination Act 1993 are now accepted as<br />
everyday norms in Australian society but<br />
they were not entrenched in that same way<br />
when the Commission was established.<br />
Mark was identified by the <strong>HR</strong>EOC<br />
as a contributor to the landmark Stolen<br />
Generations report “Bringing them<br />
Home”, in 1997, and as a contributor to<br />
the 1994 <strong>HR</strong>EOC report into the Sex<br />
Discrimination Act.<br />
Several reports of <strong>HR</strong>EOC published<br />
in the 1990s acknowledge his role in<br />
overseeing and enforcing the introduction<br />
and implementation of the groundbreaking<br />
Disability Discrimination Act 1993.<br />
He also addressed the Australian<br />
Senate in 1997 on critical amendments<br />
to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity<br />
Act, designed to ensure that there were<br />
constitutionally enforceable remedies for<br />
those who had been subject to conduct<br />
that contravened these Acts.<br />
Mark also made submissions to the
IN HONOUR<br />
High Court in a series of ground-breaking<br />
human rights cases.<br />
On behalf of the Commission, he<br />
intervened on behalf of a Mr Croome,<br />
who was seeking to have Tasmania’s laws<br />
criminalising homosexuality declared<br />
unconstitutional. He also intervened<br />
on behalf of a young girl who had<br />
been denied refugee status in Australia<br />
on the basis that she had already been<br />
forcibly sterilised because of her race and<br />
therefore had nothing more to fear or<br />
worry about.<br />
Yet another example of his work was<br />
his intervention on behalf of a disabled<br />
worker who had been dismissed because<br />
of his disability when minor modifications<br />
to his job could have remedied the<br />
difficulty.<br />
In all cases, his written submissions<br />
- which are still available on the internet -<br />
reflected his clarity of thought, empathy<br />
and basic humanity.<br />
Remarkably, he also found the time<br />
whilst doing this to donate his time to be<br />
the head of the main New South Wales<br />
community volunteer legal service.<br />
I wish I could tell you how Mark<br />
reflected on all of this, but I cannot. He<br />
never discussed any of these things in any<br />
detail with his friends. He was perhaps<br />
the least boastful person I have met.<br />
Fortunately a historical record exists of<br />
many of his contributions.<br />
In the early 2000s, Mark returned to<br />
Adelaide, now with his wife Teresa and a<br />
young family. He had worked as a senior<br />
lawyer in a large Sydney corporate law<br />
firm, but it was not a career for him.<br />
He established his own consultancy<br />
for a short time, but most of his working<br />
life in this state was spent with One Steel,<br />
Arrium and now GFG, the owners of the<br />
steel works at Whyalla.<br />
Mark (and the owners) were always<br />
concerned about the need for reliable and<br />
cheap energy and the need to embrace<br />
renewable energy.<br />
As his brother Chris recalls, Mark came<br />
up with the idea of creating hydroelectric<br />
power by storing and pumping water from<br />
a disused mining pit.<br />
That idea was embraced years later<br />
by GFG as part of their overall plan, still<br />
being implemented today, to develop a<br />
carbon neutral plan and to contribute to<br />
the greening of Whyalla. The latter part<br />
of his working life was devoted to seeing<br />
that project completed, until serious illness<br />
intervened. His legacy to the town of<br />
Whyalla and to its principal business will<br />
remain for many decades.<br />
Mark Nicholls was a great friend and<br />
lawyer. His achievements reflected what he<br />
valued.<br />
Mark is survived by his wife Teresa,<br />
and children Georgia, Sam and Max. He<br />
never got tired of telling me how much he<br />
loved them. B<br />
MEMBERS ON<br />
THE MOVE<br />
MEMBERS ON THE MOVE<br />
The Honourable Steve Strickland<br />
QC wishes to advise the profession<br />
that he is returning to private practice<br />
as a barrister, arbitrator, mediator, and<br />
consultant generally in appeals and first<br />
instance trials.<br />
Enquiries as to his availability,<br />
fees and generally can be directed to<br />
Campbell Chambers.<br />
Email: admin@campbellchambers.com.au;<br />
stricklandqc@gmail.com.<br />
Phone: (08) 8110 4900<br />
HON STEVE STRICKLAND QC<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN<br />
15
DISABILITY JUSTICE<br />
More collaboration between legal<br />
profession and disability community<br />
key to breaking down barriers<br />
CATIA MALAQUIAS<br />
When my son Julius was born 12 years<br />
ago, my husband and I welcomed<br />
him into the world in the same way we had<br />
welcomed his older sister, as a precious<br />
child with a clear future of possibilities.<br />
Our approach didn’t change when<br />
we were told the next day, “We believe<br />
that your baby has Down syndrome”, but<br />
suddenly looking through a very different<br />
prism, clouded with doubt, fear and<br />
confusion, his future possibilities were<br />
obscured.<br />
I didn’t actually know anyone with<br />
Down syndrome, and like most people of<br />
my generation, I didn’t grow up attending<br />
school and getting to know children with<br />
disabilities; instead, I had good oldfashioned<br />
myths and stereotypes, prejudice<br />
and low expectations to refer to. But<br />
prejudices are learned, and they can be<br />
unlearned, and I’ve been trying to unlearn<br />
mine ever since then.<br />
Today, Julius is a happy, thriving child.<br />
He is no longer just a little brother, but<br />
a big brother as well. And next month<br />
he will graduate from year 6 at our local<br />
Primary School, leaving his younger sister<br />
behind and joining his big sister at our<br />
local high school.<br />
Parenting Julius is not particularly<br />
different to parenting his sisters; there are<br />
joys and challenges for each of them and<br />
each is their own person, needing some of<br />
the same things and also some different<br />
things.<br />
The real difference in parenting Julius<br />
is in the way that my husband and I<br />
have had to advocate for him, to protect<br />
his rights and to ensure that he has the<br />
same opportunities for participation as<br />
his sisters and most children their age;<br />
starting with his fundamental human<br />
right to inclusive education - learning in a<br />
regular class at his neighbourhood school<br />
with non-disabled peers and disabled<br />
peers. A right that is subconsciously and<br />
consciously resisted by many who assume<br />
or think his place should be a “special”<br />
place - for “special” people – starting with<br />
segregated “special” education.<br />
We have certainly faced those<br />
challenges along the way, but with my<br />
husband and I being lawyers, it’s fair to say<br />
that Julius has a level of parental-school<br />
engagement, rights-based advocacy and<br />
socio-economic privilege that many other<br />
children with disability do not.<br />
The fact is, many Australians with<br />
disability, who represent approximately<br />
1 in 6, or 4 million of us, continue to<br />
experience significant discrimination,<br />
exclusion and victimisation in a variety<br />
of ways. In 2019 the Australian Human<br />
Rights Commission reported that 43.7%<br />
of complaints were about disability<br />
discrimination. There are other statistics<br />
in relation to unemployment and poverty,<br />
sexual abuse and incarceration, in particular<br />
for First Nations people with disability, that<br />
are even more shocking.<br />
A Royal Commission established by the<br />
Federal Government is currently examining<br />
violence against, and the neglect, abuse and<br />
exploitation of, people with disability.<br />
As a lawyer, I placed a high level of<br />
trust in the legal system to deliver justice<br />
to people with disability, like my son,<br />
through equality of rights and protections<br />
against discrimination. But as a parent<br />
and an advocate, I came to understand<br />
the different ways in which disability can<br />
be used to circumvent people’s rights and<br />
to realise that, too often, laws either fail<br />
to protect people with disability from<br />
discrimination or, in many cases, they<br />
actually legitimise the denial of equal rights.<br />
A few years ago, I met George<br />
Newhouse, the CEO and Principal<br />
Solicitor of the National Justice Project,<br />
at a human rights event in Sydney. I was<br />
aware of the important work of the<br />
National Justice Project in using legal<br />
action to break down barriers to justice<br />
and welcomed the opportunity to talk<br />
to him about some of these problems<br />
and the challenges that Australians with<br />
disability continue to face in realising some<br />
of the most basic human rights: access to<br />
education and health, reproductive rights,<br />
accessibility including to housing and<br />
public spaces, restrictive practices, denial<br />
of legal capacity and incarceration.<br />
So, this year, when George asked me<br />
to be involved in the National Justice<br />
Project’s “Law Hack <strong>2021</strong>: Disability<br />
Justice” as the Lead Mentor for Advocacy,<br />
I jumped at the chance. I couldn’t wait<br />
to be involved and was excited about the<br />
possibilities.<br />
As Scott Avery, an Indigenous<br />
disability advocate and senior lecturer at<br />
Western Sydney University, said of the<br />
event, “We’re going to change the world<br />
and we’re going to disrupt the system.”<br />
“Law Hack <strong>2021</strong>: Disability Justice”<br />
didn’t disappoint. The event was held<br />
across two days on 14 October and 22<br />
October. It brought together bright<br />
minds, passionate hearts and brilliant<br />
professionals, around the idea of strategic<br />
litigation as a tool for legal reform or as<br />
a potential catalyst to publicly expose<br />
inequality or unfairness, create public<br />
debate, empower people with disability<br />
to have a voice in that debate and build<br />
pressure for change.<br />
16<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
DISABILITY JUSTICE<br />
Close to 50 participants, making<br />
up 10 teams convened from the legal,<br />
community, academic and advocacy<br />
sectors, came together to hear speakers<br />
with disabilities, participate in workshops<br />
on strategic litigation and disability<br />
advocacy, share ideas and inspire one<br />
another to act by participating in a<br />
‘pitch day’ event where they presented<br />
their solutions to one of five “problem<br />
statements”, before a panel of esteemed<br />
judges with lived experience of disability.<br />
Natalie Wade, the founder of Equality<br />
Lawyers and Vice President of Australian<br />
Lawyers for Human Rights chaired<br />
the judging panel which also included<br />
former Federal Disability Discrimination<br />
Commissioner Graeme Innes AM, Rob<br />
Silberstein, Advisory Board Member,<br />
National Justice Project, Margherita<br />
Coppolino, President, National Ethnic<br />
Disability Alliance and Scott Avery.<br />
While the Law Hack was taken online<br />
due to COVID-19 restrictions, this turned<br />
out to be an advantage in many ways<br />
because it allowed for the creation of<br />
teams with participants from across the<br />
country, working together despite being<br />
miles apart.<br />
Collaboration between legal<br />
professionals, people with disability and<br />
advocacy organisations was at the core of<br />
the event, embodying the guiding principle<br />
of the international disability rights<br />
movement “nothing about us without us”,<br />
articulated by Matthew Hall, CEO Arts<br />
Access Australia and Law Hack Mentor, in<br />
his speech on pitch day.<br />
The National Justice Project team<br />
worked with community partners; the<br />
Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous<br />
Education and Research, the Council<br />
for Intellectual Disabilities, First Peoples<br />
Disability Network Australia, National<br />
Ethnic Disability Alliance , People<br />
with Disability Australia, Women With<br />
Disability Australia and Arts Access<br />
Australia in developing the “challenge”<br />
statements and curating relevant<br />
information and materials for the “hack<br />
packs”.<br />
I had the opportunity to observe the<br />
value of this collaboration first-hand, in<br />
my role as Advocacy Mentor assisting<br />
the teams to consider how a parallel<br />
advocacy strategy can be utilised, together<br />
with litigation, to deliver disability justice<br />
outcomes.<br />
For example, in exploring the idea<br />
for a new emergency services branch to<br />
support people with a disability and divert<br />
them from the criminal justice system,<br />
the winning team of Jessica Pereira,<br />
Carolyn Ledinh, Jim Simpson and Fraser<br />
Bignell looked to a model that has been<br />
implemented overseas based on a standard<br />
triple zero phone call to access emergency<br />
support. As well as discussing how<br />
litigation may be used in making the case<br />
for this idea, they explored ways to make<br />
it more accessible for people who may not<br />
be able to use a standard phone service,<br />
such as people who are non-speaking and<br />
may be able to access the service via an<br />
app instead.<br />
Accessibility was also front-of-mind<br />
for the organising team at the National<br />
Justice Project, to ensure that accessibly<br />
needs were identified and addressed,<br />
including by providing written materials,<br />
captioning, image descriptions and Auslan<br />
sign language interpreters for the event.<br />
While each participant played different<br />
roles and brought diverse insights and<br />
expertise, we all shared a common<br />
purpose: to use our collective knowledge,<br />
wisdom and experience in a range of areas<br />
to tackle the injustices facing Australians<br />
living with disabilities, by identifying and<br />
exploring effective and ground-breaking<br />
legal solutions.<br />
I hope some of the ideas canvassed<br />
during “Law Hack <strong>2021</strong>: Disability Justice”<br />
will be explored further, and I look<br />
forward to seeing where they may lead.<br />
But, most importantly, I hope the<br />
event has paved the way for more to come;<br />
much-needed increased collaboration<br />
between the legal profession and the<br />
disability community, to change laws and<br />
government policy, reform systems and<br />
challenge and reshape community attitudes<br />
that are needed for people with disability<br />
to have equal opportunities and improved<br />
outcomes.<br />
It will take time, of course, to<br />
overcome the insidious legacy of<br />
centuries of exclusion, segregation and<br />
marginalisation of people with disability,<br />
which legacy continues to constrain<br />
attitudinal change and public policy - but<br />
the world we build for tomorrow will be<br />
born of the ‘disrupting’ actions we take<br />
today, if we are to ensure that the prism to<br />
future possibilities for people like my son<br />
Julius will not remain clouded.<br />
Catia Malaquias is a lawyer and human<br />
rights advocate. She is the Founder and Director<br />
if non-profi t disability inclusion organisation<br />
Starting with Julius, and Co-Founder of several<br />
organisations including All Means All – The<br />
Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education;<br />
School Inclusion Parent Network Project; and<br />
Global Alliance for Disability in Media and<br />
Entertainment. She is also a Director of Attitude<br />
Foundation; and Down Syndrome Australia. B<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 17
FEATURE<br />
THE NEED TO THINK OUTSIDE<br />
CITY COMMERCIAL PRACTICE:<br />
ENCOURAGING LAW STUDENTS<br />
TO WORK WITH REGIONAL AND<br />
ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES<br />
DR DAVID PLATER, CHLOE WINTER, CHARLOTTE ORDYNSKI AND CAYLEIGH STOCK 1<br />
The legal profession in both private and<br />
public practice, despite reports of an<br />
oversupply of law graduates, has difficulty<br />
in recruiting and retaining lawyers and legal<br />
professionals in rural, regional and remote<br />
(RRR) areas, 2 including in South Australia. 3<br />
Many RRR law firms and community legal<br />
agencies (including those working with<br />
Aboriginal communities) continuously<br />
struggle to find suitable lawyers to fill<br />
vacancies when they arise and are impeded<br />
by the drain of corporate knowledge<br />
caused by a constant staff turnover. 4 Law<br />
students generally consider RRR legal<br />
work to be somehow ‘inferior’ to city<br />
commercial practice. 5 Students are typically<br />
unaware of the nature, diversity and quality<br />
of rural and regional practice. Students<br />
are also often unaware about the value of<br />
working with Aboriginal communities.<br />
On 15-16 July, <strong>2021</strong>, as part of an<br />
Adelaide Law School initiative to address<br />
these issues, eight diverse Law School<br />
students; Chloe Winter, Mitchell Dunn,<br />
Arissa Robles-Rangel, Christina Akele,<br />
Charlotte Ordynski, Izak Coombe, Jack<br />
Woolford and Cayleigh Stock, joined a<br />
trip to Port Pirie and Port Augusta led by<br />
Dr Mark Giancaspro, 6 Nadia Hess 7 and<br />
Dr David Plater. 8 The aim of the trip<br />
was for students to hear firsthand about<br />
working with regional and Aboriginal<br />
communities and to encourage students<br />
to think beyond city commercial practice<br />
and consider working with RRR and/or<br />
Aboriginal communities. 9<br />
This trip proved eye opening. As one<br />
student, Charlotte, summarised:<br />
The trip provided more than the<br />
opportunity to network with our peers<br />
and legal professionals, but the ability<br />
to see a future of legal practice beyond<br />
the typical corporate pathway, and see<br />
the ability to make a difference and be a<br />
meaningful part of a community.<br />
THE PROBLEMS<br />
There are regular reports of the<br />
oversupply of law graduates in Australia<br />
and the difficulty in finding employment. 10<br />
There are even reports of law graduates ‘so<br />
desperate to kickstart their careers they’re<br />
willing to pay big bucks to land their first<br />
job’. 11 The former Prime Minister, Malcolm<br />
Turnbull, advised: ‘I think too many kids do<br />
law.’ 12 One law student even said: ‘It is near<br />
impossible just to get an unpaid clerkship.’ 13<br />
However, such negative perceptions<br />
do not convey the whole picture. 14 As<br />
early as 2009, a Senate Report noted the<br />
lack of lawyers willing to work in RRR<br />
areas as a ‘fundamental problem’. 15 Both<br />
community legal services, as well as RRR<br />
private practices, struggle to attract and<br />
retain staff. 16 There is an acute shortage of<br />
lawyers in regional and rural Australia, 17<br />
including those working with Aboriginal<br />
communities. 18 Aboriginal legal services<br />
also face challenges regarding their<br />
18<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
FEATURE<br />
ability to attract and retain staff. 19 These<br />
trends are likely to only intensify over<br />
coming years as a large proportion of the<br />
senior legal practitioners in RRR areas<br />
have indicated an intention to retire, 20<br />
compounded by many junior lawyers who<br />
have indicated an intention to make RRR<br />
practice a short-term career option only. 21<br />
Addressing issues around the attraction<br />
and retention of lawyers in RRR areas is<br />
important for two reasons: first, having<br />
legal practitioners living and working<br />
within RRR communities is essential to<br />
sustainable, healthy communities. 22 ‘Once<br />
a community loses its doctor, lawyer,<br />
accountant, it becomes difficult to sustain<br />
a vibrant, healthy community.’ 23 Secondly,<br />
lawyers living in these communities play a<br />
vital role to facilitate access to justice for<br />
the local community. In addition, lawyers<br />
are important to RRR areas as they carry<br />
out a large amount of legal aid work,<br />
more than their city counterparts. They<br />
also undertake significant pro bono and<br />
voluntary work within their communities. 24<br />
The shortage of lawyers outside of<br />
the city is adverse in terms of access to<br />
justice for a significant proportion of<br />
Australia’s population, 25 especially Aboriginal<br />
communities. 26 There are concerns regarding<br />
the considerable levels of unmet legal<br />
need – civil, criminal and family – in RRR<br />
communities. 27 Legal practitioners in these<br />
areas undertake a considerable amount of<br />
vital legal aid, pro bono work and voluntary<br />
community work, and a decrease in the<br />
availability of these services is likely to<br />
restrict access to justice in these areas even<br />
further. 28 These issues are compounded for<br />
Aboriginal communities which are more<br />
likely to experience multiple, intersecting<br />
legal problems, including elevated legal<br />
need in areas of, among others, crime, civil,<br />
government, child protection, tenancy,<br />
discrimination, social security, credit and<br />
consumer issues, and family law and family<br />
violence. 29 These ‘acute’ access to justice<br />
issues for Aboriginal communities are<br />
‘heightened in RRR areas where service<br />
gaps are particularly severe’. 30 The access to<br />
justice gaps in RRR communities are also<br />
telling for victims of family violence. 31 ‘It<br />
has been acknowledged that better access<br />
to legal services and remedies can play an<br />
important role in alleviating economic and<br />
social disadvantage.’ 32<br />
These concerns also arise in South<br />
Australia. Morry Bailes, a leading local<br />
lawyer, has observed:<br />
There is a legal black hole in regional<br />
and rural South Australia. It’s a problem<br />
facing the entire country. About<br />
30% of people live outside a major<br />
Australian city… Yet only 10.5% of the<br />
legal profession work in these regions.<br />
Little wonder we have a crisis in our<br />
justice system for rural and regional<br />
residents. These statistics… paint a<br />
truly disturbing picture of the difficulty<br />
regional people have in accessing<br />
lawyers or even recognising that they<br />
have a legal problem. 33<br />
The typical Law School course<br />
does not actively prepare or promote<br />
law students to work with RRR 34 or<br />
Aboriginal communities. There is often<br />
a perception amongst law students<br />
that RRR legal work is ‘inferior’ to city<br />
commercial practice. 35 Such perceptions<br />
of the quality and breadth of RRR legal<br />
work are unjustified, 36 but are widely held.<br />
As one Brisbane law student in a study<br />
remarked: ‘There’s kind of a top tier or<br />
nothing approach which is incredibly<br />
frustrating …’. 37 Another law student<br />
referred to students’ ‘fixation on the big<br />
glass building in the city …’ and their own<br />
belief that ‘the city sets the pace of legal<br />
life.’ 38 As a young lawyer has observed, city<br />
practice is typically the ‘most commonly<br />
marketed avenue presented to [students] at<br />
university and any other options have an<br />
unnecessary and unspoken stigma attached<br />
... there is a common misconception that<br />
anything other than a corporate role in<br />
a top tier city firm is not considered real<br />
legal work.’ 39 These comments are also<br />
applicable in a South Australian context.<br />
Indeed, law students are largely<br />
unaware that working with RRR<br />
communities or Aboriginal communities<br />
is a viable, diverse and worthwhile<br />
employment option as a 2012 Queensland<br />
study found. 40 Whilst there are challenges<br />
such as distance and travel, 41 there are<br />
many benefits in rural and regional legal<br />
practice, notably the diversity and breadth<br />
of the work and quality of the lifestyle. 42<br />
As Paul Boylan, a leading Port Pirie<br />
lawyer, has said:<br />
You get much more responsibility,<br />
much earlier than you otherwise would.<br />
I had one lawyer who by the second<br />
anniversary of her admission to the Bar<br />
and starting to practise law, she’d been<br />
the instructing solicitor on two appeals<br />
to the Full Court of the Family Court,<br />
two to the Full Federal Court and she’d<br />
been instructing in the High Court as<br />
well. That’s unheard-of in the city. 43<br />
There is a need to encourage law<br />
students to think of life outside city<br />
commercial practice and learn about the<br />
quality and breadth of both regional life<br />
and legal practice. 44<br />
THE TRIP<br />
The law student engagement trip was<br />
funded by a one off Faculty of Professions<br />
teaching grant.<br />
On 15 July, <strong>2021</strong>, the trip was<br />
made very welcome by the ALRM and<br />
Umeewarra Radio in Port Augusta and<br />
heard from Charlie Jackson and other<br />
local Elders and members of Aboriginal<br />
communities and Rachel Lane and other<br />
lawyers from the ALRM. The session<br />
highlighted to the students the value and<br />
importance of working with Aboriginal<br />
communities and crucially ‘making a<br />
difference’. Chloe Winter took part in<br />
an interview on Umeewarra Radio about<br />
working with Aboriginal communities.<br />
Chloe said: ‘It was very valuable to get to<br />
interact with members of a community<br />
on a deeper, less superficial level, and have<br />
genuine conversation about the need for<br />
change with those who know it firsthand.’<br />
Cayleigh described this as a powerful<br />
and invaluable session in which everyone<br />
took part and was not an experience that<br />
could have been replicated over Zoom.<br />
‘The informal round table discussion<br />
was key to the upfront discussion with<br />
the Elders who shared cultural practices<br />
and moving first-hand experiences of<br />
generational trauma.’<br />
Charlotte elaborated on this session:<br />
Speaking to Charlie Jackson and the<br />
other Elders was an eye opening and<br />
powerful experience. The stories he<br />
shared with us really highlighted the<br />
major disconnect between Aboriginal<br />
Law and Western Law. Charlie described<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 19
FEATURE<br />
Western Law as having judges, barristers<br />
and solicitors but noted that Aboriginal<br />
Law has this too, it just doesn’t look the<br />
same as it does for Western Law. This<br />
was something I had probably rather<br />
naively, never considered before and<br />
made me question what more can be<br />
done to reconcile these two systems<br />
of law to operate more harmoniously,<br />
rather than one at the expense of<br />
another. It was an absolute honour and<br />
privilege to have spoken to Charlie and<br />
I would love for more students to have<br />
this incredible opportunity.<br />
In the evening, the students joined an<br />
extended dinner in Port Pirie with local<br />
lawyers and the Hon Geoff Brock, the<br />
local State MP, and the Deputy Mayor. The<br />
quality of regional legal work and lifestyles<br />
were highlighted. As Cayleigh said:<br />
‘This dinner continued to highlight the<br />
immense value of working within regional<br />
communities and the vast opportunities<br />
available for young lawyers who are willing<br />
to commit.’<br />
On 16 July, the students explored Port<br />
Pirie before an extended meeting with Mr<br />
Brock MP, to hear about working and living<br />
in Port Pirie. Cayleigh noted: ‘His passion<br />
and commitment to the community was<br />
clear, with locals stopping by to have a chat<br />
on the street highlighting Mr Brock MP as<br />
first and foremost a community member.’<br />
Students then took part in an interview<br />
with the Port Pirie newspaper. Charlotte<br />
Ordynski took part in an ABC Radio<br />
interview. 45 The students were then hosted<br />
by Paul Boylan and John Voumand,<br />
leading local lawyers, to learn more<br />
about the nature and width of RRR legal<br />
practice. The students also heard about<br />
the role and ongoing work and regional<br />
consultation of SALRI.<br />
THE THEMES<br />
The trip proved very successful. Chloe<br />
summarised the value of the trip and its<br />
wider application:<br />
It was a rare experience, not just in the<br />
context of the information learnt, and<br />
connections made with locals and legal<br />
professionals located in the area, but<br />
also in the realisation of the immense<br />
breadth of legal work available outside<br />
of major cities. Regional areas have a lot<br />
20 THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
of valuable experience to offer to young<br />
professionals. Perhaps my greatest<br />
realisation following the trip was that<br />
there are many options to be considered<br />
outside of the traditional path we are<br />
encouraged to follow after graduation.<br />
I had not imagined practicing regionally<br />
prior to the trip or think I would gain so<br />
much personally from the experience.<br />
Life after Law School is a daunting<br />
prospect at the best of times, especially<br />
with the “unprecedented” pandemic<br />
and competition for graduate positions.<br />
The opportunity to go on this trip was<br />
important, in helping us remember why<br />
we wanted to study law, and our ability<br />
to make a difference after all.<br />
The Adelaide Law School and the<br />
eight law students would like to thank all<br />
who contributed to the trip’s success. 46<br />
It is hoped to be the start of an ongoing<br />
program. There is no one ‘magic bullet’<br />
to address the problems in attracting and<br />
retaining lawyers in RRR areas. 47 However,<br />
the need to promote RRR practice as a<br />
positive long-term career option should be<br />
highlighted. There is a need to encourage<br />
law students to consider working with<br />
regional and Aboriginal communities and<br />
to think beyond city commercial practice. B<br />
Endnotes<br />
1 Dr David Plater is the Deputy Director of the<br />
South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI)<br />
based at the Adelaide Law School. Chloe Winter is<br />
in her final year of a Bachelor of Commerce, and<br />
her penultimate year of a Bachelor of Laws at the<br />
University of Adelaide. Charlotte Ordynski is in<br />
her fifth year of studying Law and has completed<br />
a Bachelor of Criminology. Cayleigh Stock is<br />
in her second year of studying Law and is also<br />
studying a Bachelor of International Relations.<br />
2 Trish Mundy, ‘Attracting and Retaining Lawyers:<br />
a Problem for Rural, Regional and Remote<br />
Communities’ (2009) 34(1) Alternative Law Journal 32.<br />
3 Morry Bailes, ‘Incentives Needed to Encourage<br />
Lawyers to “Go Bush”’, In Daily (online,<br />
31 October 2019), https://indaily.com.au/<br />
opinion/2019/10/31/incentives-needed-toencourage-lawyers-to-go-bush/.<br />
4 Law Council of Australia and Law Institute of<br />
Victoria, Report into the Rural, Regional and Remote<br />
Areas Lawyers Survey (July 2009) 5-6, 21; Trish<br />
Mundy, ‘“Placing” the Other: Final Year Law<br />
Students’ “Imagined” Experience of Rural and<br />
Regional Practice within the Law School Context’<br />
(2012) International Journal of Rural Law and Policy<br />
1, 2; Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project:<br />
Final Report Part 1: Rural, Regional and Remote (RRR)<br />
Australians (2018) 3, 32-33, 37-38.<br />
5 Trish Mundy, ‘“Placing” the Other: Final Year<br />
Law Students’ “Imagined” Experience of Rural<br />
and Regional Practice within the Law School<br />
Context’ (2012) International Journal of Rural Law<br />
and Policy 1, 4-6.<br />
6 Dr Mark ‘Matt’ Giancaspro is a Lecturer at the<br />
Adelaide Law School. ‘Matt’ is a native of Port<br />
Pirie and passionate about encouraging law<br />
students to work in regional communities.<br />
7 Nadia Hess is a PhD student at the Adelaide Law<br />
School and is from Port Lincoln. Nadia is also<br />
passionate about encouraging law students to<br />
work in regional communities.<br />
8 The trip was joined in conjunction with a regional<br />
SALRI consultation trip by Brooke Washusen,<br />
Holly Nicholls and Anita Brunacci.<br />
9 Christian Cominos, ‘Law Students Encouraged to<br />
Come Work in the Country’, The Recorder (online,<br />
20 July 2017), ;<br />
Shari Hams, ‘Law Students Learn about Injustices<br />
for Aboriginal People in SA’s Court System’, ABC<br />
News (online, 29 August <strong>2021</strong>), .<br />
10 See, for example, Liz Burke, ‘Desperate Law<br />
Graduates are Apparently Prepared to Pay for<br />
their Jobs’, Lawyers Weekly, 3 September 2015,<br />
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/<br />
careers/desperate-law-graduates-areapparently-prepared-to-pay-for-their-jobs/<br />
news-story/3ec2472a2b46780632061664b<br />
9491d2e; Michael Douglas and Nicholas Van<br />
Hattem, ‘Australia’s Law Graduate Glut’ (2016)<br />
41(2) Alternative Law Journal 118; Felicity Nelson,<br />
‘New Law Schools May Leave Grads Stranded’,<br />
Lawyers Weekly (online), 29 September 2015; Marie<br />
Iskander, ‘The Deserving and the Under-Served: a<br />
Comment on the Oversupply of Law Graduates,<br />
Diversity in the Legal Profession and Access to<br />
Legal Representation’ (2017) 5(1) Griffith Journal<br />
of Law and Human Dignity 66, 67; Angela Melville,<br />
‘It is the worst time in living history to be a law<br />
graduate: or is it? Does Australia have too many<br />
Law Graduates?’ (2017) 51(2) The Law Teacher<br />
203; Emma Ryan, ‘Frustration Grows over<br />
Unis “Cashing In” on Law Grad Oversupply’,<br />
Lawyers Weekly, 19 February 2018, https://<br />
www.lawyersweekly.com.au/sme-law/22768-<br />
frustration-grows-over-unis-cashing-in-onlaw-grad-oversupply.<br />
11 Liz Burke, ‘Desperate Law Graduates are<br />
Apparently Prepared to Pay for their Jobs’, news.<br />
co.au, 3 September 2015, https://www.news.<br />
com.au/finance/work/careers/desperatelaw-graduates-are-apparently-prepared-topay-for-their-jobs/news-story/3ec2472a2b467<br />
80632061664b9491d2e.<br />
12 Louise Yaxley, ‘Don’t Study Law Unless You<br />
Really Want to be a Lawyer, Malcom Turnbull<br />
Says’, ABC News (online, 2 February 2018),<br />
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-02/<br />
malcolm-turnbull-says-too-many-kids-dolaw/9387508.<br />
13 Marie Iskander, ‘The Deserving and the Under-<br />
Served: a Comment on the Oversupply of Law<br />
Graduates, Diversity in the Legal Profession<br />
and Access to Legal Representation’ (2017) 5(1)<br />
Griffith Journal of Law and Human Dignity 66, 73.
FEATURE<br />
14 See Ibid.<br />
15 Parliament of Australia, Legal and Constitutional<br />
Affairs References Committee, Access to Justice<br />
(<strong>December</strong> 2009) [2.104].<br />
16 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project: Final<br />
Report Part 1: Rural, Regional and Remote (RRR)<br />
Australians (2018) 3, 32-33, 37-38. For particular<br />
issues in recruiting and retaining staff in the<br />
community sector, see: at 37; Michael Cain<br />
and Suzie Forell, ‘Recruitment and Retention<br />
of Community Sector Lawyers: Regional<br />
differences Within New South Wales’ (2014)<br />
16(1) Deakin Law Review 265. These themes have<br />
also emerged in anecdotal feedback to Dr Mark<br />
‘Matt’ Giancaspro and Nadia Hess as well as to<br />
SALRI on its regular regional consultation trips,<br />
as supported by wider research, notably the Law<br />
Council of Australia. See also Law Institute<br />
of Victoria and the Law Council of Australia,<br />
Rural, Regional and Remote Areas Lawyers Survey<br />
(Law Council of Australia, 2009); Law Council<br />
of Australia, The Justice Project: Final Report Part 1:<br />
Rural, Regional and Remote (RRR) Australians (2018).<br />
17 See, for example, Law Council of Australia and<br />
Law Institute of Victoria, Report into the Rural,<br />
Regional and Remote Areas Lawyers Survey (July 2009)<br />
5-6, 21; Damien Carrick, ‘Lawyer Drought’, ABC<br />
Law Report, 14 July 2009, https://www.abc.<br />
net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/<br />
lawyer-drought/3071010; Trish Mundy,<br />
‘Attracting and Retaining Lawyers: a Problem for<br />
Rural, Regional and Remote Communities’ (2009)<br />
34(1) Alternative Law Journal 32; Trish Mundy,<br />
‘A HECS Rebate? Ways to Attract and Retain<br />
Graduate Lawyers in Rural, Regional and Remote<br />
Communities’ (2010) 35(2) Alternative Law Journal<br />
99; Suzie Forell, Michael Cain and Abigail Gray,<br />
Recruitment and Retention of Lawyers in Regional,<br />
Rural and Remote New South Wales (Law and Justice<br />
Foundation of NSW, September 2010); Natalie<br />
O’Brien, ‘Plea Goes Out For Lawyers, To Be<br />
Sure’, Sydney Morning Herald (online, 3 July 2011);<br />
Louise Fitzroy, ‘Regional Lawyer Shortage Could<br />
Jeopardise Access to Justice Says Law Council’,<br />
ABC Rural, 5 November 2015; Law Council of<br />
Australia, The Justice Project: Final Report Part 1:<br />
Rural, Regional and Remote (RRR) Australians (2018)<br />
3, 32-33, 37-38.<br />
18 Melanie Schwartz and Chris Cunneen, ‘Working<br />
Cheaper, Working Harder: Inequity in Funding<br />
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal<br />
Services’, (2009) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 10, 19;<br />
Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project: Final<br />
Report Part 1: Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander<br />
People (2018) 39; Law Council of Australia, The<br />
Justice Project: Final Report Part 1: Rural, Regional and<br />
Remote (RRR) Australians (2018) 37.<br />
19 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project: Final<br />
Report Part 1: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander<br />
People (2018) 39.<br />
20 Law Institute of Victoria and the Law Council of<br />
Australia, Rural, Regional and Remote Areas Lawyers<br />
Survey (Law Council of Australia, 2009) 5, 11, 14, 21.<br />
21 Law Institute of Victoria and the Law Council of<br />
Australia, Rural, Regional and Remote Areas Lawyers<br />
Survey (July 2009) 6, 21; Damien Carrick, ‘Lawyer<br />
Drought’, ABC Law Report, 14 July 2009, https://<br />
www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/<br />
lawreport/lawyer-drought/3071010.<br />
22 Trish Mundy, ‘“Placing” the Other: Final Year<br />
Law Students’ “Imagined” Experience of Rural<br />
and Regional Practice within the Law School<br />
Context’ (2012) International Journal of Rural Law<br />
and Policy 1, 2.<br />
23 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project: Final<br />
Report Part 1: Rural, Regional and Remote (RRR)<br />
Australians (2018) 42.<br />
24 See, for example, Ibid 3, 28-29, 31, 35, 40-41;<br />
Law Institute of Victoria and the Law Council of<br />
Australia, Rural, Regional and Remote Areas Lawyers<br />
Survey (July 2009) 16-17; Trish Mundy, ‘“Placing”<br />
the Other: Final Year Law Students’ “Imagined”<br />
Experience of Rural and Regional Practice within<br />
the Law School Context’ (2012) International Journal<br />
of Rural Law and Policy 1, 2.<br />
25 See generally Law Council of Australia, The Justice<br />
Project: Final Report Part 1: Rural, Regional and Remote<br />
(RRR) Australians (2018).<br />
26 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project: Final<br />
Report Part 1: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander<br />
People (2018) 4, 39, 42-43.<br />
27 Maria Karras et al, Law and Justice Foundation of<br />
New South Wales, On the Edge of Justice: The Legal<br />
Needs of People with a Mental Illness in NSW (2006)<br />
110-113; Law Council of Australia, The Justice<br />
Project: Final Report Part 1: Rural, Regional and Remote<br />
(RRR) Australians (2018) 3, 24-42.<br />
28 Law Institute of Victoria and the Law Council of<br />
Australia, Rural, Regional and Remote Areas Lawyers<br />
Survey (Law Council of Australia, 2009) 16-17, 21.<br />
29 Chris Cunneen, Fiona Allison and Melanie<br />
Schwartz, ‘Access to Justice for Aboriginal People<br />
in the Northern Territory’ (2014) 49(2) Australian<br />
Journal of Social Issues 219.<br />
30 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project: Final<br />
Report Part 1: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander<br />
People (2018) 4.<br />
31 Law Council of Australia, The Justice Project: Final<br />
Report Part 1: People Who Experience Family Violence<br />
(2018) 46-47. Law Council of Australia, The Justice<br />
Project: Final Report Part 1: Rural, Regional and Remote<br />
(RRR) Australians (2018) 39.<br />
32 Chris Cunneen, Fiona Allison and Melanie<br />
Schwartz, ‘Access to Justice for Aboriginal People<br />
in the Northern Territory’ (2014) 49(2) Australian<br />
Journal of Social Issues 219, 220.<br />
33 Morry Bailes, ‘Incentives Needed to Encourage<br />
Lawyers to “Go Bush”’, In Daily (online,<br />
31 October 2019), https://indaily.com.au/<br />
opinion/2019/10/31/incentives-needed-toencourage-lawyers-to-go-bush/.<br />
34 See Trish Mundy, ‘“Placing” the Other: Final Year<br />
Law Students’ “Imagined” Experience of Rural<br />
and Regional Practice within the Law School<br />
Context’ (2012) International Journal of Rural Law<br />
and Policy 1; Amanda Kennedy et al, ‘Educating<br />
Law Students for Rural and Regional Practice:<br />
Embedding Place Based Perspectives in Law<br />
Curricula’ (2014) 24(1) Legal Education Review 6.<br />
35 Amanda Kennedy et al, ‘Educating Law Students<br />
for Rural and Regional Practice: Embedding Place<br />
Based Perspectives in Law Curricula’ (2014) 24(1)<br />
Legal Education Review 6, 12-13.<br />
36 Amanda Kennedy et al, ‘Educating Law Students<br />
for Rural and Regional Practice: Embedding Place<br />
Based Perspectives in Law Curricula’ (2014) 24(1)<br />
Legal Education Review 6, 13.<br />
37 Trish Mundy, ‘“Placing” the Other: Final Year<br />
Law Students’ “Imagined” Experience of Rural<br />
and Regional Practice within the Law School<br />
Context’ (2012) International Journal of Rural Law<br />
and Policy 1, 4.<br />
38 Ibid.<br />
39 K McFarlane, ‘Attracting Graduates to Regional<br />
and Rural Australia: A Personal Experience’<br />
(Paper presented at the National Rural/ Regional<br />
Law and Justice Conference, Warrnambool,<br />
Victoria, 19-21 November 2010) 2.<br />
40 Trish Mundy, ‘“Placing” the Other: Final Year<br />
Law Students’ “Imagined” Experience of Rural<br />
and Regional Practice within the Law School<br />
Context’ (2012) International Journal of Rural Law<br />
and Policy 1, 4-6.<br />
41 Amanda Kennedy et al, ‘Educating Law Students<br />
for Rural and Regional Practice: Embedding Place<br />
Based Perspectives in Law Curricula’ (2014) 24(1)<br />
Legal Education Review 6, 11-12.<br />
42 Damien Carrick, ‘Lawyer Drought’, ABC Law<br />
Report, 14 July 2009, https://www.abc.net.au/<br />
radionational/programs/lawreport/lawyerdrought/3071010.;<br />
Paul Brazier, Elizabeth<br />
Lehmann, ‘Cassandra Banks and Sally Davies,<br />
‘The Perks of Going Rural’, Law Society Journal, 1<br />
<strong>December</strong> 2014, https://lsj.com.au/articles/<br />
the-perks-of-going-rural/.<br />
43 Damien Carrick, ‘Lawyer Drought’, ABC Law<br />
Report, 14 July 2009, https://www.abc.net.au/<br />
radionational/programs/lawreport/lawyerdrought/3071010.<br />
44 Louise Fitzroy, ‘Regional Lawyer Shortage Could<br />
Jeopardise Access to Justice says Law Council’,<br />
ABC Rural, 5 November 2015, https://www.<br />
abc.net.au/news/rural/2015-11-05/rural-andregional-lawyer-shortage-threatens-access-tojustice/6915136.<br />
45 Shari Hams, ‘Law Students Learn about Injustices<br />
for Aboriginal People in SA’s Court System’, ABC<br />
News (online, 29 August <strong>2021</strong>), .<br />
Brooke Washusen of SALRI was also interviewed<br />
on the local ‘Golden Oldies’ radio morning show.<br />
46 The trips’ participants would like to express<br />
their thanks for the support of the Faculty of<br />
Professions; Paul Boylan and his colleagues; John<br />
Voumand; Rachel Lane, the ALRM and its Port<br />
Augusta staff; the Hon Geoff Brock MP; the<br />
Deputy Mayor of Port Pirie, Alan Zubrinich;<br />
Holly Nicholls, Brooke Washusen and Anita<br />
Brunacci of SALRI and Dean ‘Elvis’ Vegas of the<br />
Ellen Hotel. A particular thanks to Charlie Jackson<br />
and the Elders and members of the Port Augusta<br />
Aboriginal communities and Umeewarra Radio<br />
for their generous and insightful input.<br />
47 Trish Mundy, ‘“Placing” the Other: Final Year<br />
Law Students’ “Imagined” Experience of Rural<br />
and Regional Practice within the Law School<br />
Context’ (2012) International Journal of Rural Law<br />
and Policy 1, 6.<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 21
ANIMAL LAW<br />
Therapy or assistance animals:<br />
What’s the difference?<br />
RENÉE EVANS, SENIOR SOLICITOR, CROWN SOLICITOR’S OFFICE & MEMBER, ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE<br />
DIANA THOMAS, CHAIR, ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE<br />
Assistance and therapeutic animals<br />
can have a tremendous positive<br />
impact on those they serve. The South<br />
Australian legal profession has witnessed<br />
this impact firsthand through the Canine<br />
Court Companion project, an initiative<br />
of the Office of the Director of Public<br />
Prosecutions, in partnership with Guide<br />
Dogs SA/NT. During his time in active<br />
service, Zero, South Australia’s inaugural<br />
court companion dog, assisted many victims<br />
and vulnerable witnesses and became a<br />
much-loved staff member at the Office of<br />
the Director of Public Prosecutions. Some<br />
of the common questions about assistance<br />
and therapy animals are answered below.<br />
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN<br />
ASSISTANCE ANIMAL AND A THERAPEUTIC<br />
ANIMAL?<br />
A therapeutic animal can be any animal<br />
certified by a medical practitioner as being<br />
required to assist a person as a consequence<br />
of the person’s disability, or an animal of a<br />
class prescribed by regulation. 1<br />
For example, until January of this year<br />
Canberra was home to a herd of therapy<br />
Alpacas who regularly made visits to<br />
vulnerable persons including those with<br />
severe mental trauma. 2<br />
Anecdotally, post-COVID 19, many<br />
Strata and Community Title residences 3<br />
are seeing previously barred animals being<br />
allowed to stay, with their therapy animal<br />
status confirmed by a doctor’s letter.<br />
For the purposes of the Disability<br />
Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (‘DDA’), an<br />
assistance animal is a dog or other animal: 4<br />
a. accredited under a law of a State<br />
or Territory that provides for the<br />
accreditation of animals trained to assist<br />
a person with a disability to alleviate the<br />
effect of the disability; or<br />
b. accredited by an animal training<br />
organisation prescribed by the<br />
regulations for the purposes of this<br />
paragraph; or<br />
c. trained:<br />
22 THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
i. to assist a person with a disability to<br />
alleviate the effect of the disability;<br />
and<br />
ii. to meet standards of hygiene and<br />
behaviour that are appropriate for<br />
an animal in a public place.<br />
What constitutes appropriate “standards<br />
of hygiene and behaviour” for an assistance<br />
animal in a public place is not defined in the<br />
DDA and is open to interpretation.<br />
Pursuant to the Equal Opportunity Act<br />
1984 (SA), “assistance animal” means a<br />
dog that is an accredited assistance dog<br />
under the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995<br />
(SA), or an animal of a class prescribed by<br />
regulation. 5 The Dog and Cat Management<br />
Act 1995 (SA) defines “assistance dog” as<br />
a dog trained and used for the purpose of<br />
assisting a person who is wholly or partially<br />
disabled and includes a dog undergoing<br />
training of a kind approved by the Board<br />
for the purposes of this definition. 6<br />
HOW DO DOGS QUALIFY TO BE<br />
ASSISTANCE DOGS?<br />
An assistance animal must meet the<br />
requirement of ‘accreditation’ to fall within<br />
the definition of ‘assistance animal’ in<br />
the legislation. In South Australia, only<br />
prescribed accreditation bodies may, on<br />
application, accredit a dog, or renew the<br />
accreditation of a dog, as an assistance dog. 7<br />
Prescribed accreditation bodies include<br />
the Dog and Cat Management Board; The<br />
Royal Society for the Blind of SA Inc; the<br />
Guide Dogs Association of South Australia<br />
and Northern Territory Inc; Lions Hearing<br />
Dogs Inc; and any other person or body<br />
declared by regulation.<br />
DO OWNERS HAVE TO CARRY A COPY<br />
OF THE ACCREDITATION? CAN I REFUSE<br />
ENTRY OR ASK THEM TO LEAVE IF THEY<br />
CANNOT PRODUCE ACCREDITATION?<br />
Owners can be asked to produce<br />
evidence that the dog is an assistance dog.<br />
It is an offence to claim that a dog is an<br />
assistance dog unless it is accredited under<br />
SA’s fi rst canine court companion Zero<br />
the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA)<br />
or covered by the DDA.<br />
With various approaches to<br />
accreditation and regulation of assistance<br />
animals in each jurisdiction, it is not difficult<br />
to see how confusion and complaints can<br />
arise, particularly for people travelling<br />
interstate with their assistance dogs: 8<br />
• Victoria – an Assistance Animal Pass is<br />
required and issued by Public Transport<br />
Victoria permitting assistance animals<br />
to travel on public transport. 9<br />
• Western Australia – The Public<br />
Transport Authority doesn’t require<br />
permits for assistance animals to travel<br />
on public transport. There is local<br />
government legislation providing for<br />
animals to have an ID card and a dog<br />
coat/harness. 10<br />
• Queensland – A Handler’s Identity<br />
Card is valid for 5 years allowing<br />
travel on public transport. Also,<br />
Translink (South East Queensland<br />
Transport Authority) issues an Animal<br />
Pass provided the dog meets certain<br />
standards of behaviour in public. 11<br />
• South Australia – The Dog and Cat<br />
Management Board issues a Disability<br />
Dog Pass that is valid indefinitely. 12<br />
• New South Wales – An Assistance<br />
Animal Permit is required for access<br />
to public transport; however, Guide<br />
dogs and Hearing dogs do not require<br />
a permit. The permit must be renewed<br />
annually. 13
ANIMAL LAW<br />
• Australian Capital Territory,<br />
Northern Territory and Tasmania –<br />
no system of accreditation exists and<br />
no specific passes are issued.<br />
Reaching a decision on whether the<br />
evidence demonstrates the animal meets<br />
the definition of ‘assistance dog’ and<br />
taking action to refuse entry or ask the<br />
person and the assistance animal to leave<br />
may have legal consequences, as the cases<br />
below demonstrate:<br />
Mulligan v Virgin Australia (2015) 14<br />
involved a DDA claim. Virgin refused to<br />
allow Mr Mulligan (who has cerebral palsy<br />
and hearing and vision impairments) to<br />
travel on its flights with his assistance dog.<br />
The Federal Court found Virgin’s conduct<br />
amounted to illegal discrimination and<br />
awarded compensation of $10,000. It also<br />
found the Civil Aviation Regulations did<br />
not override the DDA.<br />
Queensland Health v Forest (2008) 15<br />
involved a DDA complaint by Mr Forest<br />
(who has a psychiatric disability), that he<br />
was not allowed to be accompanied by<br />
assistance dogs (Buddy and, subsequently,<br />
Knuckles) when attending a public hospital<br />
and dental clinic. The trial judge found<br />
there had been unlawful discrimination<br />
and ordered $8,000 in compensation. On<br />
appeal, the Full Federal Court dismissed<br />
the complaint, finding that Mr Forest<br />
had not been denied access with his dogs<br />
because of his disability but because his<br />
dogs were “ill-behaved and ill-controlled”<br />
and there was inadequate evidence of<br />
proper assistance dog training.<br />
More information<br />
Travelling with assistance animals on<br />
aircraft:<br />
https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/<br />
cabin-safety/travellers-disability/travellingassistance-animals<br />
Public access rights for assistance<br />
animals: https://www.dpc.sa.gov.<br />
au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/33319/<br />
Guidelines-for-Planning-for-People-with-<br />
Assistance-Animals-in-Emerg_FINA....pdf<br />
page 9<br />
Renting with an assistance dog or<br />
therapeutic animal:<br />
https://dogandcatboard.com.au/<br />
dogs/renting-with-dogs B<br />
Endnotes<br />
1 Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA), s 88A. Note<br />
‘therapeutic animal’ does not include an assistance<br />
animal, a dangerous dog within the meaning of<br />
the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA) or a dog<br />
of a prescribed breed within the meaning of the<br />
Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA).<br />
2 https://www.abc.net.au/news/<strong>2021</strong>-01-05/<br />
canberra-alpaca-therapy-hangs-up-reins-after-17-<br />
years/13033944<br />
3 Strata Titles Act 1988 (SA) , s 19 (4)(c); Community<br />
Titles Act 1996 (SA), s 37 (1)(d).<br />
4 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 9 (2).<br />
5 Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA), s 5.<br />
6 Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA), s 5.<br />
7 Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA), s 21A.<br />
8 https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disabilityrights/projects/assistance-animals-and-disabilitydiscrimination-act-1992-cth<br />
9 https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/tickets/myki/<br />
concessions-and-free-travel/assistance-animalpass/<br />
10 https://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/usingtransperth/animals<br />
11 https://translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/tickettypes/disability/assistance-animal-pass<br />
12 https://dogandcatboard.com.au/dogs/assistancedogs<br />
13 https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/<br />
apply-assistance-animal-permit<br />
14 Mulligan v Virgin Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC<br />
130.<br />
15 Queensland (Queensland Health) v Forest<br />
[2008] FCAFC 96.<br />
We Are Forensic Experts In<br />
• Engineering Analysis & Reconstruction<br />
• Traffi c Crashes & Road Safety<br />
• Workplace or Mining Incidents<br />
• Reporting & Experts Court Testimony<br />
Delta V Experts<br />
• Clarifi es the facts in a situation<br />
• Scientifi cally substantiates the evidence<br />
• Failure Analysis & Safety Solutions<br />
• Physical, Crash, Incident & Vehicle<br />
Dynamic Handling Testing<br />
DELTA-V EXPERTS<br />
• Strengthens your communication<br />
• Diverse experience and expertise<br />
03 9481 2200 www.dvexperts.net 9 Springbank Street, Tullamarine, 3043<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 23
YOUNG LAWYERS<br />
facebook.com/YLCSA<br />
Young lawyers hold interactive<br />
ethics and wellbeing seminar<br />
MEGHAN FITZPATRICK, JONES HARLEY TOOLE<br />
The Young Lawyers’ Committee Ethics<br />
and Wellbeing Hypothetical Seminar<br />
for <strong>2021</strong> was held on Thursday, 7 October<br />
<strong>2021</strong> at the Law Society.<br />
We were fortunate to have panel<br />
members Greg May, Legal Profession<br />
Conduct Commissioner and Dr Michael<br />
Baigent, Professor of Psychiatry Flinders<br />
University return following previous<br />
appearances. We also introduced new<br />
panel members, Werner Van Wyk, Deputy<br />
Director Ethics & Practice Law Society of<br />
South Australia and Bec Sandford, Law<br />
Society President.<br />
The seminar was available to attend<br />
both in person at the Society or by way of<br />
live webinar and we were pleased to see so<br />
many new attendees both in person and<br />
online.<br />
Attendees were provided with<br />
scenarios on topics relevant to the<br />
Australian Solicitor Conduct Rules,<br />
ethical dilemmas and managing our<br />
mental health. Multiple choice answers<br />
were available by way of an interactive<br />
polling system and attendees identified<br />
the most appropriate answer. Our panel<br />
members then discussed the scenario and<br />
the best approach for dealing with the<br />
different situations young lawyers might<br />
find themselves in, particularly in the early<br />
stages of their career.<br />
A special thank you to our panel<br />
members for taking the time out of their<br />
busy schedules to offer their perspective<br />
and advice to young members of the<br />
profession.<br />
The Young Lawyers’ Committee would<br />
also like to thank all of the attendees who<br />
supported the event, the Law Society for<br />
hosting, major sponsor of the Young<br />
Lawyers’ Seminar Series legalsuper, as<br />
well as the Young Lawyers’ Committee<br />
major sponsor Burgess Paluch Legal<br />
Recruitment.<br />
Hills long lunch well above par<br />
O<br />
n Saturday 23 October, a group<br />
of Adelaide’s finest young lawyers<br />
enjoyed a long lunch in the Adelaide Hills.<br />
The event was a great success, with<br />
attendees first indulging themselves (after a<br />
slight detour) to a socially responsible glass<br />
of wine or three at Maximillian’s Restaurant.<br />
Here, a few of the young lawyers tried<br />
their luck at the restaurant’s infamous hole<br />
in one attraction. Despite the frequent<br />
screams of “FORE” being called, none of<br />
our young lawyers were successful in taking<br />
out the glory (and the $500 prize on offer).<br />
Lunch was then served at Lot 100,<br />
where their 78 Degree gin tasting and<br />
bottomless wood oven pizza was a huge hit.<br />
Without Caldicott & Isaacs Lawyers<br />
and Burgess Paluch Legal Recruitment who<br />
sponsored the event, the day wouldn’t have<br />
been such a great success, so thank you to<br />
both of them and of course all of those<br />
who attended on the day.<br />
24<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
EVENTS<br />
Mock Trial Competition <strong>2021</strong>:<br />
That’s the way the cookie crumbles<br />
STEPHANIE MOORE, MEMBER, MOCK TRIAL COMMITTEE<br />
On Tuesday 14 September, <strong>2021</strong>, the<br />
Mock Court of South Australia sat to<br />
hear the matter of Molini v Tudor: a personal<br />
injury claim arising from a bike accident<br />
caused by the defendant’s dog ‘Biscuit’.<br />
The plaintiff, represented by University<br />
Senior College, was Lee Molini, a young<br />
student working part time as a bicycle<br />
messenger. The defendant, represented by<br />
Pembroke School, was Jo Tudor, the owner<br />
of Biscuit, a male Doberman.<br />
The issue at trial was whether Ms<br />
Monlini’s fall was due to an attack by Biscuit<br />
and if so, whether Mr Tudor was negligent<br />
in keeping Biscuit secure in the front yard.<br />
Barristers Jada Puglisi and Jazlyn<br />
Southwell of University Senior College,<br />
and Alec Johnson and Thomas Eckert<br />
of Pembroke, impressed the judges with<br />
their persuasive intellect. All four barristers<br />
articulated thoughtful argument and<br />
questioned witnesses appropriately about<br />
their knowledge of Dobermans, cyclists<br />
and the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995<br />
(SA). The barristers were assisted by<br />
their instructing solicitors: Patrick Munn<br />
and Aastha Kumar of University Senior<br />
College, and Marwan Salih and Lisa Cao of<br />
Pembroke.<br />
The witnesses were equally as<br />
impressive and entertaining. Olivia<br />
Spandrio, as the plaintiff, dressed in a hi-vis<br />
vest. She was a convincing and credible<br />
witness who told the Court she had fallen<br />
off her bike due to an unruly dog. Prapti<br />
Dhawan, as the retired witness, who was<br />
more than happy to provide an account<br />
that Biscuit “barrelled” into the plaintiff ’s<br />
bike, performed her role well. Henry Ponte,<br />
as the defendant, painted a picture of a<br />
well-behaved Doberman, as did Moon Li,<br />
the witness who previously owned Biscuit.<br />
All witnesses experienced lengthy crossexamination.<br />
The Court was assisted by the Judge’s<br />
Associate, Lachie Davis, of Pembroke<br />
who kept everyone running on time and<br />
the Sherriff ’s Officer, Em Bonython, of<br />
University Senior College who maintained<br />
order in the Court.<br />
Ultimately, the Court (being Justice Tim<br />
Stanley, “Justice” Rebecca Stanford and<br />
“Justice” Stephanie Moore) were satisfied<br />
that Biscuit had caused the plaintiff to fall<br />
off her bike and that the defendant failed<br />
to take reasonable precautions to prevent<br />
his dog from escaping.<br />
University Senior College not only won<br />
its fictional case, but also took out the title<br />
as the winner of the Mock Trial overall.<br />
Jada Puglisi won the award for the<br />
Outstanding Competitor whilst Thomas<br />
Eckert won the Best Barrister award,<br />
including the invaluable added prize of a<br />
week’s work experience with Justice Stanley.<br />
Janine Campbell, the Legal Studies and<br />
History teacher from University Senior<br />
College said “The competition is fantastic.<br />
Students learn so much about law, but<br />
also develop a range of transferable skills<br />
such as problem solving, public speaking,<br />
collaboration etc. Over the years, for some<br />
of my students it has been a life-changing<br />
experience. Every now and then I meet<br />
parents who also remark on their memories<br />
of being in the competition many years<br />
ago.”<br />
Jacqui McCann, the legal teacher<br />
of Pembroke said “the students had a<br />
wonderful time working together over<br />
the six months and many new, strong<br />
friendships have been formed, which is a<br />
fabulous outcome.”<br />
The Mock Trial Committee offers<br />
its sincere thanks to Justice Stanley and<br />
Bec Sandford who helped to judge the<br />
grand final competition. Thank you also<br />
to all of the students and teachers who<br />
participated in this year’s competition<br />
and the members of the profession who<br />
volunteered their time to coach teams or<br />
judge trials throughout the year, including<br />
Chris Brohier who coached University<br />
Senior College and Professor Rick Sarre<br />
who informally coached Pembroke.<br />
The competition is an excellent<br />
opportunity for high school students<br />
in Adelaide to work with people in the<br />
profession and to gain valuable skills to<br />
help them in their potential, future legal<br />
carers. The Committee wishes to thank the<br />
volunteers from the legal profession, the<br />
Society and the Law Foundation of SA for<br />
their ongoing support of the Mock Trial<br />
Competition. B<br />
Winning team, University Senior College<br />
Winning team, University Senior College<br />
Best barrister Thomas Eckert,<br />
Pembroke School<br />
Outstanding Competitor Jada Puglisi,<br />
University Senior College<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 25
WELLBEING & RESILIENCE<br />
It's OK to grieve, and to<br />
reach out for support<br />
AMY NIKOLOVSKI, MANAGING PARTNER DBH LAWYERS AND MEMBER OF THE WELLBEING AND RESILIENCE COMMITTEE<br />
Trigger warning- this article discusses miscarriage and<br />
pregnancy loss<br />
As a member of the Wellbeing and<br />
Resilience Committee I was asked<br />
to write an article for this edition of the<br />
Bulletin. For anyone who knows me, I am<br />
the last person who should give any advice<br />
or guidance on wellbeing or work life<br />
balance, as mine is all out of whack. What<br />
I thought I could write about however was<br />
resilience.<br />
I am writing this article in October, which<br />
is not only Mental Health Month but also<br />
includes Pregnancy and Infant Loss awareness<br />
day which is on 15 October.<br />
Pregnancy and infant loss seems to<br />
be the last taboo topic in the profession<br />
and in society in general. Despite one in<br />
four pregnancies ending in loss, we are for<br />
some reason not supposed to talk about it.<br />
I am not sure why. So today, I am going to<br />
tell you my story.<br />
After struggling to conceive for six<br />
years with Niko, when I feel pregnant<br />
almost immediately with my second child<br />
it seemed like a miracle. I did all the things,<br />
had all the tests, and everything looked<br />
great. I had my first scan at eight weeks,<br />
when I heard her little heart beating at 171<br />
bpm, it was such a glorious sound. I had<br />
another at 10 weeks to go along with my<br />
NIPT testing, which confirmed all was<br />
well and that we were having a girl. We<br />
had our 12-week scan, and got the all clear.<br />
Those first three scans, I’m sure other<br />
parents can relate, you hold your breath<br />
just hoping that they are ok and it is such a<br />
relief to get the all clear.<br />
Niko found out he was going to be<br />
a big brother, and my husband and I<br />
announced to the world that a little girl<br />
would be joining us in August, <strong>2021</strong>. We<br />
were ecstatic.<br />
That was until Friday 12 February,<br />
<strong>2021</strong>, that day will be forever etched in my<br />
memory. I had an OB appointment, I was<br />
14 + 2, well into the second trimester and<br />
I thought that I was in the “safe zone”. It’s<br />
strange how life can turn so quickly. Only<br />
two weeks earlier we were celebrating the<br />
joyous news that we were having a little<br />
girl to make our family complete, so when<br />
I attended that day, I never expected the<br />
heartbreak that was to follow.<br />
As my OB zoomed over my stomach<br />
with the ultrasound wand, she said ‘baby<br />
is measuring a little small”… In response<br />
to that I thought “oh well, they can’t all be<br />
big like Niko”, but then she looked at me<br />
and said “I’m sorry, there’s no heartbeat”.<br />
She then wrote “NFH” on the screen,<br />
“No Foetal Heartbeat”.<br />
I actually said “but she was fine last<br />
week” like that was somehow supposed to<br />
make a difference.<br />
According to her size she had stopped<br />
growing about two days earlier, at what<br />
would have been 13 weeks and 6 days.<br />
After being comforted by my OB I was<br />
booked in for a d&c first thing Monday<br />
morning but I was sent home with my<br />
dead baby still inside me.<br />
My body was playing a cruel trick on<br />
me, because it hadn’t realised the baby<br />
had died and continued to have all of the<br />
reactions of a pregnant body. I still looked<br />
pregnant, still had morning sickness,<br />
nausea, food aversions and a heightened<br />
sense of smell, but my baby’s heart was no<br />
longer beating.<br />
Monday 15 February, at what should<br />
have been 14+5, just two weeks from<br />
learning the glorious news that we would<br />
be having a little girl join us in August was<br />
the day she was taken away.<br />
The last time my husband Tony and I<br />
arrived at Calvary Hospital together it was<br />
for the delivery of our beautiful boy, this<br />
time our baby wouldn’t be coming home<br />
with us.<br />
Because of COVID Tony couldn’t go<br />
past the entrance. I was guided into Day<br />
Surgery without him; I’ve never felt so<br />
alone.<br />
My OB greeted me at the theatre doors<br />
and hugged me as I cried on her shoulder.<br />
She held my hand as they put me to sleep<br />
through my silent tears, this time though<br />
the baby she would deliver wouldn’t be<br />
coming home with me.<br />
I know I’m not the first, nor will I<br />
be the last that this will happen to, I’ve<br />
got friends who’ve had to endure the<br />
devastation of still birth. However you lost<br />
your baby, I’m sorry for your loss.<br />
It has been eight months and I am<br />
still reminded of her and what might have<br />
been. Grief comes in waves. Those first<br />
few days and weeks were so hard. My body<br />
healed relatively quickly from the surgery<br />
but I am not sure my heart ever will.<br />
So why am I telling you this? Because<br />
if you, like me are part of this crappy club,<br />
I want you to know that it is ok to grieve,<br />
to tell your story and celebrate the baby<br />
you never had a chance to meet. One in<br />
four women have suffered a miscarriage. I<br />
am the one in four.<br />
Following my miscarriage so many<br />
people reached out to me, to tell me of<br />
their losses, how they never really truly felt<br />
like they could properly grieve, because<br />
26<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
WELLBEING & RESILIENCE<br />
they hadn’t told work, or had deadlines.<br />
How they had lost their babies in client<br />
meetings, but persevered through.<br />
The stories of those brave women and<br />
men really helped me through those first<br />
few weeks, knowing that they had been<br />
able to mend their broken hearts and their<br />
dreams of a child lost.<br />
I am not sure why the topic is<br />
so taboo, when so many of us have<br />
experienced this same devasting loss. It<br />
really shouldn’t be.<br />
I am here to tell you to take the time<br />
you need to heal and although the storm<br />
seems like it will never end, one day the<br />
fog will lift and you will be able to see the<br />
beauty in the world again. They say you<br />
can’t build resilience if you have never<br />
suffered loss or trauma, and although I<br />
would have much preferred another way to<br />
build my resilience, it is true. Little things<br />
that seemed so important don’t so much<br />
anymore because “it could be worse”.<br />
Thank you for reading my story, and<br />
if this resonated with you, or you too are<br />
part of the one in four, I am so sorry for<br />
your loss.<br />
Working from home or living at work?<br />
The great debate of our time<br />
ZOE LEWIS. CHAIR, WELLBEING & RESILIENCE COMMITTEE<br />
The Law Society’s Wellbeing &<br />
Resilience Committee was delighted<br />
to bring back the much-loved “Great<br />
Debate” in October, <strong>2021</strong> after a two-year<br />
pandemic-related hiatus. The Great Debate<br />
is a light-hearted way to celebrate Mental<br />
Health Month - a chance to score a free,<br />
healthy breakfast and some laughs before<br />
your work day begins.<br />
This year’s debaters battled it out on<br />
the topic of “WFH = LAW” (Working<br />
From Home = Living At Work). Both sides<br />
fought valiantly and raised many thoughtprovoking<br />
arguments. Does it all depend on<br />
your home environment such as whether you have a<br />
partner and kids also WFH and home-schooling?<br />
Surely WFH means you end up working extra<br />
hours because you can log on at any time? Mind<br />
you, maybe it gives you greater flexibility than<br />
ever? But what about the isolation from colleagues?<br />
Maybe not seeing your colleagues is a good thing!?<br />
In the end, our adjudicator, Magistrate<br />
Toni Vozzo, was unable to pick a winner<br />
and the event was declared a draw.<br />
The event featured dressing gowns,<br />
cat masks and many other props, and was<br />
thoroughly enjoyed by all who attended.<br />
We express our sincere thanks to our<br />
enthusiastic debaters (Floyd Bakewell, Dr<br />
Rachael Gray QC, Enzo Belperio, Adrian<br />
Cartland, Daniel Fox and Holly Veale) and<br />
adjudicator, Magistrate Toni Vozzo.<br />
Watch out for the Great Debate in<br />
October, 2022. You might even like to<br />
participate as a debater! If so, get in touch<br />
with the Committee via the Law Society. B<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 27
RISK WATCH<br />
Culturally and linguistically<br />
diverse clients: Ongoing<br />
challenges for lawyers (Part 1)<br />
GRANT FEARY, LEGAL RISK COUNSEL, LAW CLAIMS<br />
Language, and the understanding of<br />
language by clients, are critically<br />
important aspects of the practice of<br />
the law. Legal professional indemnity<br />
insurers across Australia have reported<br />
an increase in claims resulting from<br />
language issues. This is hardly surprising,<br />
given the diverse multi-cultural make-up<br />
of modern Australian society - the Court<br />
forms under the Uniform Civil Rules (Forms<br />
31-33) now provide for multi-lingual<br />
Notices of Claim covering 11 different<br />
languages, including English. Somewhat<br />
surprisingly, (apart from English) the only<br />
European languages included are Albanian<br />
and Greek - Italian, Spanish, German,<br />
French, Polish, Russian etc. do not have<br />
their own Forms.<br />
As is stated in the Preamble to the<br />
Courts Administration Authority’s<br />
Interpreter Protocols:<br />
“Fundamental principles of fairness and equity<br />
require that no person appearing before a Court<br />
should be disadvantaged in the proceedings or<br />
in understanding the procedures because of a<br />
language or other communication barrier.”<br />
The steps necessary to ensure that<br />
disadvantage is not visited upon clients<br />
who do not fully understand English<br />
present a number of challenges for<br />
lawyers.<br />
The Protocols provide that legal<br />
practitioners appearing in proceedings<br />
when an interpreter is assisting should<br />
adjust their advocacy accordingly. Some<br />
of the suggestions which are made are as<br />
follows:<br />
• short sentences are preferable and<br />
complex questions should be avoided<br />
• time must be adjusted to take account<br />
of the time needed for interpreting<br />
• the interpreter should be able to finish<br />
the particular interpretation. Do not cut<br />
the interpreter off<br />
• avoid the use of negative assertions<br />
in questions as they are frequently a<br />
source of miscommunication<br />
• minimise the use of innuendo, implied<br />
accusations and figurative language as<br />
these linguistic features are difficult to<br />
interpret accurately<br />
• when words have multiple meanings, be<br />
explicit about which meaning is to be<br />
relied upon.<br />
The Protocols provide that an<br />
interpreter should be engaged in any<br />
proceedings where a party or witness<br />
who speaks limited English, has difficulty<br />
communicating in English or is hearing<br />
impaired in a courtroom context is<br />
required to appear in the court or has any<br />
other business before the court. It can be<br />
seen that this is a fairly low threshold to<br />
meet before an interpreter is required.<br />
It will generally be up to the legal<br />
practitioner acting for a client or relying<br />
upon a witness who needs assistance from<br />
an interpreter to arrange that interpreter.<br />
This obligation is not something to take<br />
lightly. In Zhou v Zong [2018] FCCA 3393<br />
the Court ordered that the costs thrown<br />
away by reason of an adjournment of a<br />
trial be paid by the lawyer personally where<br />
the adjournment was necessary in part<br />
because the lawyer had not arranged for an<br />
interpreter for his client’s evidence to be<br />
present at the commencement of the trial.<br />
It should not be supposed that<br />
problems of language are necessarily<br />
solved by the lawyer involved being able<br />
to speak the language in question, and<br />
especially not where court proceedings<br />
are concerned. In Rogic v Samaan [2018]<br />
NSWSC 1464, Kunc J made a number<br />
of observations on taking affidavits<br />
from culturally and linguistically diverse<br />
witnesses. That case involved a number of<br />
witnesses who spoke mainly Serbian. Their<br />
actual evidence in court was provided<br />
through a NAATI accredited interpreter<br />
however their affidavit evidence (being<br />
their evidence in chief at the trial) was<br />
prepared by the solicitor for the plaintiff.<br />
The solicitor spoke both Serbian and<br />
English. He took instructions from the<br />
witnesses in Serbian and then translated<br />
those instructions himself into English<br />
and prepared the affidavits in English. He<br />
then read the affidavit back to the relevant<br />
witnesses in English and translated it back<br />
to them in Serbian to obtain their assent to<br />
its contents. His Honour said:<br />
“…I am not suggesting [the] solicitor acted<br />
unethically. I assume that he did not retain a<br />
qualified, independent interpreter because he<br />
was trying to save costs by taking advantage of<br />
the fact that he spoke Serbian. Nevertheless,<br />
what was done is not a practice which is likely<br />
to maximise the prospects of justice being done<br />
and should be avoided when the witness is a<br />
culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD)<br />
person unless there is no practical alternative<br />
(for example, due to lack of communication<br />
facilities in a remote region, or urgency).”<br />
Kunc J said there are at least two<br />
reasons why a bilingual solicitor should<br />
not interpret the deponent’s evidence to<br />
produce an affidavit in English:<br />
“157. First, ‘research demonstrates the superior<br />
performance of trained interpreters over<br />
untrained bilinguals.’ (citation omitted)<br />
158. Being bilingual is not the same thing<br />
as being an interpreter (spoken words) or<br />
28<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
RISK WATCH<br />
translator (documents). Interpreting and<br />
translating are highly skilled occupations,<br />
often now undertaken with the benefit of<br />
specialist tertiary study. Furthermore, reputable<br />
interpreters adhere to a professional code<br />
of ethics, which emphasises the importance<br />
of professional competence, accuracy and<br />
independence.<br />
159. Second, assuming the role of interpreter<br />
or translator could put the solicitor in an<br />
invidious professional position. This is also<br />
why even a solicitor who is also a professional<br />
interpreter—if there are any—should not<br />
do so in her or his own cases. Difficulties may<br />
arise if the accuracy of the interpretation<br />
is questioned, raising the possibility of the<br />
solicitor having to give evidence. Allegations<br />
of unconscious or even conscious bias could be<br />
raised.”<br />
Whilst being a multi-lingual solicitor<br />
is unlikely to be a disadvantage it will not<br />
necessarily solve all the problems with<br />
language, particularly where documents<br />
for use in Court are concerned. Assistance<br />
from professional interpreters (even with<br />
the added cost and delay occasioned<br />
by their use) should be sought when<br />
appropriate.<br />
Of course, it is not just court<br />
proceedings which raise issues where<br />
language might be a difficulty. Language<br />
problems may arise in all areas of legal<br />
practice—commercial transactions and<br />
wills and estates are just two obvious<br />
examples. The February, 2022 Riskwatch<br />
article will deal with some of the issues<br />
that arise from CALD clients in nonlitigious<br />
matters.<br />
In the meantime, there is a checklist for<br />
working with culturally and linguistically<br />
diverse clients, and accompanying<br />
Acknowledgement to Interpreters, available<br />
to practitioners insured with the SA<br />
Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme<br />
in the General Law document package<br />
in the Risk Management section of the<br />
Society’s website (requires login).<br />
Legal aid opens new office at Whyalla<br />
The Legal Services Commission has<br />
moved to a new office location<br />
in Whyalla to boost the delivery of its<br />
services in the Eyre Peninsula region.<br />
The office is located at 17A Forsyth<br />
Street, Whyalla. The Commission’s<br />
Whyalla office phone numbers and email<br />
addresses have not changed.<br />
“Our new Whyalla office is<br />
more than just a building,” says the<br />
Commission’s Director, Gabrielle Canny.<br />
“It’s a demonstration of our continuing<br />
commitment to the people in this<br />
important part of SA.<br />
“We have had an office in Whyalla<br />
since 1985 and we know it can be<br />
particularly tough for people dealing with<br />
legal problems in regional areas. They<br />
have fewer legal services to choose from,<br />
reduced access to courts and tribunals,<br />
plus increased travel expenses.<br />
“Many of our enquiries in this<br />
region relate to family law problems,”<br />
says Ms Canny. “Those enquiries are<br />
about the care of children, property<br />
disputes, intervention orders and divorce<br />
proceedings.<br />
“At our Whyalla office we also provide<br />
a mediation service that helps separated<br />
parents to reach out-of-court agreements<br />
regarding the care of their children and the<br />
division of property. In these negotiations,<br />
each parent is represented by a lawyer.<br />
“This Family Dispute Resolution<br />
mediation program is very successful.<br />
An agreement is reached by four out of<br />
every five couples who take part in this<br />
program.<br />
“We also handle a number of enquiries<br />
in the Whyalla region relating to consumer<br />
issues, debt, employment laws, traffic<br />
matters, Wills, criminal cases and landlord<br />
disputes.”<br />
In 2019, the Commission moved<br />
to new and improved premises at Port<br />
Augusta to boost its assistance to people in<br />
SA’s Upper Spencer Gulf. B<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 29
FEATURE<br />
The existing legal safeguards for<br />
experimental laboratory animals in SA<br />
ROSS TEMPLEMAN, MEMBER, ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE<br />
If you, or someone that you know, lives<br />
with diabetes, has had a coronary bypass<br />
or a hip replacement, or received a<br />
vaccination for diphtheria, polio, tetanus,<br />
or been treated with antibiotics, it is<br />
probable that you or they are alive or have<br />
a better quality of life due to research that<br />
was carried out on laboratory animals.<br />
Irrespective of whether you place yourself<br />
as supporting animal welfare, animal rights<br />
or haven’t considered the matter closely,<br />
what is the actual state of the law for animal<br />
experimentation in SA at present?<br />
The bulk of the legislative framework<br />
for animal experimentation (and teaching<br />
involving animals) is contained within the<br />
Animal Welfare Act 1985. Any person (or<br />
body corporate) that wishes to use animals<br />
for teaching or research or experimentation<br />
must be licensed. 1 The type or organisations<br />
that use animals and require licensing are<br />
typically universities, TAFEs, schools,<br />
hospitals and research centres, and animal<br />
organisations such as zoos and wildlife<br />
parks. They may be either private or<br />
government owned. A licence is only<br />
granted where the responsible Minister is<br />
satisfied that the applicant can adequately<br />
house and provide for the needs meeting<br />
of the animals kept. 2 Licences need to be<br />
renewed every two years. 3<br />
Animals that may be used include typical<br />
‘laboratory’ species such as mice, rats, guinea<br />
pigs and ferrets, farm species such as cattle,<br />
sheep, poultry, horses and pigs, and other<br />
species such as native birds and animals, cats,<br />
dogs, and primates. 4 It must be remembered<br />
that many uses of animals under the Act<br />
are for the training of individuals that will<br />
interact with animals on a professional basis,<br />
such as veterinarians, agricultural students<br />
and science/medical students, rather than all<br />
being strictly experimental in nature.<br />
There are two major licence conditions<br />
that are normally made applicable for<br />
licensees. The first of these is the need to<br />
comply with ‘the Code’, being the Australian<br />
code for the care and use of animals for scientific<br />
purposes 5 (NHMRC) – the current version<br />
being the 8th Edition, 2013. 6 The Code<br />
was prepared by a working committee<br />
comprising representatives from amongst<br />
30 THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
others the ARC, 7 CSIRO, 8 NHMRC, 9<br />
Universities Australia, RSPCA and Animals<br />
Australia, Commonwealth and State<br />
government departments. Under the Code,<br />
“the use of animals for scientific purposes must<br />
have scientific or educational merit; must aim<br />
to benefit humans, animals or the environment;<br />
and must be conducted with integrity. When<br />
animals are used, the number of animals<br />
involved must be minimised, the wellbeing of the<br />
animals must be supported, and harm, including<br />
pain and distress, in those animals must be<br />
avoided or minimised.” 10<br />
The second license condition is that<br />
all research/teaching activities must be<br />
approved by an Animal Ethics Committee<br />
(AEC). 11 The AECs look at all research<br />
and teaching proposals and decide whether<br />
the work proposed is ethically acceptable<br />
and likely to be useful. They comprise at<br />
least five members, who shall include at<br />
least one each of a veterinarian, nominees<br />
of animal welfare organisations and the<br />
public, 12 with the AEC itself obligated to<br />
follow the Code. 13 AECs have the wide<br />
powers to accept proposals, turn them<br />
down completely or request changes to<br />
make the proposals acceptable. 14 They have<br />
the power to inspect work on approved<br />
projects at any time, with or without<br />
notification, 15 and halt any work which is<br />
not being carried out in an appropriate<br />
manner. 16 They also examine the need<br />
for the particular end use of the proposal<br />
and ensure that there is no unnecessary<br />
repetition of previous research. 17 Should<br />
a decision of the AEC, or the Minister, be<br />
disagreed with, a Review lies to the South<br />
Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal<br />
within one month of the decision. 18<br />
And what of the older images of<br />
rabbits being subject to the testing of<br />
shampoos or beauty products poured into<br />
their eyes? - or the LD (lethal dose) 50<br />
test 19 that measures the dose of a substance<br />
which is required to kill 50% of a test<br />
population? Under the Animal Welfare<br />
Regulations 2012, both of these practices are<br />
normally prohibited in South Australia. 20<br />
The exception to the prohibition has a<br />
reverse onus of proof on the research<br />
applicant, to justify that the research has the<br />
potential to benefit human or animal health<br />
and the objectives cannot be achieved by<br />
means that will cause less pain to animals. 21<br />
So, the next time that you visit the<br />
doctor, vet or chemist and obtain a<br />
treatment or medicine, give a small thought<br />
to the laboratory animals who have played<br />
a part over many years in ensuring that<br />
that procedure or medicine is available and<br />
relatively safe for use. B<br />
Endnotes<br />
1 Animal Welfare Act 1985 s16<br />
2 Animal Welfare Act 1985 s18<br />
3 Animal Welfare Act 1985 s20<br />
4 Definition of ‘Animal’ under the Australian Code<br />
for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes:<br />
Animal: any live non-human vertebrate (that is,<br />
fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals,<br />
encompassing domestic animals, purpose-bred<br />
animals, livestock, wildlife) and cephalopods.<br />
5 https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/<br />
publications/australian-code-care-and-use-animalsscientific-purposes<br />
6 Animal Welfare Act 1985 s19(2)(f)<br />
7 Australian Research Council,<br />
https://www.arc.gov.au/about-arc<br />
8 The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial<br />
Research Organisation, https://www.csiro.au/en/<br />
9 National Health and Medical Research Council,<br />
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/<br />
10 Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific<br />
purposes – 8 th Edition, Canberra, NHMRC, p1<br />
11 Animal Welfare Act 1985 s19(2)(c)-(e).<br />
More information on Animal ethics committee’s<br />
may be found here:<br />
https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/topics/<br />
plants-and-animals/animal-welfare/Animals_in_<br />
research_teaching/Animal_ethics_committees<br />
12 Animal Welfare Act 1985 s23(3)<br />
13 Animal Welfare Act 1985 s25(1a)<br />
14 Australian code for the care and use of animals<br />
for scientific purposes – 8 th Edition, Canberra,<br />
NHMRC, 2.3.9 p26<br />
15 Australian code for the care and use of animals<br />
for scientific purposes – 8 th Edition, Canberra,<br />
NHMRC, 2.3.21 p27<br />
16 Australian code for the care and use of animals<br />
for scientific purposes – 8 th Edition, Canberra,<br />
NHMRC, 2.3.25 p28<br />
17 Animal Welfare Act 1985 s25(3)<br />
18 Animal Welfare Act 1985 ss26, 27<br />
19 https://www.animalethics.org.au/accreditationand-licensing/ld50-and-lethality-testing<br />
20 Animal Welfare Regulations 2012 s11<br />
21 Animal Welfare Regulations 2012 s11(1)(c), (d)
FEATURE<br />
Animal Welfare Laws<br />
leave pet fish up the creek<br />
RONAN O’BRIEN, MEMBER OF THE ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE<br />
Imagine this scenario. You see your<br />
neighbour packing up their belongings<br />
and moving out. A week goes by and you<br />
hear a dog barking from the inside of your<br />
neighbour’s house. A quick peek through<br />
a window reveals the distressed dog. You<br />
contact either the police or the RSPCA<br />
(SA) and thankfully they are able to utilise<br />
their powers under the Animal Welfare Act<br />
1985 (SA) (the Act) to secure a warrant to<br />
forcefully enter the property and retrieve<br />
the abandoned dog before any harm comes<br />
to it. 1<br />
A few days later, your neighbour on the<br />
other side moves out. You are aware that<br />
they have an aquarium with all sorts of fish,<br />
however you don’t see them packing the<br />
aquarium into their removalist truck. A few<br />
days go by and curiosity gets the better of<br />
you, so you peek through your neighbour’s<br />
window and clearly see the aquarium still<br />
sitting there in the living room with all the<br />
fish. Being concerned for the welfare of the<br />
fish, you again contact either the police or<br />
RSPCA (SA), trusting that once again they<br />
will be able to forcefully enter the property<br />
and save the fish before any harm comes<br />
to them. Unfortunately, this time you are<br />
informed that there is nothing that can be<br />
done as their powers under the Act only<br />
apply to animals.<br />
DEFINITION OF ANIMAL<br />
Section 3 of the Act defines an<br />
animal as being “a member of any species<br />
of the sub-phylum vertebrata”, in other<br />
words: Vertebrates. In scientific terms,<br />
this includes all mammals, birds, reptiles,<br />
amphibians and fish. However, section 3<br />
goes on to specifically exclude fish from<br />
being included within the meaning of<br />
“animal” for the purposes of the Act. (For<br />
the sake of completeness, human beings<br />
are also excluded from this definition).<br />
A common argument for not including<br />
fish within animal welfare legislation is<br />
that this would potentially criminalise<br />
commercial and recreational fishing<br />
which, obviously, involves the capture and<br />
killing of fish. Nevertheless, every State<br />
and Territory, except Western Australia<br />
and South Australia, now recognise fish<br />
as being animals for the purpose of their<br />
animal welfare legislation. So how do other<br />
jurisdictions prevent the criminalisation of<br />
fishing?<br />
NORTHERN TERRITORY<br />
Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act<br />
1999 (NT) recognises fish as constituting<br />
animals only when they are “in captivity or<br />
dependent on a person for food”.<br />
TASMANIA<br />
Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act<br />
1933 (TAS) specifically excludes animal<br />
cruelty offences in circumstances of<br />
recreational and commercial fishing<br />
provided that the fishing occurs “in a usual<br />
and reasonable manner and without causing excess<br />
suffering.”<br />
QUEENSLAND<br />
Section 7 of the Animal Care and<br />
Protection Act 2001 (QLD) excludes animal<br />
cruelty offences in circumstances where<br />
the acts or omissions are authorised under<br />
a different Act. This would include the<br />
Fisheries Act 1994 (QLD).<br />
NEW SOUTH WALES<br />
Section 24 of the Prevention of Cruelty<br />
to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) provides that<br />
a person accused of an animal cruelty<br />
offence is not guilty if they satisfy the court<br />
that the act committed occurred during<br />
“hunting, shooting, snaring, trapping, catching or<br />
capturing the animal … in a manner that infl icted<br />
no unnecessary pain upon the animal.”<br />
VICTORIA<br />
Section 6(1)(g) of the Prevention<br />
of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (VIC)<br />
specifically excludes animal cruelty<br />
offences from fishing activities authorised<br />
by and conducted in accordance with the<br />
Fisheries Act 1995.<br />
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY<br />
Section 17(1)(5)(e) of the Animal<br />
Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) provides that a<br />
person commits an offence if the person<br />
takes part in a violent animal activity,<br />
however this does not apply to the<br />
catching of fish in a way authorised under<br />
a Commonwealth or Territory law.<br />
OPTIONS FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA<br />
Any future review of the South<br />
Australian legislation should consider<br />
the approaches taken by other states and<br />
territories. The majority of Australian<br />
jurisdictions have shown that an additional<br />
clause to animal welfare legislation can<br />
strike a balance between protecting<br />
recreational and commercial fishing whilst<br />
ensuring that fish aren’t unnecessarily<br />
abused in other aspects.<br />
1. South Australia could follow the<br />
example of the Northern Territory and<br />
amend the definition of animal, e.g.<br />
Animal means a member of any species<br />
of the sub-phylum vertebrata except:<br />
a. a human being; or<br />
b. a fish (in circumstances where the<br />
fish is not in captivity or dependent<br />
on a person for food),<br />
2. South Australia could remove the<br />
exemption of fish within the definition<br />
of animal, but then follow the<br />
example of the majority of Australian<br />
jurisdictions in specifically excluding<br />
recreational and commercial fishing<br />
from the animal cruelty offence<br />
provisions of the Act.<br />
Either of the above changes would<br />
ensure that in our earlier imagined<br />
scenario, the police or RSPCA would<br />
be able to intervene and rescue your<br />
neighbour’s fish rather than letting<br />
them starve to death. Additionally, you<br />
could still go fishing without fear of<br />
prosecution. B<br />
Endnotes<br />
1 Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA) s 31D.<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 31
FEATURE<br />
Turkeys and the law<br />
DIANA THOMAS, CHAIR, ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE<br />
The history and somewhat quirky<br />
nature of turkey case law illustrates<br />
that this humble fowl is so much more<br />
than the traditional protein element in a<br />
festive meal.<br />
BESTIALITY<br />
In 1642, in what was to become<br />
the United States of America, Thomas<br />
Granger was indicted for buggery with “a<br />
mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a<br />
turkey”. The man confessed to ‘lewd acts on<br />
a regular basis’ and was executed. 1<br />
Fast forward 200 years and in 1880 the<br />
NSW courts debated whether a turkey, as<br />
a fowl, could be considered an animal for<br />
the purposes of sodomy.<br />
The case, Queen v Reynolds 2 is one where<br />
“an unnatural connection” took place between<br />
a prisoner and the body of a male turkey.<br />
Debate then ensued as to whether ‘an<br />
unnatural connection’ with a fowl could be<br />
considered sodomy as a fowl did not come<br />
under the term ‘beast’. 3<br />
It was decided that an amendment to<br />
the Act 4 whereby ‘animal ‘was substituted<br />
for ‘beast’ meant that “all animals of the fowl<br />
kind” were now included in the definition.<br />
Thus, sodomy with a turkey became a<br />
crime in Australia.<br />
AIRPLANES<br />
Don Larson 5 was a proud turkey<br />
farmer in Iowa, USA. He valued his stock<br />
and took out an insurance policy on his<br />
turkeys covering death as a result of fire,<br />
lightning, explosion, smoke, vandalism and<br />
malicious mischief caused by huddling,<br />
piling, smothering, drowning, or freezing.<br />
21 July, 1964 was a hot day and two<br />
planes flew over Mr Larson’s turkey farm,<br />
one at 2pm and another at 5pm. There was<br />
32 THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
nothing unusual about this as Mr Larson’s<br />
farm was on the flight path between<br />
Minneapolis and Des Moines. However,<br />
the 5pm plane was observed to maintain<br />
a height of 150 – 200 feet only and flew<br />
directly over 4300 insured turkeys.<br />
It was alleged the low flying plane<br />
caused the 4300 large turkeys to stampede,<br />
suffocating 2066 of them.<br />
Mr Larson claimed the deceased birds<br />
on his insurance policy under malicious<br />
mischief. The insurer refused the claim<br />
and the matter went to court where an<br />
expert witness testified that:<br />
“The birds that die from fright will die in a<br />
pile. I mean they will get to an object and that<br />
stops them, but they just keep piling on top of<br />
one another, whether it be from flying objects or<br />
from rats.”<br />
Mr Larson’s claim was ultimately<br />
denied by the court on grounds that they<br />
were unable to find in the record:<br />
“any evidence on which the jury could find the<br />
unidentified pilot was bent on mischief against<br />
the plaintiff and was prompted by an evil<br />
mind”.<br />
FEATHERS<br />
A NSW case of Harvey v John Fairfax<br />
Publications Pty Ltd 6 which involved a turkey<br />
farm, has been quoted several times in text<br />
books 7 in the context of form and capacity<br />
challenges in defamation proceedings.<br />
In 1997, the Sydney Morning Herald<br />
published the following in relation to this<br />
case:<br />
“…Harvey was running about 1000 turkeys<br />
in a paddock adjacent to the hotel and ‘it<br />
became a health issue because the residents got<br />
upset about the feathers blowing everywhere and<br />
turkey (droppings) getting into the creek”<br />
The article went on to state:<br />
“The council took him to court and ‘we must<br />
have won because the turkeys disappeared”.<br />
Mr Harvey brought a defamation case<br />
stating, amongst other matters, that the<br />
article impugned that he had seriously<br />
endangered public health.<br />
Ultimately, the initial pleading was<br />
struck out and leave granted for a<br />
repleading without the use of the word<br />
serious.<br />
BRUSH TURKEY EGG OMELETTE.<br />
The native brush turkey was a<br />
common source of meat during the<br />
great depression of the 1930s. 8 The eggs<br />
were celebrated as an excellent source of<br />
protein as they can weigh up to 180g each<br />
and are 80% yolk. 9<br />
After the second world war, due to<br />
decreasing numbers, turkeys became<br />
protected in Queensland 10 and NSW. 11<br />
In South Australia, brush or scrub<br />
turkeys, introduced to Kangaroo Island,<br />
are protected by the National Parks and<br />
Wildlife Act 12 with fines of up to $2500 or<br />
six months in prison for the taking of a<br />
protected animal or their eggs. There are<br />
exceptions to this for Aboriginal persons<br />
where the turkey will be used for food or<br />
cultural purposes. 13<br />
The turkey, both native and introduced,<br />
has shaped Australian bestiality,<br />
defamation and native protection law as<br />
well as feeding us through a depression<br />
and more recently becoming a much-loved<br />
therapy animal. 14 B
FEATURE<br />
Endnotes<br />
1 Of Plymouth Plantation a journal written<br />
between 1630 and 1651 by Governor William<br />
Bradford, the leader of the Pilgrim colony<br />
Massachusetts http://www.gutenberg.org/<br />
files/24950/24950-h/24950-h.htm paragraph<br />
[475]<br />
2 Regina v Reynolds 4 June 1880.<br />
3 1 Russell on Crimes page 938; Rex v Mulreaty<br />
from the MS of Bayley J.<br />
4 9 Geo.IV.,c.31, s 15<br />
5 Larson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance<br />
Company,139 N.W.2d 174 (1965), Don<br />
LARSON, also known as Donald Larson and<br />
Donald Larsen, Appellant, v. FIREMAN’S<br />
FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.<br />
No. 51843.Supreme Court of Iowa.<strong>December</strong><br />
14, 1965. https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/<br />
supreme-court/1965/51843-0.html<br />
6 Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2000]<br />
NSWSC 337 (20 April 2000). http://www.<br />
austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/<br />
NSWSC/2000/337.html Harvey v John Fairfax<br />
Publications Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 188 (22<br />
March 2004). http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/<br />
viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2004/188.<br />
html<br />
7 Defamation: Comparative Law and Practice by<br />
Andrew Kenyon<br />
8 https://blogs.sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/<br />
cook/lets-talk-turkey-brush-style/<br />
9 https://www.abc.net.au/news/<br />
science/2017-01-17/five-reasons-to-love-brushturkeys/7199724<br />
10 https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/<br />
plants-animals/animals/living-with/brushturkeys#:~:text=Brush%20turkeys%20are%20<br />
threatened%20by,before%20Europeans%20<br />
settled%20in%20Australia.<br />
Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland)<br />
11 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW)<br />
schedule 5<br />
12 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) s 51<br />
13 Ibid s 68D, 68E<br />
14 https://www.audubon.org/news/why-turkeysand-other-birds-make-great-therapy-animals<br />
https://www.emotionalpetsupport.com/2017/11/<br />
turkey-emotional-support-animal/<br />
Animal Law Committee<br />
Annual Appeal <strong>2021</strong><br />
SUSAN GARDINER, APPEAL TEAM LEADER AND MEMBER OF THE ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE<br />
Despite continuing Covid-19 related<br />
challenges, the Law Society’s Animal<br />
Law Committee Members pushed forward<br />
with their Annual Shelter Appeal for <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
which this year ran for two months over<br />
July and August. Focussing on smaller<br />
and less widely known animal shelters,<br />
this year’s appeal supported a total of 13<br />
different South Australian charities, ranging<br />
from hearing assistance dogs to ferrets and<br />
Australian native wildlife.<br />
Posters were widely distributed<br />
throughout the legal community of South<br />
Australia, detailing drop-off locations for<br />
physical items as well as displaying a QR<br />
code which allowed monetary donations<br />
to be made directly to one of six individual<br />
rescues. Members of the Animal Law<br />
Committee also rallied their respective work<br />
colleagues together, including employees<br />
of the Law Society itself, amassing boxes<br />
of donated items nominated by the various<br />
charitable organisations.<br />
The Committee was thrilled with the<br />
result of the appeal and the generosity of<br />
the legal community. Donations ranged<br />
from puppy pads and scratching posts to<br />
bird seed and disinfectant, and bundles of<br />
donated items have been conveyed to the<br />
individual charities throughout the month<br />
of September.<br />
If you are kicking yourself because you<br />
forgot to donate, you’re in luck – it’s not too<br />
late! Just scan the QR code displayed above<br />
Animal Law Committee Members divvying-up the<br />
generous donations. (Left to right): Committee Chair,<br />
Diana Thomas; Appeal Team Leader, Susan Gardiner;<br />
and Committee Member, Renee Evans.)<br />
and you will be directed to a list of links to<br />
reputable charities providing invaluable care<br />
for animals in need in South Australia. B<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 33
TAX FILES<br />
DGRs that are not already charities<br />
PAUL INGRAM, SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL, MINTERELLISON<br />
Most of the general Deductible Gift<br />
Recipient (DGR) categories in<br />
Division 30 of the ITAA 1997 require the<br />
relevant fund, authority or institution to be:<br />
• a Registered Charity (ie. with the<br />
ACNC);<br />
• an ‘Australian Government Agency’; or<br />
• operated by a Registered Charity or<br />
Australian Government Agency<br />
before they can apply for endorsement as<br />
a DGR.<br />
But there were 11 general DGR<br />
categories that were not subject to this<br />
requirement, namely:<br />
• public funds for hospitals (item 1.1.3);<br />
• public funds for public ambulance<br />
services (item 1.1.8);<br />
• public funds for religious instruction in<br />
government schools (item 2.1.8);<br />
• Roman Catholic public funds for<br />
religious instruction in government<br />
schools (item 2.1.9);<br />
• school building funds (item 2.1.10);<br />
• public funds for rural school hostel<br />
buildings (item 2.1.11);<br />
• approved research institutes (item 3.1.1);<br />
• necessitous circumstances funds (item<br />
4.1.3);<br />
• REO funds – ie. public funds on<br />
the Register of Environmental<br />
Organisations (item 6.1.1);<br />
• ROCO funds – ie. public funds on<br />
the Register of Cultural Organisations<br />
(item 12.1.1); and<br />
• fire and emergency services funds<br />
(item 12A.1.3).<br />
However, as a result of the Treasury<br />
Laws Amendment (<strong>2021</strong> Measures No. 2) Act<br />
<strong>2021</strong> (Amending Act), which received<br />
Assent on 13 September <strong>2021</strong>, these 11<br />
categories will now also be subject to the<br />
same requirement.<br />
The change takes effect from 13<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>, being 3 months after<br />
the date of Assent, but is subject to some<br />
important transitional measures (explained<br />
below).<br />
AUTOMATIC 12-MONTH GENERAL<br />
TRANSITION PERIOD FOR EXISTING DGRS<br />
All existing non-government DGRs<br />
will have 12 months (ie. until 13 <strong>December</strong><br />
2022) to become a Registered Charity.<br />
34 THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
This will give affected DGRs time to:<br />
• review their Constitutions, and their<br />
entitlement to charity status generally;<br />
• effect any required changes; and<br />
• apply to the ACNC for registration.<br />
Affected DGRs who do not comply<br />
with the new requirement will lose<br />
their DGR status as at 13 <strong>December</strong><br />
2022, unless they have obtained an<br />
‘extended application date’ under the next<br />
transitional measure.<br />
DISCRETION TO GRANT A T<strong>HR</strong>EE-YEAR<br />
EXTENSION<br />
Affected DGRs can also apply to have<br />
an ‘extended application date’ (being 13<br />
<strong>December</strong> 2025).<br />
Applications for this measure have<br />
to be made by 13 <strong>December</strong> 2022, and<br />
will be granted at the Commissioner’s<br />
discretion. Before that discretion can be<br />
exercised:<br />
• the Commissioner must be satisfied<br />
that the following ‘prescribed’ criteria<br />
are met:<br />
◦ there has been no change in the<br />
applicant’s circumstances that<br />
would affect its entitlement to<br />
DGR endorsement (but for these<br />
amendments);<br />
◦ the applicant has never had an<br />
application for registration under<br />
the ACNC legislation refused; and<br />
◦ the applicant has never had its<br />
registration under the ACNC<br />
legislation involuntarily revoked;<br />
and<br />
• the Commissioner must also have<br />
regard to certain ‘prescribed matters’,<br />
namely:<br />
◦ whether the applicant has taken<br />
steps to satisfy the requirements<br />
for registration as a charity, to apply<br />
for registration, and to provide all<br />
required information;<br />
◦ whether it is reasonably possible<br />
that the applicant will be able to<br />
satisfy the requirements for charity<br />
registration by 13 <strong>December</strong> 2025;<br />
◦ if the applicant believes that it is<br />
unlikely to satisfy the requirements<br />
for charity registration by 13<br />
<strong>December</strong> 2025 – whether it is<br />
reasonable for the applicant to be<br />
given additional time to wind up<br />
and distribute surplus assets; and<br />
◦ any views expressed by the ACNC<br />
Commissioner about the above<br />
matters.<br />
OUTSTANDING DGR APPLICATIONS AS AT<br />
13 DECEMBER <strong>2021</strong><br />
Where an organisation has made an<br />
application to the Commissioner for<br />
endorsement under one of the affected<br />
DGR categories prior to 13 <strong>December</strong><br />
<strong>2021</strong>, and the application has not been<br />
determined by that date, that organisation<br />
will qualify for both the 12 month general<br />
transition period and the three year<br />
extended transition period.<br />
However, it appears that REO and<br />
ROCO applications are a special case:<br />
• these applications involve a two-step<br />
procedure:<br />
◦ approval by the relevant Minister;<br />
and<br />
◦ endorsement by the Commissioner;<br />
• the ATO position appears to be that<br />
if the first of those steps (Ministerial<br />
approval) has not been satisfied by 13<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>, then the applicant will<br />
not be entitled to any transitional relief<br />
(and will presumably have to apply for<br />
Charity Registration before the REO/<br />
ROCCO application will progress);<br />
• however, if the first step (Ministerial<br />
approval) has been satisfied by 13<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>, but the application<br />
for endorsement has not been<br />
determined by the Commissioner<br />
by that date, then both transitional<br />
measures will presumably apply.<br />
APPLICATIONS MADE AFTER 13 DECEMBER<br />
<strong>2021</strong><br />
Organisations applying under one<br />
of the affected DGR categories after<br />
13 <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> will need to comply<br />
with the new requirement before their<br />
application can proceed.<br />
Tax Files is contributed by members<br />
of the Taxation Committee of the<br />
Business Law Section of the Law Council<br />
of South Australia. B
BOOKSHELF<br />
G Appleby et al<br />
Federation Press <strong>2021</strong><br />
HB $160.00<br />
JUDICIAL FEDERALISM IN AUSTRALIA: HISTORY, THEORY, DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE<br />
Abstract from Federation Press<br />
The Australian High Court has implied<br />
from Chapter III of the Constitution significant<br />
protections for judicial independence and<br />
fair trial processes. In the last 25 years,<br />
these protections have been extended to the<br />
judiciaries of the Australian States with oftenoverlooked<br />
consequences for the operation<br />
of the Australian federation… To inform<br />
and illuminate these ongoing debates, Judicial<br />
Federalism in Australia: History, Theory,<br />
Doctrine and Practice provides a holistic<br />
analysis of the federal influence of Chapter III.<br />
It considers the historical underpinnings of the<br />
Chapter.<br />
LAW OF COSTS<br />
Abstract from LexisNexis<br />
Law of Costs 5th edition comprehensively<br />
addresses the legislation, court rules and case<br />
law pertaining to the law of costs in each<br />
Australian jurisdiction, as well as federally,<br />
in both the lawyer-client and party-party<br />
contexts. The authoritative nature of this work<br />
is evidenced by its previous editions being<br />
judicially cited on hundreds of occasions. It<br />
remains the only dedicated scholarly treatment<br />
of Australian costs law in book form.<br />
GE dal Pont<br />
5 th ed LexisNexis <strong>2021</strong><br />
PB $460.00<br />
K Mason, JW Carter &<br />
GJ Tolhurst<br />
4 th ed LexisNexis <strong>2021</strong><br />
PB $259.00<br />
RESTITUTION LAW IN AUSTRALIA<br />
Abstract from LexisNexis<br />
Restitution is one of the law’s few remaining<br />
commons, largely untouched by statute. Fifty<br />
years ago restitution was a wilderness, an<br />
apparent ‘miscellany of disparate categories’<br />
through which litigant, judge and student<br />
trudged holding a compass marked ‘implied<br />
contract’ at its four points. The landscape of the<br />
modern Australian law of restitution, however,<br />
is complex. The topic of restitution addressed<br />
by the authors includes doctrines responding to<br />
different policies as well as gain-based remedies<br />
appurtenant to wrongs with their juridical source<br />
outside unjust enrichment, which is only one<br />
of the bases for restitution. The fourth edition<br />
has been fully revised and updated and some<br />
chapters rewritten.<br />
D Rolph et al<br />
6 th ed LexisNexis <strong>2021</strong><br />
PB $172.00<br />
BALKIN & DAVIS: LAW OF TORTS<br />
Abstract from LexisNexis<br />
Balkin and Davis Law of Torts provides clear,<br />
comprehensive and authoritative discussion and<br />
critical analysis of common law and statutory<br />
torts across all Australian jurisdictions. The text<br />
covers the civil wrongs protecting intentional<br />
injury to person and property; the tort of<br />
negligence, with respect both to personal and<br />
property damage and for the recovery of purely<br />
economic loss; those torts, such as nuisance,<br />
in which neither intention nor negligence<br />
is necessarily relevant; defamation; and the<br />
economic torts which protect the intentional<br />
infringement of another’s trade or business.<br />
The sixth edition has been extensively updated<br />
to cover new developments in case law and<br />
legislation, including: significant changes in<br />
vicarious liability, particularly institutional abuse<br />
and labour hire arrangements.<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 35
FAMILY LAW CASE NOTES<br />
Family Law Case Notes<br />
CRAIG NICOL AND KELEIGH ROBINSON, THE FAMILY LAW BOOK<br />
PROPERTY – PRIVATE CONTACT BETWEEN<br />
BARRISTER AND JUDGE WHILE CASE<br />
WAS UNDER WAY GIVES RISE TO<br />
APPREHENDED BIAS<br />
In Charisteas [<strong>2021</strong>] HCA 29 (6 October,<br />
<strong>2021</strong>) the High Court of Australia<br />
(Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon<br />
and Gleeson JJ) considered a recusal<br />
application on the ground of apprehended<br />
bias.<br />
The High Court said (from [14]):<br />
“ … [W]hat is said might have led the<br />
trial judge to decide the case other than on<br />
its legal and factual merits was identified.<br />
It comprised the various communications<br />
between the trial judge and the wife’s<br />
barrister ‘otherwise than in the presence<br />
of or with the previous knowledge and<br />
consent of ’ [cf Magistrates’ Court at Lilydale<br />
[1973] VR 122 at 127] the other parties<br />
to the litigation. … The communications<br />
should not have taken place. …<br />
[15] A fairminded lay observer …<br />
would reasonably apprehend that the trial<br />
judge might not bring an impartial mind to<br />
the resolution of the questions his Honour<br />
was required to decide. …<br />
( … )<br />
[18] … The apprehension of bias<br />
principle is so important to perceptions<br />
of independence and impartiality ‘that<br />
even the appearance of departure from it is<br />
prohibited lest the integrity of the judicial<br />
system be undermined’ (emphasis added)<br />
Ebner [2000] HCA 63 (‘Ebner’). …<br />
[19] The lack of disclosure in this case<br />
is particularly troubling. It is difficult to<br />
comprehend how the trial judge could<br />
have failed to appreciate the need to<br />
disclose the communications …<br />
( … )<br />
[21] … The hypothetical observer is<br />
not conceived of as a lawyer but a member<br />
of the public served by the courts. …<br />
[22] It may be accepted that many<br />
judges and lawyers, barristers in particular,<br />
may have continuing professional and<br />
personal connections. … [T]heir contact<br />
may be resumed … by a judge making<br />
36 THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
orders and publishing reasons, thereby<br />
bringing the litigation to an end. …”<br />
The appeal was allowed and the matter<br />
remitted for rehearing with costs.<br />
PROPERTY – LITIGATION FUNDING<br />
ORDER AGAINST THIRD PARTY –<br />
IRREVERSIBILITY OF ORDER AT FINAL<br />
HEARING NOT FATAL TO APPLICATION<br />
In Lao & Zeng [<strong>2021</strong>] FedCFamC1A<br />
17 (23 September, <strong>2021</strong>) the Full Court<br />
(Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Austin JJ)<br />
considered a litigation funding order that<br />
required the wife’s mother to pay $350,000<br />
towards the husband’s legal fees.<br />
The wife’s legal fees were funded by<br />
her mother, the husband seeking that the<br />
mother also pay his fees.<br />
As to the reversibility of the litigation<br />
funding order, Ryan J (with whom Ainslie-<br />
Wallace J agreed) said (from [48]):<br />
“( … ) Reversibility and the ability to<br />
take the payment into account in the final<br />
hearing are considerations of fluctuating<br />
relevance having regard to the source of<br />
power under which the payment is sought.<br />
…<br />
[49] It is … significant that in [Zschokke<br />
[1996] FamCA 79] … the Full Court<br />
said that there must be a question about<br />
whether it is possible to make a litigation<br />
funding order under s 117(2) even though<br />
the order could not be taken into account<br />
in a final hearing. For example in parenting<br />
proceedings or where no right of action<br />
exists under s 79. If their Honours<br />
considered that reversibility and the ability<br />
to take the amount into account in a final<br />
property hearing was an essential element<br />
to the exercise of power under s 117(2) it<br />
follows that in the examples given such an<br />
order could not be made. …<br />
[50] … [T]here will be cases where<br />
even though the amount paid may not<br />
be able to be … taken into account in<br />
the final hearing, the interests of justice<br />
may nevertheless justify an order under<br />
s 117(2) for interim funding or security<br />
for costs. ( … )”<br />
The majority dismissed the appeal with<br />
costs.<br />
CHILDREN – PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY<br />
– NO ERROR IN VESTING SOLICITOR WITH<br />
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIMITED<br />
PURPOSE OF A TORT CLAIM AGAINST<br />
MOTHER<br />
In Agambar [<strong>2021</strong>] FedCFamC1A<br />
1 (2 September, <strong>2021</strong>) the Full Court<br />
(Strickland, Austin and Baumann JJ) heard<br />
a father’s appeal from a decision that vested<br />
a solicitor with parental responsibility for<br />
the limited purpose of instructing lawyers<br />
to act on behalf of the children in tort<br />
claims against their mother.<br />
Weeks after separation, the mother<br />
lost control of her car and crashed while<br />
driving the parties’ three children. One<br />
child was killed and the other two were<br />
injured.<br />
The children had personal injury claims<br />
against the mother.<br />
The mother conceded that she could<br />
not act as litigation guardian and sought<br />
“Mr B” to be given parental responsibility<br />
for the limited purpose of instructing<br />
lawyers to act in the tort claims.<br />
Dealing with the father’s complaint<br />
as to the interference with the parents’<br />
parental responsibility, the Full Court said<br />
(from [38]):<br />
“( … ) In VR & RR [2002] FamCA<br />
320 (‘VR & RR’) the Full Court …<br />
dismissed the aspect of the appeal which<br />
concerned the trespass upon parental<br />
autonomy by the appealed orders …<br />
( … )<br />
[39] The Full Court … recognised<br />
how the circumstances which are peculiar<br />
to a specific case might justify judicial<br />
interference with the parental responsibility<br />
vested in parents either by law or former<br />
court order. … [T]he primary judge’s<br />
interference with the allocation of parental<br />
responsibility was warranted because both<br />
parents desired it to resolve their impasse<br />
so the children’s welfare could be clearly<br />
advanced. Both parents sought an order
FAMILY LAW CASE NOTES<br />
interfering with their existing equal shared<br />
parental responsibility …<br />
[40] The application of the general rule<br />
of which the Full Court spoke in VR &<br />
RR (at [29]) does not impugn the primary<br />
judge’s decision here … because any<br />
parental responsibility with which a parent<br />
is seized only exists so long as no contrary<br />
court order is made. The Act expressly<br />
envisages that parental responsibility can be<br />
vested in adults other than the child’s parents<br />
(ss 61D(1), 64B(2), 64C, 65C, 65G(1A) and<br />
65P) and it is now well established that there<br />
is no presumption in favour of parents over<br />
non-parents in the determination of proper<br />
orders to resolve parenting disputes …<br />
( … )<br />
[43] Since the primary judge appreciated<br />
the gravamen of the decision … and<br />
nevertheless decided to invest Mr B<br />
with the discrete portion of parental<br />
responsibility which was in dispute, the<br />
father’s complaint under this ground of<br />
appeal was all but exhausted because he<br />
was unable to contend the law necessarily<br />
precluded his Honour from giving the<br />
confined aspect of parental responsibility<br />
to Mr B … ( … )”<br />
The father’s appeal was dismissed<br />
with costs. B<br />
3 OCT <strong>2021</strong> – 2 NOV <strong>2021</strong><br />
A MONTHLY REVIEW OF ACTS, APPOINTMENTS,<br />
REGULATIONS AND RULES COMPILED BY MASTER ELIZABETH<br />
OLSSON OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA<br />
ACTS PROCLAIMED<br />
Motor Vehicles (Motor Bike Driver Licensing)<br />
Amendment Act <strong>2021</strong> (No 8 of <strong>2021</strong>) c<br />
Commencement ss 4-8, 10-13:<br />
22 November <strong>2021</strong><br />
Commencement remaining provisions:<br />
7 October <strong>2021</strong><br />
Gazetted: 7 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Rail Safety National Law (South Australia)<br />
(Alcohol and Drug Offence) Amendment Act<br />
<strong>2021</strong> (No 30 of <strong>2021</strong>)<br />
Commencement: 1 November <strong>2021</strong><br />
Gazetted: 14 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 68 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Children and Young People (Oversight and<br />
Advocacy Bodies) (Commissioner for Aboriginal<br />
Children and Young People) Amendment Act<br />
<strong>2021</strong> (No 35 of <strong>2021</strong>)<br />
Commencement: 21 October <strong>2021</strong><br />
Gazetted: 21 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 69 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Correctional Services (Accountability and Other<br />
Measures) Amendment Act <strong>2021</strong> (No 12 of<br />
<strong>2021</strong>)<br />
Commencement ss 10; 26(1) and (3); 27 to<br />
31; 33 to 35; 37 to 40; 42; 44 to 46; Sch 1<br />
cl 4; Sch 1 cl 5(2): 1 November <strong>2021</strong><br />
Gazetted: 21 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 69 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment<br />
Act 2019 (No 28 of 2019)<br />
Commencement ss 6, 13 and 14(2):<br />
22 October <strong>2021</strong><br />
Gazetted: 21 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 69 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Lotteries Act 2019 (No 41 of 2019)<br />
Commencement: 10 <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />
Gazetted: 28 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 70 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
ACTS ASSENTED TO<br />
Independent Commissioner Against Corruption<br />
(CPIPC Recommendations) Amendment Act<br />
<strong>2021</strong>, No. 38 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Gazetted: 7 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
South Australian Multicultural Act <strong>2021</strong>m<br />
No. 39 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
(repeals South Australian Multicultural and<br />
Ethnic Affairs Commission Act 1980)<br />
Gazetted: 21 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 69 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
APPOINTMENTS<br />
Acting Judicial Conduct Commissioner<br />
for a term of three months commencing on 7<br />
October <strong>2021</strong> and expiring on 6 January 2022<br />
Honourable Bruce Malcolm Debelle AO QC<br />
Gazetted: 7 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Youth Court of South Australia<br />
Judge<br />
From 8 <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> – 16 April 2025<br />
Judge Penelope Anne Eldridge<br />
Magistrate – principal judiciary<br />
From 23 November <strong>2021</strong> for a term of 2 years<br />
Magistrate Alison Frances Adair<br />
From 19 April 2022 for a term of 1 year<br />
Magistrate Oliver Rudolf Gerhard Koehn<br />
Gazetted: 7 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Notification of Assumption of Office<br />
of Governor Proclamation<br />
Gazetted: 7 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 67 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
District Court of South Australia<br />
Judge<br />
From 1 November <strong>2021</strong><br />
Heath David Barklay QC<br />
Gazetted: 28 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 70 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Master<br />
on an auxiliary basis,<br />
from 1 November <strong>2021</strong> - 30 June 2022<br />
Christina Rose Flourentzou<br />
Gazetted: 21 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 69 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Magistrate<br />
on an auxiliary basis,<br />
from 25 October <strong>2021</strong> - 30 June 2022<br />
Terence Frederick Forrest<br />
Gazetted: 21 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 69 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Environment, Resources and<br />
Development Court of South Australia<br />
Judge<br />
effective from 1 November <strong>2021</strong><br />
Heath David Barklay QC<br />
Gazetted: 28 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 70 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
State Planning Commission<br />
Members<br />
for a term of three years commencing on 1<br />
November <strong>2021</strong> and expiring on 31 October 2024<br />
Craig Andrew Holden<br />
Stuart Paul Moseley<br />
Elinor Rebecca Walker<br />
Noelle Margaret Hurley<br />
Gazetted: 28 October <strong>2021</strong>,<br />
Gazette No. 70 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 37
GAZING IN THE GAZETTE<br />
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED (3 OCTOBER <strong>2021</strong> – 2 NOVEMBER <strong>2021</strong>)<br />
REGULATION NAME REG NO. DATE GAZETTED<br />
Motor Vehicles (Motor Bike Driver Licensing) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 147 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
South Australian Public Health (Notifi able and Controlled Notifi able Conditions) (Miscellaneous)<br />
Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong><br />
148 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Child Sex Offenders Registration (Savings and Transitional) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 149 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Criminal Investigation (Covert Operations) (Savings and Transitional) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 150 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Summary Offences (Savings and Transitional) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 151 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Surveillance Devices (Savings and Transitional) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 152 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Telecommunications (Interception) (Savings and Transitional) Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 153 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Judicial Conduct Commissioner (Savings and Transitional) Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 154 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Ombudsman (Savings and Transitional) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 155 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Police Complaints and Discipline (Savings and Transitional) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 156 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Commission) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 157 of <strong>2021</strong> 7 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 66 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
COVID-19 Emergency Response (Section 16) (Affi davits) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 158 of <strong>2021</strong> 14 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 68 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) (Prescribed Functions and Powers) Variation<br />
Regulations <strong>2021</strong><br />
159 of <strong>2021</strong> 21 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 69 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Liquor Licensing (General) (Interstate Direct Sales Licence) Variation Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 160 of <strong>2021</strong> 21 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 69 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Magistrates Court Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 161 of <strong>2021</strong> 21 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 69 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Lotteries Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 162 of <strong>2021</strong> 28 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 70 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
Gaming Offences Regulations <strong>2021</strong> 163 of <strong>2021</strong> 28 October <strong>2021</strong>, Gazette No. 70 of <strong>2021</strong><br />
We manage<br />
one of SA’s<br />
largest<br />
social media<br />
accounts.<br />
boylen.com.au<br />
P (08) 8233 9433<br />
Banking<br />
Expert<br />
Lending & recovery decisions,<br />
including: Banking Code issues,<br />
fi nance availability, capacity to<br />
settle, and loan enforcement.<br />
Geoff Green 0404 885 062<br />
Details of qualifi cations and<br />
experience, including giving evidence<br />
in the FCA, VSC and SICC, via:<br />
BankingExpertWitness.com.au<br />
Seeking Resolution<br />
Family law<br />
Business valuations<br />
Economic loss<br />
Investigations<br />
Owners disputes<br />
Suite 103 / L1<br />
448 St Kilda Road . Melbourne 3004<br />
03 9867 7332<br />
www.forensicaccts.com.au<br />
The Litigation Assistance Fund (LAF) is a<br />
non-profit charitable trust for which the<br />
Law Society acts as trustee. Since 1992<br />
it has provided funding assistance to<br />
approximately 1,500 civil claimants.<br />
LAF receives applications for funding<br />
assistance from solicitors on behalf of<br />
civil claimants seeking compensation/<br />
damages who are unable to meet the<br />
fees and/or disbursements of prosecuting<br />
their claim. The applications are<br />
subjected to a means test and a merits<br />
test. Two different forms of funding exist –<br />
Disbursements Only Funding (DOF) and<br />
Full Funding.<br />
LAF funds itself by receiving a relatively<br />
small portion of the monetary proceeds<br />
(usually damages) achieved by the<br />
claimants whom it assists. Claimants who<br />
received DOF funding repay the amount<br />
received, plus an uplift of 100% on that<br />
amount. Claimants who received Full<br />
Funding repay the amount received, plus<br />
15% of their damages. This ensures LAF’s<br />
ability to continue to provide assistance<br />
to claimants.<br />
LAF recommends considering whether<br />
applying to LAF is the best course in the<br />
circumstances of the claim. There may be<br />
better methods of obtaining funding/<br />
representation. For example, all Funding<br />
Agreements with LAF give LAF certain<br />
rights including that funding can be<br />
withdrawn and/or varied.<br />
For further information, please visit<br />
the Law Society’s website or contact<br />
Annie MacRae on 8229 0263.<br />
LawCare<br />
The LawCare Counselling<br />
Service is for members of<br />
the profession or members<br />
of their immediate family<br />
whose lives may be adversely<br />
affected by personal or<br />
professional problems.<br />
If you have a problem, speak<br />
to the LawCare counsellor<br />
Dr Jill before it overwhelms you.<br />
Dr Jill is a medical practitioner<br />
highly qualified to treat social<br />
and psychological problems,<br />
including alcoholism and drug<br />
abuse.<br />
The Law Society is pleased to<br />
be able to cover the gap<br />
payments for two consultations<br />
with Dr Jill per patient per<br />
financial year.<br />
All information divulged to the<br />
LawCare counsellor is totally<br />
confidential.<br />
To contact Dr Jill 08 8110 5279<br />
7 days a week<br />
LawCare is a member service<br />
made possible by the generous<br />
support of Arthur J. Gallagher<br />
38<br />
THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong>
CLASSIFIEDS<br />
VALUATIONS<br />
MATRIMONIAL<br />
DECEASED ESTATES<br />
INSURANCE<br />
TAX REALIGNMENT<br />
INSOLVENCY<br />
FURNITURE<br />
ANTIQUES, COLLECTIONS<br />
BUSINESS ASSETS<br />
MACHINERY<br />
MOTOR VEHICLES<br />
CARS, BOATS, PLANES<br />
CITY & COUNTRY<br />
ROGER KEARNS<br />
Ph: 08 8342 4445<br />
FAX: 08 8342 4446<br />
MOB: 0418 821 250<br />
E: auctions@senet.com.au<br />
Certifi ed Practising Valuer NO.346<br />
Auctioneers & Valuers Association<br />
of Australia<br />
Improve your Bottom Line!<br />
Stop suffering<br />
outdated technology<br />
Practice Management<br />
1800 199 682<br />
thewiseowl@wiseowllegal.com.au<br />
www.wiseowllegal.com.au<br />
Business<br />
valuations<br />
Simple, clear,<br />
unbiased advice,<br />
without fear or<br />
favour.<br />
t. +61 8 431 80 82<br />
Hugh McPharlin FCA<br />
d m. +61 +61 8 8139 401 712 1130 908<br />
m e. +61 ahi@andrewhillinvestigations.com.au<br />
419 841 780<br />
e hmcpharlin@nexiaem.com.au<br />
w nexiaem.com.au<br />
Consulting Engineers<br />
Australian Technology Pty Ltd<br />
for expert opinion on:<br />
• Vehicle failure and accidents<br />
• Vehicle design<br />
• Industrial accidents<br />
• Slips and falls<br />
• Occupational health and safety<br />
• Statistical analysis<br />
W. Douglass R. Potts<br />
MAOQ, FRAI, FSAE-A, FIEAust,<br />
CPEng, CEng, FIMechE<br />
8271 4573<br />
0412 217 360<br />
wdrpotts@gmail.com<br />
Andrew Hill Investigations<br />
Investigating:<br />
ABN 68 573 745 238<br />
• workplace conduct<br />
• fraud<br />
• unprofessional conduct<br />
• probity<br />
Support services:<br />
• forensic computing analysis<br />
• transcription services<br />
• information sessions, particularly<br />
for <strong>HR</strong> practitioners on the<br />
investigative process<br />
• policy development.<br />
PO Box 3626<br />
Andrew Hill<br />
Andrew Hill<br />
Investigations<br />
NORWOOD SA t. 5067 +61 8 431 80 82<br />
m. +61 401 712 908<br />
e. ahi@andrewhillinvestigations.com.au<br />
Fellow AIPI<br />
Licensed Investigation Agents<br />
& Process Servers<br />
Servicing the Mid North, Yorke &<br />
Eyre Peninsula`s and Outback of<br />
South Australia with:<br />
• Process Serving<br />
• Property Lockouts<br />
• Investigations<br />
• Missing Persons<br />
OUTBACK BUSINESS SERVICES<br />
P.O. Box 591,<br />
PORT AUGUSTA. 5700<br />
P: 0418 838 807<br />
info@outbackbusinessservices.com.au<br />
MISSING WILL<br />
Annik Simonne Eugénie<br />
Gabrielle Madeleine Marie<br />
Lebigre (otherwise known<br />
as Annik Simonne Eugénie<br />
Gabrielle Madeleine Marie<br />
Anderson), deceased. Would<br />
any person or fi rm holding<br />
or knowing the whereabouts<br />
of a Will or other document<br />
purporting to embody the<br />
testamentary intentions of the<br />
late Annik Simonne Eugénie<br />
Gabrielle Madeleine Marie<br />
Lebigre (otherwise known<br />
as Annik Simonne Eugénie<br />
Gabrielle Madeleine Marie<br />
Anderson) widow of the late<br />
Alexander William Anderson<br />
whilst resident in the State of<br />
South Australia but late of 16<br />
Avenue de l’Europe, 78590<br />
Noisy-Le-Grand, France, who<br />
died on 3 September 2020.<br />
Please contact Mr EJ Vickery at:<br />
Minter Ellison Lawyers Level 10,<br />
25 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA<br />
5000 (GPO Box 1272, Adelaide<br />
SA 5001) Tel: (08) 8233 5411<br />
VALUER<br />
Commercial & Residential<br />
Real Estate<br />
Matrimonial<br />
Deceased Estates<br />
Rentals etc.<br />
Experienced Court<br />
Expert Witness<br />
Liability limited by a scheme approved under<br />
Professional Standards Legislation<br />
JANET HAWKES<br />
Cert. Practising Valuer, AAPI<br />
0409 674 122<br />
janet@gaetjens.com.au<br />
Take Your<br />
Business Mobile<br />
boylen.com.au<br />
P (08) 8233 9433<br />
Family Law - Melbourne<br />
Marita Bajinskis<br />
formerly of<br />
Howe Martin & Associates<br />
is a Principal at<br />
Blackwood Family Lawyers<br />
in Melbourne<br />
Marita is an Accredited Family<br />
Law Specialist and can assist with<br />
all family law matters including:<br />
• matrimonial and de facto<br />
• property settlements<br />
• superannuation<br />
• children’s issues<br />
3/224 Queen Street<br />
Melbourne VIC 3000<br />
T: 03 8672 5222<br />
Marita.Bajinskis@<br />
blackwoodfamilylawyers.com.au<br />
www.blackwoodfamilylawyers.com.au<br />
CONSULTING<br />
ACTUARIES<br />
FOR PROFESSIONAL<br />
ACTUARIAL ADVICE ON<br />
- Personal Injury -<br />
- Workers Compensation -<br />
- Value Of Superannuation -<br />
Contact<br />
Deborah Jones, Geoff Keen<br />
or Victor Tien<br />
08 8232 1333<br />
contact@brettandwatson.com.au<br />
www.brettandwatson.com.au<br />
Ground Floor<br />
157 Grenfell Street<br />
Adelaide SA 5000<br />
<strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong> THE BULLETIN 39
We manage one of SA’s largest<br />
social media accounts.<br />
boylen.com.au<br />
P (08) 8233 9433