Free Newsletter sign-up
Michael Wolff: Everyone is lying

 

Search Justinian
Justinian's news stories

Executive shuffles at the feds ... CEO of Vic Supremes being lured back to the federal courts ... Fight on to keep Family Court CEO ... Blasphemy expert sits tight at FCC ... No money in the till for a better offer ... Read more ... 


Justinian Columnists

The unravelling of Trump's America ... Tax cuts ... Russia's election in America ... Unqualified judicial appointments ... Contempt at Guantánamo ... Degenerate art ... Our Man in Washington reports ... Read more ... 


This form does not yet contain any fields.

    "They are whining about the amount of money they are going to have to give me, and trying to get it reduced, which is really gross given I am giving all the money to charity." 

    Film celebrity Rebel Wilson, indicating she doesn't need $4.5 million worth of damages, even though she claimed she had lost work and her professional life was harmed because of defamatory articles by Bauer Media magazines. November 26, 2017  ... Read more ... 


    Justinian Featurettes

    Concerning Champagne ... Champagne - a product as much driven by marketing and legend as by the content of the bottle ... Ten myths exploded in a new critique of the bubbly libation ... Justinian's wine man G.D. Wendler explains - just in time for Christmas ... Read more ... 


    Justinian's archive

    The // universe with Evan Whitton ... Lord Robbo on justice for Radovan ... Organised crims love libel law, because they invented it ... It's time Bob French spoke up about the law against muttering ... Questions for Robert Richter ... Rugby quiz ... From Justinian's archive, August 6, 2008 ... Read more ... 


     

    « Difficulty with the word "could" | Main | The minimalist republic »
    Friday
    Feb122016

    Migratory thoughts

    While the High Court was tangling with M68's case, JD student Barely Legal was hearing submissions from fellow undergrads on the inner meaning of the Migration Act ... Justice v Law ... Purposive v Literal ... Denning v French ... Politics and law 

    AS I sat in my migration law summer intensive I had the benefit of hearing my fellow classmates' views on the history and current state of Australian migration law. 

    Needless to say, opinions varied. 

    One student pointed out that Australia's history of immigration is one of "obfuscated racism". 

    Another bright spark argued that "bikies from overseas" were one the biggest threats Australia faced, so arbitrary character assessments of all migrants are justified.  

    I am in awe at the lengths to which our parliament will go to keep some people out. It involves constant reworking of that legislative Frankenstein's monster, the Migration Act, now running at over 1,000 pages with no end in sight. 

    Justice Rachel Pepper from the NSW Parks & Gardens Court cited The Parliamentary Draftsman in a lecture to our JD admin law class. It's apt:   

    I'm the Parliamentary Draftsman,
    And my sentences are long:
    They are full of inconsistencies,
    Grammatically wrong.
    I put Parliamentary wishes
    Into language of my own,
    And though no one understands them
    They're expected to be known.

    French CJ has said: 

    "Those who are subject to the law, those who invoke it and those who apply it are entitled to expect that it means what it says."  

    Peppered with poetry

    If his first concern is the law, and its literal interpretation, what then of the pursuit of justice? What of a purposive approach, so missing from the majority in M68 

    The highly quotable Lord Denning once said: 

    "Unlike my brother judge here, who is concerned with law, I am concerned with justice." 

    His "brother" could well have been French CJ. The dichotomy is enough to make a student's head burst. French or Denning? Literal or purposive? 

    My sizzled brain turned back to the Migration Act, perhaps the best example we have of a legislative "orgy" - a trait bemoaned by former chief justice Murray Gleeson 

    Just as the Migration Act is a creature of politics, so too our classroom discussion of it took the same form. 

    Denning won the day here in the lecture room. We wanted justice, not law. Why wouldn't we, after the parliament was allowed to get away with retrospective legislation, validating past illegalities and giving the department of immigration power to take "any action" in regional processing centres? 

    The problem for a law student, who has to pass exams, is that justice cannot be graded on a bell curve, whereas knowledge of the law, and the application of it, can be. 

    Why then were we distracted by the "merits" of border protection and the "rights of human beings and refugees"? 

    Probably because it's so much more fun than the real stuff. 

    We were sidetracked by a bit of doggerel about the parliamentary draftsman, but it put me in a frame of mind to toss off my own contribution. Maybe it will be cited by Justice Pepper to another batch of law students: 

    I am a law student,
    And my sentences lack cred:
    I struggle to understand the logic,
    In my lecturer's head.
    I put the Migration Act:
    Into hyperbole all my own,
    And though no one listens,
    My opinions meet with groans. 

    Reader Comments

    There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
    Member Account Required
    You must have a member account on this website in order to post comments. Log in to your account to enable posting.