Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2092701
Ashleigh P. A. Best
ABSTRACT As liminal, exigent moments in time, disasters cast light on the significance of animals’ relationships with humans. Through their materialisation, human–animal relations are revealed as taking myriad forms: loyal, neglectful, salutary, harmful, benevolent, deleterious. This article examines how a pervasive failure by the Western legal imaginary to acknowledge and account for the relational aspects of animals’ lives amplifies their susceptibility to harm during disasters. To this end, the article analyses two major dimensions of animals’ legal status: their status as property; and statutory provisions governing animal welfare and wildlife habitat. It consults three temporally and geographically disparate disasters which affected jurisdictions within the Western legal tradition, namely Hurricane Katrina, the Victorian Black Saturday Bushfires and New Zealand’s Canterbury Earthquakes, to scrutinise how each dimension of animals’ legal status aggravates their vulnerability to the adverse effects of hazards. Drawing from critical literatures which foreground and fault Western law’s inattention to the nonhuman material world, the article attributes this condition to an ingrained feature of animals’ legal status: that it overlooks the determinative role played by animals’ relationships with humans in securing or compromising their wellbeing and survival during disasters.
{"title":"Material vulnerabilities and interspecies relationalities: a critical appraisal of the legal status of animals in disasters","authors":"Ashleigh P. A. Best","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2092701","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2092701","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As liminal, exigent moments in time, disasters cast light on the significance of animals’ relationships with humans. Through their materialisation, human–animal relations are revealed as taking myriad forms: loyal, neglectful, salutary, harmful, benevolent, deleterious. This article examines how a pervasive failure by the Western legal imaginary to acknowledge and account for the relational aspects of animals’ lives amplifies their susceptibility to harm during disasters. To this end, the article analyses two major dimensions of animals’ legal status: their status as property; and statutory provisions governing animal welfare and wildlife habitat. It consults three temporally and geographically disparate disasters which affected jurisdictions within the Western legal tradition, namely Hurricane Katrina, the Victorian Black Saturday Bushfires and New Zealand’s Canterbury Earthquakes, to scrutinise how each dimension of animals’ legal status aggravates their vulnerability to the adverse effects of hazards. Drawing from critical literatures which foreground and fault Western law’s inattention to the nonhuman material world, the article attributes this condition to an ingrained feature of animals’ legal status: that it overlooks the determinative role played by animals’ relationships with humans in securing or compromising their wellbeing and survival during disasters.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"287 - 311"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43294111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2073109
Michael Raine
ABSTRACT Coming more than 25 years after Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, the landmark decision in Northern Territory v Griffiths (‘Griffiths’) (2019) 269 CLR 1 is the first judicially determined award of compensation for both economic and non-economic, or cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Although some attention has been given to the economic loss component of the decision, very little has been written about the most important aspect of the decision, cultural loss, and what this aspect means for First Nations Australians in reality. This article examines the legal and practical implications of the decision in Griffiths as it pertains to cultural loss and in the broader context of colonialism, native title law and First Nations’ law. I argue that these implications demonstrate how compensation for cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) perpetuates colonialism and will fail many First Nations Australians in properly compensating for the loss of connection to country.
{"title":"‘Incremental and cumulative’: Griffiths and the limitations of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) in dealing with compensation for cultural loss","authors":"Michael Raine","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2073109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2073109","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Coming more than 25 years after Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, the landmark decision in Northern Territory v Griffiths (‘Griffiths’) (2019) 269 CLR 1 is the first judicially determined award of compensation for both economic and non-economic, or cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Although some attention has been given to the economic loss component of the decision, very little has been written about the most important aspect of the decision, cultural loss, and what this aspect means for First Nations Australians in reality. This article examines the legal and practical implications of the decision in Griffiths as it pertains to cultural loss and in the broader context of colonialism, native title law and First Nations’ law. I argue that these implications demonstrate how compensation for cultural loss under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) perpetuates colonialism and will fail many First Nations Australians in properly compensating for the loss of connection to country.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"151 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45662322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2095804
N. Rogers
In this paper, I draw upon fi ctional and legal texts in order to elucidate the complexity of intergenerational care in the context of the climate crisis, exploring both the familial dimensions and the broader social and political meaning of this concept. 2 I am adopting an anthro-pocentric perspective and focusing upon intra-species intergenerational care, 3 as distinct from intergenerational care from a multi-species perspective, 4 although there are compelling reasons to believe that intra and inter-species obligations are intrinsically connected. questions. what do these particular tell us about current understandings of intergenerational love, responsibility and in the context of
{"title":"Intergenerational care and judg(e)ment in a time of climate change","authors":"N. Rogers","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2095804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2095804","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I draw upon fi ctional and legal texts in order to elucidate the complexity of intergenerational care in the context of the climate crisis, exploring both the familial dimensions and the broader social and political meaning of this concept. 2 I am adopting an anthro-pocentric perspective and focusing upon intra-species intergenerational care, 3 as distinct from intergenerational care from a multi-species perspective, 4 although there are compelling reasons to believe that intra and inter-species obligations are intrinsically connected. questions. what do these particular tell us about current understandings of intergenerational love, responsibility and in the context of","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"312 - 332"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44514904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2076967
Mareike Riedel
ABSTRACT As part of the global War on Terror, governments, including in Australia, have increasingly encouraged teachers to spot students ‘at risk’ of radicalisation, thereby turning schools into sites of surveillance. Despite their important intended goal, these programs have been criticised for leading to over-reporting, misinterpretation, and the stigmatisation of Muslim students who have been disproportionately affected by such surveillance practices. In a climate of Islamophobic suspicion that constructs Muslims as ‘potential terrorists’, such outcomes are not surprising, leaving young Muslims vulnerable to discrimination and stereotyping. This article provides a critical reading of Complainant 201822 v Australian Capital Territory (Represented by the Education Directorate) concerning a young Muslim student who was wrongly reported by his school to public authorities due to his supposedly suspicious behaviour. Using the decision as a case study, the article discusses how young Australian Muslims have been caught in a vicious cycle in which anti-terror laws, policing, and surveillance foster their stereotyping as ‘potential terrorists’. At the same time, the decision illustrates how the law offers little protection against the significant harms caused by this manifestation of systemic Islamophobia.
{"title":"Studying while Muslim: anti-discrimination law, countering violent extremism, and suspect youth","authors":"Mareike Riedel","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2076967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2076967","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As part of the global War on Terror, governments, including in Australia, have increasingly encouraged teachers to spot students ‘at risk’ of radicalisation, thereby turning schools into sites of surveillance. Despite their important intended goal, these programs have been criticised for leading to over-reporting, misinterpretation, and the stigmatisation of Muslim students who have been disproportionately affected by such surveillance practices. In a climate of Islamophobic suspicion that constructs Muslims as ‘potential terrorists’, such outcomes are not surprising, leaving young Muslims vulnerable to discrimination and stereotyping. This article provides a critical reading of Complainant 201822 v Australian Capital Territory (Represented by the Education Directorate) concerning a young Muslim student who was wrongly reported by his school to public authorities due to his supposedly suspicious behaviour. Using the decision as a case study, the article discusses how young Australian Muslims have been caught in a vicious cycle in which anti-terror laws, policing, and surveillance foster their stereotyping as ‘potential terrorists’. At the same time, the decision illustrates how the law offers little protection against the significant harms caused by this manifestation of systemic Islamophobia.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"17 8","pages":"193 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41272934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2082697
S. Mulcahy, Kate Seear
ABSTRACT Roadside drug testing (‘RDT’) was introduced in the Australian Capital Territory (‘ACT’) through a private member’s Bill that was fiercely debated in the ACT parliament. It was the first RDT scheme in Australia subject to human rights scrutiny, and thus parliamentarians had to weigh road safety arguments against human rights considerations in determining whether the proposed measures were proportionate. This paper focuses on the debate over RDT in the ACT parliament, how human rights and safety concerns figure, and how legal actors and ‘outside audiences’ are invoked. The debate was marked by frequent appeals to family members present in the public gallery and legal actors such as the Chief Police Officer, the Human Rights Commissioner, and socio-legal experts outside the chamber. Drawing from cultural legal studies scholarship on legal insiders and outside audiences in legal proceedings, this paper analyses how these stakeholders figure in human rights debates on RDT, and with what effects. The paper argues that the invocation of outside audiences reflects what Crawley and Tranter term ‘a need to bring the human back’ but cautions that this humanising process only brings some humans in, and therefore connects human rights to only certain human lives in certain ways.
{"title":"Playing to the gallery: the invocation of human rights, legal actors, and outside audiences in debates on roadside drug testing in the Australian Capital Territory","authors":"S. Mulcahy, Kate Seear","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2082697","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2082697","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Roadside drug testing (‘RDT’) was introduced in the Australian Capital Territory (‘ACT’) through a private member’s Bill that was fiercely debated in the ACT parliament. It was the first RDT scheme in Australia subject to human rights scrutiny, and thus parliamentarians had to weigh road safety arguments against human rights considerations in determining whether the proposed measures were proportionate. This paper focuses on the debate over RDT in the ACT parliament, how human rights and safety concerns figure, and how legal actors and ‘outside audiences’ are invoked. The debate was marked by frequent appeals to family members present in the public gallery and legal actors such as the Chief Police Officer, the Human Rights Commissioner, and socio-legal experts outside the chamber. Drawing from cultural legal studies scholarship on legal insiders and outside audiences in legal proceedings, this paper analyses how these stakeholders figure in human rights debates on RDT, and with what effects. The paper argues that the invocation of outside audiences reflects what Crawley and Tranter term ‘a need to bring the human back’ but cautions that this humanising process only brings some humans in, and therefore connects human rights to only certain human lives in certain ways.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"240 - 265"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47636845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2085419
Stephen M. Young
ABSTRACT Tort law interrelates and overlaps with disciplinary power in complex ways that remain under-theorised. Borrowing from Foucault’s notion of disciplinary power, this article contributes to the theorisation of law and discipline and upholds tort law exemplifying that interrelation. Disciplinary power helps explain that the process of invoking rights forms productive and useful bodies for society, which has normalising effects throughout society. This argument is made by reviewing State of New South Wales v Talovic. There, Mr Talovic sued New South Wales in vicarious liability for police officers false imprisonment and trespass stemming from their allegedly wrongful apprehension of him under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW). Through a re-reading of this case, the author calls for a renewed critical focus on the interrelation of law and discipline.
{"title":"Tortious discipline","authors":"Stephen M. Young","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2085419","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2085419","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Tort law interrelates and overlaps with disciplinary power in complex ways that remain under-theorised. Borrowing from Foucault’s notion of disciplinary power, this article contributes to the theorisation of law and discipline and upholds tort law exemplifying that interrelation. Disciplinary power helps explain that the process of invoking rights forms productive and useful bodies for society, which has normalising effects throughout society. This argument is made by reviewing State of New South Wales v Talovic. There, Mr Talovic sued New South Wales in vicarious liability for police officers false imprisonment and trespass stemming from their allegedly wrongful apprehension of him under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW). Through a re-reading of this case, the author calls for a renewed critical focus on the interrelation of law and discipline.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"266 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42322064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2054574
A. Elton
ABSTRACT The controversial mandatory immigration detention framework in Australia restricts individual freedoms in the most fundamental way and warrants close scrutiny. This article takes a pre-formulated theory of administrative justice as a lens to consider law-making and decision-making in mandatory detention cases where people sought asylum in Australia without a valid visa. In so doing, the article takes novel steps beyond defining the concept of administrative justice to applying a comprehensive administrative justice theory to this particular Australian setting. It provides a basis for analysing the limitations of the mandatory detention framework from a normative legal perspective and highlights areas of concern that are ripe for reform in the delivery of administrative justice. The article proposes a set of normative benchmarks that are founded on four administrative justice themes: the proper exercise of power, equal treatment, due process, and accessibility. These immigration detention-specific benchmarks are drawn from domestic law and policy, international law and literature in public administration and human rights. The article then analyses overseer recommendations, law reform reports and scholarly material to reveal the extent to which immigration detention practices meet normative administrative justice values. The article analyses how power imbalances destabilise the principled tensions that should exist between administrative justice properties and the subsequent effect that such imbalances have on those subject to mandatory immigration detention. This article proves that administrative justice theory provides a suitable lens for normative analysis of a public law system and emphasises the need for principled tensions between administrative justice properties.
{"title":"Administrative justice theory and benchmarks in mandatory immigration detention: principled tensions or power imbalance?","authors":"A. Elton","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2054574","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2054574","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The controversial mandatory immigration detention framework in Australia restricts individual freedoms in the most fundamental way and warrants close scrutiny. This article takes a pre-formulated theory of administrative justice as a lens to consider law-making and decision-making in mandatory detention cases where people sought asylum in Australia without a valid visa. In so doing, the article takes novel steps beyond defining the concept of administrative justice to applying a comprehensive administrative justice theory to this particular Australian setting. It provides a basis for analysing the limitations of the mandatory detention framework from a normative legal perspective and highlights areas of concern that are ripe for reform in the delivery of administrative justice. The article proposes a set of normative benchmarks that are founded on four administrative justice themes: the proper exercise of power, equal treatment, due process, and accessibility. These immigration detention-specific benchmarks are drawn from domestic law and policy, international law and literature in public administration and human rights. The article then analyses overseer recommendations, law reform reports and scholarly material to reveal the extent to which immigration detention practices meet normative administrative justice values. The article analyses how power imbalances destabilise the principled tensions that should exist between administrative justice properties and the subsequent effect that such imbalances have on those subject to mandatory immigration detention. This article proves that administrative justice theory provides a suitable lens for normative analysis of a public law system and emphasises the need for principled tensions between administrative justice properties.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"57 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46825555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2060651
J. Millbank
ABSTRACT This article examines how the health system in Australia ensures public protection and confidence when making determinations about the reinstatement of health practitioners who have previously been deregistered for sexual misconduct. Three main issues are addressed: first, the lack of public process and accessible reasons concerning the majority of reinstatement decisions, with consequent omissions in the public record and impact upon public confidence. Second, a detailed analysis is undertaken of the limited available reinstatement decisions, to understand how legislative and jurisprudential criteria of public protection (including protecting patient safety, promoting professional standards and maintaining public confidence) are weighed against the ‘rehabilitative’ impetus within a context strongly influenced by health evidence and therapeutic considerations. Third, a call is made to develop a responsive, modern and transparent framework for understanding and assessing the impact on public confidence of disciplinary decisions concerning the reinstatement of health practitioners.
{"title":"Restoration to practice of health practitioners removed for serious sexual misconduct: evaluating public confidence and assessing risk","authors":"J. Millbank","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2060651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2060651","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines how the health system in Australia ensures public protection and confidence when making determinations about the reinstatement of health practitioners who have previously been deregistered for sexual misconduct. Three main issues are addressed: first, the lack of public process and accessible reasons concerning the majority of reinstatement decisions, with consequent omissions in the public record and impact upon public confidence. Second, a detailed analysis is undertaken of the limited available reinstatement decisions, to understand how legislative and jurisprudential criteria of public protection (including protecting patient safety, promoting professional standards and maintaining public confidence) are weighed against the ‘rehabilitative’ impetus within a context strongly influenced by health evidence and therapeutic considerations. Third, a call is made to develop a responsive, modern and transparent framework for understanding and assessing the impact on public confidence of disciplinary decisions concerning the reinstatement of health practitioners.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"123 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42441575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2031525
Weiping He
ABSTRACT Over recent decades, both Australia and the US have been subjected to major corporate scandals. One response involves the Australian courts engaging in an observable expansive interpretation of the scope of the term ‘officer’ in the Corporations Act 2001. As a consequence, a broader range of actors can be held as officers. The US, on the other hand, in the context of officer duties, appears to be less inclined to take an approach that would recognise the potential liability of a broader range of actors, and has remained largely immovable in its interpretation of officer. This article outlines the divergent ways ‘officer’ is interpreted in Australia and in the US. Australian law and its evolving jurisprudence have taken a more realist consideration of who should be held as an ‘officer’, which better reflects the realities of the way modern corporations, especially large corporations, operate.
{"title":"Who is an officer of a corporation? Australia and the United States Compared","authors":"Weiping He","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2031525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2031525","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Over recent decades, both Australia and the US have been subjected to major corporate scandals. One response involves the Australian courts engaging in an observable expansive interpretation of the scope of the term ‘officer’ in the Corporations Act 2001. As a consequence, a broader range of actors can be held as officers. The US, on the other hand, in the context of officer duties, appears to be less inclined to take an approach that would recognise the potential liability of a broader range of actors, and has remained largely immovable in its interpretation of officer. This article outlines the divergent ways ‘officer’ is interpreted in Australia and in the US. Australian law and its evolving jurisprudence have taken a more realist consideration of who should be held as an ‘officer’, which better reflects the realities of the way modern corporations, especially large corporations, operate.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"1 - 24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43005873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2031526
A. Grey, Alyssa A. Severin
ABSTRACT Through NSW’s recent run of bushfires and COVID-19, the importance of government communications reaching the whole public has become increasingly obvious. Other Australian governments, and governments worldwide, face similar challenges. Linguistic exclusion from government communications can create real dangers to individuals and communities and push people towards misinformation. It is a fundamental problem for societies founded on principles of equality, responsible government, and equal civic participation. Yet official government communications practices in languages other than English (LOTEs) are rarely studied. This socio-legal study brings both visibility and an analytic critique to the NSW Government’s public communications practices, building on the authors’ prior analysis of the underlying laws and policies in this journal. This empirical examination of web-based communications from 28 departments and agencies identifies real problems, even though the NSW Government makes some effort to publicly communicate in LOTEs: we found no consistency or predictability across websites in relation to the range of LOTEs used, the amount of LOTE content produced, or the steps by which it could be accessed. The study raises serious concerns about the government’s responsiveness to, representation of, and accountability to NSW’s highly multilingual public, and bolsters the call for more informed and strategic communications policy.
{"title":"Building towards best practice for governments’ public communications in languages other than English: a case study of New South Wales, Australia","authors":"A. Grey, Alyssa A. Severin","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2031526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2031526","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Through NSW’s recent run of bushfires and COVID-19, the importance of government communications reaching the whole public has become increasingly obvious. Other Australian governments, and governments worldwide, face similar challenges. Linguistic exclusion from government communications can create real dangers to individuals and communities and push people towards misinformation. It is a fundamental problem for societies founded on principles of equality, responsible government, and equal civic participation. Yet official government communications practices in languages other than English (LOTEs) are rarely studied. This socio-legal study brings both visibility and an analytic critique to the NSW Government’s public communications practices, building on the authors’ prior analysis of the underlying laws and policies in this journal. This empirical examination of web-based communications from 28 departments and agencies identifies real problems, even though the NSW Government makes some effort to publicly communicate in LOTEs: we found no consistency or predictability across websites in relation to the range of LOTEs used, the amount of LOTE content produced, or the steps by which it could be accessed. The study raises serious concerns about the government’s responsiveness to, representation of, and accountability to NSW’s highly multilingual public, and bolsters the call for more informed and strategic communications policy.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"25 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44539750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：