Search

"No-brainer": Call for Jack's law to be introduced nationwide

A Queensland father whose son was stabbed on a night out is pushing for Jack's Law to be introduced nationwide in the wake of the <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/health/caring/family-of-bondi-killer-break-silence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bondi Junction attack</a> and <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/teenage-boy-in-custody-after-stabbing-at-sydney-church" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wakeley Church stabbing</a>. Brett Beasley is urging NSW premier Chris Minns and other states to introduce the anti-knife law which allows police officers to conduct random searches for knives at public transport hubs and Safe Night precincts using metal detecting wands. “It’s an absolute no-brainer,” he told news.com.au. “It’s absolutely extraordinary how well it’s working here in Queensland. I believe every single police officer Australia-wide should have the same powers.” Beasly and his wife Belinda have spent years campaigning for the law following the tragic death of their son Jack, who was stabbed by a group of teens outside a Surfers Paradise convenience store during a night out in 2019. It's been three years since the law was introduced in Queensland, and since then 55,000 people have been searched, 800 weapons have been confiscated and 1400 people have been charged. “It’s the same as being pulled over for a random breath test, it’s exactly the same and it’s working,” Beasly said. “I can guarantee the NSW government, if they were to adopt Jack’s Law, then they will start finding thousands of weapons. It’s scary to think how many of these young offenders are walking around actually armed and getting away with it.” Beasly, who was “absolutely devastated” after hearing about the Bondi Junction stabbing spree, said that the NSW premier should waste no time introducing the law. “Chris Minns shouldn’t even contemplate it. He should just say, ‘Absolutely. Let’s do this’. “I get thousands of messages from people in New South Wales who say ‘We want Jack’s Law down here, we need it down here’.” “To lose a child in any way is absolutely horrendous, and to lose a child to murder is the worst way possible. Your child’s life is taken from them.” Beasly is keen to meet with Minns to discuss rolling out Jacks law in NSW saying: “if Chris Minns is open to a meeting with me, I’ll be on the next flight to Sydney because this government need to make this happen. It’s as simple as that." A NSW government spokesperson has told news.com.au that they “need to look carefully at our current policies to ensure the public is safe”. “The NSW Sentencing Council is currently undertaking a review of the sentencing laws for firearms, knives and other weapons offences. The NSW Government will also look at knife laws,” they said. “We will await the review findings and consider all recommendations carefully.” Beasly is also planning to meet with the Governor of Western Australia on Monday and hopes that they will also adopt the law. While waiting for other states to adopt the law, Beasly and the Jack Beasley Foundation are delivering free presentations about knife crime in schools. “Let’s work on this together and bond together and make a change and see if we can stop this,” he said. Image: Jerad Williams/ news.com.au

Legal

Woman baffled by mother-in-law’s insane ask over baby name

A woman has gone head-to-head with her mother-in-law over the name she has chosen for her unborn child. The pregnant woman took to Reddit to share her unusual predicament, explaining how her mother-in-law has demanded she change the name of her baby. The soon-to-be mum shared how she recently had dinner with her husband’s family, where she decided to reveal the baby’s gender and name. She had been keeping the information secret, but with only a few weeks of her pregnancy left, she decided to share the happy news that she was having a baby boy and had chosen the name Shawn for her son. But not everyone shared her happiness over the moniker, as her mother-in-law went pale with shock and demanded she choose a new name. “My in-laws got quiet for a moment before asking if there were other options we'd considered. Apparently, Shawn is the name of my 17-year-old sister-in-law Ashley's former bully who tormented her [for years],” the pregnant woman explained on Reddit. While she empathised with her in-laws, she didn’t want to change the name as it was the only one her and her husband agreed on for their son. She also explained that she hadn’t known about the family connection when they picked the name, and hadn’t picked it out of any malicious intent. “We took forever to pick a name,” she said. “Shawn is the only one we could agree on.” The dinner party soon ended after the argument began, but the mother-in-law didn’t back down, sending the expecting mum demanding messages. “She texted me and my husband again to ask us to find a new name for Ashley's sake.” “Would I be the a**hole for not wanting to change it? We were only able to agree on it a few weeks ago.” Commenters were torn over the subject, with many rushing to the pregnant woman’s defence, saying she can pick whatever name she wants for her son. “My spouse and sibling have the same name. Somehow, you just compartmentalise it,” one shared. “I feel like if a new baby in my family shared a name with my bully I'd just adapt,” another wrote. “After all, Shawn is a VERY common name, so I can't freak out every time I hear it and survive in this world.” However, a select few sided with the mother-in-law, sharing how stunned they were that the couple couldn't find enough compassion to pick another name. One person said, “I understand the difficulty of finding a name that feels right, but for me, after learning this, Shawn would quickly become another name that didn't work. It's only been decided on it for a few weeks so I'd just go back to the drawing board.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

If you squat in a vacant property, does the law give you the house for free? Well, sort of

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cathy-sherry-466">Cathy Sherry</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> Nothing excites law students like the idea of a free house. Or alternatively, enrages them. It depends on their politics. As a result, academics condemned to teaching property law find it hard to resist the “<a href="https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2011/28.html">doctrine of adverse possession</a>”. The fact that a person can change the locks on someone else’s house, wait 12 years, and claim it as their own, makes students light up in a way that the Strata Schemes Management Act never will. The idea of “squatters’ rights” has received a lot of media attention recently amid the grim reality of the Australian housing market. It fuels commentators such as Jordan van den Berg, who <a href="https://www.instagram.com/purplepingers/">critiques bad landlords</a> on social media. Casting back to his days as a law student, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/jordan-was-fed-up-with-australias-empty-houses-his-proposal-has-led-to-death-threats/stx6rv6fl">he’s promoting</a> the doctrine of adverse possession as a way of making use of vacant properties. As interesting as the doctrine is, it has little relevance in modern Australia. While it is necessary to limit the time someone has to bring legal proceedings to recover land – typically 12 or 15 years, depending on which state you’re in – most people don’t need that long to notice someone else is living in their house. If a family member is occupying a home that someone else has inherited or a tenant refuses to vacate at the end of a lease, owners tend to bring actions to recover their land pronto. So where did this doctrine come from, and what has it meant in practice? <h2>Free house fetching millions</h2> In unusual circumstances, people can lose track of their own land. Just before the second world war, Henry Downie moved out of his house in the Sydney suburb of Ashbury. Downie died a decade later, but his will was never administered. At the time of his death, a Mrs Grimes rented the house and did so for a further 50 years. Downie’s next of kin did not realise they had inherited the house or that they were Grimes’s landlord. Grimes died in 1998 and Bill Gertos, a property developer, saw the house was vacant. He changed the locks, did some repairs, then leased the house and paid the rates for the next 17 years. He then made an application under <a href="https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rpa1900178/s45d.html">NSW property laws</a> to become the registered proprietor. At this point, Downie’s next of kin became aware they may have been entitled to the property and disputed Gertos’s claim. The <a href="https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2018/1629.html">court held</a> Gertos had been “in possession” of the property since the late 1990s. The next of kin had a legal right to eject him, but they had failed to do so within the statutory time limit of 12 years. Gertos had the best claim to the house. He <a href="https://www.domain.com.au/6-malleny-street-ashbury-nsw-2193-2015821514">promptly sold it</a> for A$1.4 million. Outrageous as this may seem, the law encourages caring for land. If you fail to take responsibility for your land, and someone else does, you can lose it. <h2>An old English tradition</h2> Gertos’s jackpot was unusual, and adverse possession has always been more relevant in a country like England. First, for much of English history, many people did not have documentary title (deeds) to their land. People were illiterate, parchment was expensive, and documents could disappear in a puff of smoke in a house fire. The law often had to rely on people’s physical possession of land as proof of ownership. Second, as a result of feudalism, vast swathes of England were owned by the aristocracy. They and their 20th-century successors in title, often local councils, had a habit of forgetting they owned five suburbs in London. In the post second world war housing crisis, thousands of families, and later young people and students, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b017cfv4">squatted in vacant houses</a> owned by public and private landlords who lacked the means or motivation to maintain them. <h2>A sign of the times</h2> In contrast, in Australia, for most of our settler history, governments of all political persuasions actively prevented the emergence of a landed class. But now, courtesy of tax policies that <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2023/11/the-great-divide">encourage investment</a> in residential real estate, we have a landlord class of Baby Boomer and Gen X investors. That has caused housing market stress as younger people cannot make the natural transition from being renters to homeowners. They are outbid by older, wealthier buyers whose tax benefits from negative gearing increase with every dollar they borrow to buy an investment property. Money flowing into the market then means that landlords’ greatest benefit is capital gain rather than income, and thanks to John Howard, investors pay <a href="https://theconversation.com/stranger-than-fiction-who-labors-capital-gains-tax-changes-will-really-hurt-109657">no tax</a> on half of that gain. Finally, an almost exclusive reliance by government on the <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/for-more-affordable-housing-we-need-more-public-housing/">private sector</a> to provide new homes – which it will only do if it is making a profit – has left many people in deep housing stress. While squatters in Australia are likely to find themselves swiftly subject to court orders for ejection, van den Berg’s rallying cry indicates just how inequitable the housing market has become. Baby Boomers and Gen X should be on notice – young people want their housing back. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/227556/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cathy-sherry-466">Cathy Sherry</a>, Professor in Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-you-squat-in-a-vacant-property-does-the-law-give-you-the-house-for-free-well-sort-of-227556">original article</a>.

Legal

Two iconic locations officially given dual Indigenous titles

In a significant move to recognise and honour the rich cultural heritage of the Indigenous peoples of Australia, two iconic locations in northern NSW will now be officially known by their Indigenous names. This decision comes after impassioned calls from the community to acknowledge the profound significance these sites hold in Indigenous culture and history. Walgan, translating to "shoulder" in the Bundjalung language, has been designated as the dual name for Cape Byron, marking it as the Australian mainland's most easterly point. Cape Byron, situated in the picturesque town of Byron Bay, has long been a hotspot for tourists seeking stunning coastal views. However, beyond its natural beauty, this area holds deep cultural significance for the Arakwal and other Bundjalung people. It has served as a sacred site for important gatherings and traditional ceremonial practices, anchoring it firmly in the cultural tapestry of the region. Similarly, Nguthungulli, referred to as the "Father of the World", will now share its name with Julian Rocks, a renowned diving destination located 2.5km off Cape Byron. This underwater marvel, steeped in Aboriginal lore and legend, is intricately tied to the dreaming stories of the Arakwal and other Bundjalung communities. By bestowing these dual names, authorities aim to not only pay homage to the Indigenous heritage of the land but also to foster a greater understanding and appreciation of its significance among all Australians. The decision to officially recognise these dual names was approved by the NSW Geographical Names Board, following a submission from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Additionally, in a nod to preserving local Indigenous language and culture, a reserve in the suburb of Bangalow will be formally named Piccabeen Park. The term "Piccabeen" originates from the Bundjalung language, referring to the bangalow palm and the traditional baskets crafted from its fronds. Jihad Dib, the Customer Service Minister, emphasised the NSW government's commitment to safeguarding and promoting Indigenous language and culture through place naming. "All Australians share a relationship to the land and the names we give to places convey their significance, sense of history and identity," he said "Dual-naming acknowledges the significance of Aboriginal culture and represents a meaningful step towards the process of unity in NSW." Echoing these sentiments, David Harris, the Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty Minister, underscored the enduring connections that the Arakwal and other Bundjalung peoples have maintained with these sites since time immemorial. "It is only right to honour that history and that connection through names that bring story and language to life for all Australians to enjoy," he said. Image: Getty

Legal

"Lincoln's Law": Grandma's important safety crusade after tragic loss

The tragic loss of three-year-old Lincoln in September 2020 has sparked a passionate plea for immediate changes to safety standards in rental properties across Australia. Lincoln's grandmother, Kerrie Shearer, has been relentless in her pursuit of ensuring that no other family suffers the heartache they have endured. Lincoln's untimely death occurred when he became entangled in a blind cord while innocently playing on a windowsill at his Melbourne home. Despite the family's vigilance, the accident claimed the life of their beloved Lincoln, leaving them shattered and grief-stricken. Now, Shearer is determined to turn her pain into action by advocating for legislative changes to prevent similar tragedies. As a renter, Lincoln's family had little control over the safety features of their dwelling. They are now calling for new laws mandating older rental homes to comply with modern blind safety standards. Shearer says that the need to address loose hanging blinds is crucial, labelling them as potential accidents waiting to happen. By campaigning for legislative reforms, she hopes to spare other families from experiencing the same devastation. While guidelines stipulate that window furnishings in homes built after 2010 must adhere to strict safety measures, there are no such regulations for older properties. Shearer finds it astonishing that many people remain unaware of the dangers posed by unsecured blind cords. She recounts her experiences of visiting various accommodations, including Airbnbs and hotels, where she noticed inadequate safety measures and felt compelled to alert the hosts. "I'm constantly amazed how people aren't aware," she told <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/victoria-news-grandmother-warns-of-blind-safety-risk-after-grandson-dies/83accc08-8cf2-463a-8cc7-6f87fa905a5b" target="_blank" rel="noopener">9News</a>. "I go to AirBnBs and hotels now and I'm at them, 'Hey your blinds aren't attached to the wall.'" Shearer's advocacy has gained momentum via her collaboration with Kidsafe, a prominent nonprofit organisation dedicated to preventing unintentional injuries and deaths among children. Together, they aim to broaden safety requirements for older homes, advocating for what Shearer passionately refers to as "Lincoln's law". She insists that any looped or hanging cords present a significant danger to children and must be securely affixed to the wall to prevent entanglement accidents. The impact of Shearer's tireless efforts is already evident, with reports indicating that the state government is considering the introduction of mandatory blind cord safety standards for all rental properties, regardless of their age. This potential development marks a significant step towards ensuring the safety and well-being of children in rental accommodations across the country. In the wake of her family's tragedy, Shearer's determination to effect change not only honours the memory of Lincoln but also holds the potential to prevent countless other families from enduring similar heartbreak – ensuring that his tragic passing was not in vain. Images: 9News

Legal

Does the royal family have a right to privacy? What the law says

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gemma-horton-1515949">Gemma Horton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> From court cases to conspiracy theories, the royal family’s right to privacy is, somewhat ironically, nearly always in the spotlight. The latest focus is Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, whose whereabouts have been the subject of <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a60008117/kate-middleton-health-speculation-conspiracy-theories-online/">online speculation</a> after it was announced she was undergoing abdominal surgery and would be away from public duties until after Easter. This comes just weeks after King Charles <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68208157">revealed that he is undergoing treatment for cancer</a>, and a legal settlement between Prince Harry and Mirror Group Newspapers over <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68249009">illegal phone hacking</a>. Interest in the personal lives of the royals and other celebrities <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193">is a constant</a>, driving newspaper sales and online clicks for decades. You only needs to consider the media frenzy that followed Princess Diana to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2013.833678">see this</a>, and its potentially devastating consequences. From a legal perspective, the British courts have ruled that everyone – the royal family included – is entitled to a right to privacy. The Human Rights Act incorporates into British law the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights. This includes article 8, which focuses on the right to privacy. In the years after the Human Rights Act came into force, courts ruled on a string of cases from celebrities claiming that the press invaded their privacy. Courts had to balance article 8 of the convention against article 10, the right to freedom of expression. Rulings repeatedly stated that, despite being in and sometimes seeking the limelight, celebrities should still be afforded a right to privacy. Some disagree with this position, such as prominent journalist <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-hacking-piers-morgan-b2336442.html">Piers Morgan, who has criticised</a> the Duke and Duchess of Sussex asking for privacy when they have also released a Netflix documentary, a broadcast interview with Oprah Winfrey and published a memoir. But the courts have made the position clear, as in the case concerning Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas after Hello! Magazine published unauthorised photographs from their wedding. The <a href="https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/190559/3/Final%20Edited%20Version%20-%20Celebrity%20Privacy%20and%20Celebrity%20Journalism-%20Has%20anything%20changed%20since%20the%20Leveson%20Inquiry_.pdf">court stated</a> that: “To hold that those who have sought any publicity lose all protection would be to repeal article 8’s application to very many of those who are likely to need it.” There is no universal definition of privacy, but scholars have identified key concepts encompassing what privacy can entail. In my own research, I have argued that the <a href="https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/190559/3/Final%20Edited%20Version%20-%20Celebrity%20Privacy%20and%20Celebrity%20Journalism-%20Has%20anything%20changed%20since%20the%20Leveson%20Inquiry_.pdf">notion of choice</a> is one of these. Privacy allows us to control the spread of information about ourselves and disclose information to whom we want. <h2>Privacy and the public interest</h2> There are exceptions to these protections if the person involved had no reasonable expectation of privacy, or if it was in the public interest for this information to be revealed. There is no solid, legal definition of the “public interest”, so this is decided on a case-by-case basis. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2021.1889866">In the past</a>, the public interest defence has been applied because a public figure or official has acted hypocritically and the courts have stated there is a right for a publisher to set the record straight. When it comes to medical records and information concerning health, case law and journalistic <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/">editorial codes of conduct</a> are clear that this information is afforded the utmost protection. Model Naomi Campbell was pictured leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and these images were published by the Daily Mirror. The court found that there had been a public interest in revealing the fact she was attending these meetings, as she had previously denied substance abuse. The House of Lords accepted that there was a public interest in the press “setting the record straight”. Nonetheless, the publication of additional, confidential details, and the photographs of her leaving the meeting were a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/06/mirror.pressandpublishing1">step too far</a>. The House of Lords highlighted the importance of being able to keep medical records and information private. <h2>Royal health</h2> When it comes to the royals, the history of <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a23798094/lindo-wing-st-marys-hospital-facts-photos/">publicity</a> around royal births, often posing with the newborn royal baby outside of the hospital, has set a precedent for what the public can expect about the royals’ medical information. When they choose to go against this tradition, it can frustrate both royal-watchers and publishers. King Charles made the choice to openly speak about his enlarged prostate to “assist public understanding”. And, as Prostate Cancer UK noted, this has worked – they noted a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/king-charles-cancer-statement-treatment-b2494190.html">500% increase in people visiting their website</a>. However, he has chosen to not to divulge information about his cancer diagnosis beyond the fact that he is receiving treatment. This is his right. While revealing further information might stop speculation and rumours about his health, it is not the king’s duty to divulge private, medical information. However, if his health begins to impact his ability to act as monarch, the situation could change. It might be that the press finds more information about his health without his knowledge, but unless they have a genuine public interest in publishing this information, privacy should prevail. You would no doubt want your private medical information kept secret, not shared around your workplace and speculated on unless it was absolutely necessary. It is thanks to these laws and court precedent that you don’t have to worry about this. The royal family, regardless of their position, should expect the same standard. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gemma-horton-1515949">Gemma Horton</a>, Impact Fellow for Centre for Freedom of the Media, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-the-royal-family-have-a-right-to-privacy-what-the-law-says-224881">original article</a>.

Legal

Hundreds of mourners seek change after Vyleen White funeral

The tragic death of Vyleen White, a beloved grandmother from Queensland, has not only left a family grieving but has also ignited a fervent call for justice and societal change. As her loved ones gather to mourn her passing, they are steadfast in their determination to ensure that her memory is defined not by the senseless violence that took her life but by the love and compassion she embodied. Vyleen White's daughter, Cindy Micallef, eloquently captured the essence of her mother's life during an emotional eulogy at the funeral service on Thursday, saying that that her legacy will endure through the love she shared and the lives she touched. White, a vibrant 70-year-old known for her unwavering kindness, <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/health/caring/grandmother-fatally-stabbed-in-front-of-granddaughter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">was tragically stabbed</a> outside a shopping centre in Redbank Plains, sparking outrage and prompting a community-wide outcry against youth crime. Despite the profound grief felt by those who knew her, Micallef expressed a firm resolve to seek justice for her mother. With a steely determination, she declared that her family would not rest until those responsible were held accountable. “We want to move forward and mum’s legacy will live on and we’re not going to let that go,” Micallef said. “We’re going to make sure we get justice for mum and nothing will stop us until that happens.” The impact of White's death reverberated beyond her immediate circle, prompting widespread calls for reform in the Queensland community. Proposals for tougher youth justice measures, including "Vyleen's Law", seek to address the root causes of youth offending and ensure that perpetrators face appropriate consequences for their actions. Additionally, legislative changes aimed at improving transparency in court proceedings and restricting access to weapons underscore a commitment to preventing further violence. Amid the grief and outrage, White's family and friends fondly recalled her vibrant spirit and unwavering love. Whether it was her devotion to her beloved cat, her infectious laughter, or her boundless capacity for compassion, White's presence left an indelible mark on all who knew her. Image: Supplied.

Caring

“My sister-in-law announced she was pregnant at my child’s funeral”

A woman has asked for advice on how to navigate her relationship with her sister-in-law, after the woman overheard an inappropriate conversation at her child’s funeral. The grieving mother, a 28-year-old named Melissa, took to Reddit to share the heartbreaking story of how her toddler passed away after a battle with cancer. Melissa described the time as the “hardest in my life”, explaining how she felt she lost “a part of herself” after the funeral. While Melissa expected her toddlers’ memorial service to be difficult, she never predicted a family member would make it even harder. The mother said that when she heard her sister-in-law telling people about her pregnancy, she thought the move was just cruel. “She didn't make a big announcement but more than ten people at the service 'heard' and it's what everyone was talking about. To understate it, I was livid,” Melissa wrote on Reddit. Melissa’s post then asked social media users for advice, as she was unsure how much of a relationship she wanted to have with her sister-in-law after the stunt. The 28-year-old shared that she had fallen pregnant herself, and was facing pressure to have a party in celebration, but she didn’t want her whole family in attendance. “I've been working on who I want to invite, and I really don't want my SIL there,” she said. “Besides what she did, she's a vindictive and mean person and I cannot stand her.” “I mentioned it to my husband and he says he couldn't care less whether she's there or not. But for the sake of saving face, I want opinions before I do this.” She asked the online forum if she would be “an a**hole” for not inviting her, addin that she would still be inviting her husband's other sister and husband's brother's wife. “The original SIL will be the only one not invited,” she clarified. The post was flooded with comments as many backed up Melissa, slamming the sister-in-law for her selfish behaviour. “I wouldn't want someone like that around me. Announcing a pregnancy at a child's funeral is insane,” one said. “Cut her off and ignore everyone close to her. You are right to have nothing to do with her. She's totally classless.” However, others encouraged her to have an adult conversation with her sister-in-law in an attempt to mend their relationship. “Please let it go,” one person began. “This happened on a terrible day during a bad time for you. It's possible that could be clouding how you're looking at this, she may not have been malicious at all.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

A woman has banned her in-laws from seeing her newborn daughter after they “betrayed her trust” and directly went against her wishes. The new mum shared the story to Reddit, as she explained why she was cutting contact with her husband’s parents after they pierced her child’s ears without their knowledge or consent. “My husband is from a culture where it's not uncommon to pierce baby girls' ears and his mother started pestering me about getting my daughter's ears pierced a few days after she was born,” the 32-year-old mum began. “I made it clear that I would not be doing that, and that I'd be waiting until she's old enough to ask for it herself. We live in my country where piercing a baby's ears isn't common at all.” The new mum's world soon came crashing down after the baby spent a weekend with her grandparents, before she went back to her parents red in the face and screaming. “My mother-in-law was looking after her over the weekend and decided to pierce her ears without my knowledge or consent.” “When I saw this I threw a fit. My baby was crying in pain, and I actually took her to the doctor to get their advice on whether or not to take them out.” The doctor advised the parent to take the earrings out as they were irritating the baby, but the issue didn’t end there. “I decided at that moment that my mother-in-law and everyone else on that side of the family (except for my sister-in-law, who's on my side about this) is going to have no alone contact with my daughter ever again - or at least until she's a teenager.” “My worry is that she'll do the same thing again, and to be frank, she's lost my trust entirely. I told her that if she had a problem with that, I'd report what she did to the police.” The husband of the baby girl reluctantly sided with his wife over the issue, despite saying it wasn’t a big deal and suggesting everyone move on from the incident. The story prompted a mixed response online, with some people saying the woman was overreacting and should work towards rebuilding trust with her in-laws. Others, however, had the opposite opinion, with one person saying, “Forget rebuilding trust, I'd be having them charged with assault.” Another person said, “They mutilated a child and they knew it was against the parents wishes. These people have serious problems. Not that I'd press charges, but getting holes poked in someone else's kid is a huge thing.” Image credits: Getty Images

Family & Pets

"I was terrified": Law & Order star reveals traumatic past

Warning: This story contains graphic content. Mariska Hargitay, who plays Olivia Benson, a character that investigate rapists on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, has revealed that she too is a victim of sexual assault. The actress opened up about her traumatic past in a powerful essay written for <a href="https://people.com/mariska-hargitay-experience-rape-renewal-reckoning-8424247" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People Magazine</a>, where she revealed that she was raped by “a friend" when she was in her thirties. "A man raped me in my thirties," she bravely revealed in the essay. "It wasn’t sexual at all. It was dominance and control. Overpowering control." The actress revealed that he was a friend who "made a unilateral decision" and recalled the fear she felt when the incident occurred. "He grabbed me by the arms and held me down. I was terrified," she said. "I didn’t want it to escalate to violence. I now know it was already sexual violence, but I was afraid he would become physically violent. "I went into freeze mode, a common trauma response when there is no option to escape. I checked out of my body," she recalled. Hargitay, who is the daughter of the late actress Jane Mansfield, said that she never thought of herself as a "survivor", and often "minimised" what happened to her when she talked about it with others. "My husband Peter remembers me saying, “I mean, it wasn’t rape," she wrote. "Then things started shifting in me, and I began talking about it more in earnest with those closest to me. They were the first ones to call it what it was." The actress said that she wants other survivors to feel "no shame" about sexual assault and wants "this violence to end." She added that justice "may look different for each survivor," but for her she wants "an acknowledgment and an apology" after what happened. "This is a painful part of my story. The experience was horrible. But it doesn’t come close to defining me, in the same way that no other single part of my story defines me," she concluded, adding that she feels for all sexual violence survivors. "I’m turning 60, and I’m so deeply grateful for where I am. I’m renewed and I’m flooded with compassion for all of us who have suffered. And I’m still proudly in process." Hargitay started her own foundation, the Joyful Heart Foundation, in 2004 to help survivors of sexual assault. Image: Getty

Caring

John Laws hangs up in disgust on Kyle and Jackie O

The radio waves became a battlefield this morning as the titans of Australian talkback clashed in a dramatic showdown involving corset dresses, colon procedures – and a surprise departure for medical attention. The day kicked off with Jackie O making a grand entrance, albeit a slightly woozy one, having undergone surgery to bid farewell to a cervical polyp. Kyle, ever the supportive co-host, explained to listeners that Jackie was feeling under the weather and experiencing some tingling in her arm. (Because, as you know, corset dresses and surgery recovery are a match made in radio heaven.) "She just stepped out for a lay down. She’s got like a corset dress on and she had an operation yesterday," Kyle explained, giving us all a mental image of a radio host napping in style. But that was just the appetiser. The main course featured none other than radio legend John Laws, who decided to play hardball with the hosts in a dramatic fashion. Scheduled for an interview to celebrate an impressive 70 years on-air, Laws decided he'd had enough after catching wind of Jackie O's surgical – and, let's face it, highly graphic – revelations. Jackie O explained to a bemused Kyle that her surgeon had operated on her “via the colon or the vagina, I’m not sure which... What must I have looked like on the operating table? Nude, shower cap...” Now, let's take a moment to appreciate the delicacy of the situation. Laws, a seasoned broadcaster, chose that exact moment to hang up on the dynamic duo faster than you can say "corset controversy". Apparently, the mere thought of following that "real" a discussion about medical procedures, particularly those involving the nether regions, was way too much for his delicate radio palate. In an unexpected turn of events, Laws' assistant then became the unwilling messenger between the offended radio icon and and the KIISFM hosts. “Is it true he got angry about Jackie’s disgusting story?” Kyle asked. The assistant revealed that Laws "just doesn’t like it, Jackie. He doesn’t like following all that talk about vaginas." A sentiment we're sure many have echoed when trying to enjoy their morning coffee. But the cherry on top was Laws hanging up not once, but twice! Cementing forever his stance on steering clear of on-air discussions involving surgical escapades. Jackie O valiantly defended herself, insisting it wasn't gratuitous and was, in fact, a perfectly normal chat about a medical procedure. Laws, unmoved, made it clear he had no interest in such shenanigans. As if that weren't enough drama for one day, Jackie O had to bow out early due to feeling unwell, prompting Kyle to make a mercy call to Laws on-air to explain the situation. Laws, ever the gentleman, softened his stance, admitting he was just surprised at the talk and muttering a nonchalant "never mind". After that morning of medical misadventures, corset calamities and a radio veteran hanging up, who would have guessed that a discussion about surgery could cause such a ruckus? Images: KIISFM / X

Body

Sam Newman calls for an end to "divisive" Indigenous symbols

Sam Newman has called for all "divisive" Indigenous symbols, including the Aboriginal flag, to be banned from major events after the defeat of the Voice to Parliament referendum. The former AFL player, who recently encouraged sports fans to boo during the Welcome to Country at the AFL grand final, has once again taken aim at First Nations Australians after Indigenous symbols were used on awards handed out at the Melbourne Marathon on Sunday. Speaking on his You Cannot Be Serious podcast, Newman questioned why Aboriginal artworks adorned the medals and ribbons handed out to participants of the marathon. "People just cannot help themselves," he said. "The Melbourne Marathon was run last Sunday, and everyone who ran in it got a medal ... the pandering and sycophantic crap. All the ribbons had snakes and lizards and were decked out in Indigenous artwork." When challenged by his co-host, Newman doubled on his controversial opinion. "Why can't you just have an Australian flavour for the Melbourne Marathon? (Why) do you have to keep pandering to it all for? Why aren't we just one people? What do you do that for? They can't help themselves." Newman also welcomed the defeat of the Voice to Parliament referendum, and took aim at disappointed Yes voters who were mourning the defeat. He said, "The people who were the Yes voters said 'we're going to fly the Aboriginal flags at half-mast'. Well, that's good, we've got them half way down let's remove them right down to the bottom and not fly them at all." Ironically, after beginning the rant about the Voice, he welcomed the idea from Indigenous leaders to hold a 'Week of Silence' to grieve the outcome of the referendum. "How fantastic is that? Let's have a year of silence and not talk about it," Newman said. Image credits: Getty Images

News

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609">Amy Maguire</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060">University of Newcastle</a> A majority of Australian voters have rejected the proposal to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, with the final results likely to be about 40% voting “yes” and 60% voting “no”. <h2>What was the referendum about?</h2> In this referendum, Australians were asked to vote on whether to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment">Voice</a> to Parliament. The Voice was proposed as a means of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the <a href="https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/australias-first-peoples">First Peoples of Australia</a> in the Constitution. The Voice proposal was a modest one. It was to be an advisory body for the national parliament and government. Had the referendum succeeded, Australia’s Constitution would have been amended with a new section 129: <blockquote> In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. </blockquote> This proposal was drawn from the <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> from 250 Indigenous leaders, which called for <a href="https://deadlystory.com/page/culture/Annual_Days/NAIDOC_Week/NAIDOC_2019/Hey_you_Mob_it_s_NAIDOC_week#:%7E:text=The%20statement%20outlines%20a%20need,see%20below%20for%20more%20information">three phases of reform</a> - Voice, followed by Treaty and Truth -telling about Australia’s colonial history. The proposal was for constitutional change to ensure the Voice would not be abolished by government in future, as previous Indigenous bodies have been. <h2>How did Australians vote?</h2> Voting is <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/publications/voting/">compulsory</a> in Australia. Every eligible Australian citizen over 18 years of age is obliged to vote in elections and referendums. Australia has one of the <a href="https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/how-many-people-voted-in-the-last-election/#:%7E:text=According%20to%20the%20Australian%20Electoral,voter%20turnouts%20in%20the%20world.">highest rates of voter turn out</a> in the world - over 90% of those eligible have voted in every national election since compulsory voting was introduced in 1924. Australia has a written <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005">Constitution</a>. A successful referendum vote is required to <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter1/Constitution_alteration">change</a> the Constitution in any way. To succeed, a referendum proposition requires a <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/how-referendum-works#:%7E:text=For%20a%20referendum%20to%20be,4%20out%20of%206%20states.">double majority</a>. This means it must be agreed to by a majority of voters, and a majority of states. Australia has six <a href="https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/images/map-australia-showing-states-and-territories">states</a>, so at least four must have a majority of voters in favour for a referendum to succeed. Australia also has two territories - individuals in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-and-territory-ballots-will-be-counted-differently-at-the-voice-referendum-is-that-fair-212703">territories</a> contribute to the overall vote, but the territories do not count towards the majority of states. It’s very difficult to achieve constitutional change in Australia. Since federation in 1901, 45 questions have been put to Australian voters in <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/referendum_dates_and_results.htm">referendums</a>. Only eight of those have succeeded. In the Voice referendum, only the Australian Capital Territory voted “yes” by majority. A <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/ReferendumNationalResults-29581.htm">clear majority</a> of the national electorate voted “no”. All states returned majority “no” results. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people constitute <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/estimates-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/latest-release#:%7E:text=Data%20downloads-,Key%20statistics,Queensland%20and%20Western%20Australia%20combined.">3.8% of Australia’s population</a>. Government members claimed on ABC TV in the referendum coverage that polling booths including high proportions of Indigenous voters, for example Palm Island in Queensland, returned high “yes” votes. However, in a majoritarian democracy like Australia, such a small proportion of the national population cannot dictate the outcome of a national poll. Importantly, the Voice referendum did not have unanimous support across the two main political parties in Australia. The Labor government <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-all-in-declares-an-emotional-albanese-as-he-launches-the-wording-for-the-voice-referendum-202435">announced</a> and has campaigned for “yes”. The leader of the opposition, Liberal Queensland MP <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-05/peter-dutton-voice-to-parliament-yes-no-vote-referendum/102797582">Peter Dutton</a>, campaigned strongly against the referendum proposal. <h2>What happens now?</h2> The government is bound to abide by the referendum result. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed that his government <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/08/labor-wont-try-to-legislate-indigenous-voice-if-referendum-fails-albanese-says#:%7E:text=The%20prime%20minister%2C%20Anthony%20Albanese,away%20from%20the%20voice%20altogether%3F%E2%80%9D">will not seek to legislate a Voice</a> as an alternative to the constitutional model. Albanese, conceding the failure of the referendum, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-14/live-updates-voice-to-parliament-referendum-latest-news/102969568">said</a>: “Tomorrow we must seek a new way forward”. He called for a renewed focus on doing better for First Peoples in Australia. The referendum outcome represents a major loss for the government. But much more important than that will be the negative impacts of the campaign and loss on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. On ABC TV, Arrernte/Luritja woman <a href="https://www.snaicc.org.au/about/contact/staff-bios/">Catherine Liddle</a> called for a renewed focus on truth-telling and building understanding of Australia’s history across the population. She said the failure of the referendum reflected a lack of understanding about the lives and experiences of Indigenous people in Australia. “Yes” campaign advocates reported <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-are-tired-victorian-yes-advocates-devastated-as-no-vote-refuses-voice-20231012-p5ebse.html">devastation</a> at the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/14/australian-voters-reject-proposal-for-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-at-historic-referendum">outcome</a>. Sana Nakata, writing <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-political-subjugation-of-first-nations-peoples-is-no-longer-historical-legacy-213752">here</a>, said: “now we are where we have always been, left to build our better futures on our own”. Some First Nations advocates, including Victorian independent Senator <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/16/lidia-thorpe-says-australias-voice-referendum-should-be-called-off">Lidia Thorpe</a> - a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung woman - argued the Voice proposal lacked substance and that the referendum should not have been held. Advocates of a “<a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/these-progressive-no-campaigners-are-looking-beyond-the-vote-heres-what-they-want/tdyj2ilx6">progressive no</a>” vote (who felt the Voice didn’t go far enough) will continue to call for recognition of continuing First Nations sovereignty and self-determination through processes of treaty and truth-telling. The information landscape for Australian voters leading up to this referendum was murky and difficult to navigate. The Australian Electoral Commission published a <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/disinformation-register-ref.htm">disinformation register</a>. <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/extremely-politicised-and-very-worrying-how-misinformation-about-the-voice-spread/w9sl4pzba">Misinformation and lies</a>, many circulated through social media, have influenced the decision-making of a proportion of voters. It’s open to question whether constitutional change of any kind can be achieved while voters remain so exposed to multiple versions of “<a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/sorting-fact-from-fiction-in-the-voice-to-parliament-referendum/">truth</a>”. For many First Nations people, the proliferation of lies and misinformation driven by <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66470376">racism</a> throughout the Voice debate have been <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-03/indigenous-mental-health-impacts-of-voice-referendum-debate/102923188">traumatising</a> and brutal. Indigenous Australians’ Minister, Wiradjuri woman Linda Burney, spoke to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people after the result: “Be proud of your identity. Be proud of the 65,000 years of history and culture that you are part of”. Her <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/videos/national/linda-burney-gives-emotional-speech-following-referendum-result/clnpw6w0n009u0jp8kvgbijuy">pain</a> was patently obvious as she responded to the referendum outcome.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215155/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609">Amy Maguire</a>, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060">University of Newcastle</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-australia-has-voted-against-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-heres-what-happened-215155">original article</a>.

Legal

No gavels, no hearsay and lots of drinking: a law expert ranks legal dramas by their accuracy

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-mitchell-1468293">Dale Mitchell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a> From Elle Woods in Legally Blonde to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10383441.2015.1087367">Jennifer Walters in She-Hulk</a>, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird to Denny Crane in Boston Legal, our popular culture is often where we first see and witness legal practice. Sometimes this comes via the silver screen, other times television. But it would be wrong to think that all we see on legal television shows is accurate – even when it claims to capture reality. Most legal dramas are terrible at capturing the realities of law. <h2>Not accurate: Law(less) and (dis)Order</h2> Law and Order (1990-) innovated television drama by showcasing both the investigation of a crime by police, and then its prosecution in court. With its multiple spin-offs, including Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (1999-) and the shortlived Law and Order: Trial by Jury (2005-2006) (which had the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aolG65V1Dx8">best theme song of all the series</a>), the Law and Order franchise is a televisual legal juggernaut. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aolG65V1Dx8?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> As with most serials, Law and Order presents the criminal justice system as moving quicker than you can say dun dun. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The mean duration of criminal law matters in Australian higher courts was <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release">almost one year</a> (50 weeks) across 2021-22. While <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s5.html">procedural rules in civil matters</a> require courts to facilitate the “just and efficient resolution of disputes at minimum expense”, in criminal law, speed and efficiency must not be prioritised over accuracy: a person’s liberty is at stake. Most criminal matters do not proceed to a full trial as an accused will often plead guilty to the charges. As a result, the matter proceeds to sentencing without prosecutors needing to prove the offence. The rates of this occurring are quite alarming. <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release">Data across 2021-22</a> reveals over 75% of defendants in Australian courts entered a guilty plea, and almost four in five criminal convictions (79%) resulted from a guilty plea. <a href="https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1705761/32_1_8.pdf">Research suggests</a> defendants plead guilty for a variety of reasons, including to avoid the cost of a trial and to receive a lesser sentence. <a href="https://theconversation.com/pandemic-pushed-defendants-to-plead-guilty-more-often-including-innocent-people-pleading-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit-165056">Data from the United States</a> suggests the pressures of the pandemic led to innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. If Law and Order was a more accurate reflection of criminal law, matters would proceed immediately to sentencing due to guilty pleas. And should an accused be found guilty, a chunk of their sentence would be reduced by time served awaiting trial. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/60GV5lv8h3o?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Not accurate: Suits</h2> Suits (2011-19) centres around law firm partner Harvey Specter (Gabriel Macht) and his mentorship of Mike Ross (Patrick Adams) – the “lawyer” who never graduated law school and provides legal advice thanks to his photographic memory. This is, obviously, a brutal ethical breach for all involved, and clearly fraud. In Australia, law students who present themselves to be lawyers are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-07/law-graduate-jacob-reichman-fined-posing-solicitor-gold-coast/7824324">subject to sanctions</a> by the Legal Services Commission. They can <a href="https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/35821-fake-lawyer-cops-suspended-jail-sentence">cause harm to clients</a> who have hired their services. And the Legal Admissions Board may <a href="https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2020/11/chief-justice-wants-answers-before-considering-lawyer-impersonators-bid-to-become-legal-practitioner/">deny their entry</a> into the profession. (Spoilers) Ross is eventually sentenced to two years in prison for this fraud, a similar sentence to <a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/1202786675709/">a recent case in the United States</a>, but he only serves three months before solving a crime and earning early release. More unrealistic than this early release is that Ross does fairly quickly thereafter gain admission to the profession, which seems unlikely to occur so soon after such an act of fraud. While Suits has left its mark(le) on the popular imagination of law, it fails to address one of the primary duties of civil litigation: the duty of disclosure. The MacGuffin-ing of law is common in TV serials. It’s the “smoking gun” found on the day of the trial, or for the lawyers in Suits, the random document which shows up during the trial to turn the case - dramatically presented by our protagonists as they flail into court armed with this data sans ethics. This is not quite accurate. In adversarial legal systems like Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, civil litigation rules <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s211.html">require parties</a> to disclose to one another all documents in their possession or control which are directly relevant to a matter in dispute. This is a continuing duty, so if you discover such a document at any time during the case, it must be disclosed. While <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s212.html">exceptions</a> based on various privileges may apply, this essentially means civil litigation must be run in an “all cards on the table” manner. Randomly producing undisclosed material at trial requires the leave of the court and may result in orders of contempt and <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s225.html">cost penalties</a>. It’s not like the lawyers of Suits have ever really been concerned about ethics, though. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wUh9jomHZp4?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Not accurate: How to Get Away with Murder(ing rules of evidence)</h2> While most lawyers would support making it a criminal offence to critique Viola Davis, How to Get Away with Murder (2014-20) presents one of the most common offences within legal dramas: the haphazard approach to rules of evidence. Annalise Keating (Davis) and her ragtag team of morally illiterate law students (although I never see them studying?!?!) manipulate people to obtain evidence and then dramatically prompt witnesses on the stand to read this information into the record, or otherwise “sneak” it into the trial. This is not accurate. And it ignores the basic reality that so much of legal practice is about not just obtaining evidence, but ensuring that evidence is admissible in court. One of the most important rules of evidence deals with <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s59.html">hearsay evidence</a>. A court cannot allow evidence to be considered if its reliability is unable to be interrogated. Witnesses can only present evidence that they saw, heard or perceived themselves. Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, such evidence would be inadmissible. Like in Suits, these approaches to presenting evidence may have serious implications. This poor trial management results in <a href="https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/rpp074.pdf">delays to criminal trials.</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rMB_Gw5-T-I?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Accurate: Fisk</h2> Fisk (2021-) follows Helen Tudor-Fisk (Kitty Flanagan), an established contract lawyer whose personal dramas lead her to move to the boutique Melbourne probate law firm of Gruber and Gruber (played by Marty Sheargold and Julia Zamero). Fisk excels in showing the importance of lawyer-client relations and the word-of-mouth that sustains much of small legal practice. It’s the anti-Suits, and Fisk is more powerful for it. The discussions of wills and estates and most basic legal principles in Fisk are mostly sound – and the show doesn’t need to get into “legalese” as matters are resolved out-of-court. This is a distinct reality of law: litigation is a last resort. Forms of <a href="https://www.qls.com.au/Practising-law-in-Qld/ADR/Alternative-Dispute-Resolution/Types-of-Alternative-Dispute-Resolution-(ADR)">alternative dispute resolution</a>, including mediation, negotiation and conciliation, have become the primary way of resolving legal disputes. Fuelled by <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/alternative-dispute-resolution/civil-dispute-resolution-act-2011">legislative changes</a> which require the exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution measures before proceeding to litigation, and a pursuit of reduced costs, the drama of trial is not something anyone should yearn for. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N1Qt0Wo1gGo?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Accurate: Rake</h2> Cleaver Greene, a character said to be loosely based on the career of a Sydney barrister, shows us the absolute madness of work as a “<a href="https://nswbar.asn.au/the-bar-association/senior-counsel#:%7E:text=Senior%20counsel%20are%20barristers%20who,a%20QC%20or%20queen's%20counsel.">silk</a>”. Rake excels at showing the reality of law. The show raises interesting and accurate questions of law (yes, it is true there is no <a href="https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/18992/1/2011006119.pdf">explicit offence</a> of cannibalism in New South Wales) and presents Australian court process accurately. Thankfully, there’s not a gavel in sight. <a href="https://www.survivelaw.com/post/941-working-hardly-random-facts-about-the-gavel">Australian courts do not use gavels</a>, and their presence in legal dramas in Australian and UK courts shows a lack of attention to detail. The presence of the gavel as a symbol of justice is <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/1994/17.pdf">an entirely American invention</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qWWI2EdOssk?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Rake is accurate, in part, because the site of drama is rarely the courtroom, but rather Greene’s personal life. The accuracy of that element for law I will leave up to the jury. But with a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13218719.2013.822783">2014 study</a> finding 35% of lawyers engaged in hazardous or harmful drinking and another showing <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-15/study-finds-high-rates-anxiety-depression-in-legal-profession/11412832">high rates of anxiety and depression</a> in the legal profession, the evidence is compelling.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212880/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-mitchell-1468293">Dale Mitchell</a>, Lecturer in Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-gavels-no-hearsay-and-lots-of-drinking-a-law-expert-ranks-legal-dramas-by-their-accuracy-212880">original article</a>.

Legal

What are your rights as an Airbnb renter in Australia? A law expert answers 6 common questions

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-giancaspro-182268">Mark Giancaspro</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a> Airbnb has revolutionised the short-stay industry. Launched in 2008, it now eclipses the world’s biggest hotel chains. In Australia alone there are about <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-15/short-stay-rentals-airbnb-impact-on-australian-property-market/101019726">100,000 listed properties</a>. But in dealing with both a digital platform and a private owner (or “host”, in Airbnb-speak), your legal rights as a renter (or “guest”) can be unclear – at least without reading lengthy terms and conditions. This article answers six very common questions about using Airbnb in Australia. Please note that your legal rights may differ in other countries. Even if Airbnb’s terms and conditions are near identical – and they generally are – there may be differences in consumer laws. <h2>What if an Airbnb property doesn’t match its description?</h2> Airbnb’s <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/2908#6">terms and conditions</a> require the host to provide “complete and accurate information” about their property. Content, including photos, must be “up-to-date and accurate at all times”. Airbnb’s <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/2895/">Host Ground Rules</a> state that listings “should accurately describe the home and reflect the features and amenities that will be available”. If a property does not match its description or photos, <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/d/anz-prohost-resource-centre-support">report this to Airbnb</a>. False advertising will also likely breach the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits (Section 18) commercial conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. Report to the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/report-a-consumer-issue">Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a> here. There are no specific provisions to claim a refund or a discount for misleading listings. Your only recourse would seem be to initiate the cancellation policy that applies to your booking. <h2>So when can I get a refund?</h2> If you cancel your booking or leave the property early, your refund rights are determined by your <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/149">cancellation policy</a> (see “show trip details”). There are various <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/475">policies</a> (from which a host selects when listing). Most allow full refunds if you cancel one to five days prior to check-in, while others require up to 30 days’ notice or only provide partial refunds. If the host cancels on you, they <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/990">may be penalised</a> by Airbnb. <h2>Can an Airbnb host impose harsh and unreasonable ‘house rules’?</h2> If an owner wants to make rules against visitors without their permission or how many times you can use the washing machine, they generally can. When you rent a property through Airbnb, you are entering into a private agreement with the owner. Under contract law, they can stipulate whatever terms they like, so long as those rules aren’t illegal. What Australian Consumer Law does prohibit are <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/contracts#toc-unfair-terms-in-standard-form-contracts-">unfair terms</a> in standard form “consumer contracts” – which an Airbnb contract likely qualifies as. An unfair term is one that: <ul> <li>causes a significant imbalance in your rights and obligations</li> <li>is not reasonably necessary to protect the host’s interests</li> <li>would cause you detriment (financial or otherwise) if it was enforced.</li> </ul> The problem is that you will need to sue the host (that is, initiate civil litigation) to prove this. Your best option is to carefully review the rules before you confirm your reservation. Once you confirm, you are legally agreeing to all of the host’s terms whether you’ve read and understood them or not. If you disagree with a rule, ask the host to waive or amend it. If they won’t budge, your choice is to book or not. <h2>What are the boundaries for an Airbnb host/owner?</h2> Hosts are <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/3057">required</a> to ensure every property is secure and safe. Airbnb’s Community Policy states properties must be properly lockable and free of hazards, and hosts must be responsive and willing to answer guest queries within a reasonable time. <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/3060?_set_bev_on_new_domain=1691395791_NmY1ZDNmZjQxZjQy">According to Airbnb</a>, a host cannot physically intrude or interfere with your stay. They can only re-enter their property (or a guest’s room in a shared stay) if there is an emergency or with express permission. In a shared stay, the host must not enter the bathrooms or guest bedrooms when the guests are inside. The host is also forbidden from sharing private details, photos, or videos of you without consent. Where your safety is threatened, you should contact law enforcement and notify Airbnb. If you decide to leave, you may be entitled to a partial refund. Your rights depend on the cancellation policy applying to your booking (discussed further below). <h2>If I am injured in or get sick because of an Airbnb property, can I claim compensation?</h2> <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/2908#4.2">Clause 4.2</a> of Airbnb’s terms and conditions states that, by staying at a listed property, you acknowledge and “freely and willfully” accept the risk of “illness, bodily injury, disability, or death”. Further, clause 19 contains a broad disclaimer absolving Airbnb of any liability for “personal or bodily injury or emotional distress” incurred in using its services. Clause 20 also contains an indemnity preventing you from making any claim against Airbnb in relation to your stay. This gives Airbnb legal protection. But you may make a claim against the host. The first step would be to formally write to the host outlining your claim. Airbnb may also assist with any disputes. If this fails, you can sue the host but whether the cost and effort is worth it will depend on the extent of your injury or illness. If you do make any claim against the host, they will likely rely on Airbnb’s insurance. Every Airbnb host is insured up to US$1 million (about A$1.5 million) through Airbnb’s <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/3145">Host Liability Insurance Programme</a>. This covers any bodily injuries incurred by guests (or others) and damage to or theft of any property belonging to a guest (or others). There are some exceptions to what Airbnb’s insurance will cover, such as intentional violence, mould and communicable disease. If you want compensation for something the host is personally liable for, you are more likely to have to take legal action, using a lawyer. Consider the costs carefully. <h2>What’s the maximum cleaning/damages fee an Airbnb host can charge?</h2> Cleaning fees are <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/2812">set by the host</a>. Airbnb provides a <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/help/article/3171">pricing tool</a> to help them calculate a reasonable fee – generally <a href="https://www.igms.com/airbnb-cleaning-fee/">based on size and facilities</a> – but there is no maximum, presumably on the rationale that market forces (and reviews) will deter hosts from charging too much. Nor is there a maximum damages fee. You can formally <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/d/anz-prohost-resource-centre-support">dispute the amount</a> with Airbnb, which will determine if it is reasonable, relying on information provided by both parties. Charging exorbitant prices is not illegal though Australian Consumer Law does prohibit “<a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/unfair-business-practices#toc-unconscionable-conduct">unconscionable conduct</a>”. But, again, you need to initiate legal proceedings and have a court agree you deserve compensation. <h2>Where to go for help and advice</h2> You can <a href="https://www.airbnb.com.au/d/anz-prohost-resource-centre-support">contact Airbnb</a> for any account, listing, or reservation-related questions. Online forums can also be useful for advice and support. You can report consumer complaints to the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/report-a-consumer-issue">Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a> but the federal regulator does not resolve individual complaints or provide legal advice on your rights and obligations. For preliminary advice go to the following state and territory consumer advice agencies: <hr /> <iframe id="lhlWv" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/lhlWv/2/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a lawyer.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211026/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-giancaspro-182268">Mark Giancaspro</a>, Senior Lecturer in Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-your-rights-as-an-airbnb-renter-in-australia-a-law-expert-answers-6-common-questions-211026">original article</a>.

Legal

Kyle censored during fiery on-air debate

Kyle Sandilands has been censored during an on-air rant about Indigenous Australians. The radio shock jock clashed with The Kyle and Jackie O Show newsreader Brooklyn Ross as the pair discussed the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which would comprise of a body of First Nations Australians and Torres Strait Islanders who can advise the government on matters relating to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of their people. As the pair argued, lengthy portions of Kyle's opinionated rant were censored. However, some of his comments made it to air. “We have to actually give [Indigenous Australians] money and look after them,” said Ross to which Sandilands replied: “Nah, bulls**t!” “How about educating people and giving people the chance to build their own life like the rest of us did?” he suggested. Sandilands has made it clear that he is staunchly opposed to the Voice, as he doesn’t believe a reported $34 billion in funds should be allocated to Indigenous Australians as he thinks the money wasn’t having a positive affect on First Nations communities. “No one’s really putting all that $34 billion into fixing the real problem. They’re painting houses and giving them this and that,” Sandilands added, before mocking: “’We’ll rename Fraser Island!’” During his rant, he went on to criticise Welcome to Country traditions that have been adopted into everyday life, which involves a speech typically given at significant events by an elder or custodian to welcome visitors to their traditional country. “Look, The Project’s thanking people from the past [for] using their land. These things, they’re s**t!” he said. “No one’s better than anyone else. If they’re treated worse, that’s an issue." After staying silent for most of his tirade, Jackie O chimed in to say she agreed with that part of his outburst. “Thank you, Jackie. Jackie’s finally popped up," he sarcastically called listeners, before telling her: “I understand you don’t want to get involved in it.” Rightfully so, said Ross who made Henderson laugh when he said, “[An] angry man and a gay man arguing. And both of us white!” Image credits: KIISFM

News

What is the difference between the laws of cricket and the ‘spirit’ of cricket?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/vaughan-cruickshank-396715">Vaughan Cruickshank</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a> The second Ashes Test ended in tense scenes on Sunday following the controversial dismissal of English batsman Jonny Bairstow. His stumping infuriated a pro-England crowd at the famous Lord’s ground and divided the cricketing world. While the Australians would no doubt have preferred to win with less controversy, did they actually do anything wrong? In answer to that question, it’s widely accepted, even by the English team, that his dismissal was within the laws of cricket. But critics then invoked the “spirit of cricket” to suggest the Australians should not have asked for the dismissal to be upheld. So what is the difference? The <a href="https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket">laws of cricket</a> detail the rules of the game of cricket worldwide. They have been owned and maintained by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) in London for over 200 years. The rules are clear and the many English fans and past players, along with the <a href="https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/the-ashes/ashes-2023-jonny-bairstow-stumped-by-alex-carey-cricket-rule-explained-was-he-out-was-the-decision-right-second-test-at-lords-reaction-news/news-story/41f36dc48a1515effb69a5c18acccf5a">current captain and coach</a>, have acknowledged the umpires were correct according to those laws. That’s when we get to the “spirit”. Since the late 1990s, the laws of cricket have also had an introductory statement or preamble. It states that cricket should be played not only according to the laws, <a href="https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/spirit-of-cricket">but also in the “spirit of cricket”</a>“. This preamble is aimed at reminding players and officials of their responsibility for ensuring cricket is played <a href="https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/spirit-of-cricket">in a truly sportsmanlike manner</a>. The two captains have the main responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play is upheld. This primarily involves making sure players show respect for other players, officials and the traditional values of cricket. It is against the spirit of the game to do things such as dispute an umpire’s decision, verbally or physically abuse a player or umpire, or cheat. The problem is the "spirit of cricket” is a subjective and slightly hazy concept. Respected English cricket writers have even suggested it has not existed since 1882, using an <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/07/04/the-ashes-cheating-bairstow-spirit-of-cricket-tradition/">example of conduct</a> by the “father of cricket”, W.G. Grace himself. While cricket is united under its laws, cricket is a global game and the idea of the “spirit” differs around the world. Consequently, opinions about Bairstow’s dismissal have been highly polarised. Many English players and fans are very angry at what has occurred, accusing Australia of going against the “spirit of cricket”. The fact they narrowly lost the match no doubt intensified this feeling. Their anger is reflected in the front-page stories in <a href="https://twitter.com/cric_blog/status/1675808745656573954">numerous English newspapers</a> and in social media posts. Twitter has had tens of thousands of tweets under trending hashtags such as #Ashes, #Bairstow and #SpiritofCricket. Interestingly, a look at these hashtags also reveal numerous accusations of hypocrisy by the English, backed up with <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/ashes-cricket-2023-eight-times-england-broke-the-spirit-of-cricket-as-bairstow-incident-ignites/52QFZT4ES5FG5OUBZMUKGJHEYI/">examples</a> of England’s questionable, and sometimes very similar, conduct. These examples have included central figures such as English players <a href="https://twitter.com/BigOtrivia/status/1675643613689311232">Stuart</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MitchellGlenn/status/1675685369898242048">Broad</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/1116sen/status/1676076294306689026">Jonny</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/TonyIKnow/status/1676246531387846657">Bairstow</a> and coach <a href="https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/the-ashes/cant-reward-stupidity-brendan-mccullums-words-come-back-to-bite-him/news-story/b4f114547671fa325b11a3acef806ae2">Brendon McCullum</a>. Additionally, the only player who has been fined for displaying <a href="https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/3542860">conduct contrary</a> to the spirit of the game in this Ashes series is English player Moeen Ali. Former Australian captain Ricky Ponting noted that a key part of the spirit of cricket was <a href="https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/the-ashes/ashes-2023-cricket-news-ricky-ponting-hits-out-at-ben-stokes-response-to-lords-furore/news-story/cd9859c2dfc32c007e6e9c76a22136be">respecting the umpire’s decision</a>, which in this instance he said the English players, fans and press had not. Indeed, several MCC members have been <a href="https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66082409">suspended</a> over their abuse of Australian cricketers returning to their dressing room. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yiuo50uCL9s?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Perhaps the key lesson that both sides could learn can be encapsulated in the old saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, particularly in the modern age when evidence can be quickly <a href="https://www.thechronicle.com.au/sport/cricket/jonny-bairstow-footage-all-but-silences-englands-spirit-of-the-game-debate/news-story/4a4b6d8f9ce801fb23169e6d8c87a5f3">found on the internet</a>. Neither country has a clean slate when it comes to the “spirit of cricket”. Both should be careful about trying to take the moral high ground. Trevor Chappell’s <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cricket/icc-world-cup-2015/when-trevor-chappell-rolled-the-ball-down-the-pitch-to-brian-mckechnie-he-did-the-kiwis-a-favour/news-story/9e6cdec155f23674f3abf0629a96abaa">underarm bowl</a> is one of the most infamous Australian examples, still remembered over 40 years later. Bairstow’s dismissal is the most recent controversy and unlikely to be the last. As the Australian team heads to Leeds for the third Test starting on Thursday, there are concerns tensions could boil over, on and off the field. Leeds is known for its raucous atmosphere. Cricket Australia has <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-news-live-rba-interest-rates-joko-widodo-pwc-scandal-20230704-p5dlpf.html?post=p54ztv">increased security</a> for the Australian team and reportedly told players to remain <a href="https://au.sports.yahoo.com/cricket-ashes-jonny-bairstow-stumping-controversy-exposes-worrying-aussie-truth-014432845.html">extra vigilant</a> when dining out in restaurants during the remaining weeks of the Ashes. We may never get complete agreement on the “spirit of cricket” and whether the Australians breached it on this occasion. Perhaps the closest we can get is to agree with former Australian bowler and Yorkshire coach Jason Gillespie, who <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-12256795/Mail-Sports-experts-weigh-controversial-stumping-Englands-second-Test-defeat.html">believes</a> that "by playing within the laws of the game you are playing within the spirit of the game." Let’s hope the remainder of the series sees a cooling of tensions and more focus on the last three Tests being <a href="https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/preamble-to-the-laws-spirit-of-cricket">played hard but fair</a>, without reigniting “spirit of cricket” debates that no one wins.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209124/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/vaughan-cruickshank-396715">Vaughan Cruickshank</a>, Program Director – Health and Physical Education, Maths/Science, Faculty of Education, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-difference-between-the-laws-of-cricket-and-the-spirit-of-cricket-209124">original article</a>.

Legal

‘Why didn’t we know?’ is no excuse. Non-Indigenous Australians must listen to the difficult historical truths told by First Nations people

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-norman-859">Heidi Norman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-maree-payne-440459">Anne Maree Payne</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Big things are being asked of history in 2023. Later this year, we will vote in the referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative body – the <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-questions-about-the-voice-to-parliament-answered-by-the-experts-207014">Voice to Parliament</a> – in the Australian constitution. The Voice was introduced through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which outlines reforms to advance treaty and truth, in that order. And it calls for “truth telling about our history”. Truth-telling has been key to restoring trust and repairing relationships in post-conflict settings around the world. Historical truth-telling is increasingly seen as an important part of restorative justice in settler-colonial contexts. The UN recognises the “<a href="https://www.un.org/en/observances/right-to-truth-day">right to truth</a>”. It’s important to restore dignity to victims of human rights violations – and to ensure such violations never happen again. But there’s also a collective right to understand historical oppression. The Uluru Statement, too, <a href="https://theconversation.com/first-nations-people-have-made-a-plea-for-truth-telling-by-reckoning-with-its-past-australia-can-finally-help-improve-our-future-202137">sees truth-telling</a> as essential for achieving justice for Australia’s First Nations people. A successful “Yes” referendum outcome has the potential to make history. The Voice will structure a more effective relationship between Aboriginal nations or peoples and government. It will better represent Indigenous interests and rights in Australia’s policy development and service delivery. However modest this reform, the Voice is outstanding business for the nation. But the Uluru statement’s call for “truth-telling about our history” will prove more difficult. <h2>Barriers to ‘truth hearing’</h2> “Why didn’t we know?” non-Indigenous Australians still lament when confronted with accounts of past violence and injustice against Indigenous Australians, despite decades of curriculum reform. Our current research reflects on the barriers to “truth hearing”. The barriers are not just structural. Negative attitudes need to be overcome, too. Researchers have noted <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340480495_NEW_Preface">the levels of</a> “disaffection, disinterest and denial of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history”. They’ve also lamented the piecemeal nature of current educational approaches. <a href="https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/historys-children_history-wars-in-the-classroom/">Anna Clark’s research</a> on attitudes in schools towards learning Australia history – particularly Indigenous history – shows that students experience Australian history as both repetitive and incomplete, “taught to death but not in-depth”. Bain Attwood has <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/48554763">convincingly argued</a> that early settler denial of the violence of Indigenous dispossession was followed by a century of historical denial. History as a discipline, he argues, needs to reckon with the truth about its own role in supporting <a href="https://theconversation.com/truth-telling-and-giving-back-how-settler-colonials-are-coming-to-terms-with-painful-family-histories-145165">settler colonialism</a>. <h2>50+ years of Aboriginal history</h2> For more than 50 years, historians have produced an enormous body of work that’s brought Aboriginal perspectives and experiences into most areas of Australian history – including gender, class, race, <a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-when-did-australias-human-history-begin-87251">deep history</a> and global histories. Until the late 1970s, academic interest in Aboriginal worlds was led by mostly white anthropologists and their gaze was set to the traditional north. But historians were then challenged to address the “silence” of their profession when it came to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. They needed to write them into history. This meant “restoring” the Aboriginal worlds omitted in the Australian history texts of the 20th century. This called for new ways of doing research: oral history, re-evaluating the archive, drawing on a wider range of sources than the official and written text. Today, some historians work with scientists and traditional knowledge holders to tell stories over much longer time periods. For example, Australian National University’s <a href="https://re.anu.edu.au/">Centre for Deep History</a> is exploring Australia’s deep past, with the aim of expanding history’s time, scale and scope. And the <a href="https://www.monash.edu/arts/monash-indigenous-studies/global-encounters-and-first-nations-peoples">Global Encounters and First Nations Peoples</a> Monash project, led by Lynette Russell, applies interdisciplinary approaches to consider a range of encounters by First Nations peoples over the past millennium, challenging the view that the Australian history “began” with British colonisation. On the other side of the sandstone gates, an incredible flourishing of historically informed Aboriginal creative works has taken centre stage in Australian cultural life. This includes biographies, memoirs, literature, painting, documentary and performance: often with large audiences and readerships. They are all forms of truth-telling. In <a href="https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/black-words-white-page">Black Words, White Page</a> (2004), Adam Shoemaker details the extent of Aboriginal writing focused on Australian history from 1929 to 1988: writers like <a href="https://ia.anu.edu.au/biography/noonuccal-oodgeroo-18057">Oodgeroo Noonuccal</a>, <a href="https://ia.anu.edu.au/biography/davis-jack-17788">Jack Davis</a>, <a href="https://ia.anu.edu.au/biography/gilbert-kevin-john-18569">Kevin Gilbert</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/charles-perkins-forced-australia-to-confront-its-racist-past-his-fight-for-justice-continues-today-139303">Charles Perkins</a>. This body of work – and much more since – conveys an Aboriginal interpretation of past events, through oral history and veneration of leaders and heroes, drawing together the past and future. Some early examples include Wiradjuri man Robert (Bobby) Merritt’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-australian-plays-the-cake-man-and-the-indigenous-mission-experience-88854">The Cake Man</a> (1975), set on a rural mission, which explores causes of despair, particularly for Aboriginal men. It was performed by the then newly formed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Black_Theatre_(Australia)">Black Theatre</a> in Redfern in the same year it was published. Indigenous autobiographies, like Ruby Langford Ginibi’s <a href="https://www.uqp.com.au/books/dont-take-your-love-to-town-2">Don’t Take Your Love to Town</a> (1988), just reissued in UQP’s First Nations Classics series, and Rita Huggins’ biography <a href="https://shop.aiatsis.gov.au/products/auntie-rita-revised-edition">Auntie Rita</a> (1994) are realist accounts of Aboriginal lives, devoid of moralism or victimology. Many more have followed, including Tara June Winch’s novel <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-yield-wins-the-miles-franklin-a-powerful-story-of-violence-and-forms-of-resistance-142284">The Yield</a> (2019), winner of the 2020 Stella prize for literature. Through Wiradjuri language, she gathers the history of invasion and loss – and survival in the present. Indigenous artists are exploring ways to represent the past in the present: overlaid, but still present and continuous. Jonathon Jones’ 2020 <a href="https://mhnsw.au/whats-on/exhibitions/untitled-maraong-manaouwi/">artwork</a> to commemorate the reopening of the Sydney Hyde Park Barracks, built originally in 1817 to house convicts, is one example. Jones <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=374269496789482">explained</a> the installation’s interchangeable use of the broad arrow and maraong manaóuwi (emu footprint) as a matter of perspective: one observer will see the emu print, another the broad arrow. Each marker, within its own sphere of significance, served similar purposes. The emu print is known to be engraved into the sandstone ledges of the Sydney basin and marked a people and their place. The broad arrow inscribed institutional place and direction. Jones wants to show how the landscape can be written over – but never lost – to those who hold its memory. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WPGcFDw5c_s?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Jonathan Jones’ artwork is part of an incredible flourishing of historically informed Aboriginal creative works.</figcaption></figure> <a href="https://www.uapcompany.com/projects/the-eyes-of-the-land-and-the-sea">The Eyes of the Land and the Sea</a>, by artists Alison Page and Nik Lachajczak, commemorates the 250th anniversary of the 1770 encounter between Aboriginal Australians and Lt James Cook’s crew of the HMB Endeavour at Kamay Botany Bay National Park. This work, too, represents the duality of interpretation and meaning. The monumental bronze sculpture takes the form of the rib bones of a whale – and simultaneously, the hull of the HMB Endeavour. This body of work by dedicated educators, researchers, artists and families has been highly contested. <h2>Truth-telling, healing and restorative justice</h2> Many non-Indigenous Australians are interested in – but anxious about – truth-telling, our early research findings suggest. They don’t know how to get involved and are unsure about their role. Indigenous respondents are deeply committed to truth-telling. But they have anxieties about the process, too. Only 6% of non-Indigenous respondents to Reconciliation Australia’s most recent <a href="https://www.reconciliation.org.au/publication/2022-australian-reconciliation-barometer/">Reconciliation Barometer report</a> had participated in a truth-telling activity (processes that seek to engage with a fuller account of Australian history and its ongoing legacy for First Nations peoples) in the previous 12 months. However, 43% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents had participated in truth-telling. Truth-telling is seen as an important part of healing, but there is uncertainty about its potential to deliver a more just future for First Nations peoples. And it’s acknowledged that <a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-is-promising-truth-telling-in-our-australian-education-system-heres-what-needs-to-happen-191420">truth-telling</a> might emphasise divisions and differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. There are also concerns about <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-than-half-of-australians-will-experience-trauma-most-before-they-turn-17-we-need-to-talk-about-it-159801">trauma</a> and issues of cultural safety. But during the regional dialogues that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the demand for truth-telling was unanimous from the Indigenous community representatives. Constitutional reform should only proceed if it “tells the truth of history”, they agreed. This was a key guiding principle that emerged from the process. Why does truth-telling remain a central demand? The final report of the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/constitutionalrecognition">Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples</a> described its multiple dimensions. Truth-telling is a foundational requirement for healing and reconciliation. It’s also a form of restorative justice – and a process for Indigenous people to share their culture and history with the broader community. It builds wider understanding of the intergenerational trauma experienced by Indigenous Australians. And it creates awareness of the relationship between past injustices and contemporary issues. “Truth-telling cannot be just a massacre narrative in which First Nations peoples are yet again dispossessed of agency and identity,” <a href="https://research.usq.edu.au/item/q6316/teaching-as-truth-telling-a-demythologising-pedagogy-for-the-australian-frontier-wars">argue</a> Indigenous educators Alison Bedford and Vince Wall. Indigenous agency and the long struggle for Indigenous rights need to be recognised. And there is an ongoing need to deconstruct Australia’s national foundational myths. A focus on military engagements overseas has obscured the violent dispossession of First Nations Australians at home. As Ann Curthoys argued more than two decades ago, white Australians positioned themselves as heroic strugglers to cement their moral claim to the land. This myth overlooked their role in dispossessing First Nations people. <h2>Makarrata Commission</h2> The Uluru Statement called for <a href="https://theconversation.com/response-to-referendum-council-report-suggests-a-narrow-path-forward-on-indigenous-constitutional-reform-80315">a Makarrata Commission</a> to be established to oversee “agreement-making” and “truth-telling” processes between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As part of its commitment to the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the current federal government committed $5.8 million in funding in 2022 to start the work of establishing the Commission. Yet few details have been provided so far about the form truth-telling mechanisms might adopt. And there’s been little acknowledgement that the desire to “tell the truth” about the past runs counter to the contemporary study of history, which sees history as a complex and ongoing process – rather than a set of fixed “facts” or “truths”. Worimi historian <a href="https://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/john-maynard">John Maynard</a> describes Aboriginal history research as generative: the work reinforces and sustains Aboriginal worlds – and it reflects a yearning for truth by Aboriginal people that was denied. The impact of colonisation not only targeted the fracturing of Aboriginal people but, as Maynard says, “a state of forgetting and detachment from our past”. Wiradjuri historian <a href="https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/bamblett-l">Lawrence Bamblett</a> develops a similar theme. “Our stories are our survival,” <a href="https://onesearch.slq.qld.gov.au/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=61SLQ_INST:SLQ&search_scope=Everything&tab=All&docid=alma9915551944702061&lang=en&context=L&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&query=sub,exact,Australia%20--%20Race%20relations%20--%20History,AND&mode=advanced&offset=10">he says</a>, in his account of Aboriginal approaches to history. Consider the dedicated labour to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/heidi-norman-bob-weatherall-weve-got-to-bring-them-home/13962068">return Ancestral Remains to their country</a>. Consider the the work of Aboriginal people to restore the graves of their family and community on the old missions. And the work to document sites, such as <a href="https://youtu.be/gTh2rV_VuwQ">Tulladunna cotton chipping Aboriginal camp</a>, on the plains country of north west New South Wales. Some of this dedicated labour to care for the past is made possible by the recognition of Aboriginal land rights. Aboriginal communities are documenting their history in order to communicate across generations – and to create belonging, sustain community futures and know themselves. These processes of documenting and remembering Aboriginal stories of the past are less concerned with the state, and settler hostility. They are <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-dark-emu-debate-limits-representation-of-aboriginal-people-in-australia-163006">unburdened by categorising time</a>. The “old people” or “1788” appear irrelevant in the enthusiasm for living social and cultural history. That history is not confined to the “fixed in time” histories called upon in Native Title litigation, or the debates among historians and their detractors over method and evidence. Nor is it confined to the moral weight of such accounts in the national story. <h2>History and political questions</h2> When discussing Aboriginal history, there is an unbreakable link between the history being studied and the present. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)">Presentism</a> – the concern that the past is interpreted through the lens of the present – and the concept of the “activist historian” can both impact on the way Aboriginal history is perceived or judged. Disdain for “presentism” has leaked into contemporary discussions recently. A <a href="https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/september-2022/is-history-history-identity-politics-and-teleologies-of-the-present">widely criticised column</a> by the president of the American Historical Association – James Sweet, a historian of Africa and the African diaspora – is a recent example. He argued that the increasing tendency to interpret the past through the lens of the present, plummeting enrolments in undergraduate history courses and a greater focus on the 20th and 21st centuries all put history at risk of being mobilised “to justify rather than inform contemporary political positions”. These are not new debates. They have taken place within and outside the academy across the world, including in Australia. But the realities of the histories of <a href="https://theconversation.com/eliza-batman-the-irish-convict-reinvented-as-melbournes-founding-mother-was-both-colonised-and-coloniser-on-two-violent-frontiers-206189">colonisation</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/unpapering-the-cracks-sugar-slavery-and-the-sydney-morning-herald-202828">slavery</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/empire-of-delusion-the-sun-sets-on-british-imperial-credibility-89309">imperialism</a> mean they continue to have an impact in the present. Reparations and apologies happen because of the work of historians and others. They are real-world, present impacts of the work being undertaken. It’s the role of historians to understand the past on its own terms – and to produce work relevant to contemporary political questions. Applied (or public) history produces this work. In this work, particularly historical work that sits outside the academy, we do often find “truth telling”. For example, in the important work done for the <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/bringing-them-home-report-1997">Bringing them Home</a> Commission, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/indigenous-deaths-in-custody-inquests-can-be-sites-of-justice-or-administrative-violence-158126">Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission</a> and Native Title claims in courts. But somehow, these efforts at truth-telling – and other historical research conducted since colonisation – seem not to have impacted on the overall “history” of Australia. <h2>Forgetting and resistance</h2> As the referendum vote edges closer, Australians are being asked to make provisions for the First Peoples to have a role in the political process – and the decisions that impact them. The challenge to address the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-great-australian-silence-50-years-on-100737">Great Australian Silence</a>” – to include First Peoples in the stories of the nation, where they were otherwise omitted – has been largely addressed by the significant body of historical work added over the last 50 or more years. That work, and the correction it has delivered, has generated discomfort and hostility. Yet Australians’ appreciation – and even awareness – of the history of its First Nations people remains deeply unsatisfactory. There is now little justification for the laments Why weren’t we told? or How come we didn’t know?. Our undergraduate students continue to ask these questions, though. Australia has a difficult relationship – a kind of historical amnesia; a forgetting and resistance – to hearing those First Nations stories. That resistance is much deeper than simply being told. The current focus on truth-telling will once again draw our attention to dealing with difficult history. This time, different questions need to be asked. Not why didn’t I know? But how can I find out? <hr /> Heidi Norman and Anne Maree Payne will be presenting their research at the upcoming 50th Milestones Anniversary of the Australian Historical Association. Heidi will deliver the keynote address, <a href="https://web-eur.cvent.com/event/f99aac02-b195-46e5-b1d9-bf5183aea6fc/websitePage:150e8a3c-395b-4de3-bf2b-98ac8be5929e">The End of Aboriginal History?</a><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208780/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-norman-859">Heidi Norman</a>, Professor, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-maree-payne-440459">Anne Maree Payne</a>, Senior Lecturer, Centre for the Advancement of Indigenous Knowledges, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-didnt-we-know-is-no-excuse-non-indigenous-australians-must-listen-to-the-difficult-historical-truths-told-by-first-nations-people-208780">original article</a>.

Caring

Why can’t I use my phone or take photos on the airport tarmac? Is it against the law?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/doug-drury-1277871">Doug Drury</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/cquniversity-australia-2140">CQUniversity Australia</a> Mobile phones are not allowed to be used while on a plane because they can interfere with the aeroplane’s navigation instruments and <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-the-real-reason-to-turn-on-aeroplane-mode-when-you-fly-188585">cause various safety and social issues</a>. As soon as the plane lands, we’re permitted to turn off flight mode, but at some airports we can’t get much of a signal. That’s because airports are known as mobile signal “<a href="https://thepointsguy.com/news/slow-connection-airport-tarmacs/">dead zones</a>” due to a lack of mobile towers – they can’t be placed at the airport itself due to height restrictions. Any nearby mobile towers would be located away from the airport’s runway systems to avoid interfering with the aeroplane’s flight path, especially take-off and landing direction. Most airports put up indoor repeater antennas within the airport terminal; these help increase the mobile signal strength coming from the nearest mobile tower somewhere near the airport. But you won’t be allowed to make calls while walking away from the plane, anyway. <h2>Why can’t I use my phone on the tarmac?</h2> As we are taxiing in, the <a href="https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-experience/onboard/communication.html">cabin crew</a> remind us not to smoke outside of designated areas at the terminal and not to use our mobile phones until we are inside the terminal building. If you exit the plane down the rear stairs, why aren’t you allowed to use your phone once away from the aeroplane, if you can get a signal? Surely it won’t affect navigation. The answer is manifold, and regulations aren’t the same across the world. In Australia, a <a href="https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/travel-and-passengers/onboard-safety-and-behaviour/using-your-electronic-devices-flights">government regulation</a> prohibits the use of mobile phones on the tarmac – the aeroplane movement and parking area of the airport. You won’t be fined if you whip your phone out while walking to the terminal, but the airline may admonish you for not following the rules. However, if you decide to (<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/woman-arrested-after-running-onto-tarmac-at-melbourne-airport-20151125-gl7bkq.html">run around on the tarmac</a>, you could get arrested by federal police. The airport tarmac is very busy not just with aircraft, but also baggage carts, catering trucks, aeroplane waste removal trucks, and fuel trucks. Getting passengers off the tarmac and into the terminal building quickly and safely is a priority for the staff. If you are distracted while walking to the terminal building because you’re talking on your phone, it can be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/25/alabama-airport-worker-killed-jet-engine-safety-warnings">highly dangerous and even deadly</a> if you end up too close to an operating plane. An operating jet engine is extremely hot and has a strong exhaust. Additionally, the front of the engine has a low-pressure area called an <a href="https://www.ukfrs.com/guidance/search/aircraft-systems-and-construction">ingestion zone</a> that can suck in a person. Ground staff are trained to stay at least ten metres away from this area. However, this information is not shared with the passengers. <h2>A myth about fuel</h2> You may have heard that mobile phones are a fire hazard near fuel, and aeroplanes are, of course, refuelled on the tarmac. However, the chances of fuel catching fire during this process are extremely low, because the refuelling truck is <a href="https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/safe-aircraft-refuelling/">bonded and “grounded” to the plane</a>: the operator attaches a wire to the aircraft to move built-up static electricity to the ground to prevent any chance of a spark. <figure class="align-right zoomable"><figcaption></figcaption></figure> There have been stories in the press about mobile phones sparking <a href="https://www.verizon.com/about/news/vzw/2014/12/fact-or-fiction-using-a-cell-phone-at-the-gas-station-can-cause-a-fire">fires at petrol stations in Indonesia and Australia</a>, but these turned out to be inaccurate. There is <a href="https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/30A/FI%20-%20NFPA%2030A-2015%20Para%208.3.1%20-%20Attachments%2014-19.2017-04-04.pdf">no evidence a phone can spark a fire at a fuel pump</a>, despite the warning labels you might see. Either way, the chances of a mobile phone causing this on the tarmac with a refuelling truck that is grounded to the aeroplane are extremely low, not least because the passenger permitted areas and refuelling areas are completely separated. <h2>Why are we told not to take photos on the tarmac?</h2> This rule varies from airport to airport depending on their <a href="https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions/can-i-film-and-take-photos-security-checkpoint">security processes</a>. Such restrictions are carryovers from the changes to airport security following the <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jlecono50&i=739">September 11 2001 terrorist attacks</a>. The now federalised security teams, TSA (Transportation Security Administration) in the United States and the Department of Home Affairs in Australia, change their processes frequently to prevent having any identifiable patterns that could be used to create a security breach. The increased security measures also mean new technologies were introduced; airport security sections do not want photos taken of how they operate. The airport security process is a major choke point in the flow of passenger movement due to the screening process. If a passenger is perceived to be slowing the process down by taking photos or talking on their phone, they will be reminded to turn off their device and/or stop taking photos of security personnel and equipment. If you refuse to follow the rules of the screening process, you will be <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/travelsecure/passenger-screening">denied entry</a> into the airport terminal gate area and miss your flight. Can you also get arrested for using your phone? Depends on the airport and country. I, for one, do not want to find out.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207926/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/doug-drury-1277871">Doug Drury</a>, Professor/Head of Aviation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/cquniversity-australia-2140">CQUniversity Australia</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-cant-i-use-my-phone-or-take-photos-on-the-airport-tarmac-is-it-against-the-law-207926">original article</a>.

Travel Tips

Selfish selfies: Influencers fined for posing with priceless artworks

Tourists visiting Queensland’s Carnarvon National Park have come under fire, after the wannabe influencers put an historic Indigenous site at risk with their disrespectful holiday selfies. The park’s rock art sites are, according to senior ranger Luke Male, of international importance, and are marked as restricted access areas to prevent tourists from interfering with the “fragile” rock art. However, “some visitors to Carnarvon National Park think the rules don’t apply to them and they’re entering restricted access areas to pose for photos. “In some instances, they are posing in front of Indigenous rock art that is thousands of years old, or they’re actually touching it. “The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service makes no apology for taking compliance action against people who break the rules because they believe they are influencers.” Over the course of 12 months, six different people have been slapped with fines for entering the restricted areas to interact with the rock face - whether to take selfies or to go so far as to touch it - and 18 more fines have been issued for other offences, with camping in the protected area also landing them in trouble with park officials. Touching the art is considered disrespectful, but isn’t the only reason visitors are asked to keep their distance, as touch can also wear down the work. The likes of sunscreen, perspiration, and hand sanitiser can cause further damage, while dust stirred from people walking through the space can adhere to the rock face. As Male explained of the situation, “the ochre stencil art of the region is unique, diverse, highly complex and spectacular, and the rock art is embedded within sandstone that is incredibly fragile. “It is a great honour and privilege for us to be able to see these rock art sites, and touching them can damage cultural artefacts that are thousands of years old.” He also shared that the park rangers regularly received “information, including photos from members of the public about people who have broken the rules. “People have to understand that the Traditional Owners remain connected to this place and the rock art within it, and they regard the entire Carnarvon National Park as a cultural site.” Carnarvon National Park Traditional Owners Management Group Committee’s Bidjara representative Leah Wyman had more to add on the importance of protecting the artworks, sharing that “our rock art bears thousand-year-old images, and they provide valuable information about the lives and cultures of our people in the past. “They are also important spiritual and ceremonial sites to us, and it is imperative that everyone stays on the walkways to ensure that Carnarvon National Park can be visited by future generations to come.” Another member of the committee and Bidjara woman Kristine Sloman noted that the park itself was a cemetery, and that the sites were locations where family members had been laid to rest, so “getting off the boardwalks and walking around is of the utmost disrespect, and is comparable to attending someone’s funeral and walking on their coffin. “Many people around the world have chosen to close their sacred sites due to destructive impacts, and it would be a great shame to resort to this type of action. “Let’s appreciate, learn, nurture, and respect each other’s cultures and ensure no more of our sacred places are damaged or closed to the public.” Images: Department of Environment and Science

Travel Trouble

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"No-brainer": Call for Jack's law to be introduced nationwide

Woman baffled by mother-in-law’s insane ask over baby name

If you squat in a vacant property, does the law give you the house for free? Well, sort of

Two iconic locations officially given dual Indigenous titles

"Lincoln's Law": Grandma's important safety crusade after tragic loss

Does the royal family have a right to privacy? What the law says

Hundreds of mourners seek change after Vyleen White funeral

“My sister-in-law announced she was pregnant at my child’s funeral”

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

"I was terrified": Law & Order star reveals traumatic past

John Laws hangs up in disgust on Kyle and Jackie O

Sam Newman calls for an end to "divisive" Indigenous symbols

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

No gavels, no hearsay and lots of drinking: a law expert ranks legal dramas by their accuracy

What are your rights as an Airbnb renter in Australia? A law expert answers 6 common questions

Kyle censored during fiery on-air debate

What is the difference between the laws of cricket and the ‘spirit’ of cricket?

‘Why didn’t we know?’ is no excuse. Non-Indigenous Australians must listen to the difficult historical truths told by First Nations people

Why can’t I use my phone or take photos on the airport tarmac? Is it against the law?

Selfish selfies: Influencers fined for posing with priceless artworks

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"No-brainer": Call for Jack's law to be introduced nationwide

Woman baffled by mother-in-law’s insane ask over baby name

If you squat in a vacant property, does the law give you the house for free? Well, sort of

Two iconic locations officially given dual Indigenous titles

"Lincoln's Law": Grandma's important safety crusade after tragic loss

Does the royal family have a right to privacy? What the law says

Hundreds of mourners seek change after Vyleen White funeral

“My sister-in-law announced she was pregnant at my child’s funeral”

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

"I was terrified": Law & Order star reveals traumatic past

John Laws hangs up in disgust on Kyle and Jackie O

Sam Newman calls for an end to "divisive" Indigenous symbols

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

No gavels, no hearsay and lots of drinking: a law expert ranks legal dramas by their accuracy

What are your rights as an Airbnb renter in Australia? A law expert answers 6 common questions

Kyle censored during fiery on-air debate

What is the difference between the laws of cricket and the ‘spirit’ of cricket?

‘Why didn’t we know?’ is no excuse. Non-Indigenous Australians must listen to the difficult historical truths told by First Nations people

Why can’t I use my phone or take photos on the airport tarmac? Is it against the law?

Selfish selfies: Influencers fined for posing with priceless artworks

Our Partners

Join Over60