Uncle Erich’s back … Souvenir clocks and watches flood the Hobart legal market … Legal aid gets a bollicking while the former director picks up a gong
Actually, there’s some interesting stuff about Erich’s background on the TassieLeaks website. Essentially, the author argues that the senator’s “extreme fundamentalist views” and his “intolerance of homosexuals” have their roots in the “psychological damage inherited from a father” who fought with the Nazis and suffered post traumatic stress disorder.
Erich’s article rallying the Liberal troops against getting onboard the gay marriage train confirms that low levels of intelligence are no disqualification for high political office.
He cites the US Supreme Court minority judgments in the marriage equality case, Obergefell v Hodges, specifically Antonin Scalia, who kicked off with this:
“I join the chief justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this court’s threat to American democracy.”
Erich picked-up Nino’s old theme that “unelected judges” should not decide anything socially important, unless it’s more power for gun-toters, Republicans and god-botherers.
Erich not only doesn’t want courts to decide the gay marriage issue, he doesn’t want a free vote on it for the party room, he doesn’t want the parliament to decide and he doesn’t want the people to decide at a plebiscite or referendum. And this, in a country where the polls are showing over 70 percent popular support for the legalisation of same sex marriage.
Welcome back Erich.
One of the glamorous figures of the Hobart law n’ order scene, David (Clockface) Gunson, is hanging-up his shingle and sloping off to a well deserved retirement.
A massive farewell dinner is being organised for him and his wide circle of friends and close colleagues, maybe at the Tasmanian Club, the scene of past revelries, punch-ups and defamations.
Former Tas Supreme Court registrar Ian Ritchard is throwing himself into the dinner arrangements despite the disadvantage of barging on the canal latérale à la Loire.
In 1989 solicitor Garry Howes sued Gunson for defamation and assault after a fiery lawyers’ dinner at the club at which Clockface accused Howes of improper professional behaviour.
Gunson’s defence was that he was so drunk that nobody would have taken what he did or said seriously. Howes, who was represented by Melbourne’s Bill (Silver Tray) Gillard was awarded damages of $1,500 for defamation and $250 for the assault. Another bad day for the Tray in the defamation courts, (see also O’Sullivan v Komesaroff & Justinian).
Sometime later wall clocks bearing Gunson’s distinctive dial appeared throughout Hobart law firms and chambers. Former governor (Hollywood) Pete Underwood had one of these precious timepieces and so too did Justice Bill Zeeman, which they felt obliged to hide when Gunson came calling.
Soon Zeeman ashtrays also appeared with the jurist’s face peering up through piles of stubbed ciggies.
In preparation for Clockface’s valedictory dinner artisans and jewellers are preparing small wristwatches for all the guests – bearing, you guessed it, Gunson’s face – a permanent wrist-based reminder of his contribution to law and society. Digital and mechanical versions will be on offer.
Great to see Pinko Pierre Slicer get an AO and Norman Raeburn pick up an AM in the Betty Battenberg gongs list.
Pierre was honoured for his work as a Tas Supremo and Norman for “service to the law” as long-time director of the local legal aid commission and also chair of the national legal aid body.
Rayburn was director of Tas Aid for 13 years up to October 2013.
When Normy was a lecturer at UTas law school he and Pinko did quite a bit of work for conscientious objectors drafted into nasho during the Vietnam era.
The gongs were announced just over a fortnight after a damning report into the operations of Tasmania’s legal aid was made public.
The review of the commission was conducted by former Taswegian Supremo Peter Evans, and his report was critical of the way legal aid was being managed.
Evans said the cost to the LACT of grants of aid being performed in-house is much greater that the cost of them being performed by the private profession.
About 90 percent of the in-house work was for family and criminal law matters. The cost of this when done by the commission’s lawyers was about twice the cost of the work when it was done by outside lawyers.
Consequently, Evans said the commission’s employment arrangements need to be more “flexible” – i.e. in-house lawyers on contracts – so when the budget is tight the cuts shouldn’t have to fall so much on the provision of grants.
“The commission exists to provide legal aid, not to provide security of employment for its staff.”
The report looked at the internal bloat factor where some staff had years of experience, beyond what is required for the job. “In consequence they are overpaid.”
Evans also pointed out that in-house lawyers appear to work on grants “for less than half the hours that they are employed to do so”. Some lawyers may “overwork” grants, which is inequitable to those to those who are denied legal aid.
During Norm’s time as director there was resistance to the idea of outsourcing more of the legal aid work.
He appeared to be amazingly slow to commission a report on comparative costs, which had been requested by board members. A costs report did come to hand in 2010, but no mention was made of it in the board minutes for the year that followed.
Another LACT report on in-house versus out-house cost comparisons was requested by the Law Society in 2012, but Raeburn said in order to see it an application would have to be made under FOI. The society did so, but a copy was still not forthcoming from the commission. Ultimately, the ombudsman had to intervene to extract a copy of the report from Norm’s grip.
Evans said this suggests that not only was the commission “disinterested in establishing the cost of in-house provision of aid, but it was anxious to avoid the scrutiny of others in this regard.”
The current chairman and director of LACT have responded. They agree with some parts of what Evans’s findings and recommendations, but not others.
Surprise.