Pro Bono Legal Work in Australia...

There are about 50,000 lawyers in Australia and about 5,700 of those have signed onto the National Pro Bono Resource Centre to get lawyers to do 35 hours of pro bono work every year. This is a significant jump in lawyers signing on. The previous year saw 2,900 lawyers participating.

Well, figures released this week shows that these lawyers did some 183,771.5 pro bono hours or almost AUD 46 million of pro bono work. This figure is costed at AUD 250 per hour which is probably lower than the average hourly charge out rate for most. The number of hours is up from 113,356 hours of the previous year.

It is worth noting that of the 44,300 lawyers not signed up to the program there are very many who do pro bono work as well. Therefore, it is fair to say that Australian lawyers are making sizable pro bono contributions as the rule rather than as the exception.

Governments never have the money to properly fund legal aid services, and therefore pro bono work serves to offset some of the lack of funding. The other primary beneficiaries of pro bono work are charities and non-government organizations.

Public interest law like legal aid is always challenging and pro bono work is always a good way to vary your routine and to keep your skills up to date in areas of law that you might not practice on a regular basis.

(Cartoons courtesy of here)

HIV / AIDS, Microchips, and Papua

The Papuan Provincial Government has drafted a Regional Regulation that includes an article that requires certain people living with HIV / AIDS to be micro-chipped. This seems to fly in the face of other measures that Indonesia has taken to reduce the stigma associated with being HIV positive. Indonesia has laws and regulations in place that make it illegal to discriminate against people living with HIV / AIDS in the work place and the general community.

The article defines "certain" people as being those that are "aggressive". Aggressive in the context of the regulation are those that are aggressively seeking out sexual partners and presumably spreading the virus without informing their prospective partners of their HIV status.

I am not sure how the microchips are going to prevent the aggressive individuals that are so micro-chipped from having sexual intercourse or infecting others. At best the microchips will allow authorities to track movements and general locations where these aggressive people are. I just do not see how the microchips will alert a potential victim to the HIV status of the micro-chipped person.

The idea of chipping aggressive people is just so subjective in nature that it is difficult to see how it can possibly work without falling foul of the constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination. Who is to decide what constitutes aggressiveness and how is aggressiveness to be measured?

There is something that seems to be inherently wrong in tagging people within certain groups. I wonder how long it will be until there are regional regulations that require the micro-chipping of people from marginal groups such as the homeless, minority faiths, gays and lesbians, expatriates, to name but a few.

I am sensing that there will undoubtedly be plenty of concerned citizens and NGOs that will band together to challenge the validity of the regional regulation. Tagging people is just wrong, at least, to my mind.

Jakarta Smokin' or Smokin' Jakarta?

Those of you that enjoy a nicotine fix need to be a little wary about where you are going to get that next fix during the period from 17 through 27 November 2008. The Government of Jakarta and several Anti-Smoking NGOs have decided that they are going to up the ante on smokers and conduct raids during this period (cartoon).

There is a Regulation, actually a couple of them (No. 2 of 2005 and No. 75 of 2005), that has been issued by the Government of Jakarta that prohibits smoking in certain places and requires businesses and others to provide special smoking rooms to cater for those who cannot go without a nicotine fix.

The places that are most likely to be targeted are office buildings, medical facilities, malls and shopping centers, places of worship, schools, and public transportation, among others. This seems to be an initiative that is being driven more by those concerned with the growing abuse of tobacco rather than any increased interest from the government in terms of implementing the 2005 Regulation.

The cold hard reality is that the government after the initial posting of signs declaring certain areas non-smoking, the government lost interest in enforcement. I remember when the Regulation first came into effect. I was taking a train from Gambir Station to Bandung. As I was waiting for the train to arrive, I remember having a good laugh to myself as I watched a young fella light up and puff away. Why the good laugh? He was standing under one of those no smoking signs, the red circle with a cigarette inside the circle and a red line through it. It was one of those moments, where you go, "nah, this is definitely not going to work."

Even now, each day in the building where I work I watch smokers line the corridors puffing away. There are no designated smoking areas, there are no non-smoking area signs or if there are they are routinely ignored. There is no enforcement from building management or the security personnel roaming the corridors. If I am not mistaken building management can be fined for any failure to enforce the provisions in their buildings.

Let the fun and games begin.