Model advocates or a model for change? The model equal opportunity briefing policy as affirmative action

Bartlett, Francesca (2008) Model advocates or a model for change? The model equal opportunity briefing policy as affirmative action. Melbourne University Law Review, 32 3: 351-381.

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
UQ175643_OA.pdf Full text (open access) application/pdf 251.20KB 0

Author Bartlett, Francesca
Title Model advocates or a model for change? The model equal opportunity briefing policy as affirmative action
Journal name Melbourne University Law Review   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0025-8938
1839-3810
Publication date 2008-01-01
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Open Access Status File (Publisher version)
Volume 32
Issue 3
Start page 351
End page 381
Total pages 31
Place of publication Melbourne, Vic., Australia
Publisher Melbourne University Law Review Association
Language eng
Subject 390204 Professional Ethics
940499 Justice and the Law not elsewhere classified
C1
1801 Law
Formatted abstract
This article considers a recent regulatory approach to addressing disadvantage experienced by women at the Australian Bar. The Model Equal Opportunity Briefing Policy for Female Banisters and Advocates ('MBP') developed by the Law Council of Australia in 2004 was a popular initiative which received widespread support. This article examines the origins and assumptions underpinning the policy. It is contended that while the policy is a genuine attempt to ameliorate the dismal plight of women at the Bar, it is narrow in application and effect. It is argued that this policy is a product of the prevalent Australian approach to policymaking which avoids any mention of 'affirmative action'. The article traces how this aversion is justified less by principle than rhetorical use of the idea of merit. Finally, it is contended that when we consider the case of briefing practices in Australia, merit is a contestable concept which does not provide a sufficient reason to reject out of hand other policy approaches.
Keyword Affirmative action
Equal opportunity in employment
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: 2009 Higher Education Research Data Collection
Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) - Collection
TC Beirne School of Law Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 4 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 15 Apr 2009, 03:04:16 EST