‘Corruption of the system’: top lawyers blast welcome to country law assessment

The uproar follows the revelation that a Macquarie University law course marked students’ delivery of an acknowledgement of country.

A Macquarie University law course marked students’ delivery of an acknowledgement of country. Picture: Justin Lloyd

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Some leading barristers have strongly ­criticised a Macquarie University law exam that marked students on their delivery of an acknowledgment or welcome to country, saying such practices could harm the independence of the law.

Former Victorian chief prosecutor Gavin Silbert KC said such practices would teach future ­lawyers to be “automatons rather than encouraging any sort of critical evaluation”.

“A law student is meant to have an open mind on everything,” he said on Tuesday. “A law student should be able to see both sides of any sort of argument or any sort of word formula. And a law student should question everything.”

The Australian revealed on Monday that a Macquarie University law course called Age and the Law had as one of its assessments a presentation where one of five key marking criteria related to ­students’ deliveries of an acknowledgement of country.

A student who presented “a brief, thoughtful, exceptionally well-written, culturally respectful ­acknowledgement of country or welcome to country at the beginning of the presentation” merited a high distinction, the marking ­rubric reads.

The Australian has been told the acknowledgement of country part of the presentation was expected to last about 30 seconds during a presentation lasting six minutes.

Mr Silbert, who has previously campaigned against the modern welcome to country, said it was an assessment criterion “beyond absurd”.

“People forcing that on people shouldn’t be in positions of power in universities,” he said.

“Universities have really lost their credibility. Every law degree I’ve done has been rigorously ingraining the ability to think, to reason, to look at both sides of an argument. ­Certainly no political content at all. It’s just totally ­inappropriate.”

Melbourne barrister Lana ­Collaris, who last year made headlines for refusing to participate in an acknowledgement of country and instead acknowledged “all Australians”, said the assessment criterion threatened the independence of the legal system.

“The legal system stands between the people and the state, and it must therefore remain entirely independent of politics,” she said. “It is vital that our law students are taught to think freely and critically, owing allegiance to none.

“Forcing students to participate in acknowledgement of country ceremonies can only be construed as being designed to indoctrinate students to a political view.

“This is deeply concerning because it threatens the independence that lies at the very heart of our legal system.”

Barrister Peter Clarke said the practice could have downstream impacts on the pipeline of law students coming into the workforce.

“It becomes a question of law graduates looking at their disciplines through a philosophical periscope,” he said.

“You’re moving away from the practice of law, which is about principles and evidence and that structure, to a practice of half-­principle and half-vibe.

“What’s the justice of it? What is the appropriate political fashion? I think that’s appalling.

“If you’re going to see a client and this client doesn’t fit, if you’re being indoctrinated into a particular style of thinking, then the danger is also that you will see the client in those terms.

“Well there are some unpleasant and difficult clients who may have a very valid case, and they don’t need somebody acting for them who’s got a mindset against them.”

Mr Clarke said a proliferation of such an approach would lead to a “corruption of the system”.