Fifty years on …

It is a pleasure to offer some personal reflections for this issue of the Alternative Law Journal, the first in 2024 to celebrate the journal’s 50^th anniversary. 50 years! How astonishing – and what an achievement! My sincere congratulations to all involved.

It all started – like many other law reform initiatives – at a general meeting of the Fitzroy Legal Service (‘FLS’) in April 1974. By then, the FLS, established in December 1972, was one of 11 community legal services operating in Victoria, ¹ plus one Australian Legal Aid Office (‘ALAO’). ² The FLS meetings were held in the Service’s tiny – and overwhelmed – office located in the Fitzroy Town Hall basement. Gough Whitlam’s reformist Labor government was in power in Canberra, Attorney-General Lionel Murphy supported the Legal Aid movement, ³ and I had just started work as a Tutor at the Monash University law school. The whole issue of legal aid for disadvantaged groups around the country was a hot topic at political, community and legal levels.

Someone at that FLS meeting ⁴ suggested we should start a Newsletter for FLS volunteers. I raised my hand – and was promptly appointed foundation Editor in an instant: no questions asked, nor allowed! Suddenly, my life changed – drastically and for the better.

Here, I focus on editorial challenges and developments during the first 25 years, with brief references only to the many significant issues covered, contributors involved, and articles published.

The first edition of the magazine – the FLS Bulletin – appeared in May 1974 with a named staff of two volunteers: ‘Editor Bryan Keon-Cohen, Typist Betty Oldis’. It was typed-up on quarto sheets, about 70 copies ⁵ were Roneoed (or copied at various photocopying machines), stapled together and distributed, for free, to anyone interested, at the FLS office. But therein lies another story. In a rush to get this first issue out, I photocopied some five copies in the Monash Law School basement. Somebody must have seen something and told ‘the authorities’ because, the next day, I was railroaded into the Dean’s office, at the time occupied by Professor David Allan. The Dean asked me – a staff member with all of two months seniority – in short: Why was I using law school facilities, without prior permission, for this ridiculous, private project? – that, I rather gathered, my Dean did not support. For some reason, a word flashed into my highly agitated head: ‘Remnants, Sir, remnants, just a few extras!’ He warned me that any repeat of such disgraceful behaviour would not be tolerated – and I bolted.

I survived that first edition, as did the Bulletin. Indeed, the Monash Law School has, for 50 years, provided continuing critical support.

In my first ‘Editorial’, I wrote that the Bulletin

hoped to provide: (1) a regular means of communication between FLS members, and … other interested persons or organizations; (2) a forum for the exchange of views, criticisms and suggestions relating to FLS’s operation; (3) a medium for distribution of … material … relating to Legal Aid in Australia.

I then added: ‘(4) Any other suggestions? Please contact ed.’ ⁶

The September 1974 issue appeared in a stunning new, proper-magazine format – and cost 40 cents. With less than 500 subscriptions, as I editorialised: ‘The Bulletin (has) a new name (Legal Service Bulletin), a glossy format, bi-monthly production, and chronic indebtedness!’ ⁷

In February 1975, at my invitation, Lionel Murphy spoke ‘enthusiastically’ at a Bulletin meeting about the magazine’s potential, and ‘was really encouraging and supportive.’ ⁸ The May 1975 issue – at one year old! – saw about ‘550 paid-up subscriptions’; and the magazine ‘still (sought) to de-mystify, de-institutionalize, critically evaluate, and reform, and remains basically concerned with Poverty Law, Legal Aid and Law Reform.’ ⁹ At that time, we ‘hoped to develop a nation-wide editorial network … unique amongst legal periodicals in Australia.’ ¹⁰ This issue recorded editorial assistance from three states: Victoria (Chris Arup, Ben Boer, Peter Cashman, John Willis); NSW (John Basten, Julian Disney); and WA (Peter Nisbet). ¹¹

The July 1975 issue (Vol 1 No 9) was the first of many Special Issues: a ‘Women’s Issue’ devoted to ‘Women and the Law’, and edited by Sue Bothmann, Kerry Petersen, and Elsa Petersen-Schepelern. Their articles included: Helen Coonan, ‘Women Lawyers and Law Reform’; E Barnett, ‘Women Offenders’; Corinne Morgan, ‘Rape’; Viv Altman, ‘Women in Prison’; and Judy Pearce, ‘Family Law Act 1975’. I now wonder: How much changes yet how much …?

Volume 2, comprising ten bi-monthly issues (June 1976 to December 1977) saw further important editorial developments. Vol 2 No 1 (June 1976) featured me as Editor, with ‘Editorial Assistance’ from Victoria, five further states and the ACT. These critical contributors were now: Victoria: Chris Arup, Laurence Maher, Jackie Fristacky, Kerry Petersen, John Willis, Kevin O’Connor and Peter Hanks; NSW: John Basten and Julian Disney; WA: Peter Nisbet; SA: Andrew Ligertwood; Tasmania: Frank Bates; Queensland: Chris McKelvey, Jim Herlihy; and the ACT: John Goldring.

That system continued, with variations and developments, until my departure in 1978: see below. Thus, Vol 2 No 2 (August 1976) added another jurisdiction: New Zealand (for some years) with editorial support from James Clad. Likewise, in Vol 2 No 3 (October 1976) I announced an ‘editorial and administrative revolution … [f]ollowing Board meetings in Sydney and Melbourne’. ¹² I continued that:

broad policy was redefined; assistant editors appointed; a three-man executive established in Melbourne; a new layout team engaged; an extensive advertising programme initiated; and more besides. … [I]t is hoped that the Bulletin will incorporate, employ a managing editor, and ‘go monthly’ in mid 1977. ¹³

Thus, the Contents page announced ‘Assistant Editors’ Judd Epstein and Peter Hanks; an ‘Editorial Board’; ¹⁴ plus editors from the above seven jurisdictions. My editorial indicated the Bulletin’s policy was:

to provide a socially relevant, up-to-date and critical response to current issues in areas of concern to legal services, ie, poverty law, legal aid, law reform, and community legal education. It attempts to speak to all lawyers, and to those laymen in the ‘interface’ between the law and the community at large – the helping professions, teachers, administrators, policy makers, and the reading layman interested in or involved with the law. ¹⁵

I also noted we ‘hoped to co-opt onto the editorial board non-lawyers concerned with our activities and willing to contribute’ and I invited any interested person to contact the editors – that is, any ‘teacher, social worker, community worker, aboriginal, journalist, student, practicing lawyer, or “concerned layman”’. ¹⁶ I don’t recall any responses.

Vol 2 No 4 (December 1976) saw another ‘Special Issue’ devoted to Aborigines and the Law. Several topics were dealt with – eg, G Paul Phillips, ¹⁷ ‘Mining and Aboriginal Land Rights’; Phil Slade, ‘The ALS: Funding and Guidelines’; and four interviews being: ‘Aborigines and Police: Record of Interview’; Geoff Eames; ¹⁸ R I Viner, federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on ‘Government policy’; and Senator Jim Keeffe on ‘Labor Party policy’. Subsequent Special Issues dealt with Welfare and the Law, ¹⁹ Health and Safety at Work ²⁰ and many other topics.

Speaking personally, I believe the December 1976 issue led to a significant development in my professional life. In mid-1977, I was invited to join the Australian Law Reform Commission in Sydney as a Senior Research Officer, with special focus on its reference into the recognition of Aboriginal customary law within the Australian legal system. ²¹ And that’s what I did – when the editorship passed on to Peter Hanks and Judd Epstein.

The June 1977 (Vol 2 No 7) issue records a very important development; the arrival of our first Subscriptions Manager, Dorothy Carter. She occupied a small desk in my room in the Law School, part-time, as a volunteer, and provided vital support building our subscriber-base. I thank her unreservedly.

Vol 2 No 9 (October 1977) records three Editors – Judd, Peter and me – and a revised organisation (again), now involving no less than 24 workers spread across Editors, Subscriptions Manager, Editorial Assistant (Susan Buchanan), Assistant Editors (8 jurisdictions plus NZ), and two new beasts: Editorial Committee and Layout. Among these 24 volunteers, only four were women – a sign of the times perhaps? We three editors wrote editorials about our experiences since March 1974 and our hopes for the future. The editorial by Judd and Peter included:

Bryan and others at the Fitzroy Legal Service challenged conventional wisdom which suggested that a periodical not supported by one of the two major law publishing houses could not survive. ²² We believe it continues to offer a unique service in Australia, highlighting the inequality of law in many discrete areas, and broadening access to law. …. As we change Editors and end the first era of the Bulletin we enjoy:

 (a) a dedicated and effective network of co-ordinators in every State and Territory and in New Zealand;

 (b) an established circulation which steadily increases;

 (c) willing and able authors who draw upon their experience to enable us to bring to our readership a complete coverage of important legal developments;

 (d) an established format, layout and reputation. ²³

Thus Vol 2 No 10 (December 1977) – a Special Issue on Welfare and the Law – was produced by the new team, with me kindly included in the Editorial Committee. There I remained for many years, contributing articles on Indigenous issues, such as the ALRC Customary Law Reference ²⁴ and land rights developments. ²⁵

Peter Hanks edited the Bulletin, for the next five years with, initially, Judd Epstein, thereafter Ando Harrison, Ben Boer and Chris Arup. New features during their editorship, and later, included Joint Issues with New Doctor ²⁶ and the Aboriginal Law Bulletin; ²⁷ Practice Supplements, the first being on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (December 1978); ²⁸ regular columns, and much more. Indeed, by the October 1991 issue we had included five regular Columns: Legal Studies, Law Reform, Sit Down Girlie, Legal Centres, and Cross-Cultural Issues. ²⁹

In October 1978 the Bulletin recorded 1835 subscribers, including 51 ‘overseas’ subscriptions. ³⁰ The co-operative or ‘sister publications’ – the Aboriginal Law Bulletin and Social Security Reporter – were announced in December 1981 (Vol 6 No 6). ³¹

In that same edition, the journal’s 48^th, Peter Hanks noted: that the journal had ‘grown from a small newsletter distributed to 150 people, ³² to a national journal with 2,300 subscribers’; ³³ announced his retirement after five years at the helm; and explained there would be a ‘new Editorial Structure’ for 1982. This would involve ‘a different person (taking) responsibility for each of the six issues’ with ‘overall continuity … provided by a part-time (paid) editorial co-ordinator.’ ³⁴ The February 1982 edition was thus edited by Chris Arup, April 1982 by Kevin O’Connor, and others followed. That rotating editor system, utilising the several state and territory editorial committees, continued until the arrival of Sage Publications Ltd in 2017.

1983 was another significant year. In January, Liz Boulton began 23 years of vital work as Editorial Co-ordinator. She retired, after 140 issues, in 2006 – a truly outstanding contribution. ³⁵ Deb Candy took over this role in the same year and continues to the present day – all of 17 years of always challenging work, so far. I offer hearty congratulations and sincere thanks to both.

1983 also saw the first National Meeting of Editorial Committees. ³⁶

After years of discussion, the change of name to Alternative Law Journal occurred in February 1992 (Vol 17 No 1), featuring ‘Scarlet Issues’. ³⁷

In 1997, the AltLJ became a refereed journal. Among other impacts, this led to more contributions from academia than practitioners or CLCs, plus ‘a shift in emphasis from political/activist to more mainstream, and increasing focus on human rights.’ ³⁸ However, as the retiring Liz Boulton wrote in 2006:

[T]he core issues of access to justice for the disadvantaged, the delivery of legal services, and legal education – both for the community and for law and legal studies students – remain clearly in the journal’s focus. ³⁹

The 25^th Anniversary Issue, in June 1999 (Vol 24 No 3), ⁴⁰ was another notable event, triggering editorial reviews of the Bulletin’s survival, past achievements, and future prospects. Chris Field and Ian Freckelton stated:

Our birthday wish for the second quarter century of the Journal is that it maintain the integrity of its first 25 years. It should continue to pose (and sometimes answer) the difficult questions and report, analyse, even inspire, the practice of public interest law and progressive legal thinking. It should look forward, whilst remembering its roots at the heart of the practice of poverty law. It will need to be embraced by a new wave of enthusiastic editors and writers. It must always continue to be affordable in price and accessible in style and content. ⁴¹

Likewise, ‘after more than 40 years of independent publishing’, in December 2016 the editorial team – Melissa Castan, Bronwyn Naylor and Deb Candy – announced, following two years of discussion and negotiations, ‘a new publishing arrangement’ with Sage Publications Ltd, ‘one of the world’s largest academic publishers’, headquartered in London. ⁴² Sage’s role in publishing (hard copy and digital) journals and our subscriptions management began on 1 January 2017, with Vol 42 No 1 (February 2017). This was, and remains, a significant development. The editors had noted, in their previous issue, that:

the traditional models of academic publishing face increasing pressures on all fronts: financial, technological and in production. In evaluating our future in the evolving publishing world, we believe that the journal required the financial and production support available from a larger organisation. ⁴³

Sage’s arrival followed the impact of the digital revolution on the publishing options (ie, hardcopy or digital only); changing access to the journal; and subscription options. These ongoing developments will be discussed, I’m told, in subsequent AltLJ issues.

As the editors of the 25^th anniversary said – ‘On behalf of past and present editors, subscribers and readers we wish the Journal a very happy anniversary’ ⁴⁴ – so, too, on this 50^th anniversary, I add: Congratulations to all involved, keep up the good work, and best of luck for the next 50 years.