Intention

• Today a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices are either self-described originalists or strongly lean toward originalism.
• Yet less than 50 years ago, originalism was considered a fringe movement, hardly taken seriously by most legal scholars.
• Originalism is the theory that judges are bound to interpret the Constitution as it would have been interpreted in the historical era when it was written.

How to read a constitution

• Few if any people would deny that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law.
• When the Constitution was written, for example, only men were eligible for public office.
• When the Constitution was written, it was assumed that the sexes had separate spheres.
• When that fundamental value judgment shifted radically in the 20th century – as expressed in the 19th Amendment giving women the vote – it meant that the Constitution had to be read in a new way so that “he” is now interpreted as inclusive.

Flexible originalism

• Yet, as a scholar of law and philosophy, I believe that flexible interpretation was the original intention of the framers.
• Originalism began not as a neutral theory of interpretation but as a rallying cry for conservatives.
• The central and plausible core of originalism is the idea that judges should not impose their own personal values on the Constitution.
• But the real debate, I believe, is not about originalism versus the freedom to ignore the Constitution, but rather it is about just what the true, original meaning of the Constitution is.

• The commission this week launched action in the Federal Court alleging Qantas engaged in false, misleading or deceptive conduct by selling tickets on flights that had already been cancelled, and not informing passengers of cancellations in a timely manner.
• Read more:
  Qantas chief Alan Joyce quits early, amid customer fury at the airline

  Qantas has acknowledged that service standards might have slipped as the airline was struggling to recover after the pandemic.

• Importantly, the case also points to the need for greater regulatory protection of the airline’s passengers, in line with other jurisdictions.

How did Qantas get in this mess?

• However, the “usual” cancellation rate is less than 2%, less than a tenth of what Qantas experienced in May and June 2022.
• What is unusual is that Qantas did not immediately remove cancelled flights from its booking system.
• Read more:
  Qantas can't charge these prices forever: the challenge ahead for new chief Vanessa Hudson

What is Qantas’ liability?

• Obviously, a business willingly selling a product or service it has no intention to deliver is at fault, and has to face consequences.
• The onus will be on Qantas to demonstrate it made an honest mistake rather than a lapse of judgement.

Individual claims pending

• As well as a potential fine, Qantas should brace for a flood of claims from individual passengers who bought a ticket for an already cancelled flight or were not informed in a timely manner.
• Otherwise, the standard policy will apply: the airline is not usually responsible for any non-refundable and uninsured expenses a passenger incurs prior to the flight cancellation.

Closing the regulatory gap

• The regulator should, however, also take a closer look at the existing air passenger rights in Australia.
• However, the definition of “reasonable time” and the specifics of the compensation policies are left to the airlines.
• In other parts of the world, actions have been or are being taken to strengthen customer protection.

• REDD+ is the United Nations’ deforestation and forest degradation reduction program.
• Baca juga:
  How can Indonesia improve REDD+ to stop deforestation?
• To ensure equity, the distribution of REDD+ benefits must consider various factors, including who receives the funds and how they are distributed.

Who should get benefits from REDD+?

• Some argue that actors who hold legal rights to the land and actively participate in emission reduction efforts should receive the benefits.
• Others think indigenous communities who have a historical connection with their forest land should receive the benefits.
• Under this REDD+ program, the government and community groups receive an agreed-upon share of the payment, while the private sector gets non-monetary benefits, like enhancing their sustainable practices through capacity building.

Different distribution justifications

• Direct cash based on performance Paying households or individuals based on their efforts to protect or restore forests is the best option of REDD+.
• However, it is also the rarest and hardest one to implement so far.
• One example is a forest restoration project initiated by private company Bosques Amazonicos SAC with Federation of Brazil nut producers in Madre de Dios, Peru.
• Prior to 2021, the company distributed 30% of the carbon sales revenue to the participating landholders.
• Yet, in areas like Dak Lak province, the payments are less appealing compared to other options like coffee farming.
• Pre-payments to induce performance Pre-payments are upfront expenses paid by donor or government to help individuals overcome the potential losses from choosing a different way to use land.

Way forward

• It’s important to have an equitable process to distribute REDD+ funds that takes into account different goals and the interests of all stakeholders involved.
• We should ensure fair and equal sharing of benefits in REDD+ design by following clear principles and implementing strong social safeguards.

• The UK system is different, but Rishi Sunak also appears to be struggling to get much done.
• The parliamentary timetable finished unusually early on a number of days in late June and early July.
• So might Sunak also be called a lame duck?

Lame duck in Westminster

• The Conservative parliamentary party is highly pluralistic, which makes it difficult to design and pass legislation at the best of times.
• The last election in 2019 was fought and won almost exclusively on the issue of Brexit, but that issue no longer dominates the political agenda.
• The party is now bogged down in its differences over climate change and online regulations.
• As the election approaches, polling of this kind could drive attention towards Labour and its proposals for government.

There’s still time

• Sunak still has a working majority of 62 seats in parliament so better party management would go a long way to helping his overall position.
• And unlike a US president who has served two full terms, Sunak can (and clearly intends to) fight the next election.
• He very much still has skin in the game and an incentive to perform better than he has so far.