Gabrielle Appelby and Prabha Nanda

In the four years since the global #MeToo movement, misconduct in the workplace – and in particular sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination – continue to dominate headlines. The last two years has seen serious allegations and findings of sexual misconduct emerge in the workplaces of the courts, and Australian Parliament House. This has led to a series of workplace reviews, including an internal High Court review that led to a new workplace conduct policy, an Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces (often referred to as the Jenkins Review, resulting in the Set the Standard Report), an ongoing Independent Review into Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct in NSW Parliament, the South Australian Equal Opportunity Commission’s Review of Harassment in the South Australian Parliament Workplace, an ongoing Tasmanian review into parliamentary practices and procedures to support workplace culture by the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, and an independent review into sexual harassment in Victorian courts and the VCAT (Victorian Courts Review).

Margaret Thornton

The Jenkins Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces was published on 30 November 2021: Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. This post provides the context for the report and an explanation of its findings and recommendations, together with the responses by the Australian Government to date.

Luke Beck

With the recent implosion of the Morrison Government’s Religious Discrimination Bill and both major parties continuing to promise to legislate in this space in future, it is timely to think about how to draft a workable Religious Discrimination Bill.

The Government’s Bill was controversial because it included provisions overriding existing anti-discrimination protections to enable a range of religiously-motivated conduct (such as refusing to hire gay people or making disparaging comments about disabled people in healthcare settings) that would otherwise be prohibited. This post considers some key issues of process and constitutional substance, and concludes with a proposal for a proper Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into the issue.

Graeme Orr

In late 2021, the Australian government enacted various amendments affecting the registration of political parties, with the support of the Labor opposition. The oddest, if not most contentious, aspect of the reforms is a rule allowing established parties to effectively “bags” key words in their names. Words such as ‘liberal’, ‘labo(u)r’, ‘greens’ – even ‘Christian’ – and grammatical variants are now controlled by the oldest registered party with that word in its name. (Certain words, such as ‘democratic’ or ‘country’, place names like ‘Australia’ and ‘collective nouns for people’ are not so controlled.)

Paul Kildea

On 20 December 2021, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs completed its inquiry into constitutional reform and referendums and published an anticipated Report. The Report makes 10 recommendations …

Joshua Forrest & Adrienne Stone

On 13 October 2021, the High Court handed down its decision in Ridd v James Cook University [2021] HCA 32. The decision concludes a bitter, long-running and unedifying legal dispute between James Cook University (JCU) and a former professor, Peter Ridd. It also usefully clarifies the status, content …

Elisa Arcioni & Rayner Thwaits

The Chetcuti decision of 12 August 2021 is the High Court’s latest attempt to delineate a concept of constitutional membership. Here membership is understood as ‘non-alienage’; in practical terms, immunity to deportation. The question was whether Mr Chetcuti, a British subject who arrived in Australia before the advent of …

Kieran Pender

In the preface to a collection of criminal cases published in 1730, barrister and writer Sollom Emlyn sung the praises of the British legal system. ‘In other countries the Courts of Justice are held in secret; with us publicly and in open view,’ the Irishman …

Anita Stuhmche

This series celebrates and analyses the ‘new administrative law’ as it has developed in Australia since the Kerr Committee’s report 50 years ago. The focus of this blog is the Commonwealth Ombudsman. My argument is that the institution is no longer fit for purpose. …

Josh Gibson

On 16 June 2021, the High Court delivered its judgment in LibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] HCA 18 (LibertyWorks v Commonwealth). The case centred on the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 (FITS Act), a legislative scheme introduced to expose foreign influence effected by foreign principals within Australia. In …

Yee-Fui Ng

The Kerr Committee’s vision for a new administrative justice system led to the ground-breaking introduction of the ‘new administrative law’ package in the 1970s, incorporating the establishment of a generalist administrative tribunal, statutory judicial review, the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and later, in the 1980s, freedom of information …

Yee-Fui Ng

Yet another rorts scandal is swirling around the federal government, dubbed the ‘car park rorts’ affair. The Auditor-General has reported that a $389 million car park construction fund has been administered ineffectively and that the Minister had distributed the grants with ‘inadequate assessment’ for eligibility (at [25]). The Auditor-General’s …