Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
Forum Article Category: Article
The Impact of Criminal Deportation on Victim-Survivors of Domestic Violence in Australia
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
Strengthening the Response to Elder Financial Abuse and the Proposed Enduring Power of Attorney Register: Suggested First Steps
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
Employment Class Actions: Past Use and Present Utility
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
What Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Reveal About Workplace Flexibility for People with Family and Caring Responsibilities?
Please access article here or via PDF link to the left.
Materiality and Jurisdictional Error: Constitutional Dimensions for Entrenched Review of Executive Decisions
While the High Court of Australia has confirmed a materiality threshold for jurisdictional error, there is ongoing debate about its rationale. This comment contributes to the debate by outlining a constitutional rationale for the materiality element in judicial review of executive decisions. Critically, the Commonwealth Constitution denies Australian parliaments power to legislate a prospective rule that rights or obligations are to be as specified in an invalid executive decision in a federal matter. As such, a jurisdictional error by a non-court exercising power in a federal matter engages a significant practical limit on legislative power. Once this is appreciated, a rationale for the materiality threshold for jurisdictional error becomes clear: the threshold calibrates review to the limit on legislative power, by ensuring review is focused on errors that affect the decisions through which legislation operates.
Please access full review here or via PDF link to the left.
Defamation Actions and Australian Politics
In recent years, politicians have been frequent participants in Australian defamation litigation. Attorney-General Christian Porter’s recent claim against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and journalist Louise Milligan is a notable example of the weaponisation of defamation in Australian politics. This article reviews prominent examples of where politicians have commenced or threatened defamation proceedings. The article also considers whether the trend of politicians litigating defamation is desirable, and how it will be affected by the amendment of the Uniform Defamation Acts once the Model Defamation Amendment Provisions 2020 are implemented.
Please access full review here or via PDF link to the left.
Legislative Options to Address Institutional Objections to Voluntary Assisted Dying in Australia
Voluntary assisted dying is being considered by parliaments and law reform bodies across Australia. Although individual conscientious objection is routinely considered in these deliberations, an institution’s desire to object to providing voluntary assisted dying has received very little attention. After briefly considering the concept of institutional objection in voluntary assisted dying, this article examines the available (albeit limited) Australian evidence on this practice. Institutional objection is happening in Victoria (where voluntary assisted dying is lawful) and is likely to occur in other Australian states. The article proposes that regulation is needed and presents three models for parliaments and law reformers to consider. The first is ‘conscientious absolutism’, which grants institutions unrestricted ability to object to voluntary assisted dying. The second is a ‘compromise or reasonable accommodation’ model, which aims to accommodate both institutional objection and a person’s wish to access voluntary assisted dying. Different balances can be struck; we propose a model that prioritises a patient’s interests. The third model is ‘non-toleration’, which would refuse to allow an institution to object at all. While there can be debate about the optimal model, the issue of institutional objection to voluntary assisted dying must be addressed.
Please access full review here or via PDF link to the left.
Response: Querying the Gender Dynamics of Interruptions at Australian Oral Argument
Amelia Loughland and Professor Rosalind Dixon continue the discussion about the differential treatment of women and their male colleagues, even in the highest judicial institution. The authors explore the limitations of Loughland’s original study ‘Female Judges, Interrupted: A Study of Interruption Behaviour during Oral Argument at the High Court of Australia’, and respond to Tonja Jacobi, Zoë Robinson and Patrick Leslie’s UNSW Law Journal Forum publication ‘Querying the Gender Dynamics of Interruptions at Australian Oral Argument’. Loughland and Dixon examine the possibility of new insights provided by Jacobi, Robinson and Leslie’s research, such as whether judicial personality, multiple female judges or male Chief Justices on the High Court influence the rate of interruptions of female justices.
Please access full review here or via PDF link to the left.
Regulating the Use of Genetic Information in the Life Insurance Industry
Sara Golru explores the Australian life insurance industry’s treatment of genetic information in the underwriting process. The Australian life insurance industry has struggled to keep up with scientific and international legal advancements, resulting in an increase in the potential for genetic discrimination. Therefore, Golru provides a critical review of the current international legal frameworks governing the use of genetic information in life insurance, highlights contemporary policy concerns and, recognising the need for extensive reform, provides insightful recommendations.
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.