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.

Kieran Pender

A federal election is imminent. Following the Mediscare scandal of 2016 and the death tax saga of 2019, it is perhaps only a matter of time before a major mis- or dis-information campaign hits the 2022 election. Attention will inevitably turn to a regulatory response. One frequently-cited proposal is a truth in political advertising law, which would penalise false or misleading political advertising. Such laws currently exist in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Last year, independent MP Zali Steggall proposed a federal equivalent via a private member’s Bill.

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.)