Sangeetha Pillai

The Australian Constitution has a rather infamous track record when it comes to exclusion. Sometimes it excludes through silence. For example, since 1967 there has been no mention of First Nations peoples within its pages. It has very little to say about rights protection. It makes no reference to a national citizenship (but it does mention foreign citizens, if only to exclude them from Parliament).

Harry Sanderson and Meghan Malone

The High Court alone has the power to overrule High Court authority. In NZYQ, the Court unanimously overruled its prior constitutional holding in Al-Kateb and held that ss 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act, which allowed an unlawful non-citizen to be detained indefinitely, contravened Ch III of the Constitution.

In this respect the decision provides insight into the circumstances in which the Court will elect to reopen, and thereafter overrule, constitutional authority. It reaffirms that, in deciding whether to reopen and overrule a constitutional decision, the 'consistency and continuity' of that decision in light of subsequent jurisprudence will be the Court’s primary consideration. The Court’s reasoning also indicates that while other factors will remain relevant to its assessment of whether a constitutional holding should be reopened, these factors will bear less weight.

Stephen McDonald SC

Much has been, and will continue to be, written about the substance of NZYQ v MICMA and its implications, both political and legal. This post focusses on some notable features of the judgment itself: in particular, the presentation of a single judgment joined in by all Judges, but which identifies individual positions taken by some of those Judges.

Marco Rizzi, Fiona McGaughey and Alex Gardner

In August 2023, Senator David Pocock introduced to the Senate the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023 (Cth) (‘the Bill’), which seeks to establish a statutory duty of care to avert harm to the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children by the Commonwealth Government when making decisions that may cause significant greenhouse gas emissions. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill describes climate change as ‘having increasingly significant impacts in Australia, in the Pacific region and across the globe’ and outlines how the damage to ‘Australia’s economic prosperity, environment, and our health and wellbeing is severe and getting worse’.

This post articulates how the Bill addresses key gaps and delays in common law and legislation, improves Australia’s compliance with international law, and has the potential to create a useful climate change mitigation governance tool.

Anne Twomey

An arresting opening line is essential if one is to entice readers into an intimidating tome. The High Court’s judgment in Vanderstock v Victoria [2023] HCA 30 (Vanderstock) is certainly a tome, concluding at paragraph [951] and page 384. But the arresting line does not appear until paragraph [8]. Journalists would call this ‘burying the lede’.

In paragraph [8], the joint judgment of Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Gleeson JJ explained that the cases of Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory (1993) 178 CLR 561 (Capital Duplicators [No 2]) and Ha v New South Wales (1997) 189 CLR 465 (Ha) should not be re-opened. This was because, they said, ‘the Court could not justify now taking the momentous step of unsettling the resultant constitutional doctrine’ set out in these cases and because the current federal-state financial arrangements are ‘not to be judicially disturbed’.

Why that is such an arresting, or perhaps more accurately breathtaking, statement is that the judgment proceeds to do precisely what it said it could not justify doing: establishing a new ‘high constitutional purpose’ for s 90; establishing a new test for an excise; extending excise to taxes related to the ownership, hiring or usage of goods, or indeed anything that affects the demand for goods, thereby creating high levels of uncertainty about the validity of State taxes; and up-ending existing Commonwealth-State financial relations.

Emily Hammond and Rayner Thwaites

Within the space of 18 months the High Court of Australia has delivered three judgments on the constitutional validity of ministerial powers to revoke citizenship. Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 33 (‘Benbrika 2’), and Jones v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] HCA 34 (‘Jones’), handed down on 1 November 2023, join last year’s decision in Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 19 (‘Alexander’). Central to all three cases is the question: what constraints does Ch III of the Constitution impose on laws for citizenship deprivation?
In this post we explain how the authorities cohere to establish a clear structure for evaluating whether ministerial citizenship stripping powers comply with Ch III. Moreover, these cases further cement the proposition that by operation of Ch III, the Commonwealth cannot impose punishment on any basis other than breach of the law by past acts. This limitation on Commonwealth power to punish is emerging as the key organising principle for evaluating whether citizenship stripping powers — including judicial powers exercised by courts — are compatible with Ch III.

Jerry To

The recent judgment of the Federal Court of Australia in Smart Education Program Pty Ltd (in liq) v CLGC Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 826 (Smart Education) has raised much consternation. At first glance, the case appears to be a run-of-the-mill contractual dispute. However, the source of controversy arises from an unexpected source, which concerned not the parties but the conduct of the judges themselves.

Smart Education prompts interesting questions about whether there is any scope in Australian public law to provide relief to the parties in circumstances of undue judicial delay. This article will focus on one such possibility: whether the High Court of Australia could have issued a writ of mandamus compelling the Federal Court to hand down its judgment in a timely manner. This, in turn, raises complex questions going to the very heart of the operation of the federal judiciary and the High Court’s ability to regulate their conduct.

Harry Sanderson

Many foundational principles of Australian public law arise from constitutional implications, to the extent that that within the Constitution ‘much of the greatest importance is implied’ (McGraw-Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith at 668 (Murphy J)). In Zurich Insurance Company Ltd & Anor v Koper & Anor [2023] HCA 25 (Zurich), the High Court unanimously rejected an argument identifying a novel constitutional implication. The Court was divided, however, on the proper approach to drawing implications within the Constitution. That division maps onto longstanding debates regarding the proper approach to constitutional interpretation.

This post considers the different approach taken by each judgment on the point of implications in light of the dominant methodology of textualism, and questions the distinction between text and structure which informs their reasoning.

Lucas Lixinski

Luke Beck

Michael Douglas

Douglas McDonald-Norman

‘The national interest’ is a broad concept, and ‘largely a political question’. Decision-makers ordinarily enjoy considerable discretion in deciding what is and is not in ‘the national interest’. But in its recent judgment in ENT19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 18, by a narrow majority of 4 to 3, the High Court identified and reiterated important limits to what factors may be relevant in deciding whether it is in the ‘national interest’ to grant a protection visa.

This post will set out the factual and procedural history to this matter and analyse the majority’s reasoning in ENT19. This post will then examine the potential implications of this judgment for the scope of the term ‘national interest’, and for ENT19 himself.

Sarah Fulton and Geneviève Murray

Judicial impartiality — and within that, an absence of bias — is at the heart of the Australian judicial system and central to how judges see themselves. But while serving and retired judges of the High Court have had a lot to say about when judicial bias arises, they have (with some notable exceptions, as noted in the ALRC Judicial Impartiality Report, p 234) said little publicly about how such matters should be raised with and considered by the courts. Until now.

In QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15 (‘QYFM’), judges of the High Court not only clarified the law on apprehended bias as it applies to a judge who was previously involved in the prosecution of a party, but also took the opportunity to set out their views on the processes for determining issues of bias raised in multi-member courts (such as Courts of Appeal, Full Courts, or the High Court itself).

Aaron Moss

On 22 May 2023, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Mortimer CJ, Moshinsky and Banks-Smith JJ) delivered judgment in Yunupingu on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] FCAFC 75 (Yunupingu), a decision regarding the intersection between native title and constitutional law.  

This post explores aspects of the Court's decision, and outlines their significance for public lawyers more generally.  

Maria O’Sullivan

The recent High Court decision in Davis v Minister for Immigration; DCM20 v Secretary of Department of Home Affairs contains some important statements on the reviewability of non-statutory ministerial guidelines. The key questions before the High Court were whether the Court could determine whether non-statutory executive action by federal departmental officers was unlawful on the ground of legal unreasonableness, and whether the guidelines used by officers to ‘screen’ visa applications to be presented to the Minister were valid.

Craig Lenehan

Alex Deagon

In my new book, A Principled Framework for the Autonomy of Religious Communities: Reconciling Freedom and Discrimination (Hart Publishing, 2023), I give substantive content to calls for a principled approach to reconciling the sometimes-competing imperatives of religious freedom and equality, through applying theological virtues such as dignity, humility, patience, generosity, kindness, forgiveness and compassion to create a peaceful coexistence of difference. The purpose of my book is to deploy these theological virtues to reconcile the tensions between religious freedom and equality.

Fiona McDonald, Stephen Duckett and Emma Campbell

The recent Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance highlighted that ‘the current state of Medicare, and some of the challenges … are the result of previous attempts to apply discrete and band-aid solutions to single issues over time and a lack of system thinking and consideration’.

One of the issues in contemplating the reform of Medicare is the long-standing debate about whether there is a constitutional impediment to implementing major reforms. This post discusses the impact of the High Court’s evolving interpretation of the civil conscription sub-clause in s51(xxiiiA) of the Commonwealth Constitution, and the implications of that response for the current and future design of Medicare as reflected in the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth).

Sanmati Verma

In its important judgment in Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 203, the Full Court of the Federal Court found that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment did not constitute a single ‘term of imprisonment for 12 months or more,’ and therefore did not attract the operation of the mandatory visa cancellation power at s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

This post discusses the Full Court’s decision in Pearson, the immediate legislative response by way of the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth), and the implications of that response – particularly for the people taken back into immigration detention as a result.

Stephen McDonald

In this post, I offer a critique of one aspect of the reasoning of the majority judges in the Commonwealth v AJL20 (‘AJL20’), where it was held that AJL20’s detention was, at all times, lawfully permitted and required by the Migration Act, notwithstanding the failure of Commonwealth officers to comply with the duty to remove him as soon as reasonably practicable.

Essentially, the majority reasoning permits and requires detention by the executive to continue, even though the purposes for which detention can occur are constitutionally limited, and even though the detention exceeds what is reasonably necessary to give effect to the permissible purposes established by the Migration Act. I argue that, in construing the Migration Act in this way, the majority in AJL20 have implicitly given it an operation that authorises and requires continuing executive detention in excess of constitutional limits if officers of the executive have failed to comply with other duties imposed on them by the Act.