Page 2 of 23

Picking up where Rizeq left off: Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21, s 79 of the Judiciary Act and the “otherwise provides” test

BY CELIA WINNETT

In Rizeq v Western Australia (‘Rizeq’), the High Court seized the opportunity to resolve some of the doubts that had “regrettably” (at [39]) arisen concerning the operation of s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)Read the rest

Climate change and human rights to collide before the United Nations Human Rights Committee

BY EBONY BACK AND REBECCA LUCAS

Introduction

There has been a spate of legal actions (both domestic and international) around the world in the past few years attempting to hold governments accountable for their inaction on climate change and the … Read the rest

Public Law Events Roundup July 2019

Welcome to the July edition of the AUSPUBLAW Australian Public Law Events Roundup.

Before we get to the events roundup, we would like to draw your attention to the following two opportunities:

Call for Applications: 2019 Kathleen Fitzpatrick Visiting

Read the rest

Legislative Equality for Vulnerable Australians

BY ZACH RICHARDS

Justice and Related Legislation (Marriage and Gender Amendments) Act 2019 (Tas)

On 10 April 2019 Tasmania passed legislation that will make life significantly easier for vulnerable transgender (hereafter ‘trans’) people. The Justice and Related Legislation (Marriage and Read the rest

Searle v Commonwealth [2019] NSWCA 127 – government contracting and fettering

BY NICK SEDDON

The fettering rule

When government enters into a contract, there is always a potential tension. To what extent does the contract bind the government in a way that may thwart the government’s task of governing? The answer … Read the rest

Public Law Events Roundup June 2019

Welcome to the June edition of the AUSPUBLAW Australian Public Law Events Roundup.

Remember, if you have an AUSPUBLAW opportunity, conference or significant public lecture that you would like included in this roundup, please contact us at auspublaw@unsw.edu.au.

First Read the rest

Judicial Review and Inferences about Briefing Notes

BY MATT FLORO AND JASPER BROWN

Briefing notes play a significant role in the formation of a statutory decision-maker’s opinion. If it can be inferred that a statutory decision-maker read and considered a briefing note together with the attachments to … Read the rest

Raised Voices: Parliamentary Debate in Indigenous Languages

BY TIMOTHY GOODWIN AND JULIAN R MURPHY

Last week, history was made in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Independent Member for Nhulunbuy, Yingiya Mark Guyula, debated in Djambarrpuyngu, an Indigenous language of North East Arnhem Land. A significant … Read the rest

There and Back Again? The High Court’s Decision in Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery [2019] HCA 11

BY ALEX DEAGON

This is the first of three posts AUSPUBLAW is featuring on the High Court’s  decision in Clubb v Edwards. Arisha Arif and Emily Azar’s accompanying post is here and Josh Gibson’s accompanying post is here.Read the rest

Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery: Structured Proportionality – Has Anything Changed?

BY ARISHA ARIF AND EMILY AZAR

This is the second of three posts AUSPUBLAW is featuring on the High Court’s  decision in Clubb v Edwards. Alex Deagon’s accompanying post is here, and Josh Gibson’s accompanying post is hereRead the rest

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2019 AUSPUBLAW

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑