Tag: implied freedom of political communication (page 1 of 2)

Is it unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to gag community lawyers?

BY JACK MAXWELL

The Commonwealth Government prevents community lawyers from campaigning about systemic legal issues. This is misguided, because it hampers their efforts to tackle those problems. This post argues that it is also unconstitutional, because it violates the implied … Read the rest

Border closures, COVID-19 and s 92 of the Constitution – what role for proportionality (if any)?

This is one of a special series of posts exploring the public law implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. For more information on the Gilbert + Tobin Centre’s work in the area of public law and public health, see here.Read the rest

Spence v Queensland: A Turning Point in the High Court’s Approach to Federalism?

BY NICHOLAS ARONEY AND DANIEL WHITMORE

In May 2019 the High Court of Australia held by majority (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ) that a provision of the Commonwealth electoral law was invalid, on the basis that it was … Read the rest

“A powerful chill”? Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23 and the political expression of public servants

BY KIERAN PENDER

This month, the High Court of Australia confronted for the first time an issue that has vexed courts around the world for decades. How can the compelling need for an impartial bureaucracy be reconciled with the fact … 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

Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery: The High Court and the Role of Amicus Curiae

BY JOSH GIBSON

This is the third of three posts AUSPUBLAW is featuring on the High Court’s  decision in Clubb v Edwards. Alex Deagon’s accompanying post is here, and Arisha Arif and Emily Azar’s accompanying post is hereRead the rest

Are Victoria’s Safe-Access Zones Safe from the Constitution?

BY JULIAN O’DONNELL

In August 2016, anti-abortion activist and mother of thirteen Kathleen Clubb approached a couple entering an abortion clinic in East Melbourne. She spoke to the couple and handed them a pamphlet, which they declined. A Magistrate would … Read the rest

Freedom of Political Communication and Public Servants

BY ANTHONY GRAY

In 1992 the Australian High Court recognised that the democratic nature of Australia’s Constitution required freedom of communication that was ‘political’ in nature. Though some matters have been resolved, the limited case law means that many of … Read the rest

The trajectory of structured proportionality in implied freedom of political communication cases: Brown v Tasmania

  BY SHIPRA CHORDIA

On 18 October, the High Court handed down its judgment in Brown v Tasmania [2017] HCA 43.  The plaintiffs – Dr Bob Brown and Ms Jessica Hoyt – successfully argued that certain provisions of the Workplaces Read the rest

Older posts

© 2020 AUSPUBLAW

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑