Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #auslaw

Thinking about the past month - the TERF tour, & neo-Nazis, & CLM riot, & Latham's homophobic tweets - has made me reflect on one thing that is missing in our human rights framework, & which could have made a difference:

An LGBTIQA+ Commissioner at the AHRC. #auslaw #auspol 1/

The LGBTIQA+ community still lacks an independent office-holder, whose role would involve engaging in national conversations about human rights issues which affect us.

Unlike the existing AHRC Commissioners for Race, & Sex, & Disability, & Age, & First Nations, & Children. 2/

Over the past month, the absence of a stand-alone LGBTIQA+ Commissioner at the AHRC has left something of a void in these debates.

There were so many opportunities for public education, and advocacy, on LGBTIQA+ human rights issues that were missed as a consequence. 3/

Darren O'Donovan

@DarrenODonovan

#RobodebtRC block 4 day 8 everyone has one eye on tomorrow, which given its ms Musolino today, says something. Important to note the briefs on misfeasance aren’t aimed at the minister, but the Secretary as decision maker. Leon stopped it. she needed to. robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/e…

Elevating government’s right to chew over things over a pause was best snapped out of. My bet is Robert will stress he was given a a “for noting” brief. Secretary was decision maker at law, comment was indicating future policy approaches etc. #RobodebtRC robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/e…

Btw on “legal advice is just legal advice”, I’m confused as to why the minister is reported in one exhibit as demanding legal advice at one point. on onus of proof in like 72 hours. on 30 July 2019. What was troubling him?? Senate inquiry announcement maybe. #RobodebtRC

Read 133 tweets

We've been working our way through the submissions to the Senate Committee re the NACC.

Leading constitutional law academic Prof Anne Twomey AO is a highlight.

A short thread:

#auspol #auslaw

Prof Twomey is very strong on the importance of public hearings.

She makes the case around several key themes:

2/

1. Trust in the system.

Our courts are open for a reason. If the public cannot see that the allegations have been fairly tested, then it is unlikely to respect and accept the outcome. Why should anti-corruption bodies be different?

3/

One of the major pushbacks to public hearings has been the concept of “reputational damage.”

This thread breaks down this idea in 7 parts

1/

#auspol #auslaw

In all investigations since 2012 which have involved public hearings, the NSW ICAC has made findings of corrupt conduct or serious corrupt conduct against at least one primary suspect.

2/

The sole exception is Operation Spicer, where the High Court case of ICAC v Cunneen & s74BA of the ICAC Act 2015 (NSW) constrained the NSW ICAC in making specific findings of corrupt conduct in the circumstances against the primary suspects.

3/

Read 11 tweets

Public hearings fulfil important functions in corruption investigations. They are not show trials.

A thread on the important role they play:

#auspol #auslaw

1/

Public hearings expose corruption. Exposing corruption to the public is a core objective of integrity commissions, as corruption flourishes in the dark.

2/

Without public hearings, the public would only know that an investigation took place once an investigation report was tabled in Parliament, or a successful prosecution occurred, sometimes years after the fact;

3/

Read 10 tweets

Dr Costa Avgoustinos

@costaavg

How might Climate Change hurt our Constitution?

🧵👇

First, our Constitutional System is not floating around separate from the Australian Eco-System. It exists within, and is dependent upon, this Eco-System.

If this Eco-System collapses, so too does the Constitutional System built within it.

Second, our Constitutional System is intended to endure for centuries. We think long-term in constitutional law.

So, the question is, what might climate change do to this system in 2100, 2200, 2300 + beyond?

Read 12 tweets

David Rolph

@dkrolph

Defamation law changes are needed for freer speech #auslaw #defamation smh.com.au/business/workp…

This editorial seeks to cover a lot of ground. It acknowledges that there have been recent changes to defamation law as part of the first stage of reforms to the national, uniform defamation laws. It mentions the new requirement of serious harm to reputation.

It is also worth mentioning the new public interest defence, which is as yet untested in the courts. The purpose of these reforms is to exclude trivial claims and to encourage public interest journalism.

Read 13 tweets

We're working through the budget papers and compiling a report. Some of our interesting findings thus far are in the following 🧵:

#auspol #auslaw

1/

The Ombudsman has had a year on year cut of $2.38m (or 4.03%).

What does it do?

It investigates complaints from the public about decisions made by the Federal Government and agencies.

2/

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has had a year on year cut of $5.65m (or 2.35%).

What does the AAT do?

It investigates the merits of decisions. I.e. If your FOI comes back blank you can go to the AAT to appeal.

3/

Read 6 tweets

Based on what we know about Labor's proposed amendments to the #ReligiousDiscriminationBill, we can say the following:

-they make improvements in a few important areas

BUT

-don't redeem what remains, overall, a deeply flawed Bill. #auspol 1/

Improvements incl removing the ability of religious schools to discriminate against students on the basis of sexual orientation & gender identity under the Sex Discrimination Act.

And ensuring the statement of belief clause doesn't remove existing discrimination protections. 2/

However, Labor's amendments do *not* protect LGBT teachers in religious schools under the SDA.

Instead, they will wait for the ALRC to report on this.

Even though this issue is *not* complex, with Tasmania protecting LGBT teachers for two decades, & the ACT since 2019. 3/

Read 20 tweets

Disappointingly, this explainer does not discuss the loophole created by the #ReligiousDiscriminationBill itself, which could continue to see LGBT kids discriminated against 'under the guise of religious views', even if the SDA is fixed. #auslaw #auspol 1/ smh.com.au/politics/feder…

This is because the #ReligiousDiscriminationBill allows religious schools to discriminate against students throughout their education.

This falls far short of the best practice approach of Qld, Tasmania, ACT and NT, which limit such discrimination to the point of enrolment. 2/

As a result, a religious school could still punish, or expel, an LGBT student who refuses to publicly affirm 'homosexuality is intrinsically disordered', or 'god created man and women, so trans gender people don't exist.'

The outcome is the same: LGBT kids being mistreated. 3/

*Extremely* disappointing that Liberal MP Angie Bell, a member of the LGBT community, has decided not to stand up for trans and gender diverse children and young people. #trans #auslaw #auspol 1/

Bell is also supporting amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that allow religious schools to discriminate against lesbian, gay and bisexual students in 1,001 ways other than expulsion. #auspol 2/

And supporting a #ReligiousDiscriminationBill that provides an alternative avenue to discriminate against LGBT kids on the basis of beliefs *about* sexual orientation and gender identity, rather than those things directly (including even, presumably, expelling them). #auspol 3/

The details of the final #ReligiousDiscriminationBill were released a week ago today.

While there has been plenty of discussion about some of the major problems it will cause, I want to focus today on 4 issues which have received comparatively less focus. #auslaw #auspol 1/

1. It will protect at least some religiously-motivated racist comments.

This is because of how broadly the radical and unprecedented 'statement of belief' provisions have been drafted. 2/

Proposed section 12 overrides all other Cth, state & territory anti-discrimination laws.

Including specifically targeting section 17(1) of Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits comments that offend, humiliate, insult and ridicule, including on the basis of race. 3/

Read 48 tweets

"Simon Rice, professor of law at USyd says the bill is “bizarrely complicated” because it is “trying to dress up freedom as discrimination” – a sword as a shield, in other words." #auslaw #auspol 1/ smh.com.au/politics/feder…

"He warns that by allowing people to make discriminatory statements with impunity, it “emboldens” those inclined to discrimination." 2/

"The overriding of state laws is also likely to reduce the authority of state tribunals, which hear the vast majority of the country’s discrimination claims." 3/

Misleading commentary by Jacinta Collins (of the National Catholic Education Commission) in today's SMH.

The problem with the Religious Discrimination Bill is that it does NOT protect religious belief 'in the same way' as existing attributes. Far from it. #auslaw #auspol 1/

The statement of belief provisions - which protect comments that offend, humiliate, insult & ridicule women, LGBTI people, people with disability & people of minority faiths, in all areas of public life - are radical & unprecedented.

They are not enjoyed by other groups. 2/

While the religious exceptions in the Bill are much, much broader than in any other Cth, state or territory anti-discrimination law, including the broad scope of orgs covered, and the extremely low bar which these orgs need to satisfy in order to discriminate against others. 3/

Read 5 tweets

Liz Hicks

@LizHcks

This is such an excellent and timely piece from @sangpillai on what Australian citizenship means post 9/11: “Post-9/11 Australia has pushed a tradition of exclusion to constitutional extremes”

#constitutionallaw #auslaw

https://twitter.com/verfassungsblog/status/1457629034460893188

“Ultimately, unable to reach agreement on these things, they simply left citizenship out. The Constitution says nothing direct about what it means to be Australian, when a person is entitled to Australia’s protection, or who can claim to ‘belong’ to Australia.”

“While the framers could not agree on who belonged in the Australian constitutional community, they did express a clear and united desire to be able to comprehensively exclude people who were not of ‘British race’.”

Liam Elphick

@LiamElphick_

Scott Morrison has said that pubs/cafes having a no jab no entry policy would be lawful under discrimination laws. 💉

As a discrim law expert, I’ve been asked to look into the claim.

It’s rare for me to say this, but: I agree with the PM. A short thread on why👇 #auslaw #auspol

Generally businesses are entitled to set contractual conditions for entry or use of facilities. This is done through contract law - you agree to enter on the basis of certain conditions.

A major limitation on this is that such conditions cannot breach discrimination laws. 🙅🏻‍♀️ /2

A requirement to be vaccinated to enter a pub/restaurant might disadvantage some groups who have a protected attribute - eg disability, religion, political view.

This likely can’t be direct discrimination, as it applies equally to all, but *might* be indirect discrimination.❓/3

Paul Karp

@Paul_Karp

#breaking Michaelia Cash to take attorney-general's portfolio from Christian Porter #auspol #auslaw

Social services minister Anne Ruston joins leadership team of the govt, adding "minister for women's safety" to her title #auspol

Karen Andrews is the new MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS (not Stuart Robert). #auspol

Kath Naish

@KathNaish

@thelawcouncil

Interested to know why previous @thelawcouncil President Arthur Moses was interviewed by #FourCorners to give his view that there should be no #independentinquiry into allegations against Christian Porter #auspol #auslaw

smh.com.au/national/the-b…

@FinancialReview

His view was also being pushed last week by @FinancialReview but others in the legal profession including the more recent president @pollypippin as well as @larissaandelman and @JaneNeedhamSC and @sharonacoutts present a different view @Milliganreports #auspol

afr.com/companies/prof…

Read 13 tweets

Kath Naish

@KathNaish

@FinancialReview

Is @FinancialReview part of the #rapeculture problem? In this piece, the @FinancialReview supports the view of a former male @thelawcouncil president over the voices of 3 prominent female lawyers #auslaw #EnoughIsEnough #RuleOfLaw

afr.com/politics/feder…

AFR view: “The Heydon case was one of inappropriate and unacceptable workplace behaviour. In the case of Mr Porter it is alleged criminality that is at stake. And for that there is only one place: the criminal justice system and the court of law.”

@JaneNeedhamSC

But in this article quoting @JaneNeedhamSC, @larissaandelman and @pollypippin the view is expressed that accountability for conduct is not limited to the criminal jurisdiction and the issue is “about the Attorney-General’s position”.
afr.com/companies/prof…