Articles for category: Australien

Why Australia’s Campaign Finance Reform is Likely to Face Constitutional Challenge

After decades of gridlock on campaign finance reform at the federal level in Australia, the major parties reached a deal to pass the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 (Cth) on almost the last parliamentary sitting day before a forthcoming election. The new law will not take effect until after the election. It will lower the threshold for the disclosure of donations and ensure disclosures are published more quickly. It will also impose a cap on political donations and a cap on electoral expenditure. This all sounds like a great improvement for transparency and fairness in election campaigning. In theory, it is. So why and how could it be the subject of a successful constitutional challenge?

Why Australia’s Social Media Ban for Kids May Breach Its Constitution

On 29 November 2024, the Australian federal Parliament enacted a world-first law, which imposed a minimum age for access to most social media sites in the country. The law will not come into full force for at least twelve months, to give time to social media platforms to devise appropriate methods for verifying the ages of users. The law might be a rare example that fails the proportionality test. Social media companies have the means and incentive to mount a constitutional challenge to find out; surely they are going to do so.

Civil Disobedience and Judicial Theories of Political Change

This post considers the latest episode of Australia’s engagement with civil disobedience under its constitutionally ‘implied freedom of political communication’ — Kvelde v New South Wales (‘Kvelde’). In Kvelde a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court followed the tendency of some High Court judges of reducing the democratic value of civil disobedience to binary terms: if a form of political speech is already illegal, the Court will not engage with further legislative acts seeking to increase penalties for it. I describe this as the ‘binary approach.’ I argue that the binary approach reflects a particular judicial theory of political change not necessarily prescribed by the freedom, that is also out of step with historical Australian political practices.

The Long Overdue Fall of Al-Kateb

On the 8th of November, the High Court of Australia delivered a landmark ruling that the indefinite detention regime under the Migration Act is unconstitutional, overruling the 2004 decision of Al-Kateb. The decision, both in form and substance, sent shockwaves through Australia’s legal and political establishment. In adopting the relatively uncommon procedure of issuing orders immediately following the hearing (with reasons to follow), a gap was created where politicians rushed to come up with a legislative response in the absence of any clearly articulated constitutional rules. In an island country, where several elections in the last 20 years have been ostensibly won and lost over concerns of ‘illegal’ immigration, this decision has been political dynamite.

Limited Success

On 11.11 Australia and Tuvalu concluded a treaty on establishing the ‘Falepili Union,’ which deals with three pressing matters (art.1): climate change adaptation, collective security, and a new human mobility pathway. Hailed as ‘groundbreaking’, and ‘the most significant Pacific agreement in history,’ the Treaty certainly constitutes a profound step forward in building climate-resilient international relations, especially with its contributions to international migration law and international law on statehood. However, it also falls short in several instances, especially in fully respecting Tuvaluan equality in relation to Australia.

Undermining the Energy Transition

Australia is confronted with three multi-billion dollar investment treaty claims from a mining company. The basis for two of the claims is a judgment from the Queensland Land Court, in which the court recommended that no mining lease and environmental authority should be granted to a subsidiary of the claimant for its coal mine. The investment treaty arbitration serves as another illustration of how the international investment protection system poses a threat to an urgent and just energy transition. In this blog post, I explain the background of the investment treaty claim, the decision of the Queensland Land Court, and argue that the Court’s decision is an important precedent for the connection between coal, climate change, and human rights.

A Frozen Constitution in a Sunburnt Country

Australia’s Constitution remains frozen, with the loss of a referendum on 14 October 2023. Only eight out of forty-five national referendums to amend the Constitution have succeeded, with no successful change since 1977. The 2023 referendum would have recognised Indigenous Australians in the national Constitution and provided a means, described as a ‘Voice’, for them to make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In this post, I will seek to give an overview of the reasons for the failure of the referendum, including the ‘No’ arguments, factors that contributed to the ‘No’ vote, and the demographics of the voting outcome.

A First Nations Voice to Parliament

Last weekend saw tens of thousands of Australians rally in support of a referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The Voice would be a representative body comprised of Indigenous Australians empowered to make representations to Parliament and the federal government on matters that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Its animating objective is to guarantee that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can have a say in the development of law and policy that affects them. The Voice is not a silver bullet. But if the referendum fails, basic problems concerning the relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the State will remain unaddressed. Indigenous Australians will also continue to struggle to have their interests considered in the processes of governance.

Environmental Protest and Civil Disobedience in Australia

In Germany, disruptive protest demanding climate change mitigation policies has provoked popular and constitutional discussion. Commentators have questioned whether acts of illegality committed as civil disobedience should be treated distinctly from ‘ordinary’ criminality and punished more leniently. In other parts of the world, however, legislative activity has singled out the illegality involved in civil disobedience to the opposite end. Legislatures have introduced laws that radically increase penalties for existing offences involved in disruptive protest and blockades, conferred new powers on police, and created new offences for previously legal forms of protest. In this post I explore an Australian legislative trend of the last decade that specifically targets environmental civil disobedience by imposing additional criminal penalties upon its exercise. The Australian case study is a cautionary tale of what can follow a failure to recognise democratic value in civil disobedience and treat it with constitutional nuance.

The Road to Repression

On 2 December 2022, the UN Special Rapporteur Freedom of Association sent a remarkable Tweet. “Australia – ”, the Special Rapporteur tweeted, “I am alarmed at #NSW court’s prison term against #ClimateProtester Deanna Coco and refusal to grant bail until a March 2023 appeal hearing. Peaceful protesters should never be criminalised or imprisoned.” The Special Rapporteur was referring to the arrest of Deanna ‘Violet’ Coco to 15 months in prison with a non-parole period of eight months for blocking one of five lanes of traffic on Sydney Harbour Bridge during a climate change protest for 28 minutes.