The status of flag desecration in Australian law

Law relating to the desecration of the Australian flag in a public place - the influence of the flag on Australia's culture and politics - whether flag desecration is a constitutionally protected political communication - the constitutionality of the Flags (Protection of Australian Flags) Amendment Bill 2008 - whether the treatment of flag desecration under Australian law is likely to change if and when a statutory bill of rights is enacted.

The Australian Constitution: A century of irrelevance

Why the Australian Constitution is irrelevant - while some aspects of the Constitution, such as the separation of powers doctrine, provide the prospect for a Constitution that is more committed to principles of relevance to the citizenry, consideration must be given to the role played by the Constitution in Australian society, and whether it is as important as it should be - effort spent interpreting many sections of the Constitution has been a waste of the High Court's time and energy - given that no important rights and duties are at stake, consistency should be the main objective for the Court in such cases - in the teaching of constitutional law, less time should be spent focusing on mechanistic case law - emphasis should be placed on the values and ideals that inform the content and development of constitutional principles.

Baker v The Queen & Fardon v Attorney General for the State of Queensland

In 2004, the High Court of Australia had cause to revisit its 1996 decision in Kable, as well as to consider the nature of judicial power as it relates to the deprivation of liberty, outside of the parameters of conventional criminal sentencing. The resulting decisions of Fardon and Baker demonstrate the lack of constitutional protections afforded to people who become the focus of governmental campaigns to be "tough on crime". The so-called "Kable principle", as construed by the High Court in 2004, may prove to be the "constitutional watch dog that barks but once".

Hollow avowals of human rights protection-time for an Australian federal bill of rights?

Unlike the constitutions of many nations, such as the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa, the constitutions of the Australian States and Territories and the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 (UK) contain no bill of rights. Australia is the only western democracy without a federal bill of rights. The debate regarding the need for a bill of rights necessitates an understanding of what human rights the people of Australia already enjoy. If sufficient protection can be found in existing sources, does Australia really need a federal bill of rights? Opponents of a bill of rights state that we have sufficient protection from arbitrary government intervention in our personal affairs and thus a bill of rights is unnecessary. There are a number of potential sources of human rights in Australia that might provide the suggested existing protection, including the common law, specific domestic legislation, international law and constitutional law. Each of these sources of human rights has, however, important limitations. The focus of this article is on the inadequacy of the Australian constitutions as a source of purported protection. This in turn suggests that an alternative source of rights is needed - a federal bill of rights? In the course of this analysis the author makes suggestions for reform; specifically how a federal bill of rights may address the paucity of constitutional protection.

IP in Asia

This presentation will start with a brief review of the first phase of this project, which focused largely on the impact on innovation of legal and institutional IP reforms in Asia triggered by the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and by subsequent bilateral or multilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The presentation will then show the emerging issues relevant for the second phase of the project, which in an increasingly diversified IP landscape will lie at the intersection of IP with other disciplines and other areas of law, such as competition law, media law, criminal law, human rights, environmental law and constitutional law.

An entrenched bill of rights : a protection for the rights of minorities

This paper is concerned with the question of whether Australia would be better served by the inclusion of an entrenched Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. In particular, attention will focus on the abuses of minorities that are all but certain to arise in any society that is based on majoritarian rule. This paper will also examine the question of whether an entrenched Bill of Rights would serve as an effective safeguard against such abuses, especially where the rights of unpopular minorities are involved. The analysis to follow is undertaken against the backdrop of the efficacy, or the lack thereof, of the Constitution of the United States in preventing such abuses, and particularly that portion of the American Constitution that is known as the Bill of Rights.

Rethinking the Australian model of promoting gender equality

Examines the public law of gender and equality from the perspectives of comparative constitutional law, international law and governance.

Opting out of shareholder governance rights: a new perspective on contractual freedom in Australian corporate law

One of the classic debates in corporate law relates to whether the rules of corporate law are ar should be 'mandatory', in that companies must comply, or 'enabling' - meaning a set of default rules which companies have the choice of adopting or 'opting out' of through alternative contractual arrangements. The so-called 'mandatory/enabling' debate has been especially prominent in the United States fro numerous reasons, yet has also received some attention in Australia. That said, the extent to which companies can 'opt out' of corporate law has rarely been considered as a practical issue in Australia - particularly whether Australian companies can 'opt out' of provisions under the Corporations Act ("the Act"). However, just recently, two high-profile events in Australia have made 'opting out' of corporate law a relevant issue, especially the question of whether companies are free to 'opt out' of provisions of the Corporations Act  which provide express governance rights to shareholders. These events were Boral's constitutional amendment in 2003 to restrict the ability of shreholders to propose amendments to the company's constitution, and the contemplation and introduction of so-called 'pre-nuptial' agreements- designed to by-pass the right of shreholders to vote on removing directors in public companies. In the light of these two recent events, in this article the authors revisit the mandatory/enabling debate. However, rather than going over old ground as to whether a mandatory or enabling approach to corporate regulation is desirable, the authors approach the issue from a fresh perspective: that Australian Securitiesand Investments Commission's ("ASIC") existing relief powers under the Act should be extended to provide a means for companies to opt out of provisions containing shareholder governance rights.

Facts, threats and reds : common law constitutionalism and the rule of law

In a concurring judgment in Thomas v Mowbray, a High Court of Australia case turning on the Constitutional validity of terrorism-related control orders, Callinan J offers a re-evaluation of the Court’s earlier decision in the Australian Communist Party case to curtail executive power. According to Callinan J, factual matters knowable (but not known) at the time of the earlier decision might have given rise to a different outcome. In a dissenting judgment by Kirby J in the same case the Court’s reasoning in the Australian Communist Party case is robustly defended. These contested issues connect with the theoretical dispute between ‘common law constitutionalism’ and ‘constitutional positivism’ analysed by Dyzenhaus in the context of states of emergency where the limits of executive action and the role of supporting facts become particularly salient. They press the question of the status of the rule of law in the international as well as in the municipal sphere.