Changes to Senate voting laws and the particular case of Senator Bob Day make for an unprecedented constitutional tangle, and one that will change the make-up of the Senate.
Academic rigour, journalistic flair
Articles on High Court
Displaying 121 - 140 of 196 articles
Historically, Australia’s broader policy approach to war crimes and war criminals has lacked a clear and coherent foundation.
Labor senator Doug Cameron told Q&A the High Court had decided that the unions and business are entitled to fund political parties. Is that true?
We don’t have to love a process like a plebiscite, or think it ideal, to make the most of it.
What is meant by a ‘foreign’ political donation? And why should such donations be better regulated?
There are a few necessary ingredients for the effective regulation of any political donations system.
Ministers of religion who support marriage equality would be able to challenge the Marriage Act in the High Court. They would stand a good chance of winning.
As the government hints the marriage equality plebiscite may be delayed until 2017, calls intensify for the parliament to legislate on the issue instead. So what is parliament’s role here?
A post-sentence regime for convicted terrorists will only keep Australians safe if an accurate assessment of risk is possible.
One Nation candidate Rod Culleton could win Western Australia’s final Senate position, but Section 44 of the Constitution suggests he is ineligible to take his seat.
South African law requires surrogate mothers to hand infants to their legal parents without undue delay. But it doesn’t provide leave for these parents to care for their infants. That is set to change.
Political funding in Australia is governed by different rules for state (some of which do not require disclosure) and federal governments. And both levels suffer significant weaknesses.
Unlike similar democracies, Australia neither limits political donations nor campaign expenditure by political parties at the federal level.
The High Court regarded none of Bob Day’s arguments in his challenge to Senate voting reforms as having any merit.
If a new High Court claim against Australia’s offshore detention regime succeeds, it will entirely undermine Australia’s inhumane practices in relation to “those who come across the seas”.
A “judicial activist”, it seems, decides cases in favour of a preferred (non-“mainstream”) litigant or interest, to reach a result that is inconsistent with a conservative worldview.
A suggested constitutional challenge to the Senate reforms through the High Court is unlikely to succeed.
Parts of a High Court decision on the legality of offshore processing deal a crucial blow to the tired argument that what happens offshore is not Australia’s responsibility.
The High Court has thrown out a challenge to the government’s power to detain people offshore.
The debate about the quality of High Court judges after the Pistorius trials reflects a different cultural clash in South Africa – one in which incompetence is often associated with black people.
Top contributors
-
Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
-
Professor emerita, University of Sydney
-
Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW Sydney
-
Associate Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland
-
Professor of Law, The University of Queensland
-
Lecturer in Law, Murdoch University
-
Associate Professor of Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University
-
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney
-
Professor of Law, Australian Catholic University
-
Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of Newcastle
-
Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Newcastle
-
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University
-
Associate professor, The University of Western Australia
-
Associate Professor, Australian National University
-
Senior Research Associate, Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Law School, UNSW Sydney
