Pub Date : 2024-05-20DOI: 10.1177/0067205x241255445
Benjamin Durkin
Does the Constitution protect the ability of an Australian to enter the country? This article investigates that question. Whilst the Constitution provides no express guarantee of a citizen’s right to enter Australia, a series of recent cases — particularly Love v Commonwealth 1 and Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs 2 — give occasion to consider whether a freedom of entry forms an implied part of Australia’s constitutional framework. Early scholarly attempts to establish a freedom of entry have relied upon the definition of non-alienage to ground this implication. This article commences by reviewing the effect of the High Court’s recent alienage jurisprudence on these arguments. After concluding that fatal difficulties attend this approach, I investigate an alternative foundation for an implied freedom of entry: an implication drawn from a constitutional principle of popular sovereignty. Focusing on a recent thread of High Court jurisprudence which has placed an increasing emphasis on the constitutional protection afforded to popular sovereignty, I conclude that this alternative basis provides a viable foundation upon which an implied freedom of entry could be recognised in the Constitution.
宪法》是否保护澳大利亚人入境的能力？本文对这一问题进行了探讨。虽然《宪法》没有明确保障公民进入澳大利亚的权利，但最近的一系列案件--尤其是 Love 诉联邦案 1 和 Alexander 诉内政部长案 2 --使我们有机会考虑入境自由是否构成澳大利亚宪法框架的一个隐含部分。学术界早期试图确立入境自由的努力依赖于非外国人的定义来为这一含义提供依据。本文首先回顾了高等法院最近的外国人判例对这些论点的影响。在得出这一方法存在致命困难的结论后，我研究了隐含入境自由的另一种基础：从人民主权的宪法原则中得出的含义。最近高等法院的判例越来越强调对人民主权的宪法保护，我将重点放在这一判例上，并得出结论：这一替代依据提供了一个可行的基础，在此基础上，默示的入境自由可以在宪法中得到承认。
{"title":"No Place Like Home? Alienage, Popular Sovereignty and an Implied Freedom of Entry into Australia Under the Constitution","authors":"Benjamin Durkin","doi":"10.1177/0067205x241255445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x241255445","url":null,"abstract":"Does the Constitution protect the ability of an Australian to enter the country? This article investigates that question. Whilst the Constitution provides no express guarantee of a citizen’s right to enter Australia, a series of recent cases — particularly Love v Commonwealth 1 and Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs 2 — give occasion to consider whether a freedom of entry forms an implied part of Australia’s constitutional framework. Early scholarly attempts to establish a freedom of entry have relied upon the definition of non-alienage to ground this implication. This article commences by reviewing the effect of the High Court’s recent alienage jurisprudence on these arguments. After concluding that fatal difficulties attend this approach, I investigate an alternative foundation for an implied freedom of entry: an implication drawn from a constitutional principle of popular sovereignty. Focusing on a recent thread of High Court jurisprudence which has placed an increasing emphasis on the constitutional protection afforded to popular sovereignty, I conclude that this alternative basis provides a viable foundation upon which an implied freedom of entry could be recognised in the Constitution.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"80 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141121116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-28DOI: 10.1177/0067205x241235983
Sarah Sorial, Shireen Morris, Peter Greste
Foreign interference is a growing threat to all liberal democracies, including Australia. To respond to this growing threat, the Department of Home Affairs has developed a complex ‘Counter-Foreign Interference Strategy’ (CFIS). At the heart of the strategy lies a suite of interlocking and overlapping legislation, including the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 (FITS), the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018 (Electoral Funding Act). The aim of this paper is to explain and clarify the legislation and the free speech burdens it imposes, and determine whether the laws are suitably targeted at foreign interference without unduly limiting legitimate communication activity. We argue that the current criminal law regime is ineffective in addressing the problem because foreign interference is a complex and pervasive phenomenon taking many different forms — from espionage on university campuses to anonymous and targeted social media campaigns. The legislative scheme is not properly tailored to tackle foreign interference as it actually occurs.
{"title":"Foreign Interference and the Incremental Chilling of Free Speech","authors":"Sarah Sorial, Shireen Morris, Peter Greste","doi":"10.1177/0067205x241235983","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x241235983","url":null,"abstract":"Foreign interference is a growing threat to all liberal democracies, including Australia. To respond to this growing threat, the Department of Home Affairs has developed a complex ‘Counter-Foreign Interference Strategy’ (CFIS). At the heart of the strategy lies a suite of interlocking and overlapping legislation, including the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 (FITS), the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018 (Electoral Funding Act). The aim of this paper is to explain and clarify the legislation and the free speech burdens it imposes, and determine whether the laws are suitably targeted at foreign interference without unduly limiting legitimate communication activity. We argue that the current criminal law regime is ineffective in addressing the problem because foreign interference is a complex and pervasive phenomenon taking many different forms — from espionage on university campuses to anonymous and targeted social media campaigns. The legislative scheme is not properly tailored to tackle foreign interference as it actually occurs.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"29 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140422268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-28DOI: 10.1177/0067205x241236212
Olga C. Pandos
In 2018, the birth of the world’s first ‘CRISPR Babies’ rendered the global community in disbelief. This was the catalyst for an international moratorium on Heritable Human Genome Editing (‘HHGE’). For the first time, the international community was prompted to consider a pathway forward to regulate HHGE. In light of the evolving maturity of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (‘CRISPR’) as a biotechnology, it is timely to evaluate Australian federal legal and regulatory frameworks governing human genome editing. The response to HHGE must carefully balance the need to prevent unethical applications, against the progress of research to improve and refine the technology. This article argues Australia’s federal legislative regime must be reviewed to ensure it has the necessary capabilities to effectively regulate HHGE. It applies three schools of thought which offer an instructive theoretical lens to understand how Australian law has responded to advancements in technology. In addition, an analysis of the governing federal legislation reveals three regulatory gaps — complexity, operational ambiguity and inconsistent legislative objectives. Together, these gaps may be indicative of a legislative and regulatory landscape that is no longer fit for purpose.
{"title":"Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia","authors":"Olga C. Pandos","doi":"10.1177/0067205x241236212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x241236212","url":null,"abstract":"In 2018, the birth of the world’s first ‘CRISPR Babies’ rendered the global community in disbelief. This was the catalyst for an international moratorium on Heritable Human Genome Editing (‘HHGE’). For the first time, the international community was prompted to consider a pathway forward to regulate HHGE. In light of the evolving maturity of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (‘CRISPR’) as a biotechnology, it is timely to evaluate Australian federal legal and regulatory frameworks governing human genome editing. The response to HHGE must carefully balance the need to prevent unethical applications, against the progress of research to improve and refine the technology. This article argues Australia’s federal legislative regime must be reviewed to ensure it has the necessary capabilities to effectively regulate HHGE. It applies three schools of thought which offer an instructive theoretical lens to understand how Australian law has responded to advancements in technology. In addition, an analysis of the governing federal legislation reveals three regulatory gaps — complexity, operational ambiguity and inconsistent legislative objectives. Together, these gaps may be indicative of a legislative and regulatory landscape that is no longer fit for purpose.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"57 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140418344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-18DOI: 10.1177/0067205x231213120
Amy Elton
The Immigration Assessment Authority (‘IAA’) provides the final merits review mechanism for people seeking asylum by boat in Australia. For fast-track applicants, the outcome of IAA review is incredibly significant, with consequences ranging from resettlement in Australia, removal to an applicant’s country of origin or indefinite immigration detention in harsh conditions. Eight years since its introduction, this article asks whether the IAA has realised the goal of promoting efficient review whilst meeting other important administrative objectives. The article takes a novel approach, applying a pre-formulated theory of administrative justice to analyse whether the IAA has balanced administrative justice properties. In so doing, this article offers a unique lens to critically reflect on the role of the IAA and whether, once its mandate is ended, this new model of review should be abandoned or revived for future merits review of asylum claims.
{"title":"Reviewing Review: Administrative Justice and the Immigration Assessment Authority","authors":"Amy Elton","doi":"10.1177/0067205x231213120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x231213120","url":null,"abstract":"The Immigration Assessment Authority (‘IAA’) provides the final merits review mechanism for people seeking asylum by boat in Australia. For fast-track applicants, the outcome of IAA review is incredibly significant, with consequences ranging from resettlement in Australia, removal to an applicant’s country of origin or indefinite immigration detention in harsh conditions. Eight years since its introduction, this article asks whether the IAA has realised the goal of promoting efficient review whilst meeting other important administrative objectives. The article takes a novel approach, applying a pre-formulated theory of administrative justice to analyse whether the IAA has balanced administrative justice properties. In so doing, this article offers a unique lens to critically reflect on the role of the IAA and whether, once its mandate is ended, this new model of review should be abandoned or revived for future merits review of asylum claims.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"116 40","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139616421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-18DOI: 10.1177/0067205x231213676
Kathy Bowrey, Tom Cochrane, Marie Hadley, Jill McKeough, Kylie Pappalardo, Kimberlee Weatherall
Producing and disseminating knowledge is core university business and a collaborative, global activity engaging multiple stakeholders including universities, researchers, governments, Indigenous communities, commercial bodies and the public. While ownership of university inventions attracts scholarly and policy attention, effective management of copyright in research outputs is also necessary to maximise the benefits of publicly funded research, but often neglected. This article explains current dynamics in academic publishing and research ownership. It seeks to explain the complex interface of copyright law, university policies, academic customary practices, Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBA), research funder mandates and policies, the guidelines and policies that pertain to Indigenous research, and publishing contracts. The article concludes with proposals for copyright management to maximise opportunities for greater public benefit from Australian research.
{"title":"Managing Ownership of Copyright in Research Publications to Increase the Public Benefits from Research","authors":"Kathy Bowrey, Tom Cochrane, Marie Hadley, Jill McKeough, Kylie Pappalardo, Kimberlee Weatherall","doi":"10.1177/0067205x231213676","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x231213676","url":null,"abstract":"Producing and disseminating knowledge is core university business and a collaborative, global activity engaging multiple stakeholders including universities, researchers, governments, Indigenous communities, commercial bodies and the public. While ownership of university inventions attracts scholarly and policy attention, effective management of copyright in research outputs is also necessary to maximise the benefits of publicly funded research, but often neglected. This article explains current dynamics in academic publishing and research ownership. It seeks to explain the complex interface of copyright law, university policies, academic customary practices, Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBA), research funder mandates and policies, the guidelines and policies that pertain to Indigenous research, and publishing contracts. The article concludes with proposals for copyright management to maximise opportunities for greater public benefit from Australian research.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139173628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-10DOI: 10.1177/0067205x231212026
Victoria Miyandazi
This article explores the significance of the Kenya National Human Rights Commission (‘KNCHR’) and the National Gender and Equality Commission (‘NGEC’), as independent ‘fourth branch’ institutions protecting democracy (‘IPDs’) in Kenya, in promoting and protecting human rights, democracy and addressing poverty and economic inequality. It provides a conceptual background for the establishment of the two Commissions and evaluates their functions and effectiveness compared to civil society organisations with similar roles. It then examines the unique role of the Commissions in addressing poverty and economic inequality and their accomplishments in upholding the rule of law, democratic ideals and human rights in Kenya. The article also analyzes the challenges faced by the Commissions in achieving their goals and the opportunities arising from their emergence as fourth branch IPDs. Finally, it concludes that the constitutional entrenchment of the KNCHR and NGEC provides them with credibility, legitimacy and freedom to carry out their work effectively. However, resource constraints and dependence on political goodwill may hinder their effectiveness in translating human rights, particularly socio-economic rights, into reality. Despite these challenges, the Commissions’ oversight, investigation and complaint handling roles are critical in preventing and addressing poverty and economic inequality through data-driven transformation and collaborative efforts.
{"title":"Human Rights and Equality Commissions in Kenya and Their Role in Tackling Poverty and Economic Inequality","authors":"Victoria Miyandazi","doi":"10.1177/0067205x231212026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x231212026","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the significance of the Kenya National Human Rights Commission (‘KNCHR’) and the National Gender and Equality Commission (‘NGEC’), as independent ‘fourth branch’ institutions protecting democracy (‘IPDs’) in Kenya, in promoting and protecting human rights, democracy and addressing poverty and economic inequality. It provides a conceptual background for the establishment of the two Commissions and evaluates their functions and effectiveness compared to civil society organisations with similar roles. It then examines the unique role of the Commissions in addressing poverty and economic inequality and their accomplishments in upholding the rule of law, democratic ideals and human rights in Kenya. The article also analyzes the challenges faced by the Commissions in achieving their goals and the opportunities arising from their emergence as fourth branch IPDs. Finally, it concludes that the constitutional entrenchment of the KNCHR and NGEC provides them with credibility, legitimacy and freedom to carry out their work effectively. However, resource constraints and dependence on political goodwill may hinder their effectiveness in translating human rights, particularly socio-economic rights, into reality. Despite these challenges, the Commissions’ oversight, investigation and complaint handling roles are critical in preventing and addressing poverty and economic inequality through data-driven transformation and collaborative efforts.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"115 38","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135138513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-09DOI: 10.1177/0067205x231206622
Raymond A Atuguba, Katharine G Young
Ghana’s Constitution has long emphasized the importance of equality, democracy, human rights and development. These principles are entrenched in a separation of powers framework that includes independent constitutional bodies that operate semi-autonomously from the tripartite executive, legislative and judicial branches. As part of a symposium on so-called ‘fourth branch’ institutions that provide redress for poverty and inequality, this article explores two institutions: the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice and the National Development Planning Commission. The first is a 30-year-old national human rights institution, which monitors and investigates alleged violations of human rights, corruption and the misappropriation of public moneys, and provides redress, partly through its increasing focus on economic and social rights and the claims of the most vulnerable, including women, children and persons with disabilities. The second, currently executive body, is the subject of current calls for constitutional reform in Ghana. These reforms would entrench national development planning to enhance features of autonomy, technical capacity and partisan independence. As such, these proposals offer a distinctive and yet also paradigm-defying model of fourth branch arrangements in developmental constitutionalism, raising questions about the usurpation of policymaking and the deficits of democracy that are commonly raised against courts, international financial institutions or other international economic arrangements.
{"title":"Developmental Constitutionalism and the Fourth Branch: Ghana’s Independent Constitutional Bodies and the Redress of Poverty and Inequality","authors":"Raymond A Atuguba, Katharine G Young","doi":"10.1177/0067205x231206622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x231206622","url":null,"abstract":"Ghana’s Constitution has long emphasized the importance of equality, democracy, human rights and development. These principles are entrenched in a separation of powers framework that includes independent constitutional bodies that operate semi-autonomously from the tripartite executive, legislative and judicial branches. As part of a symposium on so-called ‘fourth branch’ institutions that provide redress for poverty and inequality, this article explores two institutions: the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice and the National Development Planning Commission. The first is a 30-year-old national human rights institution, which monitors and investigates alleged violations of human rights, corruption and the misappropriation of public moneys, and provides redress, partly through its increasing focus on economic and social rights and the claims of the most vulnerable, including women, children and persons with disabilities. The second, currently executive body, is the subject of current calls for constitutional reform in Ghana. These reforms would entrench national development planning to enhance features of autonomy, technical capacity and partisan independence. As such, these proposals offer a distinctive and yet also paradigm-defying model of fourth branch arrangements in developmental constitutionalism, raising questions about the usurpation of policymaking and the deficits of democracy that are commonly raised against courts, international financial institutions or other international economic arrangements.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":" 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135291440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-11DOI: 10.1177/0067205x231205049
Andrew Stewart, Penny Williams
The growth of the ‘gig economy’ has prompted debate about the regulation of arrangements to obtain work and income through digital labour platforms. For platform workers who are classified as freelancers or independent contractors, rather than as employees, one possibility is to invoke general laws on the fairness of contractual terms to challenge the inclusion of harsh or one-sided provisions in the contracts of adhesion typically drafted and imposed by digital platforms. To test the potential application of one such regime, in pt 2-3 of the Australian Consumer Law ( ACL), we systematically analyse the terms and conditions used by various platforms intermediating work performed in Australia, within and across different industry sectors. Our analysis uncovers many examples of terms that are designated in s 25 of the ACL as potentially unfair or that have been identified as potentially problematic by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). We also examine the practical difficulties confronting a worker seeking to challenge the fairness of their contract terms, against the background of recent reforms to enhance the efficacy of this regime.
{"title":"Regulating the Fairness of Work Contracts in the Gig Economy","authors":"Andrew Stewart, Penny Williams","doi":"10.1177/0067205x231205049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x231205049","url":null,"abstract":"The growth of the ‘gig economy’ has prompted debate about the regulation of arrangements to obtain work and income through digital labour platforms. For platform workers who are classified as freelancers or independent contractors, rather than as employees, one possibility is to invoke general laws on the fairness of contractual terms to challenge the inclusion of harsh or one-sided provisions in the contracts of adhesion typically drafted and imposed by digital platforms. To test the potential application of one such regime, in pt 2-3 of the Australian Consumer Law ( ACL), we systematically analyse the terms and conditions used by various platforms intermediating work performed in Australia, within and across different industry sectors. Our analysis uncovers many examples of terms that are designated in s 25 of the ACL as potentially unfair or that have been identified as potentially problematic by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). We also examine the practical difficulties confronting a worker seeking to challenge the fairness of their contract terms, against the background of recent reforms to enhance the efficacy of this regime.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"254 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136211479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-10DOI: 10.1177/0067205x231205051
Anthony Forsyth, Tess Hardy, Shae McCrystal
Facilitating access to effective and meaningful collective bargaining is at the heart of the most recent set of reforms to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘ FW Act’) enacted in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) 2022 (Act). In the shadow of these reforms, this article explores who can engage in collective bargaining in Australia and under what conditions. While there are a range of issues impeding the effectiveness of the collective bargaining system under the FW Act, this article focuses on the question of bargaining access under both labour and competition laws and reveals some of the formidable challenges facing employed and non-employed workers alike. It examines how the rise in dependent contractors and the disaggregation of firms—through labour hire, subcontracting, franchising and/or digital platforms—has destabilised the binary conception of employment. The decline in formal employment and the growth of the ‘fissured workplace’ have not only perpetuated the problem of ‘wage theft’, they have altered the way in which wages are set in the first place. Moreover, these factors have exposed the tensions that lie between the regulation of mainstream labour markets through worker-orientated labour legislation and the regulation of product markets and business relationships under consumer-orientated competition legislation. The discussion explores the limitations created by the siloing of regulatory approaches to enabling collective bargaining for workers covered by different statutory regimes. We identify that in both labour and competition laws, meaningful access to collective bargaining in fissured work contexts has been frequently stifled by misplaced assumptions about the nature of the regulatory target and the power distribution in business networks. The article contends that a regulatory response to fissuring (or the problem of ‘the networked firm’) would straddle the labour/competition law divide in various ways, to ensure fissured workers are no longer excluded from exercising collective power by both legal domains.
{"title":"Collective Bargaining in Fissured Work Contexts: An Analysis of Core Challenges and Novel Experiments","authors":"Anthony Forsyth, Tess Hardy, Shae McCrystal","doi":"10.1177/0067205x231205051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x231205051","url":null,"abstract":"Facilitating access to effective and meaningful collective bargaining is at the heart of the most recent set of reforms to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘ FW Act’) enacted in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) 2022 (Act). In the shadow of these reforms, this article explores who can engage in collective bargaining in Australia and under what conditions. While there are a range of issues impeding the effectiveness of the collective bargaining system under the FW Act, this article focuses on the question of bargaining access under both labour and competition laws and reveals some of the formidable challenges facing employed and non-employed workers alike. It examines how the rise in dependent contractors and the disaggregation of firms—through labour hire, subcontracting, franchising and/or digital platforms—has destabilised the binary conception of employment. The decline in formal employment and the growth of the ‘fissured workplace’ have not only perpetuated the problem of ‘wage theft’, they have altered the way in which wages are set in the first place. Moreover, these factors have exposed the tensions that lie between the regulation of mainstream labour markets through worker-orientated labour legislation and the regulation of product markets and business relationships under consumer-orientated competition legislation. The discussion explores the limitations created by the siloing of regulatory approaches to enabling collective bargaining for workers covered by different statutory regimes. We identify that in both labour and competition laws, meaningful access to collective bargaining in fissured work contexts has been frequently stifled by misplaced assumptions about the nature of the regulatory target and the power distribution in business networks. The article contends that a regulatory response to fissuring (or the problem of ‘the networked firm’) would straddle the labour/competition law divide in various ways, to ensure fissured workers are no longer excluded from exercising collective power by both legal domains.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136357954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-03DOI: 10.1177/0067205x231205048
Son T Nguyen
Smart contracts are designed to be self-executing and self-enforcing. They are written as computer code that can automatically monitor, execute and enforce the performance of the agreed terms. The code of smart contracts exists across a distributed, decentralized blockchain network, controlling the execution and making transactions trackable and irreversible. This article examines the extent to which the Australian Consumer Law unfair contract term provisions can respond to the use of smart contracts. The article finds that the Australian Consumer Law unfair contract term provisions work relatively well to protect smart contract consumers. While some challenges exist and should be properly considered, there seems to be no need to either create entirely new law, modify the existing regime or totally ban smart contracts to protect consumers against unfair contract terms in smart consumer contracts.
{"title":"Consumer Protection Against Unfair Contract Terms in the Age of Smart Contracts","authors":"Son T Nguyen","doi":"10.1177/0067205x231205048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x231205048","url":null,"abstract":"Smart contracts are designed to be self-executing and self-enforcing. They are written as computer code that can automatically monitor, execute and enforce the performance of the agreed terms. The code of smart contracts exists across a distributed, decentralized blockchain network, controlling the execution and making transactions trackable and irreversible. This article examines the extent to which the Australian Consumer Law unfair contract term provisions can respond to the use of smart contracts. The article finds that the Australian Consumer Law unfair contract term provisions work relatively well to protect smart contract consumers. While some challenges exist and should be properly considered, there seems to be no need to either create entirely new law, modify the existing regime or totally ban smart contracts to protect consumers against unfair contract terms in smart consumer contracts.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135740540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：