The COVID-19 pandemic triggered extraordinary legislative and executive responses across the globe. In 2020, the Victorian Government used, for the first time, powers in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) to impose significant restrictions on the freedoms of the public. This article considers the powers to make directions under the Victorian regime and the potential relevance of the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution and the human rights protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). We conclude that some forms of protest activity may have remained lawful during the Victorian lockdowns, although the purpose of the protest activity and the manner of protest may be relevant considerations when adopting a Charter-consistent interpretation of the statutory provisions.

The Buy-Now, Pay-Later (‘BNPL’) sector in Australia provides a stark example of the challenge facing regulators in balancing consumer protection with innovation. This article examines the current regulatory responses and recommends reforms to enhance consumer protection outcomes and better achieve this balance. Firstly, it determines the actions of the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’) inadequately protect consumers. Concurrently, the industry’s self-regulatory Code of Practice lacks sufficient regulatory oversight to be meaningfully effective. Two recommendations are given: firstly, allowing merchants to surcharge the costs of the BNPL service; and secondly, giving ASIC oversight of the Code of Practice, in conjunction with targeted regulatory action. These recommendations would protect consumers, better enable competition, and facilitate the BNPL sector’s continued growth.

This article examines the advantages and limitations of seeking to involve law students in social justice initiatives, including strategic and human rights litigation, through clinical programs and other means. It draws on the author’s academic experience in establishing and developing the social justice clinical program at the University of Sydney Law School and professional role as a practising barrister engaged in the conduct of strategic litigation and class actions in the Federal Court of Australia and other courts.

Editorial to Volume 10, Issue 1.

A recent High Court decision has established that the secrecy of Royal correspondence is subject to an Act which regulates public access to Commonwealth records. Communications between The Queen and her Australian Governor-General between 1974 and 1977 are now accessible. Other relevant Royal correspondence may continue to be secret where not prohibited by an Act. Based on what has become accessible, The Queen had no direct part in the Governor-General’s dismissal of the Australian Government on 11 November 1975. However, the Royal Household played an important part leading to the Governor-General actions on 11 November 1975. These actions were inconsistent with the constitutional requirements codified at the latest in 1926. Australia’s future republican status inevitably is posed.

This article has been adapted from the 10th Michael Kirby Justice Oration, delivered at the College of Law & Justice, Victoria University, Melbourne, on 25 August 2021 via video-link.

Interview with the State Coroner conducted on 12 August 2021 via a video link to the Coroners Court of Victoria in Melbourne.

Review of Governance and Law: Contemporary Views (Governance Research Program, Victoria University, 2020).

Article 7 of the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (‘CISG’) mandates that the convention must be interpreted uniformly without recurse to domestic principles. This article demonstrates that the homeward trend – the tendency to project domestic laws onto the international provisions of a Convention is breach of article 7(1). However, art 7(2) alerts the reader that some matters are not expressly settled but must be settled by recourse to general principles within the CISG and again no recourse to domestic laws can be sought even if the terms track domestic laws. This article argues that a distinction must be draws if vague terms vague terms such as reasonable time must be interpreted. These terms are not governed by laws but are subject to factual events such as customs or universal understanding.