Australia appears to be following the trend in mainly Western countries of recognising animal sentience in the law. This article sets out a typology of animal sentience recognition provisions that have been enacted, or have been proposed, in Australian jurisdictions to date. These include provisions or proposed provisions located in statutory objects, statutory principles, statutory definitions and a treaty. Depending on legislative context, these provisions, and proposed provisions (if enacted), may have different legal consequences. The trend towards legally recognising animal sentience may also signal further positive legal reforms for animals in the future.

In April 2016, then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull confirmed the existence of Australia’s offensive cyber capability. Said to constitute both a coordinating Information Warfare Division inside the Australian Army as well as dedicated cyberoffensive capability inside the Australian Signals Directorate, the unveiling of this capability was a watershed in Australian defence policy. Yet whilst the literature has briefly examined whether Australia’s cyberoffensive capability is congruous with international law, no such analysis under Australia’s domestic laws has been undertaken. This paper seeks to partially address this gap in the research by focusing on whether the Australian Defence Force could legally launch cyberattacks against domestic targets under Commonwealth call-out powers.

Numerous recent scandals have surfaced relating to the Australian government allegedly engaging in ‘pork barrelling’, that is, the partisan channelling of grants funding to government electorates, instead of merit-based allocation. Yet the probity of the use of public money is crucial towards preserving public trust in Australian democratic institutions. This article will critically analyse the legal accountability mechanisms for grants funding through public finance legislation, ‘soft law’ such as grants, guidelines and ministerial standards, and the availability of legal redress. It will also examine political accountability mechanisms, including the operation of parliamentary committees, the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman. The author argues that although political regulation provides transparency in the government’s use of public funds, it remains ineffective to combat the government’s deeply entrenched incentives to allocate grants in a partisan manner. As such, it is contended that stronger legal accountability in terms of enforceable rules and regulations is required to reform grants regulation towards improving the probity and accountability of the use of public funding.

Legal and political battles about health policy in the immediate post-war years have cast a long shadow in Australia. The ‘civil conscription’ sub-provision in s 51(xxiiiA) (health and welfare power) of the Australian Constitution is still cited as a major barrier to developing health policy. But long after the High Court moved on from a very restrictive interpretation of Commonwealth powers, policymakers appear to be cautious about testing whether the Commonwealth has power to make laws about medical services to pursue a bold agenda about access, quality, and efficiency of medical care. In this article we will first describe the origin and phrasing of s 51(xxiiiA), the main head of power, then trace the development of the interpretation of the civil conscription sub-provision, and finally discuss whether politically realistic policy options are likely to founder on the shoals of High Court interpretation. We argue that the civil conscription limitation in s 51 (xxiiiA) in the Constitution looms larger as a policy constraint on regulation of health care by the Commonwealth government in the minds of decision-makers, and as a weapon in the hands of stakeholders, than contemporary analysis of it warrants.

This article examines the consequences of the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 (Cth) (‘Foreign Relations Act’) for international law. It argues that the arrangements entered into by state, territory and local governments to which the Foreign Relations Act applies can be relevant to international law in three ways. First, they may relate indirectly to Australia’s international legal obligations. Second, they may be a means by which Australian subnational governments claim a role for themselves in governance on global issues. Third, as an exercise of diplomacy, they influence the relations Australia maintains with other nations and the way in which it participates in the international system. As the states and territories in particular become more assertive, including on international issues such as climate change, giving the Commonwealth complete control over such arrangements may impact Australia’s relationship with international law.