Skip to content

Legal Watch

Family law expert advice

Family law expert evidence

Family law expert evidence
It may seem time consuming and expensive to have formal valuations conducted to get family law expert evidence. It can mean the world of difference though to your outcome for property settlement. 
If you would like some practical legal advice including options available to you, contact our experienced Brisbane Family Lawyers or our  North Brisbane family lawyers. We can assist you in all areas of family law, including family law property settlement, maintenance claims and parenting arrangements. We will advise you regards likely outcomes for your particular circumstances so that you can make an informed decision and retain control over how your family law issue is resolved. You are also welcome to read on for further information right now………
The recent Federal Circuit Court decision in Isaacson [2019] FCCA 522 emphasises the importance of making sure that your “expert” is an expert in fact before relying on them to give family law expert evidence at trial.
In this case, the parties were unable to agree on the value of the Husband’s book collection which he had built up throughout the parties’ marriage. The Husband was wanting to keep it in the property settlement.
At trial, the Husband put before the Court an affidavit of a gentleman who stated in his affidavit that he was the owner of a store selling used books and collectibles. He stated that  he had been selling and grading used books for almost 23 years.
The used bookstore owner in this case may have been quite accurate in his estimation of the value of the Husband’s book collection. However, there was not enough evidence of his qualifications to value the collection given to the Court.
Family law expert evidence must be given by a person who is qualified to give an opinion based upon their training, study or experience, with any opinion based wholly or substantially upon their expert knowledge. The issue in Isaacson’s case was that there was no evidence produced about whether the book seller had any training or qualifications which would make him a specialist in valuing used books.
Experience is certainly a consideration of the Court when establishing whether a person is qualified to give family law expert evidence. However, our used book seller in Isaacson’s case at no stage gave the court any evidence to show that the value he gave for the Husband’s book collection was based upon his experience or any training and that the dollar figure he quoted wasn’t plucked from thin air as you or I may do to value a book collection.
Your family law expert evidence needs to be produced by an expert – not somebody who merely works in the field of say, bookselling, but instead someone who has the training, study and experience to apply their expert knowledge and give an informed expert opinion. More than that though, it pays to make sure that if your family law expert is really an expert, that they tell the Court that in their affidavit material.
When the Court in Isaacson’s case turned to the Wife for her to produce her book valuation expert for cross examination, the Court was advised that the Wife’s family law expert was not present in Australia at the time of the trial.
As there were serious problems with the quality and admissibility of both parties’ expert evidence, the Court decided that the most appropriate solution was to Order that the Husband’s book collection be sold and that the proceeds of sale be divided equally between the parties. The percentage division of the money from the sale of the books was not decided based on expert evidence but on the basis of contributions factors in this matter, namely the Wife’s financial contribution to buying the books.

The Court in Isaacson’s case took this view because it was the only way that the Court had of ensuring that the value given to the books was accurate since there was no family law expert evidence in fact provided – the sale price of the books would be their value.
Contact our family lawyers Brisbane or family lawyers Brisbane Northside for advice concerning your family law issues. Our goal is to assist you to reach an agreement with your former partner without the need to go to Court. If however court action becomes necessary, we have the experience to represent you at Court.
The information set out in this blog is not a substitute for legal advice. We recommend that you obtain advice tailored to your particular circumstances from LGM family lawyers Brisbane.

The post Family law expert advice appeared first on LGM Family Law.

What is Cash Flow Forecasting?

Are you interested in cash flow forecasting, but don’t really understand it? Our article breaks down what it is, and how it can affect your business.
The post What is Cash Flow Forecasting? appeared first on Lawpath.

What are Exemplary Damages?

Exemplary damages are awarded in civil cases when the courts want to make an example of somebody. For the courts to award exemplary damages, there have to be some exceptional circumstances.
The post What are Exemplary Damages? appeared first on Lawpath.

Financial Services in Focus – Issue 30

Funds and financial products
Treasury releases draft Design and Distribution Obligations Regulations
On 12 September, Treasury released for public consultation exposure draft regulations to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Act 2019 (‘Act’) and an exposure draft explanatory statement.
The regulations support the Act by varying the range of products and entities that are subject to the design and distribution obligations.
Treasury states the exposure draft regulations take into consideration previous consultation on these regulations in October 2018 and also Parliamentary Amendments to the Act prior to its passage.
The Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, stated that update to the regime is part of an additional suite of measures the Government committed to in its response to the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Royal Commission.
Consultation closes on 11 October.
ASIC makes product intervention order banning short term lending model
On 12 September, ASIC announced that it has used its product intervention power first time to ban a model of lending in the short term credit industry which has been found to cause significant consumer detriment.
For the background ASIC consultation on this matter, see Financial Services in Focus – Issue 27.
The relevant legislative instrument, ASIC Corporations (Product Intervention Order—Short Term Credit) Instrument 2019/917, commences on 14 September and remains in force for 18 months unless it is extended or made permanent.
ASIC update on Royal Commission implementation
On 11 September, ASIC released the ASIC Royal Commission implementation update (‘Update’), which is its second update on its actions in response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
ASIC states that the Update outlines a number of measures across ASIC by which ASIC is implementing the seven priorities highlighted in its Corporate Plan 2019-23, one of which is to prioritise the recommendations and referrals from the Royal Commission.
Among other things, in the Update ASIC states that the Royal Commission recommended that ASIC become the conduct regulator of superannuation, and that ASIC has started to take on this role where it can without needing the law to change.
ASIC extends relief for foreign financial services providers
On 10 September, ASIC announced it extended to 31 March 2020 licensing relief for foreign financial services providers (‘FFSPs’) to allow them to provide certain financial services to Australian wholesale clients without needing to hold an Australian financial services licence.  This extension was foreshadowed in Consultation Paper 315.
The licensing relief that has been extended by ASIC is:

ASIC Corporations (Repeal and Transitional) Instrument 2016/396 and ASIC Corporations (CSSF-Regulated Financial Services Providers) Instrument 2016/1109 – FFSPs relying on this relief can provide specified financial services to Australian wholesale clients if their home regulatory regime has been assessed by ASIC as sufficiently equivalent to the Australian financial services licensing regime; and
ASIC Corporations (Foreign Financial Services Providers—Limited Connection) Instrument 2017/182 – this instrument provides licensing relief for FFSPs that are only required to hold an AFSL because they have engaged in conduct that is intended to induce an Australian wholesale client to use the provider’s financial services.

These instruments had been due to expire on 30 September 2019.
The extension of the relief is contained in ASIC Corporations (Amendment) Instrument 2019/902.
ASIC remakes class order facilitating the offer of share and interest purchase plans
On 30, ASIC announced it remade the relief in Class Order [CO 09/425], which was due to sunset on 1 October 2019.
The new instrument, ASIC Corporations (Share and Interest Purchase Plans) Instrument 2019/547, will continue the effect of the previous instrument while increasing the participation limit (for each registered holder in a 12-month period) from $15,000 to $30,000.
ASIC also released an updated Regulatory Guide 125 Share and interest purchase plans.
Financial markets
New ASIC Market Integrity Rules
On 6 September, ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Securities Markets) Determination 2019/896 was registered.
According to the Explanatory Statement, the purpose of the Determination is to determine, for the purposes of paragraph 6.2.1(1)(c) of the ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Securities Markets) 2017 and with effect from its commencement, the Tier 1 Equity Market Products and the Tier 2 Equity Market Products.
Consumer credit
ASIC releases a report on consumer experiences and expectations in getting a home loan
On 29 August, ASIC released Report 628 Looking for a mortgage: Consumer experiences and expectations in getting a home loan (‘REP 628’) and an accompanying infographic.
ASIC states the key findings from its research include the following:

consumers who visit a mortgage broker expect the broker to find them the ‘best’ home loan;
mortgage brokers were inconsistent in the ways they presented home loan options to consumers, sometimes offering little (if any) explanation of the options considered or reasons for their recommendation; and
first home buyers were more likely to take out their loan with a mortgage broker.

In releasing REP 628, ASIC states it strongly supports the recent Government announcement to enact a best interests duty for mortgage brokers.
Banking
APRA commences a second consultation on the framework for interest rate risk in the banking book
On 4 September, APRA announced it has commenced a second consultation on the requirements in Prudential Standard APS 117 Capital Adequacy: Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book (‘APS 117’) that aims to strengthen the prudential framework for interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB), as well as implement the Basel standard.
Copies of the response to submissions and the draft APS 117 can be found on the APRA website here.
Written submissions are requested by 6 December.
Other financial services regulation
Treasury releases draft legislation regarding aspects of the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce
On 11 September, Treasury released for public consultation draft legislation implementing a number of recommendations of the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce relating to search warrants, access to telecommunications intercept material, licensing and banning orders.
The draft legislation and explanatory materials can be found here.
Treasury states the draft legislation:

strengthens ASIC’s licensing powers by replacing the AFSL requirement that a person be of ‘good fame and character’ with an on-going requirement that they be a ‘fit and proper person’;
aligns the penalties for false and misleading statements in AFSL and Australian Credit Licence applications;
extends ASIC’s powers so that they may ban a person from performing functions in a financial services or credit business. The legislation also expands the grounds on which ASIC can issue banning orders;
harmonises ASIC’s search warrant powers across different Acts and brings them into line with the search warrant powers in the Crimes Act; and
allows interception agencies to provide lawfully intercepted information to ASIC for serious offences that ASIC can investigate or prosecute.

The Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, stated that the measures demonstrate the Government’s plan to implement its commitments on implementing the recommendations of the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry Royal Commission.
Consultation closes on 9 October.
Treasury releases proposal paper on reforms to the sale of add-on insurance products
On 9 September, Treasury released Proposals Paper Reforms to the sale of add-on insurance products for consultation.
This paper outlines the Government’s proposed model in response to recommendation 4.3 of the final report of the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry Royal Commission
Responses to the paper are due on 30 September.
APRA updates Enforcement Approach to provide clarity around transparency and data reporting
On 3 September, APRA announced it updated its Enforcement Approach to outline how it will increase transparency around the use of its formal enforcement powers.
APRA states that the Enforcement Approach was updated to include principles that APRA will take into account when considering when and how to publicise its enforcement actions, and guidance on APRA’s approach to enforcement for data submissions.
Treasury releases its Corporate Plan
On 5 September, Treasury released the Treasury 2019-20 Corporate Plan, which sets out its purpose, operating context and priorities for the next four years (2019‑20 to 2022‑23).
APRA releases its Corporate Plan
On 29 August, APRA released its Corporate Plan for 2019 to 2023.
The Corporate Plan states that the 2019-2023 strategy identifies four strategic focus areas to strengthen outcomes for the Australian community that APRA is seeking to deliver.  They are:

maintaining financial system resilience;
improving outcomes for superannuation members;
improving cyber-resilience across the financial system; and
transforming governance, culture, remuneration and accountability across all regulated financial institutions.

ASIC releases its Corporate Plan
On 28 August, ASIC released its Corporate Plan for the financial years 2019-2020 to the years 2022-2023.
ASIC states that this year’s Corporate Plan outlines its efforts towards becoming a more strategic regulator, its renewed approach for supervision and enforcement, and its key regulatory activities over the next four years.
The Corporate Plan identifies seven ‘strategic priorities’ for ADIC, namely:

high-deterrence enforcement action;
prioritising the recommendations and referrals from the Financial Services Royal Commission;
delivering as a conduct regulator for superannuation;
addressing harms in insurance;
improving governance and accountability;
protecting vulnerable consumers; and
addressing poor financial advice outcomes.

APRA finalises revised measures to strengthen outcomes for superannuation members
On 28 August, APRA announced it substantially revised Prudential Practice Guide SPG 516 Business Performance Review (‘SPG 516’) to better support the final version of the Prudential Standard SPS 515 Strategic Planning and Member Outcomes (‘SPS 515’) which has also been released.  SPS 515 will come into force from 1 January next year.
In order to assist RSE licensees implement the new requirements, APRA released a finalised Prudential Practice Guide SPG 515 Strategic and Business Planning.
APRA states that draft guidance has also been included to assist RSE licensees comply with the legislated outcomes assessment introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No.1) Act 2019.
Written submissions on draft SPG 516 will be received by APRA until 10 October.
The post Financial Services in Focus – Issue 30 appeared first on Hall & Wilcox.

BRISBANE’S DRUG & ALCOHOL COURT

Drug related offending has become increasingly prevalent in recent times. In 2017-18 illicit drug offences were the most common offence type totalling 78,167 offenders nationally[1].
Drug offences have been flooding the Magistrate and District Courts, leading to increased prison populations and a revolving door of recidivism.
Given this current national drug crisis, the court system has been required to adapt to the new challenges it faces by the overwhelmingly large amount of drug offences being heard each day.
To address these needs within the community, the government re-implemented the Drug and Alcohol Court in Brisbane in January 2018 to alleviate the high caseload pressure of the Brisbane Magistrates Court.
The Drug and Alcohol Court is now legislated under the Penalties and Sentences (Drug and Alcohol Treatment Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017[2] (the Act) that was passed on October 2017. The Act[3] now enables a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order to be included under Queensland’s sentencing regime.
Drug and Alcohol Court was trialled in Queensland in 2013, however was abolished by the Liberal National party to save costs. It was estimated that they saved $35.7 million dollars over a four-year period by scrapping the Queensland Drug and Alcohol Court and Murri Court. Since then both courts have re-established[4].
Magistrates refer eligible members of the community to the Drug and Alcohol Court where they are subject to Treatment Order requirements. This was implemented after a Drug and Specialist Court Review identified it to be “an evidence-based and cost-effective approach reflecting modern best-practice[5]”,
As Brisbane’s Drug and Alcohol Court is relatively new, it will take several years to clearly ascertain if there is a long term reduction in reoffending rates and drug offending trends processing through the court system.
The flow on effects of its implementation however can largely and quickly assist the wider community with crowding issues that our Queensland prisons are facing. Quantitative studies show a consistent trend with the number of people being held in custody on the rise[6]. This leads to less effective outcomes and lower chances of rehabilitation for the prisoners.
By sentencing eligible individuals to a Drug and Alcohol Court Treatment Order, it means they are not entering the prison system but are given an opportunity to rehabilitate in an evidence-based, intervention program that has been designed to reduce recidivism.
To be eligible for Drug and Alcohol Court an offender must be an adult, plead guilty to charges at a Magistrates court, live within the Brisbane district and have a substantial substance abuse issue. The drug and alcohol court staff complete a suitability assessment while the matter is adjourned if they are deemed eligible[7]. The treatment order can then begin which assists the individuals with rehabilitation, employment, mental health etc. to ultimately break the cycle of drug-related offending. The drug and alcohol court takes a holistic approach to rehabilitation focusing on several aspects of the person’s life.
The drug and alcohol epidemic is prevalent nationally, leading to other states enforcing more specific sentencing options to address this issue. Victoria and New South Wales have also included drug and alcohol courts into their sentencing systems.
The Brisbane Drug and Alcohol Court is run by a team of employees who manage the offenders while on their treatment orders. A number of staff are employed by Queensland Corrective Services who supervise them during this period. The team also includes legal representatives, Prosecutors and Department of Justice and Attorney General court officers. This multi-disciplinary team supports offenders once again taking a holistic approach to more than one aspect of their lives.
Queensland’s Drug and Alcohol Court is a space to watch with the ever-growing numbers of drug related offending. Long term, this court has the ability to have serious effects on the community and Queensland as a whole given its powers under the Act[8].
Creevey Russell Lawyers are experts in the area of crime and misconduct. With our dedicated team of experienced lawyers, we provide around the clock legal services for any criminal related matters. We represent clients in all jurisdictions from individuals, to companies and businesses.
Having an office in Brisbane Central allows our lawyers to access and utilise Brisbane’s Drug and Alcohol Court. Our lawyers have expert knowledge and extensive experience with regards to drug and alcohol related offending. For further information on the services provided by Creevey Russell Lawyers, please visit our website at www.creeveyrussell.com.au.
For more information regarding Brisbane’s Drug and Alcohol Court, visit https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/drug-court.
[1] “4519.0 – Recorded Crime – Offenders, 2017-18”, Abs.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2019) .
[2] Penalties and Sentences (Drug and Alcohol Treatment Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Felicity Caldwell, “Four Years After It Was Scrapped, Drug Court Will Return To Queensland”, Brisbane Times (Webpage, 2019) <https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/four-years-after-it-was-scrapped-drug-court-will-return-to-queensland-20171024-p4ywmk.html>.
[5] Queensland Drug And Alcohol Court”, Courts.Qld.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2019) <https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/drug-court>.
[6] Queensland Government, Annual Report 2017-2018 (Queensland Corrective Services, 2018) https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/e18fd278-6c07-4c63-bb0d-258948ccca71/resource/0397087a-5ea9-4c2e-82a1-625c137d3284/download/qcs-annual-report-2017-181.pdf 13.
[7] Queensland Drug And Alcohol Court”, Courts.Qld.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2019) <https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/drug-court>.
[8] Penalties and Sentences (Drug and Alcohol Treatment Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017.
Isabella King
Paralegal
Ph:   07 4617 8777
Email: *protected email*

Mistake of Fact Criticisms Mistaken

Criticism of a controversial ‘mistake of fact’ law in Queensland is misinformed and there needs to be greater community awareness about how the law operates, says leading legal firm Creevey Russell Lawyers.
Section 24 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) contains the defence that a person is not criminally responsible for an act such as a sex offence if the person held an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief there was consent involved.
The Queensland government has called for the law to be reviewed by the Queensland Law Reform Commission, with a recommendation expected in early 2020.
Creevey Russell Principal Dan Creevey said the suggestion that the mistake of fact defence allows an offender to walk free in sexual offence type matters is “simply wrong”.
“Creevey Russell Lawyers believes the criticisms of the section 24 defence are misinformed and there needs to be greater community awareness as to how the law operates,” Mr Creevey said.
“The mere fact that the defence may be raised does not dictate that a jury will accept the defence is applicable in any given matter. That is because section 24 contains both a subjective and objective component. A  defendant cannot just raise section 24 and expect to be let off – juries apply their common sense, and the subjective component of the test provides that safeguard.”
Creevey Russell Senior Associate Trent Jones said subjectively, an accused person may hold an honest and mistaken belief regarding the existence of anything, such as the fact a person is consenting to sexual intercourse.
“Objectively, however, it is a matter – most commonly reserved for juries – to determine whether or not that mistaken belief held by a defendant was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of a case,” he said.
“Trials involving sexual offences are most often run before a jury.  The role of a jury in a criminal trial is to determine whether or not an accused person is guilty or not guilty of the alleged offence. A jury reaches their verdict by adopting the role of the sole judge of the fact, receiving guidance and direction regarding the application of the law by the presiding judge.
“A mere mistake of a defendant is simply not enough to enliven a section 24 defence. For a section 24 defence to be successful, a jury must form the view that the honest, but mistaken, belief held by the defendant, in their particular circumstances, was held on reasonable grounds.
“The section 24 defence is not a matter whereby an accused person can simply state that they honestly believed a complainant was consenting and automatically expect to be acquitted. If that were the case, there would certainly be significant issues with the justice system, but that is not the way the section 24 defence is designed to operate.
“Juries have accepted the existence of a mistake of fact defence and acquitted accused people previously, but, similarly, there have been instances where juries have rejected a mistake of fact defence and convicted a defendant.”
 

Dan Creevey
Partner
Ph:   07 4617 8777
Email: *protected email*

Trent Jones
Senior Associate
Ph:   07 3009 6555
Email: *protected email*

Creevey Russell Lawyers Backing Longreach Cup

Leading Queensland legal firm Creevey Russell Lawyers is proud to be a corporate supporter of the 2019 Longreach Cup, the biggest racing event in outback Queensland.
Creevey Russell Principal Dan Creevey said the big race day on Saturday, September 29, was an exciting event for the region and a great chance for a community that has endured tough times to enjoy country racing at its finest.
“Creevey Russell Lawyers is delighted to be involved as a sponsor of the Longreach Cup and we are looking forward to being present on the day and mixing with members of a wonderful community,” Winton-raised Mr Creevey said.
“We take great pride in the fact that Creevey Russell Lawyers is a rural and regional firm and we are always looking to give back to those communities.
“It is no secret that many of the state’s regional communities have been doing it tough for many years due to a wide range of economic and environmental factors.”
Mr Creevey said he maintained close regional ties having grown up in Winton where his father Noel was a local policeman and grandfather Jim Gaffney managed the power station.
“I go back home regularly and our firm has many clients in the region so it’s great to be able show our support on the big race day,” he said.
“It’s important to stay closely connected to the people in these communities and listen to their concerns, including about any legal issues they are experiencing which can include problems with vegetation and stock routes, dog baiting, rural transactions and criminal matters.
“Creevey Russell Lawyers has always had its finger on the pulse of rural Queensland and our agribusiness team members have broad experience in issues of concern to landholders.”

Attorney-General (Qld) v Yeatman [2019] QSC 230

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER – GENERALLY – where a supervision order was made with respect to the respondent under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – where it was alleged that the respondent had contravened a requirement of the supervision order – where a warrant was issued for the arrest of the respondent pursuant to the Act and the respondent was detained in custody – where the applicant sought orders with respect to the respondent under s 22 of the Act – where the contravention was admitted by the respondent – where the applicant had not committed any further serious sexual offences – whether the adequate protection of the community could, despite the contravention of the order, be ensured by the existing supervision order

NSW: It’s the Owners Corporation’s Responsibility

We can’t expect the Strata committees to know the best thing to do in every situation. That’s why it’s important to find a strata manager that’s competent and knows when things should be fixed and when they should be left alone.

Do We Need a Religious Discrimination Act?

Whilst Australia has legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, age, race and disability, it does not currently have anti-discrimination laws protecting religious freedom. In recent weeks, liberal MPs have been calling for a Religious Discrimination Act to be passed, following the same model as existing anti-discrimination legislation, which forbids discrimination in employment and other specified contexts.
The call has been met with debate as to whether such a legislative regime is necessary and concern about the potential for such an act to be misused and to become a smokescreen for other forms of discrimination.
History
In 2017, then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull appointed former minister Phillip Ruddock to review Australia’s legal protections for religious freedom. The review was prompted by concerns among conservatives about the impacts of marriage equality. The report that was tabled last year made numerous recommendations in respect of various amendments that should be made to existing anti-discrimination laws. These included restricting or eliminating certain forms of discrimination.
However, the recommendations also advocated preserving the right to discriminate in some circumstances. For example, by limiting the circumstances in which schools can discriminate against students on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity to situations where the discrimination is founded in precepts of the religion and the school has publicly available policies outlining its position.
Proposed religious discrimination laws
The proposed Religious Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to:

treat a person less favourably because of the person’s religious belief or activity;
unreasonably impose a condition, requirement or practice that disadvantages persons with a religious belief or activity.

The bill extends its protection to the areas of employment, education, good and services, access to premises and sports and clubs. It also sets out various exceptions to the prohibitions on religious discrimination and provides for the establishment of a Freedom of Religion Commissioner at the Australia Human Rights Commission.
Existing protections
Legislation in all states and territories except New South Wales and South Australia already prohibits discrimination on the basis of religious belief or practice. The federal Fair Work Act prohibits such discrimination in the context of employment.
As Australia does not have a bill of rights, there is no general prohibition on religious discrimination, either in the constitution or at the federal level in the absence of specific legislation.
Arguments for the bill
The government has presented the bill as an ‘orthodox’ piece of legislation that will sit alongside existing anti-discrimination acts. Supporters of the bill say it is necessary in order to protect religious people from discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs or practices. They argue that religious beliefs should attract the same protections from the law as attributes such as race and sex.
Supporters of the bill have also cited ‘the forces of political correctness’ and their potential to marginalise religious views as a reason the bill is necessary. The public ‘disrespect’ shown to Israel Falou following his comments describing homosexuality as a sin has also been raised in support of the bill.
Arguments against the bill
Liberal Senator James Patterson, who has backed the proposed bill, last year tried to introduce legislation that would have allowed discrimination against same-sex couples in the name of religious freedom. The potential for the proposed legislation to become a smokescreen for discrimination against LGBTIQ people has been flagged as a real risk.
The legislation has also been opposed on the ground that it may make it harder for women seeking an abortion to obtain the procedure. Doctors relying on religious grounds for a conscientious objection may have stronger protections and may not be obliged to refer the woman to another practitioner who does not have a conscientious objection. It would therefore fall to the woman to actively seek out a medical practitioner who is willing to perform the procedure.
Religious leaders, such as Anglican priest Father Rod Bower in Gosford, have spoken out against the proposed changes, arguing that religious practices should not be placed on an equal footing with attributes such as race and sex that people have no control over. Bower said that while freedom of religion ought to be protected by law, there should not be an absolute freedom to manifest that religion where this has the potential to result in other forms of discrimination. He further argued that there is no reason to believe that freedom of religion is under threat in Australia.
Melbourne-based employment lawyer Alan McDonald says that the proposed religious discrimination laws will be difficult for employers to navigate and will give people with strong religious beliefs ‘a license to harass those who do not share those beliefs.’
The proposed legislation has also been criticised as having the potential to bring about counterproductive and unintended consequences.
If you require legal advice or representation in relation to a discrimination matter or any other legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
The post Do We Need a Religious Discrimination Act? appeared first on Go To Court Lawyers.

Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161

PATENTS – validity – computer-implemented method and apparatus for displaying information – whether invention as claimed is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies
PATENTS – validity – innovative step – whether claimed invention supported by an innovative step – whether additional innovative steps established
COSTS – whether error shown in an award of costs to the successful respondent at trial

Domany v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1509

MIGRATION – application for an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Federal Circuit Court – where a delegate of the Minister refused an application for a Special Eligibility (Class CB) Former Resident (Subclass 151) visa as the applicant did not satisfy cl 151.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dismissed the application as the application was not made within the prescribed period nor had the relevant fee been paid – application dismissed