Reasons for Law Reform (VCE SSCE Legal Studies): Revision Notes

Worked Example: Smoking and Vaping Laws

Once society became aware of the health risks associated with smoking, attitudes towards smoking and the tobacco industry changed. This led to a range of anti-smoking laws being introduced throughout Australia.

In 2007, Victoria prohibited smoking in enclosed public spaces such as restaurants and office buildings. Further laws followed to regulate and discourage smoking, including:

• Bans on smoking in outdoor dining areas
• Bans in public spaces like sports venues, public swimming pools, and between lifesaving flags at patrolled beaches
• Prohibitions within school grounds and four metres from the entrance of schools, childcare centres, hospitals, courts and police stations

While these laws restricted individual rights to smoke anywhere they chose, they were implemented to improve public health and benefit the whole community. Initially many people complained, but over time they adjusted to the new laws and smoking rates in Victoria decreased. This demonstrates how law reform can both respond to and encourage changes in community values.

Similarly, the rise of e-cigarettes (vaping products), especially among children and teenagers, has led to new law reform including:

• Extension of tobacco smoking laws to also apply to vaping products
• Ban on the sale, possession or use of nicotine e-cigarettes without a prescription from a medical doctor
• Ban on the sale of all e-cigarettes and vaping products to people under 18 years, even non-nicotine products

The hope is that these restrictions will encourage a change in community attitudes and discourage young people from vaping.

Worked Example: Animal Welfare

Society's increasing awareness of and attitudes towards animal welfare has resulted in Australian laws being changed to prevent animal cruelty and offer animals legal protection.

In 2018, the Victorian Parliament passed the Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Act 2017 (Vic), which made it illegal to sell dogs and cats in pet shops unless they come from rescue shelters or pounds. Since July 2019, anyone wishing to sell or give away dogs and cats in Victoria must enrol on the Pet Exchange Register, allowing councils to monitor sellers and the public to verify legitimate sellers.

In 2022, the Domestic Animals Amendment (Reuniting Pets and Other Matters) Act 2022 (Vic) was passed to help ensure lost pets are returned to their owners quickly. Under this law, anyone who finds a dog or cat must take it to a participating vet, registered animal shelter, or local council, and these bodies must make reasonable efforts to identify and contact the owner.

Worked Example: LGBTQIA+ Equality

In the past, the right to equal treatment before the law did not extend to LGBTQIA+ people. This has gradually changed as parliaments introduced legislation to support equality and legally recognise the rights of LGBTQIA+ people, following changes in general attitudes and beliefs.

In December 2017, after many unsuccessful attempts, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 (Cth) to allow marriage equality throughout Australia.

The Victorian Parliament has also introduced laws to improve equality for LGBTQIA+ people:

• In 2015, the Adoption Amendment (Adoption by Same-Sex Couples) Act 2015 (Vic) allowed LGBTQIA+ couples to lawfully adopt children, reflecting changing views that sexual orientation or gender identity does not affect one's ability to be a loving parent

• In 2019, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Act 2019 (Vic) allowed transgender Victorians to choose their gender on birth certificates without undergoing gender reassignment surgery

• In June 2022, the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Act 2021 (Vic) made it unlawful for religious organisations and schools to terminate employment or refuse to hire people based on sexuality, gender identity or marital status (with some exceptions where religious beliefs are integral to the job)

These changes required continuous campaigning by LGBTQIA+ groups and supporters to maintain pressure on government and increase community awareness. However, some members of society still feel the law is changing faster than they are comfortable with, highlighting the tension between progressive law reform and community readiness.

Worked Example: Sugar Tax Debate

Worked Example: Industrial Relations Reform

In December 2022, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth) to reform Australia's industrial relations laws and improve employment terms and conditions.

The Act increases workers' and unions' ability to negotiate better terms and promotes improved, more flexible work conditions. Key features include:

• Allowing pregnant employees and those experiencing family and domestic violence to request flexible work arrangements (altered rosters, working from home), with requests only denied on reasonable business grounds
• Strengthening employment laws to prevent discrimination based on gender identity, intersex status, or breastfeeding
• Closing the gender pay gap (in 2022, men earned an average of $263 per week more than women) by banning pay secrecy clauses that forbid employees from discussing their pay with other workers

The Commonwealth Government believes the Act will help increase wage growth and address workplace inequalities. However, the Liberal-National Coalition opposed it, with business groups complaining the changes give too much power to workers and unions and will increase complexity, length and cost of workplace negotiations.

Worked Example: Counter-Terrorism Laws

Over the past decade, the Commonwealth Parliament has passed legislation to strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism laws and protect the community from terrorist threats.

In 2019, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Act 2019 (Cth) made it more difficult for individuals previously charged with or convicted of terrorism offences to be granted bail (release from custody on condition they attend court hearings) when charged with another Commonwealth offence. These individuals are denied the presumption of being granted bail. Additionally, those convicted of terrorism offences cannot presume they will be released on parole after serving their sentence; courts may issue a 'continuing detention order' to hold them in custody longer.

In 2021, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Act 2021 (Cth) created an 'extended supervision scheme' to ensure terrorist offenders released from prison can be closely supervised depending on the security threat they present.

Worked Example: Tougher Penalties for Data Breaches

In November 2022, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Act 2022 (Cth) to increase sanctions for serious or repeated privacy breaches. The new law was introduced after two major cyber-security attacks in Australia:

• In September 2022, a major telecommunications company suffered a breach exposing personal information of over 2 million customers
• Weeks later, a major health insurer suffered a breach affecting approximately 9.7 million customers, with some details released on the dark web

Under the new law, severe financial penalties are available for breaches of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), including maximum fines of approximately $50 million or three times the value of benefit gained from misuse of stolen data, whichever is greater. These penalties aim to encourage companies to improve data security by effectively managing and safely storing personal data.

Worked Example: Ownership of Genetic Discoveries

Disputes have arisen over ownership of 'genes' and 'genetic discoveries'. In one Australian case, the High Court determined whether a company could patent a genetic mutation or 'discovery'. The company had spent millions on research to identify a genetic mutation increasing risk of ovarian and breast cancer. The company's right to patent was challenged because it could potentially limit an individual's ability to use their genetic information without the company's permission.

The Court ruled the company could not own the genetic mutation because the genetic material already existed in nature (and therefore was not a 'newly invented product' that could be patented). This ruling created Australian law regulating the ownership of genes.