Logo

1300 COMLAW (266 529)

02 4704 9991

Suite 11, 354-360 High Street, Penrith NSW 2750
PO Box 1835 PENRITH NSW 2751

News

by

Happy New Year – Law Changes Set to Take Effect in 2018

Happy New Year from the team at Complete Legal & Conveyancing.
To kick off our series of columns this year, read below to find out a few legal and policy changes that will take place that may affect your day to day life:

  • Increases for a range of social security payments are set to take effect this year. For example, Youth Allowance recipients will receive an additional $4.60 per fortnight, students receiving a Social Security allowance will receive an additional $8.30 per fortnight and there are also some changes to Aged Care Pension eligibility due to take place mid‑year, such as a minimum requirement of 10 years residence in Australia (five of which included gainful employment) to qualify.
  • The Australian Tax Office last year announced that it will shift its focus from big corporate tax dodgers to individuals, particularly those who overstate work related tax deductions. The basis for this is that the Australian Tax Office believes there is more revenue to be recovered from individuals than businesses.
  • In the health sector, you will now require a prescription to obtain pain killers containing codeine, such as Panadeine, Nurofen Plus, Mersyndol and Codral. Pharmacists will be able to provide some of these medications without a prescription in limited circumstances.
  • Mid‑2018 is also expected to see some significant reforms to the real estate sector. This includes reducing the six real estate licence types to three, being “Real Estate”, “Strata” and “Stock and Station”. There will also be some changes to competency requirements for issue of these licenses with applicants being required to complete additional competency units before their licenses are approved.
  • There is also a push to reform current trust accounting regulations so that only a licensee in charge can authorise transactions for trust accounts, potentially a response to the number of trust account breaches that occur in the industry. Real estate agents’ failure to account for money held in trust is currently considered a major risk area for the industry by New South Wales Fair Trading, with nearly half a million dollars paid out by the Property & Services Compensation Fund in the 2016/2017 financial year as a result of consumer claims.

Every year thousands of new laws are made across the country on a State and Federal level. The above is a bit of a snapshot of some of the changes that might affect you. We will keep you updated throughout the year as other topical legal issues come to light.

by

Marriage Equality Back in the Headlines

The marriage equality debate is taking centre stage in mainstream media once again following the decision of Australian tennis great Margaret Court to boycott Qantas because of its support of marriage equality.

Debate has been rife in the media about Court’s treatment following her public stance against Qantas with many arguing that her right to have an opinion should be defended. Supporters of Court appear to be missing a very crucial point, however; Court threw the first punch. She is a woman of significant influence, a Christian Minister, who publicly attacked a company with millions of stakeholders arguably to push a personal, political or religious agenda.

The real debate, however, is the subject of marriage equality itself.

Perplexingly, despite the Government’s refusal to put a marriage equality bill before Parliament, there already exist numerous example of State and Federal laws that recognise same-sex relationships as being identical to heterosexual ones.

Here are some of examples of these inconsistencies:

  • The Family Law Act. The definition of a de facto relationship in one of the country’s most active pieces of legislation does not preclude same-sex marriages. In fact, family law affords parties to a same-sex union the same protections as heterosexual couples.
  • Welfare. In assessing a person’s access to welfare benefits the Government deems a same-sex de facto relationship as a valid relationship reducing welfare entitlements to each party of the relationship as if they were in a heterosexual relationship or were married.
  • Criminality. In a society where homosexuals cannot get married based on their sexuality, you might be surprised to learn that child molesters, rapists, murderers and other violent criminals are still afforded the right to marry. This is despite not only their offences but our legal system determining that they should be deprived of their most basic human right, liberty, and confined to a prison cell.
  • Social Security More Generally. A same-sex law reform package passed through Parliament in November 2008 to remove discrimination against same-sex de facto couples in areas such as taxation, superannuation, social security and other areas.

It is obvious that some of the changes resulting in these inconsistencies are positive, for example in the context of family law and social security. But it begs the questions, if we have come so far in some areas, why is the Government still petrified to legislate for marriage equality?

The only answer is that it is a political ploy to pander to the religious conservative base of the current Government. Interestingly, the ALP have emerged as vocal champions of the cause despite doing nothing to change the status quo when they were last in power up until 2013.

It’s a disenchanting state of affairs when social issues like this one are dictated by politics, not society. As for Margaret Court, she made her bed, now she has to lay in it.

by

Royal Commissions

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced a Royal Commission into allegations of the abuse of minors held in detention. The announcement follows the broadcast of a program on ABC’s Four Corners depicting teenagers in a youth detention centre in the Northern Territory being mentally and physically abused, shackled to chairs, stripped naked, locked in isolation, and even subjected to tear gas.

As the national reels following these horrifying revelations, it is a disturbingly familiar feeling of shock and surprise. How could this type of thing be happening in a modern age right under our noses?

A similar furore surrounded the recent and ongoing Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, which in a large part focussed on Churches and abusive members of the clergy.

So what is a Royal Commission, and why has the Prime Minister taken this action?

A Royal Commission is similar to a Court case, but takes a form of a Public Inquiry whereby a Commissioner is appointed to thoroughly investigate and report on the issue at hand. For example, the child abuse Royal Commission set up in 2013 was armed with the task of investigating allegations of child sexual abuse in schools, Churches and other institutions, including organisations like the Salvation Army, YMCA NSW, Scouts Australia and other institutions.

A Royal Commission has the power to force a person to appear before the Commission at a hearing to give evidence or to produce documents, and the Commissioner and his or her legal representatives can question and examine such people like what would occur during cross examination in a Court case. The Commission can also issue search warrants via the AFP, and invite members of the public to give evidence of their experiences in relation to the issue in question.

Following the conclusion of the Commission, a report is provided to the government. Whilst the recommendations of the Commission are not necessarily binding, it is quite common that a government will enact most of these recommendations into law.

Such a Commission can also result in criminal charges being brought against parties who are found to have committed crimes such as child sexual abuse, or in the case of this most recent Royal Commission to come, physical and mental abuse of children in detention that may be outside the scope of the discipline allowed in such youth detention centres.

In summary, a Royal Commission is a means by which the government can publically shine the spotlight on every deep dark corner of an organisation, entity or people who may be involved in conduct that is contrary to the public interest.

by

Brexit

WHAT ON EARTH IS BREXIT?

This week’s column blurs the line between economic and legal issues but is topical all the same.

Global media has been overtaken by the decision of the British people to exit the European Union (“EU”).

So what is the European Union?

The EU was established in 1957 as a 28 country conglomerate promoting a common economic area within Europe.
This meant that where each country had previously made its own laws in relation to immigration, trade and things like tariffs members of the EU formed a united front to allow citizens of member countries to travel and trade in other countries in the Union as they please.

So why did Britain want to exit the Union and what does this mean?

One of the main motivations for pro-Brexit campaigners is the increase in foreigners travelling to the UK to work. It has been argued that Britain’s foreign population has increased to such a point that foreign nationals have been obtaining employment at the expense of domestic citizens.

Further, as is the case with any partnership, you must take the good with the bad. This means that while there was an element of free trade within the European Union, this also means that each of the countries within the Union must weather global economic pressures as a collective. For example, a number of European countries have fallen into economic chaos in recent times (for example Greece) and some pro-Brexit campaigners resent the fact that countries like Britain are effectively roped in to the economic conditions created by other nations as a result of their membership of the Union.

Pundits argue that exiting the EU will have the following detrimental effects on Britain:

  1. People will not be able to travel as freely and Brits living abroad may need to return to England;
  2. Britain will no longer enjoy free/open trade with the rest of the European Union and this could lead to an increase in the price of imports and a decrease in demand for exports;
  3. Unknown impacts on foreign policy as Britain’s alliances with other nations need to be refreshed given that the EU as a block entered into agreements with other nations that may not now be available to Britain.

The referendum has resulted in the resignation of the British Prime Minister and dozens of members of Parliament on both sides. It is certainly a ‘watch this space’ moment as we wait to see what the impact on the rest of the world will be.

by

Airport Brings Legal Debate With It

The construction of Sydney’s second airport at Badgerys Creek has brought with it a melting pot of legal issues. From arguments about the Government’s right to acquire property to build the airport to tenancy issues surrounding people who have lived on the airport site as tenants for a number of decades, the commitment by the Government to build the airport has resulted in numerous actions in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and other appropriate jurisdictions.

If one is to drive down Bringelly Road today one will see that there are numerous signs posted by land owners on that road that say words to the effect of “The Government wants our land, but on unjust terms”. This is a reference to Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia which sets out that the Government may acquire property from any person on just terms i.e. on terms that are fair and reasonable to the land owners. This legal issue was depicted in the famous Australian film ‘The Castle’ which, as it turns out, was quite a piece prophetic piece of cinema.

The second issue being grappled by the Government in relation to the construction of the airport is the removal of long term tenants from the airport site. Since the announcement of the proposed airport in the ‘80’s, the Government has leased various properties to tenants, some of which have occupied their respective properties for some 20 years as the airport has been delayed as a result of Australia’s changing political landscape. The Government sought to forcibly remove many of these tenants by terminating their Tenancy Agreement, however have been met with class actions and other such litigation in the Federal Circuit Court. To date the Court has been quite generous in allowing people extensions of time to relocate on the basis that the Government should provide them with adequate time to acquire a new property to move to. This is at odds with State law regarding tenancy and perhaps public opinion which would suggest if a Tenancy Agreement comes to an end a property owner should have a right to take their property back for whatever purpose they like. As the landlord is the Government in this scenario however, a combination of legal factors and public perception means that the government has been forced to act in a manner different to how most landlords would be expected to act.

What is certain is that the construction of the airport is sure to line the pockets of solicitors and barristers as the public continue to battle the Government in relation to compensation for land acquisition (on just terms) and access to the huge parcel of land that is required to build the facility.