Should State Government agencies arbitrate?
It is reasonably well established now that Australia, and NSW, are sophisticated ‘pro-arbitration’ jurisdictions.
The NSW Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (CAA) (like the Commonwealth International Arbitration Act (IAA)) gives effect (in broad terms) to the arbitration ‘Model Law’ published by UNCITRAL (Model Law), regarded globally as the ‘gold standard’ of pro-arbitration law and policy.
However, in a recent presentation, Bret Walker SC questioned whether arbitration by government agencies was appropriate. Is he right?
CAA and the advantages of arbitration
The pro-arbitration regime created by the CAA is generally considered to be found in the limitations placed on the ability of courts to intervene in the arbitration process, the autonomy of the parties, and the relative ease by which awards (particularly international awards, under the IAA) can be enforced.
That process (as expressed in the Paramount Object at section 1C of the CAA) is intended to facilitate the fair and final resolution of commercial disputes by impartial arbitral tribunals without unnecessary delay or expense. Accordingly, the CAA must be interpreted to give effect to that Paramount Object.
However, there is limited scope for recourse against a CAA award, with the grounds of challenge limited by statute based on procedural fairness and natural justice.
Arbitration can be scaleable. Large complex commercial disputes can be arbitrated by senior counsel and retired judges and run like superior court litigation. Additional costs, including arbitrator’s fees, will be incurred but can be recovered by the successful party. Smaller disputes can be arbitrated quickly and discretely by appropriate subject matter experts.
‘Party autonomy’ is one of the touchstones of arbitration and is reflected in the Model Law and CAA. The parties themselves can have a significant amount of control over how the process will run. Even before the pandemic, arbitration could be conducted virtually or ‘on documents alone’ without the need for a formal hearing, significantly reducing costs.
Arbitration can be administered by an appropriate institution or by ‘ad hoc’ appointment of an arbitrator or arbitrators who will administer the dispute in accordance with the parties’ wishes or chosen set of rules.
Arbitration awards can be enforced through courts with the responsibility largely on the award debtor to establish grounds for non-enforcement.
One of the more distinctive and attractive features of arbitration is the confidentiality or privacy of the process. Unlike ‘open court’ arbitration, proceedings are private to the parties. Strangers to the arbitration cannot attend hearings, and the results remain confidential. Courts called upon to enforce arbitration awards or to hear challenges can and will allow the parties to adopt pseudonyms to protect their identity.
Australian arbitration legislation contains some of the more proscriptive confidentiality provisions found globally. Before the decision of the High Court in Esso v Plowman (1995) 128 ALR 391, it had been assumed by many that the confidentiality of arbitration was a common law right. Even if there was such a right under English law, the High Court determined that there was no such common law right under Australian law.
As a result, our arbitration legislation was amended to rectify that situation, and our express statutory provisions dealing with confidentiality is one of the major differences and attributes of the Australian arbitration environment.
There are a number of reasons why this is relevant:
- arbitrators are not bound by the laws of evidence. Subject to any pre-agreed rules, arbitrators are largely able to determine the procedure appropriate to the particular matter and have significant discretion
- matters can and are determined by sole arbitrators, and panels of three
- arbitrators need not be lawyers or legally qualified.
As a result, arbitration awards have no precedential value, even though arbitrators will often be required to determine points of law.
Can the process be abused?
While there are no Australian examples, some writers in the United States have pointed to (apparent) abuses of the arbitration process.
First, some US corporates have attempted to use arbitration agreements in consumer contracts to avoid class actions. There is no concept of a ‘class’ under Australian arbitration law, and any attempt to bring a court action in respect of a contractual matter subject to an arbitration agreement must be stayed. The court has no discretion in this regard. As a result, a multiplicity of arbitrations would need to be commenced, consolidated and managed together.
Second, it is asserted that some US corporates seek to secure an imbalance of bargaining power by using arbitration agreements in consumer contracts, which could (for example) require a consumer in one US state to pursue or be subject to arbitration in another state.
Finally, it has been suggested that some US employers use arbitration agreements in employment contracts to enforce apparently unfair restrains on former employees.
In a recent address, Bret Walker SC questioned whether it was appropriate that governments might choose to arbitrate disputes if the result was the avoidance of scrutiny of their affairs, or, in my own words, ‘sweeping mistakes’ under the carpet.
There are some limited exceptions to the confidentiality rule contained within the CAA.
First, the parties may of course agree to disclose confidential information. Sections 27G, 27H and 27I of the CAA provide the arbitrator and courts with a wide discretion to allow disclosure principally in circumstances where “the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings is outweighed by other considerations that render it desirable in the public interest for the confidential information to be disclosed.”
This occurred in the Queensland Supreme Court case of Wilmar v Burdekin District Cane Growers  QSC 3. In that case, the parties were involved in an arbitration. One party foreshadowed making submissions which the other wished to refer to certain Queensland Government officials.
An application was made to the arbitrator who allowed the disclosure but stayed the operation of his order to allow an application to be made to the Court.
Having considered issues of the public interest, the judge declined to overturn the arbitrator’s order.
Arbitration should not be considered merely as litigation by another name. While there will always be some disputes and matters best resolved in the courts, according to law, arbitration has distinctive merits and should be considered by government agencies as an important alternative to litigation.
In the media
Historical offences to face modern justice Perpetrators of sexual violence and other criminals who’ve evaded the criminal justice system for years, or even decades, will now face the prospect of tougher sentencing from NSW courts, which will no longer be bound by outdated sentencing practices (21 November 2021). More...
Tougher sentences for crimes that cause the loss of an unborn child Offenders whose criminal acts cause the loss of an unborn child will face tougher sentences after reforms passed NSW Parliament. "The reforms deliver higher maximum penalties to reflect the gravity of these crimes, without undoing longstanding legal principles" (20 November 2021). More...
Industry urges caution on ‘critical tech’ regulation The Technology Council of Australia has urged caution on closer scrutiny and tighter regulations for ‘critical technologies’ on national security grounds, saying these new technologies were equally critical to the nation’s economic objectives and needed access to markets and investment to thrive (18 November 2021). More...
ACMA moves to block illegal online lottery services The ACMA will request Australian internet service providers block illegal offshore lottery websites We Love Lotto and Red Fox Lotto. "Blocking illegal offshore sites protects Australians from potentially dodgy operators, where there is little or no recourse if things go wrong" (18 November 2021). More...
ACMA issues formal warning to Tabcorp for online in-play betting The ACMA has issued a formal warning to Tabcorp Holdings Ltd after it was found to have accepted 37 illegal online in-play bets on a United States college basketball game. Authority member Fiona Cameron said this is the first time the ACMA has taken action against an operator for a breach of online in-play betting rules (18 November 2021). More...
Video tech signing of legal forms here to stay The remote witnessing of important legal documents such as wills, statutory declarations and affidavits over video will become a permanent feature of the NSW legal landscape. Attorney General Mark Speakman said legislation to cement temporary measures into law has passed both Houses of NSW Parliament (17 November 2021). More...
More foreign interference scrutiny for researchers The guidelines used to mitigate foreign interference risks in universities have been tightened to require declaration of interest disclosures from staff “at risk of foreign interference” and allows for this information to be used in funding decisions (17 November 2021). More...
Consideration of raising minimum age of criminal responsibility doesn’t go far enough The LCA welcomes the decision by Australia’s State Attorneys-General to support development of a proposal to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years of age, but believes an opportunity to bring Australia into step with international human rights standards has been missed (16 November 2021). More...
Majority of Australians want stronger whistleblower protections Seven in 10 Australians want more legal protections for whistleblowers and say that whistleblowers make Australia a better place, according to new research by The Australia Institute and the Human Rights Law Centre (15 November 2021). More...
NSW Law Society: Unjustified criticism of judicial officers undermines confidence in our justice system Recent comments by the Minister for Police in relation to the decision to grant bail to Mostafa Baluch are unfortunate and have the potential to unnecessarily undermine public confidence in our justice system. "Judicial officers can only make decisions based on the evidence that is before them at the time, and not with the benefit of hindsight" (15 November 2021). More...
NSW Law Society: More needs to be done to prevent intimidation of lawyers Comments made in Budget Estimates by the NSW Attorney General, that he is considering law reform are welcomed, to strengthen protections available to lawyers following the revelation that the Commissioner of Police had only issued warnings to officers found by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission to have engaged in deliberate harassment of a solicitor (15 November 2021). More...
NSW legislates to protect check in data from police A government bill banning New South Wales police from accessing COVID-19 check in data is expected to become law, after passing the Upper House with bipartisan support and being endorsed by the state’s privacy watchdog (15 November 2021). More...
Privacy Commissioner statement relating to additional safeguards for contact tracing information Privacy Commissioner welcomed the introduction of legislation to provide additional safeguards for personal information and health information collected by Service NSW (11 November 2021). More...
NSW Government review to ensure best practice in grants administration The NSW Government will conduct a review into the administration of grants programs in NSW to ensure that public money is spent fairly, effectively, and transparently (3 November 2021). More...
New dashboard to track gender equality in NSW Students, researchers and the public will now be able to find up-to-date statistics on topics such as the gender pay gap, maternal health and higher education completions for women thanks to a new online database (08 November 2021). More...
In practice and courts
HC Bulletin The High Court Bulletin is compiled approximately once a month, from February to December. High Court of Australia Bulletin  HCAB 09 (12 November 2021).
Data and Digital Ministers' Meeting Communique – 12 November 2021 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Data and Digital Ministers' Meeting Communique – 12 November 2021.
GovCMS lines up to walk online again Australia’s whole-of-Government website management platform, GovCMS, is preparing to host a week of online events to help departments and agencies explore everything it has to offer from 15 to 19 November. Click here for more information.
LCA submissions 12 November 2021 – Law Council Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021 09 November 2021 – Business Law Section Feedback on ASBFEO’s preliminary report 08 November 2021 – Law Council Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021 08 November 2021 – Business Law Section Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021
Law Council Update The Law Council produces a fortnightly newsletter which highlights the Law Council's important activities and advocacy, along with any relevant media and events stakeholders would be interested in. Read the 12 November 2021 edition.
Law Council of Australia – launch of the lawyer project report The lawyer project report seeks to highlight the value of the legal profession and the differences it makes each day to its clients and to the broader community. Please find a full copy of the lawyer project report, its key findings, and the media release issued here (12 November 2021).
ABA concurrent evidence practices survey – the results – 11 November 2021 KordaMentha, in conjunction with the Australian Bar Association surveyed a cross-section of counsel, judges, experts and lawyers for their experiences and expectations when giving, taking or hearing expert evidence concurrently. Click here to read more.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (the Court): New court initiatives help uncover higher prevalence of family violence and other risks The number of high risk matters identified through the Lighthouse project confirms the concerns women’s legal services have been raising for many years – that family violence is drastically underreported. We are keen to have the benefit of the Lighthouse pilot becoming a fixture in our family law system and extending to Victoria. More details on the Lighthouse project, including case studies, are available on the Court’s website (12 November 2021).
AAT Bulletin The AAT Bulletin is a weekly publication containing a list of recent AAT decisions and information relating to appeals against AAT decisions, including immigration and citizenship. Read Issue No. 23/2021, 15 November 2021.
Proposal to make Telecommunications Service Provider (Customer Identity Verification) Determination 2021 – consultation 39/2021 The ACMA is consulting on proposed new rules to help prevent scammers from targeting high-risk customer interactions with telcos, such as SIM swap requests, changes to accounts and disclosure of personal information. The ACMA is seeking feedback by 15 December 2021. Click here for more information.
Australian Human Rights Commission consultation Have your say in a national anti-racism framework Submissions are open from 21 October to 15 December 2021.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
The performance and integrity of Australia’s administrative review system The deadline for submissions to this inquiry is 24 November 2021. Further detail about the scope of the inquiry is provided in the terms of reference.
Constitution Alteration (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press) 2019 Status: Accepting submissions. Date referred: 17 June 2021. Submissions closed: 20 August 2021. Reporting date: 31 December 2021.
Consultation on review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has invited feedback on a review of the law covering workplace gender equality in Australia, on and issued a consultation paper which covers the current legislation, enshrined in the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, as well as gender indicators and continuing employer reporting obligations. Submissions close on 24 November and further information can be accessed on the PM&C website here.
Revised district criminal court practice note 25 – applications for leave for in person appearances in sentence proceedings The Chief Judge of the District Court has revised district court criminal practice note 25: Applications for leave for in person appearances in sentence proceedings, which was signed on 8 November. Read more here.
New consolidated NCAT adjournments guideline NCAT has developed a new consolidated adjournments guideline. This guideline helps parties understand when a hearing can be postponed or delayed (10 November 2021).
Sentencing Council: Review of fraud and fraud-related offences The Attorney General has asked us to review sentencing for fraud and fraud-related offences in New South Wales. We are currently accepting preliminary submissions on issues raised by the terms of reference. Preliminary submissions are due by 17 December 2021. For more information, visit our background webpage and questions to guide preliminary submissions.
Local court memo 24 on COVID-19 November 2021 – COVID court procedure to 24 January 2022. This memorandum replaces all other previous COVID-19 memorandum. Read more here.
Decisions reserved The Court of Appeal maintains a list of matters before the court for which judgment is reserved. The list is updated weekly. View the latest publication here.
Costs disputes – uniform law – indexed amounts Sections 291, 292 and 293 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) relate to costs disputes. The amounts have again been indexed for the financial year 1/7/2021 – 30/6/2022. The Legal Profession Uniform Law (Indexed Amounts) Notice 2021 has been published and is available here.
Published – articles, papers, reports
Adjusting to technology inside and outside the court room post COVID (2021) Judge Paul E Smith, paper delivered to South Australian Supreme and District Court Judges, 5 November 2021. Click here to read more.
Modern slavery in the health services sector: Practical responses to managing risks to people Australian Human Rights Commission in collaboration with KPMG Australia: 15 November 2021. The guide showcases examples of current practice from the sector and provides good practice guidance. Click here for more information (15 November 2021).
Annual statement of compliance with the child safe framework and risk management assessment CDPP: 11 November 2021. The safety and wellbeing of children and young people is a priority for our leadership team and staff with particular emphasis in providing support for victims of child abuse crime. Click here for more information.
The action plan for critical technologies Critical technologies policy coordination office: 17 November 2021. The action plan for critical technologies demonstrates the Australian Government’s tangible actions to protect and promote critical technologies. Click here for more information.
Blueprint for critical technologies Critical technologies policy coordination office: 17 November 2021. The Australian Government’s framework for capitalising on critical technologies to drive a technologically-advanced, future-ready nation. Click here for more information.
Australian Government response to the Senate Standing Committee for the scrutiny of delegated legislation report: Inquiry into exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight: Interim report Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: 18 November 2021. The Committee’s interim report made 18 recommendations to the Government and the Parliament. The Australian Government has considered the recommendations of the Committee’s interim report and has provided a response. Click here for more information.
Use and administration of wage subsidies ANAO: Report No 8: 8 November 2021. The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment’s arrangements in administering wage subsidies linked to employment programs. Click here for more information.
AIJA newsletters The Institute's newsletter, AIJA News, is designed to keep members informed of the Institute's activities and also to bring its work to the attention of a wider national and international audience. Read the November 2021 edition.
Can v State of New South Wales  NSWSC 1480ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – standing – plaintiff sought to challenge public health orders – whether the plaintiff had standing where he had never been charged with and had no intention of breaching directions made under the public health orders – consideration of propositions emerging from authorities on “sufficient interest” – the plaintiff has standing where the law interferes with his private right irrespective of whether other members of the public have the same right and are similarly affected – provisions of the public health orders interfere with the plaintiff’s right to leave his home. PUBLIC HEALTH ACT – COVID-19 – public health orders made under section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) – public health orders purporting to authorise police officers to request and require production of evidence from persons of their name and place of residence and vaccination status – amendment to section 112 to include police officers as authorised officers able to direct that a person’s name and address be provided – section 112 is not to be regarded as the exclusive source of police officers’ powers to enforce the Act – section 7 and Part 8 of the Act must be construed in the context of the background of statutory and common law – police officers exercising powers under the Act are bound by the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) – consideration of the effect of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard  NSWSC 1320 on the question of privilege against self-incrimination – no relevant distinction between the clauses considered in Kassam, which were found not to infringe the privilege against self-incrimination, and those impugned in this case – directions specifically providing that “required evidence” be carried and produced on request expressly overrides the privilege and the right to freedom of movement – amended summons dismissed.
Dibb v Transport for NSW  NSWCATAD 340ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to information – valuation reports – business interests of agencies – personal and financial information – agency decision to provide access to information – whether informal release of government information. Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013; Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009; Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991; Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.
Gale v Commissioner of Police  NSWCATAD 337ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to government information – access application – public interests in favour of disclosure – public interests against disclosure – whether overriding public interest against disclosure. Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW); Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW); Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW); Police Act 1990 (NSW).
Kim v City of Ryde  NSWCATAD 334ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Civil and Administrative Tribunal – administrative review jurisdiction – enabling legislation – no jurisdiction to review a decision of the City of Ryde to refuse to indemnify a councillor of the City for legal fees he wishes to incur with respect to code of conduct complaints against him.
South East Forest Rescue Inc v Allied Natural Wood Enterprises Pty Ltd  NSWLEC 124JUDICIAL REVIEW – first determination of development application declared invalid – consent authority makes second determination of development application – second determination of development application challenged – works proposed by development application substantially completed at time of second determination – application for declaration that second determination invalidly made – submitting appearances except as to costs by development applicant and by consent authority – consent authority had no power to make second determination – second determination declared invalid – development proponent restrained from relying on second determination. COSTS – order sought by applicant that consent authority and development applicant be jointly liable for costs of judicial review proceedings – consent authority agrees to costs on this basis – development applicant proposes that consent authority solely be responsible for costs of other parties – separate costs hearing held – consent authority to pay costs of applicant and development applicant.
Larter v Hazzard (No 2)  NSWSC 1451PUBLIC HEALTH ACT – COVID-19 – public health orders made under section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) – health care workers required to be vaccinated by particular dates as a condition of being permitted to provide health care services – whether it was open to the Minister to make the public health orders having regard to the risk to public health posed by COVID-19 – consideration of the width of the power in section 7 by reference to Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard  NSWSC 1320 – Chief Medical Officer gave evidence of her advice to the Minister to make the orders, the rationale for the orders and available data – concern to protect categories of persons at greater risk of severe COVID-19 illness who are over-represented in health facilities and to prevent disruption to the delivery of public health services – reasonably open to the Minister to make the orders. PUBLIC HEALTH ACT – time-limited orders – the Minister is not permitted to make an order which has an effect beyond 90 days. HUMAN RIGHTS – international law – the public health orders are not inconsistent with the international covenant on civil and political rights – freedom of religion and religious expression and freedom of thought and expression may be subject to limitations necessary to protect public health – obligation under the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights to prevent, treat and control epidemics – not necessary to address whether Australia’s international obligations can be used to construe state legislation. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – remedies – plaintiff seeks declarations that two public health orders were, and are, invalid and associated relief by way of injunctions – whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse to fail to comply with the directions cannot be determined in the absence of a charge under section 10 of the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) and concrete facts.
Mann v Harness Racing NSW  NSWCATAD 330ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to government information – access application – public interests in favour of disclosure – public interests against disclosure – whether overriding public interest against disclosure.
Purcell v The Director of Public Prosecutions  NSWCA 269JUDICIAL REVIEW – district court – conviction appeal from local court dismissed as outside three month time limit – erroneous as calculation should have excluded day of lodgement – whether error jurisdictional – whether necessary to show error was “material” – held – relief granted.
Freedom of Information Act 198219/11/2021 – Act No. 3 of 1982
Charter of the United Nations Act 194510/11/2021 – Act No. 32 of 1945 as amended
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 197910/11/2021 – Act No. 114 of 1979 as amended
Australian Information Commissioner Act 201010/11/2021 – Act No. 52 of 2010 as amended
Ombudsman Act 197609/11/2021 – Act No. 181 of 1976 as amended
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 201709/11/2021 – Act No. 129 of 2017 as amended
National Health (Privacy) Rules 202116/11/2021 – these rules concern the handling by agencies, of information obtained by any agency in connection with a claim for a payment or benefit under the Medicare Benefits Program and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Program (‘claims information’).
Competition and Consumer (Consumer Data Right) Amendment Rules (No. 2) 202115/11/2021 – this instrument amends the Competition and Consumer (Consumer Data Right) Rules 2020 to implement Consumer Data Right in the energy sector by establishing a peer-to-peer data access model for the energy sector and making energy sector specific rules and other minor amendments.
Royal Commissions Amendment (Witness Allowances) Regulations 202112/11/2021 – this instrument amends the Royal Commissions Regulations 2019 to increase the daily allowance payable to ‘non-expert’ witnesses appearing before a current or future Royal Commission to $250.00 per day. The amendments apply to witnesses attending the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, or the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide on, or after, 4 November 2019, or a Royal Commission established on or after the day the proposed regulations would commence.
Regulations and other miscellaneous instruments Casino Control Amendment (Crown Casino) Regulation 2021 (2021–673) – published LW 19 November 2021 Local Government (General) Amendment (Model Code of Meeting Practice) Regulation 2021 (2021–661) – published LW 12 November 2021 Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Amendment (Carbon Dioxide Exposure Standards) Regulation 2021 (2021–662) – published LW 12 November 2021
Bills introduced Government – 12 November 2021 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2021 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Loss of Foetus) Bill 2021 Electronic Transactions Amendment (Remote Witnessing) Bill 2021 Gaming Machine Tax Amendment (Promotional Prizes) Bill 2021 Public Spaces (Unattended Property) Bill 2021 Service NSW (One-stop Access to Government Services) Amendment (COVID-19 Information Privacy) Bill 2021
Non-Government Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Age of Criminal Responsibility) Bill 2021 Companion Animals Amendment (Rehoming Animals) Bill 2021 ICAC and Other Independent Commissions Legislation Amendment (Independent Funding) Bill 2021 (No 2)
Bills revised following amendment in Committee Children's Guardian Amendment (Child Safe Scheme) Bill 2021 Civil Liability Amendment (Child Abuse) Bill 2021 Customer Service Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Bills passed by both Houses of Parliament Children's Guardian Amendment (Child Safe Scheme) Bill 2021 Civil Liability Amendment (Child Abuse) Bill 2021
Bills introduced Government – 19 November 2021 Electoral Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021 Licensing and Registration (Uniform Procedures) Amendment Bill 2021 Stronger Communities Legislation Amendment (Children) Bill 2021
Non-Government Abortion Law Reform (Sex Selection Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2021 Climate Change (Emissions Targets) Bill 2021 (LA Bill) Climate Change (Emissions Targets) Bill 2021 (LC Bill) Fiscal Responsibility Amendment (Privatisation Restrictions) Bill 2021 Government Grants Administration Bill 2021
Bills passed by both Houses of Parliament Customer Service Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 Electronic Transactions Amendment (Remote Witnessing) Bill 2021