This article provides an empirical analysis of the legislative practice of the Australian Parliament and considers its implications for the rule of law. Federal legislation is so voluminous, complex and changeable that it risks diminishing the rule of law, in the sense that it makes the law difficult to know. This could be potentially ameliorated by Australian courts embracing Chevron-style deference, or an administrative law doctrine of legitimate expectations, but neither option is ideal. More broadly, the article comments upon the way in which the rule of law and legislation should be understood in a modern administrative state.

This article examines the application of the rule of law to special leave to appeal applications (‘SLAs’) in the High Court of Australia. SLAs are a fusion of administrative and judicial power. As an administrative tool, determinations of SLAs are a workload filter, limiting the appeals heard by the Court. As an exercise of judicial power, SLA determinations have significant impact upon the parties to litigation and the development of substantive law. Presenting the findings of data analysis of the determination of SLAs in the High Court of Australia from 2013 to 2015, we identify the loss of publicly available information brought about by changes to the High Court Rules in 2016. Using this evidence, we argue that the current administration of SLAs preferences efficiency to the detriment of public confidence in the administration of justice. We suggest facilitating the rule of law through publication of the written submissions for SLAs.

Judicial incapacity, while under-researched, presents unique challenges for supporting and responding to issues of judicial performance. In this article, we argue for a reconceptualisation of this topic based on contemporary theories of socially-constructed disability and principles of anti-discrimination law. While assisting and supporting judicial officers who are attempting to work with a disability or ongoing health issue will always be complex, this reconceptualisation offers heads of jurisdiction, conduct commissions and parliamentarians, who retain the ultimate sanction of removal, the opportunity to craft a surer guide for handling cases of incapacity. This will not only better serve the individual concerned, affording them greater agency and dignity than has traditionally been the case, but also protect the principle of judicial independence.

This article exposes how disparity in the immigration rules of different visas combines with poor enforcement of labour standards to produce a segmented labour market in the Australian horticulture industry. We argue that the precarious work norms of the horticulture industry result in a ‘demand’ on the part of employers for harvest workers to perform precarious jobs. Such demand has been met by the workers supplied through different segments of temporary migrant labour who may be a particularly attractive form of precarious labour because of the conditionalities they experience as a result of their visa class. Our analysis demonstrates that not only do growers make preferences between local and temporary migrant workers, but they also make preferences between different types of temporary migrant workers. In identifying segmentation between temporary migrant workers on different visa categories, the article makes a significant contribution to the labour market segmentation literature, which hitherto has focused on segmentation between migrant workers and non-migrant workers.