In response to a lack of government action on environmental issues and amidst a worsening climate crisis, scholars have called for the implementation of ‘green antitrust’. However, green antitrust faces criticism where many oppose the concept on grounds that non-economic goals and competition law do not mix. The aim of this article is to critically analyse and explore the opportunities and barriers associated with green antitrust and how the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) could assist. By utilising the authorisation process used by ACCC as a vehicle for analysis, this article draws on different views and perspectives from competition literature. A recommendation is proposed to exclude the ‘public’ criterion from the public benefit test as this is unduly cautious and poses challenges when arguing for efficiencies. The article is a call for an update to our thinking, to view competition law not as an end in itself, rather as a means to an end. If the end goal is a more sustainable and circular Australian economy, than competition law could assist.
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
Please access full article here or via PDF link to the left.
While the High Court of Australia has confirmed a materiality threshold for jurisdictional error, there is ongoing debate about its rationale. This comment contributes to the debate by outlining a constitutional rationale for the materiality element in judicial review of executive decisions. Critically, the Commonwealth Constitution denies Australian parliaments power to legislate a prospective rule that rights or obligations are to be as specified in an invalid executive decision in a federal matter. As such, a jurisdictional error by a non-court exercising power in a federal matter engages a significant practical limit on legislative power. Once this is appreciated, a rationale for the materiality threshold for jurisdictional error becomes clear: the threshold calibrates review to the limit on legislative power, by ensuring review is focused on errors that affect the decisions through which legislation operates.
Please access full review here or via PDF link to the left.