We have all experienced the phenomenon of ordering too much food and realising that our eyes may be bigger than our stomachs. Whilst one may assume that, once their meal is paid for, they own their meal and are able to act accordingly, deciding what happens with the leftovers, some Australian restaurants are opting for a ‘no-takeaway policy’.

The aim of enforcing a ‘no doggy-bag’ rule is generally to ensure that consumers cannot fall ill to food that has been taken outside of a restaurant’s premises, where a restaurant is unable to control the environment in which the meal is stored. This is because food substances which have been left in bacteria-infested environments known as ‘Danger Zones’, such as a hot car, may lead to food poisoning, as warned by Department of Health. It is this risk that makes restaurants potentially liable.

One man from Sydney, Ian Hogan, described his experience at Crowne Plaza in the Hunter Valley who refused takeaway of his young daughter’s meal, despite paying for the meal and the facilities associated with the Hotel. Standard 3.2.2 of the Food Safety Practices and General Requirements does not express a legislative requirement for restaurants to provide or refuse takeaway, and so the ability to refuse takeaway is within the discretion of each individual restaurant.

 

 

 

 

Other establishments, such as the Shangri-La Hotel in Sydney, are meeting patrons half-way, requesting the customers signature on waivers and indemnity forms to ensure no liability on behalf of the restaurant once their food has left the premises. Accordingly, once the food is taken off the food business premises, each customer is responsible for its safe storage and handling.

This new practice has been refuted by many restaurants, namely Hana Assafiri, the founder of Fitzroy restaurant Moroccan Soup Bar, who has stated “I always encourage people to take leftovers home if they want to. It's ridiculous that restaurants should have to fear litigation”. Instead, these restaurant owners are using techniques to mitigate the risks of bacteria breeding, like Scott Brown of Grana, Sydney, who is educating his customers about the dangers of the Danger Zone, being between 5°C and 60°C.

The Department of Health also encourages the use of sticky labels on food hygiene, which provide care-instructions for customers, telling diners to cool the food quickly, reheat until steaming and to dispose of after 24 hours.

In Australia, more than $8 billion-worth of edible food is disposed of on an annual basis, and the increase in reusing takeaway will only accelerate this further. Let us know what you think, is the no takeaway policy a step towards greater care of food practices, or is this contributing to a much larger issue?

 

 

If you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact our offices on (02) 8917 8700.

 

On 6 August 2023, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) announced Australia’s first police referral pilot in New South Wales (NSW). The pilot will aim to revolutionise how banks report technology-facilitated abuse, utilising artificial intelligence and other technologies to alert law enforcement.

In the age of digital banking and ‘apps’, bank users are more susceptible than ever to technological abuse. To combat this threat, CBA utilises a range of interventions to make online banking safer. For example, CBA blocks over 400,000 transactions annually by using artificial intelligence to detect inappropriate language sent via the CommBank app. The newly announced police reporting pilot, which will launch in mid-September of this year, will take safety precautions to the next level, and allow CBA to identify repeat abuse faced by victims. CBA will then reach out to the victim and ask consent to contact NSW police to report the abuse.

As a result, users will be provided with a streamline and fast process of reporting abuse. This pilot will not only support victims, but will also prevent abuse, paving the way ‘for more effective collaboration in the fight against domestic and financial abuse’ said Angela Macmillan of CBA Group Customer Advocate.

If you or someone you know with to discuss the issue further, please do not hesitate to contact our offices on (02) 8917 8700.

 

If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic or family violence, call 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732) or visit www.1800RESPECT.org.au.

In an emergency or if you’re not feeling safe, always call 000.

 

Jumping into pop-culture news for this article from F&G, let’s follow the most recent legal battles relating to conservatorships in America, and how that translates to guardianship laws in NSW.

Britney Spears' Conservatorship

Public knowledge about conservatorships boosted exponentially following the debacle that was Britney Spears’ 13-year conservatorship, which was terminated after nearly 14 years by a Los Angeles court ruling in November 2021. Spears’ case revealed the extreme lengths to which an individual living under a conservatorship or a guardianship order, can be governed – including her being unable to remove a contraceptive device so she could fall pregnant.

ABC News notes that 1.3 million Americans live under strict conservatorships. Australia does not have conservatorships as they exist in the United States. Instead, each state and territory harbour various guardianship and financial management laws which mimic the function of a conservatorship. A report by the Australian Guardianship and Administration Council notes that there are a total of 19,879 guardianship and administration/financial management orders active between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022.

The NSW Equivalent of an American Conservatorship

In NSW, guardianship orders can be sought for individuals seeking to appoint another person with the ability to make decisions about their health, accommodation, services and other lifestyle matters. Similar to the conditions of Britney Spears’ conservatorship, individuals subject to a guardianship order are not able to consent themselves to medical and dental treatment. There are limitations on who can be the subject of a guardianship order. Unfortunately, these limitations still raise significant concerns about the impact of substituted-decision making where supported-decision making can be more beneficial for some individuals under guardianship orders.

The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) is responsible for reviewing guardianship applications and making orders. The NCAT will only grant a guardianship order, where the following requirements are satisfied:

The Intended Purpose of a Guardianship Order vs the Practical Effect

As these requirements highlight, guardianship orders are intended to serve as ‘support’ mechanisms for those with a disability – this may be a mental health condition, an intellectual disability, or a disability affecting someone’s ability to communicate their decisions. The Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) states that the welfare and interests of persons with disabilities should be given paramount consideration and that their freedom should be restricted as little as possible.

In practice, however, there are minimal checks and balances on how a guardian undertakes their role to substitute an individual’s capacity and consent with their own – which is discussed by the Intellectual Disability Rights Service in this report. Australia has also been subject to criticisms by the United Nations. Despite being a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the UN finds that Australia has failed to adhere to the values and principles of the CRPD, by continuing to implement substituted decision-making regimes that enshrine restrictive practices.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, please do not hesitate to contact our offices on (02) 8917 8700.

Although the Matildas loss in the FIFA Women’s World Cup semifinal hit home for everyone, there are still so many positive points that we can learn from their achievements.

There is no doubt that all of Australia is incredibly proud of the Matildas’ achievements recently and the incredible impact they have had for women’s soccer. The semifinal match was the most watched TV program since 2001, as Channel 7 says that its broadcast of the game reached 11.7 million people. However, some comment that this number could be even greater as it does not take into account those individuals who streamed them match on Optus Sport, those who attended watch parties and the many who tuned in at their local pub.  There is no doubt that they have reached the hearts and minds of many across the country and will be remembered as inspiring many young girls and boys who aspire to play soccer in the future.

Following the match, one fan favourite, Sam Kerr, called for more funding for Women’s soccer in Australia. She noted that the legacy people remember is what the players do off the pitch rather than on it. She stated that funding is needed everywhere in the area and that she hopes the latest tournaments change the way it is done.

The team has shown a great example of how one can recognise areas of improvement while not taking away from the hard work one has done. They recognised where they could have done better or worked harder but did so while still acknowledging the huge impact that they have had and their accomplishments. They are a great example of how the dynamics in a team and collaboration can make the world of a difference.

We have learnt great things from the Matildas, from comradery to perseverance. Win or lose, the girls support each other fiercely, which is something every one of us should aim to achieve amongst our friendships and relationships.

They united the country in an incredibly special way. Many have a newfound obsession for women’s sport and maybe that is the greatest victory of all.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

 

Breaking news from 9 News Australia on Wednesday 9 August 2023  followed the story of a woman who was dismissed from her 18-year tenure at an insurance company, after her employer was unsatisfied with her work productivity and performance while working from home.  What may seem a normal instance of workplace dismissal was made more controversial by the fact that the woman’s employer had been monitoring her laptop activity through logged keystrokes and assessing the amount of work she was doing from home.

Understandably, this has raised concerns from employees regarding their right to privacy in light of employers’ rights.

Is it legal for employers to spy on employees in this manner?

Yes – in NSW, employers can monitor the usage of equipment provided to employees for work purposes. Actions to be monitored can generally include time spent on work-issued devices such as laptops and phones, as well as the content of movements on such devices (i.e. text messages on a work phone). Reports also identify employees tracking location, mouse movements, and capturing screenshots.

How is this data obtained?

With the intention of more accurately measuring productivity and efficiency outside of the physical workspace, employee monitoring software saw a significant rise in demand during the COVID pandemic. The use of such spyware on company-supplied equipment has continued into the post-pandemic era, and concerns arise where the focus of the tool turns to surveillance and control. In most circumstances, employers must also notify employees of the software being installed on work-issued devices and explain what is being monitored, 14 days prior to the installation of such software.

What can employees do to protect themselves?

The key action to take is to check the terms of your employment contract and your workplace policy. These documents are essential as they:

As the panel discussion for the program noted, the increase of working-from-home arrangements and its normalisation during and after the peak of the COVID pandemic has ushered both positives and complexities in how workplaces function. The flexibility offered by work-from-home arrangements enable greater employee engagement and productivity for some. However, issues arise where the benefits are misused and create an imbalance between privacy protections for employees and employers right to enforce a standard of workplace conduct.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, please do not hesitate to contact our offices on (02) 8917 8700.

Kamilaroi woman Justice Louise Taylor was appointed to the ACT Supreme Court on 26 July 2023, as the territory’s sixth judge, making her the first Indigenous Australian woman to be appointed to a Supreme Court. She has been appointed as a resident judge and has made history as it is the first time an Aboriginal woman will hold the prestigious position in the ACT. This will be the second time Justice Taylor makes history as she was also the first Aboriginal woman to be appointed as a Magistrate in the ACT back in 2018. Justice Taylor is an Australian National University alumna who graduated with a Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Laws degree who has particular interest in women’s issues particularly with regard to family, domestic and sexual violence. She is passionate about the significance of access to justice for women, especially in relation to Aboriginal women and women from marginalised backgrounds.

Justice Taylor has noted that following her experience as a Magistrate, she is hopeful that it has placed her in an excellent position to deal with the workload in the Supreme Court and that she is honoured to have the privilege to serve the community in this way.  The ACT Bar Association has commented that Justice Taylor brings an extensive range of experience to the position. She has previously worked as a prosecutor with the Commonwealth and ACT Director of Public Prosecutions and as Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the ACT Legal Aid Commission. Justice Taylor has also been the chair of the ACT women’s Legal Centre for 10 years. In the 5 years she served on the ACT Magistrates Court it is noted that she spent her time displaying her expertise in criminal and civil law cases and a commitment to impartiality and fairness.

In 2019 Justice Taylor was awarded Indigenous Alumna of the Year Award from the Australian National University for her contributions to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights and access to justice for women. She was inspired to pursue a legal career as she wanted an opportunity to “speak to power with a foundation of knowledge and understanding about the law, in particular as it relates to Aboriginal people”, with her motivation being the chance to contribute to her community. There is no doubt that Justice Taylor’s achievements and recent appointment will inspire many.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this matter further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

On Saturday 6 August 2023, Elon Musk, CEO of social media platform ‘X’, formally known as Twitter, released the following post:

“If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill.

No limit.

Please let us know.”

This interesting post raises the question: Is it legal for an employer to terminate an employee’s contract because of their posts and likes on social media?

Whilst Musk takes a ‘Freedom of Speech’ perspective, his rejection of ‘wokeness’ must be taken with caution for Australian ‘X’ users and employees. In New South Wales, employees are protected by a set of ethical codes stipulated in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). However, unlike America whereby Mr Musk made his post, Australia does not have ‘Freedom of Speech’ imbedded in its Constitution. Instead, Australia has various laws which restrict speech where prejudice and unfair treatment may occur. The Sex Discrimination Act 1944 (Cth) is a great example of this, which restricts discrimination on the ground of sex, gender identity or intersex status.

Social Media Clauses in Contracts

Due to the accessibility and prevalence of social media use in today’s society, many companies have begun including social media clauses within their contracts of employment. A breach of contractual clause was seen in the infamous case of Israel Folau, whereby Rugby Australia cancelled Mr Folau’s $4 million contract due to alleged homophobia within his Instagram posts. Whist Mr Folau argued unfair dismissal, on the basis that he was merely expressing his Christian faith, Rugby Australia declared they, as employers, hold the capacity to regulate the behaviour of their employers, on and off social media, to ensure that they do not contravene the company’s code of conduct.

What if there is no Social Media Clause?

In February 2022, the Fair Work Commission held valid the summary dismissal of an employee at the Australian Council of Trade Unions, after the man posted derogatory material on Facebook relating to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, homosexuality, antisemitism, and domestic violence.

Whilst the employee argued that the posts were made only to his seventy Facebook friends outside of work hours, the Fair Work Commission held that this was irrelevant, as the posts were, at the end of the day, made publicly.

Therefore, although Mr Musk makes a strong push towards Freedom of Speech, it is important to be careful of what opinions employees express publicly, especially if they are contrary to the values and reputation of your employer!

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, please do not hesitate to contact our offices on (02) 8917 8700.

TW: domestic abuse

Domestic violence is a complex and silent crime that is significantly under-reported, and in most cases, survivors find it difficult in accessing avenues of help.

Domestic violence involves an abuse of power, and is predominantly targeted towards women – making it a gendered crime. It extends beyond physical violence, and manifests itself in various forms including financial abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and isolation.

An avenue that is accessible to many survivors is their healthcare provider or general practitioner. Especially if your partner has isolated you from friends and family, a healthcare provider might be one’s only safe form of communication. When speaking to your general practitioner, advise them of your domestic violence situation, and if your partner refuses to leave you alone in the room with the general practitioner, attempt to call (during a safe time) the general practitioner beforehand to let them know that you wish to speak to them alone.

After discussing your situation with the general practitioner, they will be in a position to assist you in making a safety plan, provide you with details of local resources, and even document the abuse you are going through, whether that be physical or mental. You may need to check beforehand the state laws regarding whether general practitioners are required to report any incidents to the police, especially if you wish for no report to be made.

F&G understands how difficult it is for survivors of domestic violence to finally break free from the power their partner dominates over them and speak out about their situation. It is important to always have a thorough self-care process, such as doing something you enjoy, journaling, or even practicing breathing techniques.

There are numerous assistance helplines available to you:-

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, or PwC, is a global company that provides accounting and consulting services who, in the business world, is considered to be one of the Big 4 firms in the field alongside Deloitte, KPMG and Ernst & Young. PwC’s largest domestic client is the Federal Government who engage PwC’s services for consultation regard defence, education, transport spending and in some instances, proposed legislative changes. However, it has been recently brought to light that PwC is now subject to a police investigation crisis that has the potential of having global implications.

Almost 10 years ago, the Federal Government requested that Peter-John Collins, PwC’s international tax expert, help them in designing laws that could solve the issue of large overseas companies, such as Facebook and Apple, to pay their appropriate share of tax in Australia. This legislation was known as the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law. In doing so, Mr Collins was required to sign various confidentiality agreements. However, the Tax Practitioners Board found that he in fact shared confidential knowledge with other members of PwC which allowed them to create ways that companies can avoid paying the new tax and, to the PwC’s advantage, obtain new clients to make more money. This breach of trust, as a result of the misuse of confidential tax information, is a threat that goes beyond the Australian border as PwC used its global connections to profit, bringing in other large professional services firms from around the world.

In 2022, the Tax Practitioners Board suspended Mr Collin’s tax licence for two years, finding that he had leveraged insider knowledge and had failed to properly manage his conflicts of interest. Additionally, nine other partners in PwC have been directed to take leave whilst waiting for the determination of an internal investigation. The names of these partners are yet to be released. In May 2023, emails were released that showed the true extent of what had been occurring in PwC which further showed how Mr Collin’s colleagues were aware that he was leaking confidential secret government documents. That information was then shared to at least 53 other PwC partners who later approached at a minimum 14 global companies regarding tax avoidance. Three of these companies took on the information and restructured to avoid the new tax scheme.

Consequently, the relationships between PwC and the Federal and State Government has been greatly affected. The Reserve Bank has even stopped signing new contacts with PwC until they can demonstrate complete transparency. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has commented that “this is a shocking breach of trust, an appalling breach of trust” which for a firm whose public slogan is “build trust and solve important problems” has hit home. The scandal has resulted in former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to call for a separation of the audit and consulting services of the Big 4 firms.

If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.

envelopeprinterphonemap-marker