Pseudolegal, with a dash of 'Misprision of Treason'

In Victorian Legal Services Board v Jensen [2022] VSC 430 the Court states 

[4] When the trial commenced, I explained to Mr Jensen that when he appeared before Garde J [see below], his Honour told him that he needed advice from a legal practitioner as to the effect of the order and what he could and could not do. Garde J explained to him that the court’s order was a restraining order, breach of which would constitute contempt of court that would have serious consequences, including imprisonment. I asked Mr Jensen whether he knew of and understood the content of the injunction. He confirmed he had people explain it to him and that he believed he understood it, and that he was content to proceed with this hearing without the assistance of a legal practitioner. 

Relevant facts 

[5] It is common ground that Mr Jensen has never been admitted to legal practice in Victoria and does not hold, and never held, a practising certificate. His two companies, the second and third defendants, have never been registered as law practices in Victoria. Despite this, Mr Jensen and his companies were found to have engaged in legal practice and to have represented that they were entitled to engage in legal practice. Consequently, on 2 August 2018, the court restrained the defendants in the terms set out above. 

[6] On 14 August 2018, the injunction orders were served on the defendants. 

[7] On 18 February 2021, the VLSB received a complaint from a firm of solicitors that its client and his parents, had received incorrect legal advice from Mr Jensen in around mid-2020 and that this advice resulted in its client being charged with contravening a personal safety intervention order (‘PSI order’ or ‘IVO’). The client was facing a rape charge and the complainant was the beneficiary of the PSI order. 

[8] The VLSB re-opened its investigation into Mr Jensen ’s conduct. It obtained a series of email communications, between 7 August 2020 and 29 October 2020, apparently between Mr Jensen and the parents of the accused. ...

[10] The emails set out the relevant conduct. ... 

[12] On 7 August 2020 at 5:24pm, Mr Jensen sent an email to the parents. The email said:

 It was lovely to connect with you today. 

The attached is a heavy duty spiritual initiation to an affidavit. 

It sounds like you may not have a lot of forensic evidence, so I am using Common Law (Gods Law). 

To rebut the Holy scriptures is impossible in a court, and by anyone else, You need to Just fill out the story you want to get across. 

You are welcome to delete or change what I have done. I just wrote it as if my son had been accused of something that he didn’t do. 

I am open for you to give it your own creative structure. 

Love and Blessings Den 

Denn Jensen Managing Director The JTA Corporation P/L

[13] Attached to the email was:

(a) A template affidavit entitled ‘Template Certificate Identifying Exhibit to Affidavit’; 

(b) A series of photographs of a volume apparently from the Supreme Court Library, entitled ‘Statutes at Large, from the Fifth Year of K. William and Q. Mary, to the Eighth Year of K. William III’ and an extract thereof; 

(c) A draft affidavit, headed ‘Affidavit’ and ‘The law is spiritual’. It contained a mixture of references to scripture, archaic legal texts, current statutes and statements pertaining to legal and religious matters. The statements included, ‘The contents of this affidavit are based on FACT AND LAW and CANNOT BE STRUCK OUT in a Court of law unless the FACTS AND LAW are forensically rebutted.’ It left blank a space for the relevant facts to be inserted. ...

[15]  On 11 August 2020 at 12:08pm, Mr Jensen replied and said:

I will be able to call later today or early evening. 

An affidavit would be the choice over a statement. 

I don’t do statements because they do not hold any authority in the law. An affidavit trumps an affidavit and will short circuit the whole process. 

If either side does not have any forensic proof. The first at law stands at law. And to get an affidavit in first they have to rebut it with forensic proof. 

As you see in the affidavit template I sent you I am setting a scene for an unrebuttably affidavit with Common Law which is Almighty Gods Law. 

This cannot be unrebutted. I will chat later on today. 

I recommend that you don’t send a statement!!!!

In Victorian Legal Services Board v Jensen [2018] VSC 740 the Court states:

[1] The Victorian Legal Services Board (‘the Board’) applies for an injunction under s 447 of the Legal Professional Uniform Law (Vic) (‘Uniform Law’) to restrain the defendants from engaging in unqualified legal practice, and from advertising or representing, or doing anything that states or implies that they are entitled to engage in legal practice. 

[2] It also seeks to restrain Mr Dennis Jensen, the first defendant from: (a) providing legal advice in relation to disputes, proceedings or potential proceedings; (b) corresponding or communicating on behalf of litigants or potential litigants; (c) drawing documents on behalf of or as agents for litigants, including pleadings, affidavits and submissions; (d) appearing in court on behalf of litigants to proceedings; and (e) drawing documents of a legal character. 

[3] Mr Jensen opposes the application. The second and third defendants are companies under the control of Mr Jensen. 

The Board’s case 

[4] The Board alleges that the defendants have engaged in unqualified legal practice, and advertised or represented that they are entitled to do so. It principally points to the facts and circumstances relating to four disputes. ... 

The second dispute 

[15] In 2017, the defendants purported to act for WW, the defendant in a dispute with a Council over unpaid rates. 

[16] On 10 January 2017, Mr Jensen wrote to the Council and asserted that Common Law Resolutions acted on behalf of WW. It asked the Council to reply to it. 

[17] On 31 January 2017, the Council received a letter from Mr Jensen enclosing a document signed by WW and entitled ‘notice of authority.’ WW purported to give Common Law Resolutions his full authority to act on his behalf in the matter between the parties, and in all other matters as his advocate and representative. 

18 On 23 February 2017, Common Law Resolutions purported to render a ‘true bill of accounts’ upon the Council. The ‘tax invoice’ stated that: (a) failure to pay would ‘automatically set legal action in process’; and (b) as soon as ‘we have settled we will remove the Goods and Services PPSR on the [Council]’. 

[19] In March 2017, Common Law Resolutions sent the Council a document titled ‘Common Law Default Notice’, and enclosed a PPSR search certificate. The certificate showed that Common Law Resolutions had registered a security interest over the Council in respect of ‘Debtor Accounts accumulated during the course of Business for invoices issued from time to time.’ The Council had granted no such security interest. 

[20] On 23 May 2017, the Council obtained a default judgment in a proceeding commenced against WW in respect of the unpaid rates. 

[21] On 2 June 2017, Common Law Resolutions provided the Council with a document titled ‘Notice of Objection to a hearing [sic] proceeding in the absence of the parties,’ which imitated a Magistrates’ Court form. 

The third dispute 

[22] In 2017, the defendants purported to act for JB in a building enforcement matter commenced by a different Council. 

[23] On 21 April 2017, Mr Jensen as managing director of Common Law Resolutions, provided the following documents to the Council: (a) an authority for Common Law Resolutions to act as an advocate or mediator; (b) a letter from Common Law Resolutions; and (c) a document titled ‘Criminal Charge Sheet for Common Law Grand Jury’ (the purported charge sheet). 

[24] The letter both asserted that Common Law Resolutions represented JB and sought the Council’s response to it. The purported authority stated: I, [JB] of [address] give authority to Common Law Resolutions Pty Ltd to advocate for me in matters relating to the proceedings brought against me and my property at the address listed above by [the Council]. 

[25] The purported charge sheet charged various council staff with ‘common law criminal charges’ including ‘Misprision of Treason’. ... 

Defendant’s case 

[31] In response to the Board’s case, Mr Jensen handed up a purported charge sheet for grand treason concerning the Court, to be issued by Mr Jensen in the Magistrates’ Court. He stated that the charges were being laid, and that the defendants had no business in the Court. 

[32] The defendants made no submissions of substance to the Court. The Court was not assisted by the defendant’s submissions.

OPCA

In Evangeline Liakos v Regain Occupational Therapy Pty Ltd T/A Cloud Nine Paediatric Therapy Services [2022] FWC 1463 the Commission states 

[23] On 29 October 2021, the Respondent received an email from the Applicant attaching a letter, and further five-page attachment, and a document titled “Notice of Demand for Further and Better Particulars” that was in the following terms:

“Date. 29 October 2021 

The rule of law is fundamental in maintaining a free and fair society that supports the provision for men and women, should they incur harm. loss. or injury from another, to access restorative processes pursuant to the United Nations Charter. 

I, Evangaline of the House Liakos, am deeply concerned about the employer-mandated COVID-19 injection procedure insisted upon myself by Amisha Gandhi (hereinafter referred to as “Amisha”), Director of Regain Occupational Therapy Pty Ltd trading as Cloud Nine Paediatric Therapy Services (hereinafter referred to as “Cloud Nine”). 

In order for me to be fully informed to empower me to give informed consent it is my will that I be provided with all of the following information, and documentary evidence: 

The lawful basis upon which you rely requiring me to be vaccinated against COVID-·19 in order to work; Documentary evidence of the relevant Instrument of Delegation held by Amisha, as required under the Federal Crimes Act 1914 3ZZIA; 

Documentary evidence held by Amisha, or by Cloud Nine, of any and all health and safety advice received as well as medical and scientific data held by Amisha or Cloud Nine, evidencing that the COVID-19 injections are safe, and that no men or women have lost their lives nor suffered from any adverse reactions as a result; 

The risk assessments (a minimum of four) performed by Amisha, including documentary evidence of material risks of COVID-19 transmissions ,by any, “vaccinated” or by any unvaccinated man or woman presenting at work; 

The legal status of the trial/experimental COVID-19 injections which have been approved for mandating by Cloud Nine; 

Documentary evidence that the experimental COVID-19 injection have been fully independently, and rigorously tested against control groups, and the subsequent outcomes of those tests; 

The entire list and toxicity of the ingredients that are contained in the COVID-19 injection, including proprietary components. and confirmation that the COVID-19 injection is not a trial/experimental mRNA gene-altering therapy: 

A certified true copy of the proclamation certificate with the appropriate assent in respect of your mandate; 

Written confirmation that Amisha Gandhi, as Director of Cloud Nine. in her personal and unlimited capacity, is and will be taking full responsibility and liability for any and all adverse events resulting from the COVID-19 injections including any harm. loss, or injury immediately or in the future, as a consequence being mandated to take me COVID-19 injection as per Amisha and Cloud Nine’s directions; 

The confirmation that, I will not be under duress from yourself and/or Cloud Nine in compliance with the Nuremberg Code 1947; 

Evidence of an official statement from the Australian Government confirming that the announcement by Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison MP, on the 6''' of August 2021 that “informed consent is needed” before the COVID-19 injection is administered upon an individual, has been rescinded by the Australian Government; 

Evidence that alternative work arrangements, or controls that are available to employers and employees to maintain Occupational Health & Safety, as well as Public Safety, as directed by the Fair Work Ombudsman, has been duly considered by Amisha and/or Cloud Nine; 

Documentary evidence proving that all relevant treatments for COVID-19 and alternative methods for its remedy were thoroughly investigated and reported by independent research conducted by Amisha or by Cloud Nine; 

The evidence of accuracy and reliability of the Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing of the Rapid Antigent Testing and any evidence that such tests cause no harm, damage or irreversible short-term of long-term side-effects; 

For acceptance of the itemised evidence requests listed in this notice, such evidence must also be signed by a qualified physician or qualified health practitioner who will also take full legal and financial responsibility for any injury occurring to myself, from any interaction by authorised persons in relation to the experimental procedure, vaccination schedule, or immunisation programs based around the COVID-19 injections. 

This notice and seal are written in accordance with the Partnership Act 1890. 

All above documentary requirements are to be supplied to me in written format within 72 hours upon receiving this notice. Furthermore, your agreement that I will not incur prejudice or discrimination. nor will my employment be compromised is required in written format within 72 hours upon receiving this notice. 

Your silence is your Consent 

By Evangaline of the House Liakos 

Principal, Executive Beneficiary and 

Authorised Representative 

for and of the Crown 

copyright name and estate: :EVANGALINE LIAKOS 

ens legis and all derivatives thereof the legal name 

No assured value; No liability all Errors and Omissions Excepted for value, and 

All Rights Reserved 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE - WITHOUT RECOURSE - 

NON-ASSUMPSIT - WITHOUT VEXATION 

Calls may be recorded 

End of notification”

That was unpersuasive and the Commission held that dismissal of Liakos was not unfair.

In Cromie v Health Secretary in respect of the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District [2022] NSWIRComm 1064 the Commission states 

 Katherine Cromie was employed as an Enrolled Nurse at the Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital (“Hospital”), which falls under the auspices of the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (“ISLHD”). On 7 December 2021 Ms Cromie’s employment was terminated on the basis that she had not demonstrated that she had been vaccinated against COVID-19 or had an exemption due to a medical contraindication. She commenced proceedings pursuant to s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, alleging that her dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust. She seeks reinstatement to her position. 

She was represented by Stephen Lymbery, who in one of the Falamaki judgments was characterised as 

the person present in Court who identified himself as Stephen-Mark: Lymbery stating that he was also Judge, Postmaster and Banker

alongside OPCA exponent 'Judge: David-Wynn: Miller'. 

In considering the grounds on which Ms Cromie relies the Commission states

 [16] In very large part, the evidence and submissions on which Ms Cromie relies are directed towards challenging the legality, validity or enforceability of PHO 1 and PHO 2, and by extension the Determination which flowed from them. Indeed, Ms Cromie sought to challenge the validity of the legislation pursuant to which the public health orders and the Determination were made. The information contained in Ms Cromie’s “Notice and Knowledge” bundle of documents was said by Mr Lymbery to demonstrate that “all legislation in this country is unconstitutional”. 

All, apparently, rather than merely that dealing with public health orders 

[17] It is apparent from the material prepared by Mr Lymbery on Ms Cromie’s behalf that he has devoted a significant amount of time in the presentation of her case. I acknowledge the care which he has taken to do so. However, as Mr Lymbery himself acknowledged at several times during the hearing, the Commission is not the place in which these matters can be determined. As Commissioner Murphy observed in Griffin and others v Health Secretary; Thorncraft and others v Secretary of the Department of Education [2022] NSWIRComm 1027 (“Griffin”): “37. I note that, whilst a considerable bulk of the submissions by some parties went to the validity and/or legality and/or enforceability of the Public Health Orders and Determinations set out at [10]-[21] above, this Commission is not the forum in which to agitate such matters. These instruments will be accepted in this jurisdiction as valid and enforceable pieces of delegated legislation unless and until found to be otherwise in another place.” 

[18] I observe in any event that the arguments on which Ms Cromie relies to challenge the validity or enforceability of the public health orders have been disposed of by the Supreme Court: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320, upheld in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299.

Cromie lost. 

Identity and Activism?

'The New Right and Aboriginal Rights in the High Court of Australia' by Harry Hobbs in (2022) Federal Law Review (Forthcoming) comments 

In resolving disputes, the High Court of Australia sometimes has cause to expound upon the relationship between the Australian State and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This article examines overblown and disingenuous New Right criticism directed towards the High Court in the aftermath of judgments deemed favourable to Indigenous Australians. It finds two themes recur in these attacks: that the High Court’s decision is undemocratic, or that that the High Court has acted illegitimately. This article demonstrates that such claims are legally baseless. Drawing on quotes from major players in this debate, the article argues further that beneath this criticism lies a deeper angst over the sovereign foundations of Australia; an anxiety that reappears in arguments against contemporary calls for constitutional reform. As Australia nonetheless inches closer towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the ferocity of New Right censure suggests that the movement may fear that the Australian people do not share their same suspicions.

Hobbs argues

In the days, weeks and months immediately following the decision, New Right political and legal commentators attacked the High Court on several grounds. The decision was a stunning example of ‘judicial activism’. The majority had produced the ‘the most legally indefensible’, and ‘most radical judgment in Australian history’. Concerns were raised about how the judgment suggested the Court conceived of its role. If High Court justices misunderstood their function and sought to engage in the political sphere, there would be a real danger that the rule of law and democracy in Australia could be under threat. Two solutions presented themselves; both extreme but apparently necessary. If the judges did not voluntarily resign their commission, Parliament should launch impeachment proceedings, with the view of their removal from the bench on the ground of proved misbehaviour. They should be replaced by ‘capital-C conservative’ judges. Alternatively, a referendum should be held to allow the people to have their say and overrule the politicians in robes. If neither outcome was forthcoming, perhaps the country itself might breakup. 

New Right commentators were almost in unison. More in sorrow than in anger they wondered how the High Court could have fallen so far from the days of Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon, when it was widely regarded as ‘far and away the greatest appellate court in the English-speaking world’? Together they lamented that the Court had ‘abandoned the doctrine of strict constructionalism [sic] ... in the dubious search for contemporary political relevance’. The Court—and Australia itself—was at a crisis point. But what decision had motivated such strenuous criticism? 

In fact, it was three decisions—with the first and third being almost thirty years apart—that bore the brunt of New Right opprobrium. Those decisions were Mabo v Queensland (No 2), Wik Peoples v Queensland, and, most recently, Love v Commonwealth; Thoms v Commonwealth. Although each of these cases raised distinct legal issues, all were fundamentally concerned with the relationship between the Australian State and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The High Court’s role in articulating that relationship in a way that recognised and respected the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples underlay the criticism that the Court received. Of course, these cases are not the only High Court decisions recognising and protecting the rights of Indigenous Australians that have attracted censure by the New Right. That list is far longer. Nonetheless, these three cases are central to understanding—and disarming—that opposition. 

The New Right is a label attached to the conservative political movement that first emerged in the United States in the post-WWII period. Influenced by Austrian political economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek and United States economist Milton Friedman, the New Right sought to dislodge the post-war consensus and wind back former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Distinguishing itself from the ‘Old Right’ by a commitment to economic liberalism and a robust defence of the free- market, and from social democratic parties by an emphasis on traditional conservative policies of law and order and support for the family unit, the New Right advocated for a ‘muscular conservativism’. After several decades of growing strength, the movement burst to global prominence with the election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1979 and Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1980. 

In Australia, the New Right surfaced in the late 1970s and solidified during the 1980s. Drawing support from the right-wing of the Liberal and National parties, as well as mining and farming interests outside parliament, the movement rejected the Australian orthodoxy that had supported state intervention in the economy in favour of widespread deregulation. In opposition at the Commonwealth level for much of this early period,  the Australian New Right imported the language and tactics of the American movement. Proponents claimed that a cadre of ‘self-interested educated elites’ were supporting the ‘unreasonable gains’ of economically and socially marginalised groups made at the expense of ‘mainstream’ Australians. Multiculturalism and the notion of reconciliation with Indigenous Australians were seen as particularly ‘troubling’, ‘not only because of the threats they posed to social cohesion but because of their expense (as “rent seekers”) in an economy that suffered from a lack of competitiveness and was hit by the end of the decade with recession’. Under the prime ministership of John Howard, the New Right became the dominant force within modern Australian conservativism. 

The New Right is generally distinct from but may overlap with ‘constitutional conservatives’. In debate over whether and how to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, a group of legal scholars calling themselves constitutional conservatives have argued against reform that would empower the judiciary, such as through the insertion of a clause prohibiting racial discrimination. For constitutional conservatives, such a clause would undermine parliamentary supremacy and invite inappropriate judicial activism. The New Right also opposes a racial non- discrimination clause, but its concerns are broader. Rather than worried about judicial activism per se, the focus of New Right criticism is outcome oriented. New Right critics may frame their censure as complaints over the most appropriate approach to constitutional interpretation, but as we will see, their real concern appears to be the fact that the High Court has ruled in a way that protects the rights of Indigenous Australians at the expense of ‘mainstream’ Australians. 

The paper is divided into three substantive sections. Part II outlines the three cases that form the background to this study. In Part III, I discuss the criticism directed towards the court in the aftermath of each judgment. This is organised thematically to illustrate that the same arguments reappear in repackaged form. As this study reveals, two key themes recur in New Right commentary. First, that the High Court’s decision is somehow undemocratic, either because it has prioritised the interests of Indigenous Australians over non-Indigenous Australians or because the judges have acted as politicians. Second, that the High Court has acted illegitimately by rewriting Australia’s history or by seeking to impute moral responsibility on contemporary Australians for the ‘supposed’ sins of our ancestors. In either case, New Right criticism fixed on the Court misrepresents the law in rhetorically inflammatory ways that help to fuel their larger political narrative. 

In Part IV, I demonstrate that these same themes are often used to dismiss contemporary calls for broader constitutional reform. Drawing on quotes from major players in the debate, I argue that these attacks appear to be motivated by an anxiety over Australia’s claim to sovereignty. At root in the New Right’s opposition to Aboriginal rights in the High Court is a recognition (unconscious or otherwise) that the sovereign pillars of Australia are both ‘morally suspect’ and ‘legally shaky’. As Australia inches closer towards constitutional reform, the legal baselessness and political ferocity of New Right criticism suggests that perhaps the movement understands that the Australian people do not share their same anxieties.

Gender

'The Requirement for Trans and Gender Diverse Youth to Seek Court Approval for the Commencement of Hormone Treatment: A Comparison of Australian Jurisprudence with the English Decision in Bell' by Malcolm K Smith in (2022) Medical Law Review comments 

This article outlines the Australian legal position relevant to minors and the commencement of hormone treatment for Gender Dysphoria (GD). It traces the significant Australian legal developments in this field and compares the Australian jurisprudence with recent English caselaw. In Quincy Bell and Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Ors, the English High Court held that minors below 16 years are not likely to have the requisite competency to lawfully consent to the commencement of puberty suppressing drugs. The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned this decision, but there are important aspects of the High Court’s reasoning that warrant further analysis, particularly some of the underlying reasoning about the nature of GD as a condition and its treatment. This article highlights several common themes when comparing the High Court’s reasoning in Bell with Australian jurisprudence and highlights how the Australian position has advanced significantly since the first Australian cases in this field were decided. This comparison shows that the Australian perspective is important in demonstrating how judicial views can advance over time alongside a deeper understanding of GD, its treatment, and the broader impact of a requirement to involve the court in such cases. It is concluded that the Australian perspective should be considered in future English cases.

The author argues 

There is a growing body of jurisprudence, discussed throughout this article, that addresses the issue of whether transgender (trans) and gender diverse minors with Gender Dysphoria (GD) are required to seek court approval prior to commencing hormone treatment. These cases have centred on whether court approval is required either as a general safeguard due to concerns about the nature of the treatment, and/or whether the court should confirm the minor’s competency to consent to such treatment. In this article, I outline the Australian case law concerning the requirement for minors to seek court approval for the commencement of hormone treatment for GD and compare it with recent English jurisprudence. 

The 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) describes childhood GD as a condition where a child’s subjectively felt identity and gender are not congruent with their biological sex, causing clinically significant distress, or impairment in social functioning or other important areas of functioning. Treatment for GD in minors can be given in two stages. Stage 1 usually involves the commencement of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists referred to as puberty blockers (PBs), which suppress ‘the endogenous oestrogen and testosterone responsible for induction of secondary sexual characteristics’. In Australia, it is recognised that Stage 1 treatment may be administered to relieve distress ‘for trans adolescents by halting progression of physical changes such as breast growth in trans males and voice deepening in trans females’ and is considered reversible in its effects. 

Although other ‘linear growth and weight gain’ continue whilst a minor is on PBs, one key aim is to give them ‘time to develop emotionally and cognitively prior to making decisions on gender affirming hormone use which have some irreversible effects’. Concerning Stage 2 treatment, the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents explain that:

Gender affirming hormones oestrogen and testosterone are used to either feminise or masculinise a person’s appearance by inducing onset of secondary sexual characteristics of the desired gender. Some of the effects of these medications are irreversible, whilst others have a degree of expected reversibility, that is likely, unlikely or unknown … .

Recent developments in English law relevant to the commencement of PBs in minors stem from the judicial review claim in Quincy Bell and Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Ors (Bell). This was a challenge to the lawfulness of the consent practices adopted by the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust (Trust) relevant to the commencement of PBs for minors with GD. In December 2020, the High Court concluded that minors below 16 years of age are not likely to have the requisite capacity to lawfully make decisions about the commencement of PBs. This decision was noted to have potentially significant consequences. In March 2021, AB v CD & Ors (AB v CD) was decided by the English High Court. This case focused on whether parents can lawfully consent to the administration of PBs and whether they should be classed as a ‘special’ category of medical treatment necessitating an application to the court in future cases. The High Court held that parents are lawfully able to consent to PBs for the treatment of GD, and that such treatment should not be regarded as ‘special’. Then, in September 2021, the High Court’s decision in Bell was overturned by the Court of Appeal. 

The aim of this article is to outline the Australian legal position concerning minors and treatment for GD and compare this with the English cases outlined above. Four key themes are identified from the High Court’s judgment in Bell. These themes are identified because they share significant overlap with the reasoning expressed in the Australian cases that first addressed the same issue, dating back to 2004. These similarities are explored, together with an overview of how judicial reasoning in Australia has developed since the initial Australian jurisprudence on this topic. The Australian position provides an important point of comparison because, as outlined below, until 2017 there was a general requirement under Australian law to obtain court authorisation for the commencement of Stage 2 treatment, or for the court to determine the minor’s competency to consent. Furthermore, recent Australian case law suggests an ongoing need for court involvement in some circumstances.  Consequently, there is a significant body of Australian case law that can be compared with the recent English jurisprudence, particularly the reasoning of the High Court in Bell, which suggested that court oversight of such decisions was necessary. A central issue in both the Australian and English case law on this topic is the question of whether courts should have oversight of decisions about the commencement of hormone treatment for GD. As I discuss, the cases that consider this issue in the respective jurisdictions have analysed the question of whether the court should oversee such decisions using different legal frameworks. In Australia, the law has developed predominantly under the body of law relevant to ‘special medical procedures’, which is focused on parental consent and is outlined in part II. In contrast, the recent English cases have focused mainly on the issue of minors’ competency to make their own medical decisions. Despite the difference in these legal frameworks, the comparison shows many similarities in reasoning between the early Australian case law and the recent English jurisprudence. It also demonstrates that in Australia, there has been a significant shift in judicial thinking on the topic. 

In part II, I outline the Australian legal principles relevant to minors and consent to medical treatment, with a particular focus on the law relevant to ‘special medical procedures’. These legal principles are central to the Australian legal framework in this area because they have been relied upon as the basis for the court’s involvement in GD cases. I then provide an overview of the key Australian legal developments specific to minors and hormone treatment for GD. In part III, I outline the recent English decisions on PBs and consent, and summarise the four key themes from these cases which demonstrate a similarity in reasoning with the earlier Australian jurisprudence. The four themes identified from the jurisprudence for this purpose include (i) the view that GD as a condition is unique and that hormone treatment for the condition is unlike other medical treatment, therefore necessitating court oversight; (ii) that minors are not likely to reach a level of competency for the purpose of consenting to Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 treatment; (iii) that decisions about Stage 1 treatment cannot be separated from Stage 2 treatment and the two stages should be considered together; and, (iv) that the seriousness and gravity of the treatment for GD should result in the treatment being regarded as ‘experimental’ or ‘special’. These themes are then used to explore relevant Australian and English jurisprudence, to highlight the similarities, and to show the progression in Australian judicial reasoning. Finally, in part IV, I conclude on these similarities and their significance for future cases, suggesting that the changes in judicial approach in Australia should be considered and adopted in future English decisions, should such cases arise.

Freedoms

'The Coronavirus Pandemic and Religious Freedom: Judicial Decisions in the United States and United Kingdom' by Guy Baldwin in (2021) 26(4) Judicial Review 297-320 comments 

 Restrictions imposed by governments in response to the spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 have presented a human rights challenge around the world. The difficulty of balancing public health against human rights has been particularly acute in relation to freedom of religion, as measures limiting attendance at places of worship or requiring their temporary closure have been challenged in the courts. This article analyses judicial decisions in the US and UK that have considered the lawfulness of restrictions on places of worship. Although the legal approaches to assessing violations of freedom of religion in the US and UK are different, both approaches have led to the similar result of courts taking issue with the imposition of certain public health restrictions on places of worship. 

In the US, where the current, albeit controversial, understanding of the requirements of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment invites attention to the neutrality and general applicability of a law, the Supreme Court initially declined to grant injunctive relief against coronavirus restrictions on places of worship, before reversing course in Roman Catholic Diocese v Cuomo. 

In the UK, assessing the question under art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, the Outer House of the Court of Session in Philip found that Scottish coronavirus restrictions were not proportionate to their legitimate end. 

This article argues that these decisions exhibit a number of problems, and the preferable view is that restrictions on religious practice to save lives in a pandemic can be legally justified on a temporary basis. The article is structured in four parts. In Part 1, it will set out the legal test for the protection of free exercise of religion under US constitutional law, and how it was applied in a series of applications for injunctive relief heard by the US Supreme Court in 2020 and 2021. In Part 2, it will turn to the situation in the UK, setting out the test under art 9 ECHR, and the decisions that have considered this article in the context of coronavirus restrictions. In Part 3, it will identify four areas of difficulty with the decisions: the role of comparisons between the regulation of secular and religious activities; the use of a tailoring or less intrusive means tests; the significance of the temporariness of the restrictions imposed; and the relevance of rights of others in this context. Part 4 concludes that there may be lessons for practitioners and courts in the differing approaches taken in the two countries.

Genomics

'Four misconceptions about investigative genetic genealogy' by Christi J Guerrini1, Ray A Wickenheiser, Blaine Bettinger, Amy L McGuire and Stephanie M Fullerton in (2021) Journal of Law and the Biosciences comments 

Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects that has sparked controversy. The technique involves uploading a crime scene DNA profile to one or more genetic genealogy databases with the intention of identifying a criminal offender’s genetic rel- atives and, eventually, locating the offender within the family tree. IGG was used to identify the Golden State Killer in 2018 and it is now being used in connection with hundreds of cases in the USA.Yet, as more law enforcement agencies conduct IGG, the privacy implications of the technique have come under scrutiny. While these issues deserve careful attention, we are con- cerned that their discussion is, at times, based on misunderstandings related to how IGG is used in criminal investigations and how IGG departs from traditional investigative techniques. Here, we aim to clarify and sharpen the public debate by addressing four misconceptions about IGG. We begin with a detailed description of IGG as it is currently practiced: what it is and—just as important—what it is not. We then examine misunderstood or not widely known aspects of IGG that are potentially confusing efforts to have con- structive discussions about its future. We conclude with recommendations intended to support the productivity of those discussions. 

 The authors argue 

 Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects that has sparked controversy. The process of IGG involves uploading a crime scene DNA profile to one or more genetic genealogy databases with the intention of partially matching it to a criminal offender’s genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the offender within their family tree. In April 2018, investigators announced the successful use of IGG to identify Joseph James DeAngelo as the Golden State Killer (GSK) responsible for at least 13 murders and 45 rapes throughout California in the 1970s and 1980s. According to one expert, by September 2020, IGG had led to the successful identification of over 150 suspects. 

Most of the major firms that maintain genetic genealogy databases—including Ancestry, 23andMe, and MyHeritage—have adopted policies that forbid law enforcement from participating in their databases for investigative purposes, either through requirements that users provide only their own DNA for analysis or explicit bans on the conduct of IGG in their databases. However, in December 2018, FamilyTreeDNA (FTDNA), which maintains a genetic genealogy database consisting of 1.15 million autosomal DNA profiles, adopted a policy permitting law enforcement to participate in its database to identify violent criminals and human remains. FTDNA database participants can choose whether to make their information available for law enforcement searches in a process known as ‘law enforcement matching.’  Specifically, registered participants located in the USA are automatically opted in to law enforcement matching, but they can choose to opt out of law enforcement matching at any time by selecting this option in their user profile. By contrast, on May 18, 2019, all registered participants of the genetic genealogy database known as GEDmatch were automatically opted out of law enforcement matching. At that time, the GEDmatch database consisted of approximately 750,000 unique single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) profiles designated as public (in April 2020 that number was approximately 900,000). However, GEDmatch participants can choose to opt in to law enforcement matching at any time by selecting this option in their user profile. Individuals joining GEDmatch after May 18, 2019 are required to decide at the time of registration whether they will opt in to or out of law enforcement matching, where the opt-in choice is now selected by default. In December 2019, GEDmatch was acquired by Verogen, a forensic genomics company, and in January 2021, FTDNA’s parent company announced its merger with myDNA, an Australian personalized genomics company. 

As more law enforcement agencies use IGG in investigations, the privacy implications of the technique have come under scrutiny. Privacy concerns associated with IGG stem from the sources and types of genetic information maintained in genetic genealogy databases, which differ in important respects from the composition of law enforcement databases, such as the National DNA Index System (NDIS) in the USA. US law enforcement databases—which are generally referred to by the acronym Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) for the software that supports them—are comprised of DNA profiles of persons who have been convicted of, and in some cases arrested for, crimes. The profiles consist of 20 short tandem repeats (STRs) generated by accredited forensic laboratories that must comply with a host of quality assurance standards and requirements. 

By contrast, genetic genealogy databases are populated voluntarily by individuals interested in exploring their ancestry and family lineage. The genetic data that they contribute are autosomal DNA profiles consisting of 600,000–700,000 SNPs generated by commercial test providers. Unlike STRs, SNPs are more evenly (and densely) distributed throughout a person’s genome and hence can carry information about a person’s medical history and appearance. If analyzed with regard to patterns of linked variation along sections of chromosomes, SNPs can also be used to identify more distant genetic relatives than STRs. For these reasons, IGG represents an expansion over standard CODIS searching in terms of the population of persons whose genetic information might be searched in an investigation, even if the search objectives are different, and the kinds of information that are the basis for identification. Although this is presumably known and accepted by genetic genealogy database participants who opt in to law enforcement matching, the same cannot be said of all of their non-participant relatives whose names might become part of an investigation by virtue of the fact that they are members of a suspect’s family tree. Because most genetic genealogy database participants are persons of European ancestry, the privacy of their relatives is especially at risk. Moreover, IGG has reportedly been conducted in at least one database without the company’s— or their participants’—knowledge and consent. That practice would violate the database’s current terms of service, which explicitly prohibit IGG. 

While these issues deserve careful attention, we are concerned that their discus- sion is, at times, based on misunderstandings related to how IGG is conducted and used in criminal investigations and how IGG departs from traditional investigative techniques. Here, we aim to clarify and sharpen the public debate by addressing four misconceptions about IGG. We begin with a detailed description of IGG as it is currently practiced: what it is and—just as important—what it is not. We then examine misunderstood or not widely known aspects of IGG that are potentially confusing efforts to have constructive discussions about its risks and benefits. Along the way, we identify persistent concerns and controversies related to each misconception that might benefit from policy intervention. We conclude with broad recommendations intended to support the productivity of discussions about the future of IGG.

Corruption

The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has found in its Report on investigation into pork barrelling in NSW that pork barrelling could constitute corrupt conduct in certain circumstances. It has recommended that any whole–of–government guidelines concerning grants funding be issued pursuant to a statutory regulation. 

 The Report defines pork barrelling as “the allocation of public funds and resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes”. It states that although individual matters should always be assessed on a case-by-case basis, a minister, for example, may engage in corrupt conduct involving pork barrelling, within the meaning of section 8 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW), if the minister: 

•  influences a public servant to exercise decision-making powers vested in the public servant, or to fulfil an official function, such as providing an assessment of the merits of grants, in a dishonest or partial way 
• applies downward pressure to influence a public servant to exercise decision-making powers vested in the public servant, or to fulfil an official function, such as providing an assessment of the merits of grants, in a manner which knowingly involves the public servant in a breach of public trust 
• conducts a merit-based grants scheme in such a way as to dishonestly favour political and private advantage over merit, undermining public confidence in public administration, and benefiting political donors and/or family members 
•  deliberately exercises a power to approve grants in a manner that favours family members, party donors or party interests in electorates, contrary to the guidelines of a grant program which state that the grants are to be made on merit according to criteria 
• exercises a power to make grants in favour of marginal electorates, when this is contrary to the purpose for which the power was given. 

The report notes that those who exercise public or official powers in a manner inconsistent with the public purpose for which the powers were conferred betray public trust and so misconduct themselves. The Commission also finds that pork barrelling could satisfy section 9 of the ICAC Act by, for example, conduct amounting to a substantial breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, or the Members’ Code of Conduct, or conduct constituting or involving the common law offence of misconduct in public office. The Report notes that ICAC intends to make it clear that ministers and their advisers “do not have an unfettered discretion to distribute public funds. The exercise of ministerial discretion is subject to the rule of law, which ensures that it must accord with public trust and accountability principles.” 

 The Commission makes 21 recommendations to help prevent or better regulate pork barrelling - 

R 1 That any whole–of–government guidelines concerning grants funding be issued pursuant to a statutory regulation. 

R 2 That the Government Sector Finance Act 2018 be amended to mirror s 71 of the Commonwealth Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 by including obligations that a minister must not approve expenditure of money unless satisfied that the expenditure would be an efficient, effective, economical and ethical use of the money and that the expenditure represents value for money. 

R 3 That the grant funding framework, or equivalent requirements, apply to the local government sector. This should include situations where local councils are both grantees and grantors. 

R 4 That the NSW Procurement Board considers the need for a direction, policy or guidance that specifically prohibits or deals with pork barrelling. If necessary, relevant guidance can be published on the buy.nsw website or reflected in relevant procurement training. 

R 5 That clause 6 of the Ministerial Code be amended to read, “A Minister, in the exercise or performance of their official functions, must not act dishonestly, must act in the public interest, and must not act improperly for their private benefit or for the private benefit of any other person”. 

R 6 That the proposed cross-agency Community of Practice develops templates and guidance that prompt the consideration of public interest, which may be consistent with the general approach adopted by the Legislative Council under its order 136A. 

R 7 That, in addition to being documented, any input from a minister or their staff in the assessment of grants should be published on the central grants website. 

R 8 That information required for publication on the central grants website should not contain any redactions for Cabinet confidentiality. 

R 9 That the requirement for ministers to give reasons if they make a decision contrary to advice from public officials should be strengthened by requiring those reasons to reference the relevant selection criteria, merit and the public interest. 

R 10 That the cross-agency Community of Practice identifies mechanisms for determining and managing situations where a minister is in a position to award, or influence the award of, grants in their own electorate. 

R 11 That where grant schemes or opportunities seek the input of local members, the process should encompass all relevant members and not be limited to members of the political party or parties that form government. This requirement could be reflected in the Proposed Guide or supporting materials. 

R 12 That the proposed cross-agency Community of Practice: • be led by a senior officer who is accountable for funding policy and practice across the NSW public sector • includes at least one nominated senior officer from each cluster • addresses pork barrelling in its proposed training materials. 

R 13 That, with regard to proponent-submitted business cases and cost-benefit analyses, the assessing official or agency should consider: • the assumptions made, whether explicit or implicit • the reliability of the information provided, including any gaps • the need for additional due diligence to be performed on the proponent or related parties • overstatement of benefits or understatement of costs • opportunity costs. The cross-agency Community of Practice should develop standardised templates, guides and scoring mechanisms to assist proponents and public officials who assess grant applications. These should supplement but be consistent with TPP 18-6 and TPP 17-03. 

R 14 That the cross-agency Community of Practice considers preparing a model contract for external consultants who are engaged to prepare business cases and cost-benefit analyses. 

R 15 That the agency responsible for the central grants website undertakes audits at two yearly intervals to ensure compliance with the requirement to provide end-to-end information on all grant programs after the website has become fully operational. 

R 16 That the central grants website: • contains two main categories – one for entities providing funding and another for those seeking funding. The information should include guidance on requirements and best practice in categories • provides information on topics such as: – what pork barrelling is – why it should be avoided – responsibilities of public officials in relation to pork barrelling – practical measures to avoid pork barrelling – how to report pork barrelling. 

R 17 That the central grants website has search and reporting functionality that presents data in an interactive way and allows analysis across grant schemes. 

R 18 That the grant funding framework requires additional information for ad hoc and one-off funding to be published on the central grants website, including: • the document explaining why that method has been used and outlining the risk mitigation strategies • whether the funding decision was in line with the agency’s recommendation (noting that this is already proposed in the case of ministerial decision-makers). In addition, any grant guidelines applying to ad hoc and one-off funding should be published on the central grants website. 

R 19 That the central grants website requires information to be displayed about complaints and appeals processes in a prominent location. 

R 20 That the Department of Premier and Cabinet arranges for an independent audit to be conducted to verify that the recommendations in the State Archives and Records Authority’s 22 January 2021 report have been fully implemented. 

R 21 That: • the proposed funding framework encourages internal audit reports to be provided to an agency’s audit and risk committee on certain categories of high-risk grants • the NSW Government considers requiring the Auditor-General to conduct regular performance audits in relation to high-risk grants or grant schemes, including those that involve a high risk of pork barrelling • the Audit Office of NSW be given “follow-the- dollar” powers, as previously recommended by the Public Accounts Committee of the NSW Legislative Council. 

Retirements

'The Shadow of the Court: The Growing Imperative to Reform Ethical Regulation of Former Judges' by Gabrielle Appleby and Alysia Blackham in 67(3) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 505-546 comments 

 In recent years there has been a trend towards independent and more transparent ethical regulation for sitting judges, which is said to promote public confidence in the judicial institution, and reflect a move towards accountability and transparency as judicial values. However, regimes governing sitting judges largely fall away when the judge retires from the bench. Increasing longevity and rising numbers of former judges raise complex ethical regulation questions. Drawing on judicial ethics regimes in England and Wales, Australia, the United States and New Zealand, and instances where the conduct of former judges has reflected poorly on the integrity of the judiciary, this article argues that there are strong reasons for extending ethics regulation beyond judicial retirement. By reference to the principles that inform the rules regulating the conduct of sitting judges, we investigate the extent to which misconduct and disciplining regimes should extend to former judges, and whether there is a stronger role for soft instruments and more formalized processes for regulating former judges. In doing so, we propose a model for the development of ethical regulation for former judges. 

 The authors argue 

 Traditionally, common law jurisdictions shared a practice in which the ethical conduct of serving judges was regulated through informal processes: the head of jurisdiction dealt with—to the extent they could—complaints and other disciplinary matters and the ethical norms were set out, if at all, in non-binding soft instruments promulgated by the judges themselves. However, increasingly across these jurisdictions it has been accepted that serving judges should be subject to more independent and transparent disciplinary regimes. However, even within those systems where more formal, independent processes have been established, the standards of expected ethical behaviour generally continue to be set in soft codes of conduct written by the judges themselves. This trend towards independent and more transparent ethical regulation for serving judges is said to promote ‘public confidence’ in the judicial institution, and reflects the evolution of the accepted judicial values of independence and impartiality towards the inclusion of values such as accountability and transparency. 

However, this combination of hard and soft regimes governing serving judges almost entirely falls away when the judge retires from the bench. This lacuna is easily understood: in years gone by, when the prevailing norm was judicial appointment for life, or even when judicial retirement ages were introduced but life expectancy or quality of life into older age was lower, the question of the regulation of retired judges raised fewer causes for concern. However, today, the introduction of mandatory retirement ages and increased lifespans mean that the retired judge will usually, although not always, be somewhere in their early-to-mid seventies and will have fruitful decades ahead of them. The rising numbers of retired healthy and active—professionally and socially—retired judges should be celebrated; but they also raise complex questions in terms of ethical regulation. 

There is also the related—but somewhat different—phenomenon of the ‘resigned’ judge. Judicial resignation prior to retirement might occur for health or family reasons. It might occur because the judge is dissatisfied with the judicial role, or is seeking new, more diverse or different professional challenges, or for financial reasons. Where a judge resigns for such reasons, it might be thought that there is a good argument to allow them to return to practice or to take up other work. Resigned judges may not qualify for a judicial pension, meaning they need to find other work to support themselves financially. Lack of flexibility post-resignation might undermine the government's capacity to entice high-quality appointees, as judicial appointment will close off all other career paths. Raising other, distinct concerns are judges who resign to avoid the investigation—and consequences—of a complaint made against them while they were serving on the bench. 

This combination of factors, causing a significant shift in the demographics of former judges, has meant that assumptions previously made around appointment to the bench representing an individual's pathway from mid- or late-career to retirement, with limited possibilities and inclinations to undertake post-retirement work and activity, no longer hold true. There is a need, therefore, to rethink the lack of ethical regulation of this increasing, and increasingly active, cohort. Indeed, as many of the case studies demonstrate in this article, the increasing numbers of active former judges has led to real concerns across a number of jurisdictions about how their conduct affects the perception of the integrity of the judicial branch. 

If the objective underpinning the ethical regulation of serving judges is, as is so often espoused, maintaining ‘public confidence’ in the integrity of the judiciary, there are strong arguments that the conduct of former judges might also affect this confidence, and thus such regulation ought to extend beyond judicial retirement or resignation. As we explain in this article, confidence in the integrity of judges more generally might be harmed by the poor conduct of a former judge, particularly where it amounts to criminal conduct or involves dishonesty. Confidence might be harmed by the appointment of former judges to positions where there might be integrity concerns if a serving judge were appointed. Confidence might be harmed where the former judge criticizes his or her former colleagues on the bench, particularly when those colleagues remain on the bench. Confidence might also be harmed by judges seeking to take up legal practice following retirement or resignation, giving rise to perceptions of unfair advantage gained by reason of their former judicial office, or perhaps currying favour with legal firms prior to retirement. Confidence might also be affected by the reappointment of former judges to ‘acting’ judicial positions post-retirement, particularly if their behaviour or other activities while sitting as a temporary judge do not accord with the standards expected of other judges. 

This article explores the phenomenon of former judges in established democratic common law systems through a comparative regulatory and case study approach to draw normative conclusions as to regulatory design. This comparative research methodology offers critical insights into how former judges might be regulated as a cohort, and reveals the growing universality and relevance of ethical issues faced by former judges with demographic change. Thus, this methodology both offers nuanced normative insights into how this issue might be addressed, and reinforces the relevance of these issues to an international audience. As we explain further in Part I, there is a growing international consensus not just around the judicial values that must be protected in judicial design and practice, but in relation to the ethical norms that should govern the behaviour of individual judges to help in achieving these values. This indicates that not only is there coalescence across jurisdictions around judicial values (which now extend to independence, impartiality, accountability, transparency, representativeness and efficiency), but there is increasing agreement about the conduct of individual judges that is conducive to their achievement. Further, the comparative common law jurisdictions that we have selected share a common judicial history in relation to ethical regulation and, although there are important differences in judicial culture across these jurisdictions that we do not wish to gloss over, there are striking similarities not just in relation to how judiciaries have traditionally responded to individual ethical breaches, but in relation to more contemporary reform of such practices. 

While we have referred throughout our analysis to international instruments that demonstrate consensus across common and civil jurisdictions, and established and developing democracies, we have not included the position of judges in civil law systems, nor common law systems in developing or flawed democracies. We have excluded civil jurisdictions because the judicial history, traditions, culture and career path in such systems, particularly around judicial independence from the executive branch, is too distinctive and differs too markedly from common law traditions for us to draw universal conclusions. We have excluded developing or flawed democracies because we acknowledge that the institutional and individual pressures and responsibilities on judiciaries in these systems are likely to be significantly different from those in established democracies. With these exclusions in mind, the comparative jurisdictions we have selected for our analysis are England and Wales, Australia, the United States and New Zealand. As we explore in the body of the article, within these jurisdictions we are alive to differences in judicial culture and expectations that flow, for instance, from the perceptions of the working conditions of judges, the process and nature of judicial appointment, the constitutionally mandated level of separation of powers, and the particular judicial pension scheme that has been adopted. 

The remainder of this article is set out as follows. In Part I, we explain in more depth the objectives behind the ethical regulation of serving judges, and the different hard and soft regulation models that currently exist in the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Australia, the United States and New Zealand. In Part II, we survey the hard and soft regulation of former judges in those jurisdictions identified in Part I across different areas of post-judicial conduct. In this part, we go beyond the conventional consideration of the regulation of return-to-practice that has, to date, dominated scholarship and what little formal regulation of post-judicial conduct that exists. Recognizing that many other dimensions of the conduct of former judges can affect perceptions of and confidence in the judiciary, we also explore the regulation of former judges when they undertake other professional roles (including public positions, for instance, as commissioners on public inquiries, and private roles); the effect of criminal actions of former judges and the capacity of professional regulatory regimes to respond to such actions; the regulation of the appointment of former judges back onto the bench as temporary judges; and, finally, we consider the regulation of former judges ‘speaking out’ about or against the bench. By drawing on a series of recent incidents where the conduct of former judges has reflected poorly on the integrity of the judiciary across the jurisdictions we have studied, we demonstrate just some of the myriad ways that post-judicial conduct can bring the court's reputation for impartiality and probity into disrepute. In Part III, by reference to those principles that inform the rules regulating the conduct of serving judges, we investigate the extent to which misconduct and disciplining regimes should extend to former judges, and whether there is a stronger role for soft instruments and more formalized processes for regulating the conduct of former judges.

Elders

The report of the Victorian Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee Inquiry into support for older Victorians from migrant and refugee backgrounds (featuring citation of my submission) features the following findings and recommendations 

Findings 

 Improving services 

F 1: The Victorian Government recognises the importance of providing culturally safe and inclusive care to culturally diverse communities by requiring departments to produce cultural diversity plans. However, departmental cultural diversity plans do not always outline how culturally safe services will be provided and the objectives of the plans are not always implemented in practice. Further, Victorian Government-funded service providers and the community services sector can be better supported to apply cultural safety principles. 

F 2: The supply and use of interpreting and translation services in Victoria are not always sufficient and of adequate quality. Commonly reported issues include low awareness of available services, services that are inflexible or not extensive enough, and low-quality delivery of services. 

F 3: Ethno-specific and multicultural organisations are trusted in the community and provide essential high-quality care and culturally relevant services to culturally diverse older Victorians. However, they are not currently resourced sufficiently and sustainably to deliver services effectively. 

F 4: Community and place-based services are best able to meet the needs of culturally diverse older Victorians as they are more accessible and understand the needs of local communities. However, place-based community organisations and councils are often not sufficiently resourced to provide timely access to services and meet demand. 

F 5: Regional and rural communities and councils face additional barriers when delivering culturally appropriate services due to factors such as geographical isolation, shortage of transport options and higher costs. They do not always receive the resources needed to address the needs of culturally diverse older Victorians living regionally. 

F 6: Healthcare and social services systems can be confusing, complex and fragmented, affecting the quality of care provided to culturally diverse older people and leading to delays in them accessing services. 

F 7: Digital service delivery and information can increase the accessibility of support and care. However, it can also prevent culturally diverse older people who do not have the means or skills to use digital devices from accessing services. 

F 8: Providing translated service and health information on government websites is not an adequate means of ensuring culturally diverse older people are aware of services. Ethno-specific media and radio are particularly important media channels for communicating with culturally diverse older Victorians. 

F 9: Culturally diverse older people may be unaware of services, mistrust services that are available, or may not access services due to stigma associated with seeking help. 

F 10: Collaboration and partnerships between different levels of government, ethno-specific and multicultural organisations, service providers, peak bodies and the private and community sectors are essential to providing high-quality and comprehensive healthcare and social services systems. 

F 11: Co-designing services and support with culturally diverse older people can help to ensure services are culturally safe, meet different needs and are accessible. Culturally diverse older communities should be consulted in the design and review of services that are relevant to them. 

F 12: There is limited research on the experiences of culturally diverse older Victorians, particularly as it relates to intersectional factors such as gender, sexuality, mental health, regional location and disability, and specific challenges like elder abuse. 

F 13: Data on cultural and linguistic diversity, age and other intersectional factors such as disability and sexuality in Victoria is not always systematically collected or consistently recorded. 

F 14: There is an opportunity to collect more evidence on the experience of culturally diverse older Victorians when accessing services and programs and for this data to be used to improve service delivery. 

F 15: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected Victoria’s culturally diverse older population in terms of increasing social isolation, digital exclusion and the risk of elder abuse, preventing access to essential physical and mental health services, and contributing to lower overall health and wellbeing. 

Leveraging the value of bicultural workers 

Strengthening mental and physical health 

F 16: Ethno-specific seniors’ groups played an essential role in providing support for culturally diverse older people throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. They still have an important role to play in supporting culturally diverse older people to safely re-engage in the community as Victoria learns to live with COVID-19. 

F 17: Culturally diverse older Victorians cannot always access the services they need when they need them. Greater attention should be paid to developing healthcare and social services systems that adequately respond to the challenges they face and enable access to a broad range of services. 

F 18: Bilingual and bicultural workers are an integral element of healthcare and social services systems for culturally diverse older people as they contribute to the cultural safety of workplaces, facilitate better care outcomes and reduce barriers to accessing services. However, they need support to ensure they can work effectively and provide high-quality care. 

F 19: Bilingual and bicultural workers in the aged care sector improve the quality and inclusiveness of aged care services by enabling greater interaction with clients and providing cultural understanding and safety. 

F 20: Culturally diverse older people experience an increased risk of poor mental health due to factors such as migration journey, trauma, marginalisation, visa status, socioeconomic disadvantage and social isolation. Victoria’s mental health system is currently undergoing significant reform which may reduce barriers to accessing services and lead to better mental health outcomes. 

F 21: Culturally diverse older people can experience an increased risk of poor physical health. Physical activity and health services such as physiotherapy are important contributors to overall health and wellbeing, but are not extensive and are not always culturally appropriate. 

F 22: Culturally diverse older people experience long wait times to access public dental healthcare and often cannot afford private dental services. 

F 23: The Victorian Government and Palliative Care Victoria have several initiatives that aim to increase awareness and uptake of palliative care services in culturally diverse communities. Despite this, awareness of palliative care services in culturally diverse communities can still be low, particularly in regional and rural areas. 

F 24: Culturally diverse communities may have low awareness of dementia and risk reduction strategies. Consequently, they can experience poorer health outcomes, including late or inaccurate diagnosis. 

F 25: The Victorian Government provides significant support for carers. However, access to culturally appropriate respite and peer support networks, and better awareness of available services, could be further improved in culturally diverse communities. 

F 26: Culturally diverse older people often experience financial hardship, leading to poorer health and wellbeing outcomes, lower access to services and increased risk of social isolation and elder abuse. 

F 27: Financial independence and literacy can enable culturally diverse older Victorians to age at home for longer and facilitate independence and improved quality of life. However, culturally diverse older people, particularly women, often experience poor financial literacy and understanding of financial and consumer rights. 

F 28: Health literacy is an essential skill for understanding health information, navigating health services, making informed health decisions and managing overall health. However, culturally diverse older people often have inadequate health literacy which can be a barrier to accessing services and lead to poorer overall health and wellbeing. 

F 29: Age-friendly cities and adequate transport can enable older people to move about in the community, maintain their independence, attend medical appointments and remain in their homes for longer. They also contribute to better overall mental health and wellbeing. 

F 30: Age and culturally appropriate private and social housing is essential for maintaining the independence of culturally diverse older people. It allows them to sustain social connections, access services and experience better quality of life. Insufficient housing supply or housing that is not appropriate is a particular issue in regional communities, as well as for older people experiencing elder abuse. 

Addressing social isolation and loneliness 

F 31: A holistic approach to the mental and physical health and wellbeing of culturally diverse older Victorians can be facilitated through recognising intersectionality, providing person-centred care and addressing the social determinants of health. Providing services that address a range of mental and physical health needs in a timely manner is required to achieve this. 

F 32: Culturally diverse older Victorians are more likely to experience social isolation and chronic loneliness than other older people due to language and cultural barriers, and this can have adverse effects on their mental and physical health. 

F 33: Further opportunities for formal and informal social interaction will help culturally diverse older people remain socially connected. 

F 34: There is a shortage of affordable, accessible and appropriate venues for culturally diverse older people to interact and participate in social activities. 

F 35: There is a lack of transport options to enable culturally diverse older people to attend social activities and interact with other people in informal settings. 

F 36: Some ethno-specific seniors’ groups lack funding, resources and capacity to operate sustainably and run programs and activities to address social isolation among their members. 

Enabling greater participation 

F 37: Some culturally diverse older Victorians may not fully participate in elections due to language barriers or poor awareness of the electoral process. 

F 38: Co-design with culturally diverse older people will ensure government policies and programs for older Victorians are inclusive, culturally responsive and able to successfully meet the needs of culturally diverse older people. 

F 39: Jobs Victoria’s employment programs could be better tailored and marketed to improve employment outcomes for older jobseekers from migrant and refugee backgrounds. 

F 40: Culturally diverse older jobseekers may not be aware of the training opportunities and employment readiness programs available at neighbourhood houses and Learn Locals. 

F 41: Culturally diverse older people face barriers to accessing the legal system and receiving appropriate legal advice in Victoria. They may not be aware of available services or understand different legal issues that affect them and potential solutions. 

Fostering digital inclusion 

F 42: Older people are more likely to experience digital exclusion, and this is exacerbated for culturally diverse older people whose first language is not English, resulting in them missing out on information and support services. It can also result in a loss of financial independence if they are unable to use banking technology. 

F 43: Access to government services and information is increasingly through digital platforms, which may result in culturally diverse older people who are digitally excluded missing out on timely and appropriate information and services. 

F 44: Digital literacy training provided by bilingual mentors in community settings is the most effective way to reach culturally diverse older people and improve their digital skills and confidence. 

F 45: Culturally diverse older people who do not have access to affordable and reliable internet connections and digital devices are unable to use the internet and build their digital skills and confidence. Reliable internet connectivity is a particular issue in regional communities. 

Enhancing responses to elder abuse  

F 46: Elder abuse is an emerging issue that will likely increase with Victoria’s ageing population. A Victorian elder abuse prevention and response strategy is needed to increase understanding of the issue and ensure older people can access services. 

F 47: Short-term and insufficient funding hinders the ability of service providers and community organisations to undertake elder abuse awareness-raising and prevention initiatives. 

F 48: There is a shortage of research on effective elder abuse prevention and response strategies, evaluation of current programs and data collection on elder abuse in culturally diverse communities. 

F 49: Intergenerational programs are one of the most effective ways of combatting ageism as a key driver of elder abuse. 

F 50: Awareness-raising campaigns and educational programs can combat ageism and increase understanding of elder abuse and available support. There is scope to expand these activities in culturally diverse communities to prevent elder abuse and facilitate better access to services. 

F 51: Culturally diverse older people on temporary, contributory parent or parent visas can experience an increased risk of elder abuse and may be more reluctant to seek help. 

F 52: The banking sector has made important changes to assist with the prevention and early identification of financial elder abuse. However, more can be done to ensure culturally diverse older people are not unduly influenced or coerced when making financial decisions. 

F 53: Increasing financial literacy and providing financial counselling services can reduce the risk of elder abuse, particularly in migrant and refugee communities. 

F 54: Culturally appropriate elder abuse responses should educate older people on their rights, and should respect the choices they make and place them at the centre of their own care. Non-legal interventions are often a more appropriate means of responding to elder abuse. 

F 55: Specialist elder abuse responses, such as health justice partnerships, Seniors Rights Victoria and community legal centres, can effectively address elder abuse because they consider the needs of an older person holistically, provide culturally responsive and place-based services, build trust with clients and build effective partnerships with other service providers. However, they are not sufficiently funded to meet current demand. 

F 56: Staff at community organisations and service providers in the healthcare and social services sectors should be trained on identifying and responding to elder abuse. Community leaders and family members in culturally diverse communities should also be able to identify the signs of elder abuse and refer people to appropriate support. 

Meeting aged care support needs 

F 57: Culturally diverse older Victorians may not access aged care services because of a shortage of culturally appropriate services, lack of awareness of available services, language barriers and the cultural stigma associated with placing older family members in residential aged care. 

F 58: Community education campaigns to raise awareness among culturally diverse older people of available aged care services and how they work could help increase uptake and reduce misinformation and stigma associated with aged care. 

F 59: Culturally diverse older people need bilingual and bicultural assistance to navigate the My Aged Care system and access appropriate aged care services. 

F 60: Not all aged care service providers deliver culturally inclusive and safe services, which can negatively affect the health and wellbeing of culturally diverse older people. 

F 61: There is a lack of ethno-specific residential aged care facilities to cater to the needs of culturally diverse older Victorians. 

The  Recommendations are

R 1: That the Victorian Government explore opportunities to support and encourage departments and funded service providers to develop and implement cultural safety plans and objectives, for example, by producing a guide on cultural safety for service providers, promoting existing resources or setting expectations for funded services to adopt cultural safety approaches. Adequate implementation of cultural safety plans should be regularly evaluated. 

R 2: That the Victorian Government undertake a review of its language service policies, guidelines and practices and seek to increase investment in translation and interpreting services, including in regional Victoria. 

R 3: That the Victorian Government increase ongoing funding for ethno-specific and multicultural organisations to provide essential services for culturally diverse older people. 

R 4: That the Victorian Government review an increase in investment in councils’ and community-based service providers’ capacity to support older people from culturally diverse backgrounds. Particular attention should be directed to the needs of smaller ethnic and recently arrived communities to ensure equitable access to services. 

R 5: That the Victorian Government ensure regional and rural councils, community groups and service providers are adequately supported to meet demand for culturally appropriate services and provide culturally safe care. 

R 6: That the Victorian Government trial or implement a care finder or community connector initiative to help culturally diverse older people find and access support in their local areas. 

R 7: That the Victorian Government and service providers continue to resource face-to-face service options and offer non-digital communication methods for people who cannot access online services. 

R 8: That the Victorian Government undertake a review of the content on its websites to ensure information for older people is current, accessible and accurate. 

R 9: That the Victorian Government expand the translation of health and service information, resources and websites into a broad range of community languages using simple language and accessible formats. The Victorian Government should actively promote its translated resources in the community and encourage service providers to better utilise them. 

R 10: That the Victorian Government fund ethno-specific and multicultural organisations to provide culturally appropriate and community-led education programs to expand older people’s and their families’ knowledge of government services and resources, and to overcome the stigma associated with accessing support. 

R 11: That the Victorian Government continue to promote its services and work collaboratively with peak bodies, service providers, multicultural and multifaith organisations and communities to disseminate culturally appropriate and accessible information promptly. This should involve multiple modes of communication using culturally appropriate communication and engagement methods—for example, Easy English, translated resources, ethnic community media, online engagement methods and social media—as well as leveraging the trusted position of community leaders, community organisations and bicultural workers to convey information. 

R 12: That the Victorian Government ensure programs for culturally diverse older people and service providers have adequate resourcing to develop tailored advertising and promotional materials that can be translated and distributed through different communication pathways. 

R 13: That the Victorian Government enhance partnerships between different levels of government, ethno-specific and multicultural groups, service providers, peak bodies and the private and community sectors by creating a network or partnership program focusing on the needs of culturally diverse older Victorians. Particular attention should be paid to partnerships in regional and rural areas. 

R 14: That the Victorian Government more actively engage culturally diverse older people and their carers in the co-design of services through outreach and consultation. 

R 15: That the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing establish an older persons’ advisory group under the multicultural affairs portfolio to advise on government service design. 

R 16: That the Victorian Government commence a research program on the experiences of older people from migrant and refugee backgrounds, particularly about their perspectives on ageing and the impact of intersectional factors. 

R 17: That the Victorian Government improve data collection on different personal attributes to enhance the provision of services to culturally diverse older people. The Victorian Government should review the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia’s 2020 report, Towards consistent national data collection and reporting on cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity when considering how to collect the data. 

R 18: That the Victorian Government develop culturally inclusive feedback mechanisms for the continuous improvement of services. 

R 19: That the Victorian Government’s Pandemic Repair Plan more specifically address the concerns and challenges experienced by culturally diverse older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plan should include ways to encourage older people to re-engage in physical, social and community activities and strategies to address adverse health and social impacts of the pandemic. 

R 20: That the Victorian Government continue to invest in providing information and education about COVID-safe practices and social connection opportunities through funding for ethno-specific seniors’ groups and community organisations. 

R 21: That the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing’s and the Department of Health’s cultural diversity plans include a section on addressing the specific needs of older people and new and emerging communities given the complexity of the challenges they face and the expected increase in the population size and needs. 

Leveraging the value of bicultural workers 

R 22: That the Victorian Government consult with peak multicultural bodies, service providers, community leaders and culturally diverse communities when developing its bicultural worker strategy. 

R 23: That the Victorian Government’s bicultural worker strategy consider consistent remuneration, core competencies, training, professional development and support for bicultural and bilingual workers. 

R 24: That the Victorian Government’s bicultural worker strategy consider how to support people from migrant and refugee backgrounds to apply for bilingual and bicultural roles, and how to embed workers in service delivery, particularly in regional areas. 

R 25: That the Victorian Government continue supporting and expand Jobs Victoria programs that target and support newly arrived migrants, refugees and culturally diverse people to gain qualifications and employment in the aged care sector. 

Strengthening mental and physical health 

R 26: That the Victorian Government increase the promotion of existing physical health initiatives and programs in culturally diverse communities and seek to ensure programs offered can be tailored to different cohorts. 

R 27: That the Victorian Government invest in state public dental services to deliver more procedures for culturally diverse older patients needing dental care. 

R 28: That the Victorian Government raise awareness of available free or low-cost dental services in culturally diverse communities. 

R 29: That the Victorian Government’s 2022–23 State Budget funding for palliative care services in regional and rural communities be accompanied by a campaign to raise awareness of services in culturally diverse communities. 

R 30: That the Victorian Government increase awareness of dementia in culturally diverse communities, in partnership with ethno-specific and multicultural groups and organisations, to encourage preventative and early help-seeking behaviours. 

R 31: That the Victorian Government, through the next iteration of the Victorian carer strategy 2018–22, focus on improving awareness of available carer supports in culturally diverse communities and providing culturally appropriate respite and peer support. 

R 32: That the Victorian Government seek to alleviate the financial hardship of culturally diverse older Victorians and provide more affordable access to services by advocating that the Australian Government raise the Age Pension, providing additional subsidised care options or providing additional income support. 

R 33: That the Victorian Government collaborate with ethno-specific organisations and financial counselling providers to develop tailored and culturally appropriate financial counselling services, financial literacy training and capacity-building workshops. 

R 34: That the Victorian Government increase awareness of existing financial counselling services in culturally diverse communities. 

R 35: That the Victorian Government fund culturally appropriate and place-based capacity-building programs and projects to improve the health literacy of culturally diverse older populations. 

R 36: That the Victorian Government’s investment in social and affordable housing include housing that adequately addresses the needs of culturally diverse older Victorians and enables them to stay at home for longer. 

R 37: That the Department of Health create a plan for improving the mental and physical health and wellbeing of older people, with a particular focus on culturally diverse communities. It should adopt the guiding principles identified in Chapter 2 of this report.  

R 38: That the Victorian Government’s ageing well action plan, Ageing well in Victoria: an action plan for strengthening wellbeing for senior Victorians 2022–2026, and the Department of Health’s ageing plan (as identified in Recommendation 37), emphasise locating culturally diverse older people at the centre of their own care, recognising intersectionality and the needs of new and emerging communities, addressing the social determinants of health, providing wrap-around holistic support, and providing timely access to services. 

Addressing social isolation and loneliness 

R 39: That the Victorian Government expand social prescribing trials to meet the needs of culturally diverse older people and include multicultural and ethno-specific organisations as accredited providers. 

R 40: That the Victorian Government support the expansion of the Chatty Café Scheme and similar programs across Victoria to create informal opportunities for culturally diverse older people to interact with their peers and with other generations. 

R 41: That the Victorian Government expand the Age-Friendly Victoria initiative to assist all councils to provide multicultural community groups with low-cost, accessible spaces to run social activities and programs. 

R 42: That the Victorian Government expand the Age-Friendly Victoria initiative to assist all councils to improve community transport options for culturally diverse older people to attend social activities and programs. 

R 43: That the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing simplify grant applications and reporting requirements for ethno-specific seniors’ groups and ensure funding processes are accessible regardless of English language and/or digital literacy levels. 

R 44: That the Victorian Government expand the role of positive ageing officers in local government to provide governance support and build the leadership capacity of ethno-specific seniors’ groups.   

Enabling greater participation 

R 45: That the Victorian Government support the Victorian Electoral Commission to expand its Democracy Ambassador program to educate more culturally diverse older people about elections and how to vote correctly. 

R 46: That the Victorian Government set a target for representation of culturally diverse older people on advisory and decision-making bodies responsible for designing policies and programs relating to older Victorians. 

R 47: That the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions develop a Jobs Victoria employment program specifically for culturally diverse older people and collaborate with ethno-specific organisations to link older jobseekers to the program. 

R 48: That the Victorian Government collaborate with settlement agencies and ethno-specific organisations to raise awareness among culturally diverse older people of the training and employment readiness programs available at neighbourhood houses and Learn Locals. 

R 49: That the Victorian Government facilitate better access to legal services for culturally diverse older people by funding culturally appropriate community legal education programs and community legal centres. 

Fostering digital inclusion 

R 50: That the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing examine the barriers to digital inclusion for culturally diverse older people and how to address them in its upcoming review into digital connectedness for senior Victorians. 

R 51: That each Victorian Government department develop a communications strategy that outlines how it will provide equitable access to services and information for people who are digitally excluded, including older people and people for whom English is not their preferred language. 

R 52: That the Victorian Government advocate to the Australian Government to fund the Be Connected network to create tailored digital mentoring programs and digital literacy resources for culturally diverse older people. 

R 53: That the Victorian Government further support neighbourhood houses to offer digital literacy training specifically for culturally diverse older people. 

R 54: That the Victorian Government work with libraries, neighbourhood houses, local government and community organisations to loan digital devices and dongles to culturally diverse older Victorians in need. 

R 55: That the Victorian Government further advocate to the Australian Government for greater investment in improving internet connectivity in regional and rural Victoria.  

Enhancing responses to elder abuse 

RECOMMENDATION 56: That the Victorian Government develop a strategy to prevent and respond to elder abuse in Victoria. It should include specific actions for culturally diverse communities, build on past research and reviews, and consider the guiding principles discussed in Chapter 2 of this report. 

R 57: That the Victorian Government, through an elder abuse strategy, provide long-term and sustainable funding for elder abuse prevention and response. 

R 58: That the Victorian Government prioritise research, evaluation and data collection on elder abuse in culturally diverse communities when developing a Victorian elder abuse strategy. 

R 59: That the Victorian Government support the expansion of intergenerational programs in Victoria targeted to culturally diverse communities to reduce ageism. They should be co-designed with and tailored to different communities. 

R 60: That the Victorian Government fund a long-term and culturally appropriate elder abuse awareness-raising campaign and education program that aims to reduce ageism, increase awareness of elder abuse and direct people to available support. It should include funding to individual organisations and community groups to implement place-based, accessible and culturally specific awareness initiatives. 

R 61: That the Victorian Government provide additional funding to Elder Abuse Prevention Networks to undertake place-based and culturally appropriate prevention initiatives. 

R 62: That the Victorian Government advocate to the Australian Government to implement measures that support older people on temporary, contributory parent or parent visas experiencing elder abuse, such as health, housing and employment support as well as pathways to other visas.   

R 63: That the Victorian Government provide additional health, housing and employment support for older people on temporary, contributory parent or parent visas experiencing elder abuse and conduct further research on the extent of the issue. 

R 64: That the Victorian Government support elder abuse prevention initiatives that facilitate partnerships and collaboration between the banking and community services sectors, and Victoria Police. This should include encouraging the banking sector to use independent and qualified interpreters and provide culturally diverse older people with independent financial advice. 

R 65: That the Victorian Government fund culturally appropriate financial counselling services in more community health settings as an elder abuse prevention and response initiative. 

R 66: That the Victorian Government’s elder abuse strategy focus on non-legal responses and ensuring older people can make informed decisions about elder abuse interventions. 

R 67: That the Victorian Government increase funding for Seniors Rights Victoria, elder abuse health justice partnerships and community legal centres in Melbourne and regional Victoria to ensure culturally diverse older people can access elder abuse services close to where they live. 

R 68: That the Victorian Government expand training initiatives for healthcare and social services workers to identify and respond to elder abuse. 

R 69: That the Victorian Government provide funding for bicultural and bilingual community educators to deliver training to community leaders, older people and their family members on elder abuse and appropriate responses. 

Meeting aged care support needs 

R 70: That the Victorian Government work with the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria to develop and implement in-language community education programs about aged care to increase awareness and reduce stigma and misinformation about aged care services among culturally diverse communities. These programs should incorporate advertisements in ethnic media, in-person information sessions, and community engagement through religious and cultural leaders. 

R 71: That the Victorian Government support multicultural and ethno-specific community organisations across the state to improve their capacity to provide bilingual and bicultural support to culturally diverse older people so they can effectively navigate the My Aged Care system and access relevant aged care services. 

R 72: That the Victorian Government establish a multilingual phone line for culturally diverse older people to seek information about aged care services in their preferred language that is modelled on the Centre for Cultural Diversity in Ageing’s Multilingual Older Persons COVID-19 Support Line trial. 

R 73: That the Victorian Government require its funded aged care service providers to use the Centre for Cultural Diversity in Ageing’s Inclusive Service Standards to self-assess and improve their cultural inclusion practices. 

R 74: That the Victorian Government advocate to the Australian Government to mandate ongoing cultural awareness training for aged care staff and adoption of the Aged Care Diversity Framework by all aged care service providers. 

R 75: That the Victorian Government continue to invest in the establishment of ethno-specific residential aged care facilities in Melbourne and where viable in regional areas. 

R 76: That the Victorian Government encourage mainstream aged care providers to partner with ethno-specific organisations to improve their capacity to deliver culturally inclusive services.