2019-Sir-Harry-Gibbs-Constitutional

!"#$ !"#$%&##'$("))*$ %&'()*)+)*&',-./,0.1&&)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY We acknowledge the Wurundjeri Peoples of the Kulin Nations as the Traditional Owners of the land on which Melbourne Law School stands. We pay our respects to their Elders both past and present.

Table of Contents

COMPETITORS 5

COMPETITION TIMELINE 7

WELCOME FROM THE ORGANISERS 8

SIR HARRY GIBBS 9

THE SELWAY CUP 11

FIXTURE – PRELIMINARY ROUNDS 13

PREVIOUS WINNERS 14

GRAND FINAL JUDGES 15

2019 MOOT PROBLEM 16

SPONSOR 24

COMPETITION RULES 25

MAPS & DIRECTIONS 35

CAMPUS RESOURCES 37

Competitors

AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA Wei Wen Phang Blade Sanchez Lochlan Plane Jessica Lauc Hugh Wetherill Jackson Ho

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE Keira Germech Tyrone Connell Samuel Cass Bodhi Shribman Jared Hee Zoe Brown

BOND UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Madeleine Bowater John David Lidbetter Jesse Clough Jason Dong Jonathan Sahhar Leigh Gordon

CURTIN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE Xavier Hazard Conrad James Victor George Nicholls Monique Eeson John Tearle Elise Christou Aesha Awan

LA TROBE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME AUSTRALIA Mohamed Naleemudeen Maddison Hogan Ali Raza Emily-May Roberts Daniel Reljic Paige O’Shea

MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND Casey Thomas Hannah Braiding-Watson Nina Stammbach Tooru Nishido Sarah Schooley Rachna Nagesh

MONASH UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY Joshua Kaye Georgia Reid Lorena Stents Giacomo Rotolo-Ross Nhu-Y Nguyen Juliette Mei Li Van Ratingen

MURDOCH UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA Ella Ewart Samuel Camp Conor McCavana Sylvia Lawrence Madison Colangelo Noah Grubb

QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY Giulia Marrama Alexander Leal Smith Teagan Matthews Lane Pitcher Matthew Hickey Mikaela Smith

RMIT UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA William Hade Alexander Gibson Zoe Burdock Olivia Everett Megan Clover Bridget Rumball

UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG Amelia Atkinson Sophie Whittaker Jana Humzy Bethany McGhie Bianca Tramaglino Emerson Hynard

Competition Timeline

Thursday 3 October Ground Floor Foyer (West), Mel- 9:00am – 9:30am Competitor registration bourne Law School (‘MLS’) 10:00am – 10:30am Opening ceremony Room G08, MLS

11:00am – 1:00pm Round 1 MLS (See Fixture)

1:00pm – 2:00pm Lunch Level 1 Foyer, MLS

2:30pm – 4:30pm Round 2 MLS (See Fixture)

Friday 4 October Melbourne University Law Students’ 9:30am – 9:50am Competitor sign-in Society Office, Level 2 (East), MLS 10:00am – 12:00pm Round 3 MLS (See Fixture)

12:00pm – 1:00pm Lunch Level 1 Foyer, MLS

1:30pm – 3:30pm Round 4 MLS (See Fixture)

Cocktail event & an- 4:00pm – 6:00pm Prince Alfred’s Rooftop & Bar nouncement of the break 6:30pm – 8:30pm Quarter Finals MLS (See Fixture)

Saturday 5 October Ground Floor Foyer (West), 9:00am – 9:20am Competitor sign-in MLS

9:30am – 11:30am Semi Finals MLS (See Fixture)

Court 1 (8A), Federal Court Mel- 2.00pm - 5.00pm Grand Final bourne Gala dinner and awards Woodward Conference Centre — 7:00pm – 10:00pm presentation Level 10, MLS

Welcome From The Organisers

Dear Competitors

We warmly welcome you to the 2019 Edition of the Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot. Since its inception in 2002, the ‘Gibbs Moot’, as it is colloquially known, has become recognised as Aus- tralia’s premier constitutional law moot. In 2019, we will be welcoming a total of 22 teams during the competition weekend in October.

The competition presents a valuable opportunity for students to compete in front of some of Aus- tralia’s most respected judges and public law advocates. In particular, we are grateful to have the Honourable Justice Patrick Keane AC (HCA), Professor the Honourable Marilyn Warren AC (former VSCA CJ) and the Honourable Justice Richard Niall QC (VSCA) adjudicating the 2019 Grand Final. We are thankful to Dr Stephen Donaghue QC, the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, for writing the 2019 Moot Problem.

In addition to the assistance of many judges, barristers and academics, we are also indebted to our sponsor, the Australian Government Solicitor for its generous support. We would also like to thank The Federation Press and the Australian Association of Constitutional Law for their contributions.

For all those who have travelled from interstate, welcome to Melbourne and to Melbourne Law School! We hope that you enjoy your brief stay here.

We wish everyone the best of luck for the weekend. We hope you make the most of the opportunity to meet other law students and to network with members of the legal profession.

Warm regards

Sarah Watling, Pia Mitchell and Jessica Flatters 2019 Directors of Competitions Melbourne Law School

Ken Kiat, Cellina Christoffelsz and Chloe Smith 2019 Gibbs Moot Officers Melbourne Law School

Sir Harry Gibbs

Sir Harry Gibbs is the deserving eponym for out by Sir Harry Gibbs regarding appropriate- Australia’s most prestigious federal constitu- ness of overruling constitutional precedent.1 tional law mooting competition. Professionally, His Honour was also a strong defender of as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Queens- states’ rights and federalism, dissenting land, and then later as a Justice and Chief Jus- against broad interpretations of Common- tice of the High Court of Australia, his Honour wealth legislative power in the fields of exter- had a profound impact on the development of nal affairs2 and corporations,3 and in the defi- Australian Jurisprudence. Personally, Sir Harry nition of duties of excise.4 Sir Harry Gibbs be- Gibbs was a strong leader but a calm man. His lieved the Constitution in its current form – intelligence, honesty and unwavering resili- providing for a federal union under a constitu- ence garnered him the respect of his peers and tional monarchy, and governed by the princi- left a lasting imprint on the legal profession. ple of responsible government – to be the best protector and arbiter of the competing rights His Honour’s constitutional philosophy was and interests in our political system.5 That said, traditional and characterised by its fidelity to Sir Harry Gibbs was not an intransigent jurist, the original text and spirit of the nation’s and his view of Australia’s independence is founding document. Fittingly, the High Court also apt to describe his ideal of constitutional continues to be guided by the principles set jurisprudence: as a ‘result of an orderly development – not as the result of a revolution’.6

1 Commonwealth v Hospital Contribution Fund (1982) 150 130 CLR 533; R v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte WA CLR 49, 56–8 (Gibbs CJ), endorsed in John v Federal National Football League (1979) 143 CLR 190 (‘Ad- Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 66 CLR 417, 438–9 amson’s Case’); State Superannuation Board (Vic) v (Mason CJ, Wilson, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ), Trade Practices Commission (1982) 150 CLR 282. and since by the High Court when considering constitu- 4 Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria (1983) 151 CLR tional precedent. 599. 2 See Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168; 5 See Sir Harry Gibbs, ‘Re-Writing the Constitution’ Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 (‘The Tas- (1992), Launching Address to the Samuel Griffith Soci- manian Dam Case’). ety. 3 See, eg, Actors and Announcers Equity Association v 6 Southern Centre of Theosophy Inc v South Australia Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169; Strickland v (1979) 145 CLR 246, 261 (Gibbs CJ). Rocla Concrete Pipes (1971) 124 CLR 468; R v Trade Prac- tices Tribunal; Ex parte St George County Council (1974)

The following concise biography is extracted The time of Mr Justice Gibbs on the High Court from Sir Harry Gibbs’ obituary, delivered by the was one of turbulence and challenge. Contro- Hon Michael Kirby AC CGM.7 versy surrounded Chief Justice Barwick's advice to the Governor-General (Sir John Kerr) that Born in 1917, Harry Talbot Gibbs was the elder was followed by the dismissal of Prime Minister son of a solicitor practising in Ipswich, Queens- Whitlam and his government. Equal, or even land. Throughout his life he was known to his greater, turbulence, surrounded accusations friends as Bill. He excelled at school and in his against, and the trials of, Lionel Murphy, then studies at the University of Queensland, where a judicial colleague on the High Court. The lat- he graduated in Arts and Law with double First- ter events happened substantially in the period Class Honours. that Sir Harry was Chief Justice. There were many awkward moments. His well-known He was admitted to the Queensland Bar just sense of calm was often called upon to help before the beginning of the Second World War. steer the nation's highest court through those He saw service in the AIF in New Guinea, was difficult years. promoted and mentioned in despatches. On demobilisation, he married Muriel Dunn, In the 1990s, I came to know Sir Harry Gibbs whom he had met at Law School. It was a quite closely in Australians for Constitutional happy marriage, blessed with three daughters Monarchy (ACM) ... Bill Gibbs became the Chair and a son. The oldest daughter, Margaret, of the National Council of ACM. We had many spoke for the family at the Memorial Service. meetings. Suddenly we found ourselves in a Hers was a powerful speech about a loving fa- close unexpected alliance. For him, this was ther, husband and grandfather and a man who not only a matter of personal loyalty to the was always true to his word. Queen but also a deep conviction about the merits of constitutional monarchy as a temper- Bill Gibbs' career at the Queensland Bar flour- ate system of government that worked well. ished. He took Silk in 1957. in 1961, at the then young age of 44, he was appointed a judge of In the last five years of his life, he was obliged the Supreme Court of Queensland. He was the to undertake dialysis; but he was never first law graduate from the University of daunted, and he never complained. With Bill Queensland to join that Bench. He quickly Gibbs, in the law, in the Academy and in life, demonstrated his skill and authority, perform- what you saw was what you got. He was for- ing trial and appellate work with equal ability mal and courtly; but decent and unpretentious. in every field of law. At one stage it seemed He was a true Australian of the Old School. His that he would be appointed Chief Justice of broad Ipswich accent never left him. He was Queensland. However, he was passed over and never false. He was honoured many times in soon, in 1967, he moved to the federal judiciary. his lifetime. To the end he was loyal and de- For a short time, he became the Federal Judge voted to his wife Muriel, who was also a fre- in Bankruptcy, based in Sydney. But in 1970 he quent companion in the activities of the Acad- was elevated to the High Court of Australia. He emy. He enjoyed Academy functions and we served on that Court, including for six years as enjoyed his participation in them. Those of us Chief Justice, until his retirement in 1987. His who remember those times will always carry a judicial writings continue to be read in contem- strong sense of respect and affection for Bill porary cases for their broad knowledge of law Gibbs - a most notable leader and example in and simplicity of expression. the law and in Australian civic life.

7 The full text of his Honour’s speech is available online: .

The Selway Cup

The Selway Cup is awarded to the winner of the He obtained his degree in law in 1977. Soon af- Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot. ter he was offered a position as an articled clerk to the then Crown Solicitor, Graham Prior. That Bradley Maxwell Selway (pictured above) was was the beginning of the long friendship be- Solicitor-General of the State of South Australia, tween them. Brad spent the rest of his career as Adjunct Professor at Adelaide University, and a lawyer in the service of the State, becoming Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. The in- Crown Solicitor in 1989, and then Solicitor-Gen- sight, enthusiasm and innovation that Bradley eral in 1995. Along the way he was appointed brought to his various roles in the legal profes- Queen's Counsel in 1994. He was appointed a sion should serve as a source of inspiration and Judge of the Federal Court in November 2002. aspiration for young lawyers and students alike. They are the bare bones of his career.

The following is extracted from the eulogy given It goes without saying that Brad was involved in by the Hon John Doyle AC, Chief Justice of South many significant matters and cases while he Australia at the funeral service for Justice worked in the Crown Solicitor's Office, then as Selway.8 Crown Solicitor and as Solicitor- General. He advised the State Government on many complex, I worked closely with Brad for nine years be- significant and sensitive matters. He was re- tween 1986 and 1995 when I was Solicitor-Gen- garded by informed observers as an outstanding eral. For about six years of this time Brad was Solicitor-General. Crown Solicitor. After I became Chief Justice in 1995, Brad was appointed Solicitor-General and Brad was a prodigious worker. He seemed to appeared before me on a number of occasions have boundless energy and enthusiasm for his until his appointment to the Federal Court in work. Not only did he put in a huge effort. He 2002.

8 The full text of his speech is available online: < https://search.informit.org/documentSummary;res=IE- LAPA;dn=200507377>.

worked quickly and efficiently. Whatever the is- debates on proposed Australian Constitutions sue, he would read widely and produce written that were considered in the 10 years or so prior material quickly. to federation. Although I had the privilege of Everyone who had the pleasure of working with presenting that argument, it was Brad's idea to Brad was well aware of his extraordinary indus- delve into the material. It was Brad, and re- try, and of his ability to produce high quality searchers guided by him, who searched the rec- work quickly. Brad did not use his speed and ef- ord of Debates and produced the volumes of ma- ficiency to create free time for himself. He was terial that we put before the Court. This was the willing to shoulder all tasks and virtually any first case in which the High Court embraced the task, as the occasion required. use of materials of this kind, and it resulted in a string of cases in which they did. At the end of Brad was a constitutional lawyer who ranked in the day, this was Brad's idea. the top handful of his time Australia wide, be- cause his intellectual strengths were matched by In 2002 Brad accepted an appointment as ad- a thorough understanding and deep apprecia- junct Professor in Law at Adelaide University. His tion of public law and of public administration. involvement in the faculty of law reflected his In the area of State constitutional law, a subset deep interest in the long-term development of of the wider topic, I have always considered the law, his enjoyment of intellectual debate Brad the best in Australia. He had an unequalled about the law, and his interest in students. knowledge of the law and practice of State Gov- ernments, and especially of the legal aspects of Brad was a lawyer of a quality equalled by few. public finance. He made a mark in his chosen area of a kind that I should mention his winning of the prestigious few of us will ever make. British Foreign Office Chevening Scholarship, which enabled him in 1990 to undertake further research at the University of London.

Brad was a creative thinker. I will give two ex- amples. In 1987 he and I appeared before the High Court in Cole v Whitfield. This was a major case. In it the High Court took a completely new approach to the famous s 92 of the Australian Constitution. The decision of the High Court was influenced to a significant degree by material found in the record of Convention Debates between about 1890 and 1900, being the

Fixture – Preliminary Rounds

Round 1 Round 2 Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff Defendant 3 22 20 7 2 16 4 9 10 19 13 6 8 15 17 8 14 21 5 14 7 13 16 3 1 4 15 2 6 20 22 10 9 5 21 1 12 18 19 12 11 17 18 11

Round 3 Round 4 Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff Defendant 19 11 7 5 21 8 12 4 4 14 3 21 18 2 8 22 20 12 2 19 22 9 14 20 5 10 9 17 13 1 1 15 16 6 10 16 15 7 6 18 17 3 11 13

Previous Winners

The Hon Chief Justice Robert French AC delivers the Selway Cup to 2012 winner, Angus Abadee (Univer- sity of Sydney). Angus mooted the entire competition by himself as his other teammates unfortunately had to pull out!

Year Winner Year Winner 2018 University of Sydney 2009 University of Technology Sydney 2017 University of Melbourne 2008 University of Sydney 2016 Australian National University 2007 University of Sydney 2015 University of Melbourne 2006 University of Newcastle 2014 Competition not held 2005 University of Technology Sydney 2013 University of Queensland 2004 University of Technology Sydney 2012 University of Sydney 2003 Macquarie University 2011 University of Melbourne 2002 Bond University 2010 Competition not held

Grand Final Judges

The Honourable Justice Patrick Keane AC Patrick Anthony Keane was appointed to the High Court in March 2013. At the time of his appointment he was Chief Justice of the Fed- eral Court of Australia. He served as a judge of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland from 2005–10 before joining the Fed- eral Court. He is a graduate from the University of Queensland and Oxford University. He was admitted to the Queensland Bar in 1977 and in 1988 he was appointed Queen’s Counsel. He was Solicitor- General for Queensland from 1992 to 2005. Justice Keane AC was appointed a Companion in the General Division of the Order of Aus- tralia in 2015.

Professor the Honourable Marilyn Warren AC Marilyn Warren was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria in November 2003. She commenced her legal career in the Vic- torian Public Service and was admitted to practice in 1975. Chief Justice Warren signed the Roll of the Victorian Bar in 1985 and served as a member of the Bar Council's Law Reform Committee for eight years. In 1997 she took silk. In 1998 she was appointed to the Supreme Court of Victoria and presided in all jurisdictions. In 2004 she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws in recognition of her service to the law and the community. In 2005 she was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for service to the judiciary and to the legal profession par- ticularly the delivery and administration of law in Victoria, to the community in areas affecting the social and economic conditions of women and to forensic medicine internationally. In 2006, she was appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Victoria.

The Honourable Justice Richard Niall Richard Niall QC was appointed as the Solicitor-General of Victoria on 9 June 2015. Before this appointment he was in private practice as a member of the Victorian Bar for 20 years. He was appointed as Senior Counsel in 2010. Niall has regularly appeared in the High Court, the Supreme Court of Victoria and Federal Court in a wide range of proceedings at both first instance and appellate level. In addition to a strong public law focus he has wide experience in industrial law, acting for both employers and employees at state and federal levels. His advice to governments has ranged across constitutional law, education, freedom of information, dis- crimination, coronial inquests and planning, customs, tax, pa- tents, migration, fisheries management, environmental protec- tion, financial regulation and trade practices.

2019 Moot Problem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE REGISTRY No M32 of 2019

BETWEEN: MARTIN JONES AND ZARA JONES Plaintiffs AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Defendant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA CANBERRA REGISTRY No C13 of 2019

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF VICTORIA Plaintiff AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Defendant

PROBLEM

1. Mr Martin Jones and his wife, Ms Bri Jones, resided in Ballarat, Victoria. Both were born in Australia to Australian parents, and both became Australian citizens on their birth. They are not citizens of any other country.

2. In 2015, after having been radicalised on the Internet, Martin and Bri pledged their allegiance to ISIS. In February 2016, Martin left Ballarat to travel to the Middle East to fight with ISIS.

3. Shortly after Martin’s departure, Bri discovered that she was pregnant. In September 2016, she gave birth to a daughter, Zara. On her birth, Zara became an Australian citizen by oper- ation of s 12 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

4. Bri was estranged from her family, and had no friends in Ballarat. By November 2016, she was in a precarious financial situation, and she decided that she and Zara would relocate to the Middle East to be with Martin. She travelled to the Middle East in January 2017, and the couple resumed living together, along with Zara. They moved between various locations in the Middle East depending on where Martin was needed to fight for ISIS against foreign forces. He also engaged in terrorist activities against the local populations in several Middle Eastern countries.

5. In November 2018, Bri carried out a suicide attack that killed 50 people, including 18 soldiers from the United States of America. Reporting in the international press suggested that Mar- tin may have coerced Bri into participating in that attack.

6. On 27 January 2019, following a lengthy public debate about the threat of radicalised foreign fighters returning to Australia and committing acts of domestic terrorism, the Common- wealth Parliament passed the Citizenship Revocation Act 2019 (Cth). That Act received Royal Assent the following day, and it commenced immediately.

7. In the Second Reading Speech to the Citizenship Revocation Bill, the Minister for Home Af- fairs (Minister) said:

This Act is intended to ensure that no people who supports organisations like ISIS by going to fight in foreign conflict zones can retain their status as Australian citizens. Any person who travels to a foreign country to support a terrorist organisation such as ISIS has acted in a way that is repugnant to the most fundamental values our community holds dear. They have acted in a way that is incompatible with their membership of the Australian community. If they return to Australia, they or their families will pose a threat to that community, including by inciting or carrying out acts of terrorism within Australia. This measure is critical to protect our community from the threat of terrorism posed by returning fighters. For those reasons, the Government has decided that it needs to have the power to ensure that these people will cease to be members of our Australian community.

8. The Citizenship Revocation Act relevantly provides:

6 Revocation by Minister

(1) The Minister for Home Affairs may, by writing, revoke a person’s Australian citizenship if:

(a) the person is aged 14 or older;

(b) the person fights for, or is in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation;

(d) the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.

(2) The person ceases to be an Australian citizen at the time the decision under subsection (1) is made.

(3) A declared terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation declared by the Minister by legislative instrument to be a declared terrorist organisation for the purposes of this section.

(4) Subsection (1) applies to a person who is an Australian citizen regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen (including a person who became an Australian citizen at birth).

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding any international obligations to the contrary, the Minister may make a decision under subsection (1) in respect of a person regardless of whether that person is a national or citizen of a country other than Aus- tralia.

…

8 Children of parents who cease to be citizens

(1) If: (a) a person ceases to be an Australian citizen under section 6; and (b) at the time the person ceases to be an Australian citizen, that person is a parent of a child aged under 18; then: (c) the Minister may, by writing, revoke the child’s Australian citizenship; and (d) if the Minister does so—the child ceases to be an Australian citizen at the time of the revocation.

9. On 29 January 2019, the Minister declared by legislative instrument that ISIS is a declared terrorist organisation.

10. On 14 February 2019, on the basis of information received from security agencies, the Min- ister decided to revoke Martin’s citizenship under s 6(1) of the Citizenship Revocation Act. Following that revocation, the Minister decided to revoke Zara’s Australian citizenship under s 8(1) of the Citizenship Revocation Act, on the basis that Martin was the primary influence on her life, and that in those circumstances there was an unacceptable risk that Zara would grow up to pose a threat to the Australian community.

11. On 1 April 2019, following the substantial defeat of ISIS forces in the Middle East, Martin decided that he wanted to return to Australia. He contacted a journalist and informed her that he wished to bring Zara home to Australia, so that he could raise her in peace and safety. He said that he could never give her up, but that they had no-where else to go, and he feared they would both die if they remained in the Middle East. The journalist published an account of her discussion with Martin.

12. Public debate in Australia was divided on whether Martin should be permitted to return to Australia to raise “baby Zara”. Large public rallies were held on both sides of the debate, and a go-fund-me campaign was conducted to raise money to bring baby Zara home, and to fight the matter all the way to the High Court if need be.

13. On 12 April 2019, Martin and Zara presented themselves at an international airport in the Middle East and attempted to board a flight to Australia. They were refused permission to board, on the basis that neither of them were Australian citizens, and they did not have visas to enter Australia.

14. On 14 April 2019, New Zealand offered to confer citizenship upon baby Zara (but not her father) if her father permitted her to be brought to New Zealand.

15. On 15 April 2019, Martin and Zara commenced a proceeding against the Commonwealth in the High Court of Australia seeking declarations that, respectively, ss 6 and 8 of the Citizen- ship Revocation Act are invalid.

16. On 17 April 2019, the Premier of Victoria conducted a press conference in Melbourne, stating:

The case of baby Zara illustrates how the Citizenship Revocation Act is punitive in its application to the innocent family members of ISIS fighters and will only serve further to isolate and vilify vulnerable parts of our community, ultimately to the detri- ment of the State of Victoria and its people. The Government I lead will always stand up for what is right. Martin Jones is a terrorist. We do not support his return to Australia. But baby Zara must be permitted to return. If the price of her return is allowing Martin Jones to return as well then, as a community, we must pay that price. For that reason, Victoria has informed the Commonwealth that if baby Zara and her father are allowed to return to Australia then we will invest whatever law enforce- ment resources it takes to keep the community safe from Martin Jones.

That offer has been flatly refused. The result is that baby Zara is left stateless and in danger on the other side of the world. That is unacceptable. That is why I today announce the establishment of a Royal Commission under the Inquiries Act 2016 (Vic) to examine the baby Zara affair.

The terms of reference of that inquiry will include terms requiring the Royal Com- missioner to examine: (a) the Commonwealth’s decision-making in relation to the Jones family, including the risks posed by Martin Jones, so that Victoria Police will know what it needs to do to protect the community from him if he is allowed to return; (b) whether more could have been done by our security agencies to protect Bri and baby Zara; and (c) the appropriateness of the Citizenship Revocation Act as a legislative response to the complex problems posed by foreign fighters and their families in a modern society that believes in human rights. The Commonwealth having refused to take the lead on these matters, Victoria has no choice but to do so.

17. The Inquiries Act 2016 (Vic) (Inquiries Act) relevantly provides:

4 Act to bind Crown

(1) This Act binds the Crown in right of Victoria and, so far as the legislative power of Parliament permits, the Crown in all its other capacities.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act is intended to bind a person who receives a notice to produce documents or to attend before a Royal Commission even if that person cannot be subjected to criminal penalties for refusing or failing to comply with that notice.

17 Power to compel production of documents

For the purposes of its inquiry, a Royal Commission may serve written notice on a person requiring the person to produce a specified document or other thing to the Royal Commission by a specified time and in the specified manner.

18 Variation or revocation of notice to produce or notice to attend

(1) A person on whom a notice to produce is served may make a claim to the Royal Commission that the person has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the notice.

(2) Without limiting what may be a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (1), it is a reasonable excuse for a person to fail to comply with a notice by refusing to give information to a Royal Commission if the information—

(a) in the case of a natural person, might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty; or

(b) is the subject of parliamentary privilege; or

(d) is prohibited from disclosure by a court order.

(3) If the Royal Commission is satisfied that a person has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a notice, the Royal Commission must not require com- pliance with the notice to produce to that extent.

32 Legal professional privilege does not apply

It is not a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to comply with a require- ment under this Act to give information (including answering a question) or produce a document or other thing to a Royal Commission that the information, document or other thing is the subject of legal professional privilege.

46 Offence to fail to comply with a notice to produce or attend

A person who is duly served with a notice to produce or notice to attend in relation to a Royal Commission must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with the notice.

Penalty: 240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

18. On 26 April 2019, acting pursuant to s 17 of the Inquiries Act, the Royal Commissioner issued a notice to produce (the Notice) to the Commonwealth of Australia (which was served on the Australian Government Solicitor in Melbourne) requiring the Commonwealth to produce:

a. all legal advice given to the Commonwealth concerning the constitutionality of the Citi- zenship Revocation Act, or its compatibility with Australia’s international obligations;

b. all documents that concern the risk posed to the Australian community by Martin Jones; and

c. all documents that examine the human rights implications of the Citizenship Revocation Act

19. The documents that fall within the scope of the Notice include: (a) a legal advice dated 27 December 2018 provided by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General to the Minister concerning the validity of the Citizenship Revocation Act and its consistency with Australia’s international obligations; and (b) a policy paper prepared within the Attorney-General’s Department examining the human rights impact of the Citizenship Revocation Bill.

20. On 28 April 2019, Victoria commenced proceedings in the High Court seeking a declaration that the Commonwealth was required to comply with the Notice.

21. The High Court expedited the proceeding commenced by the Jones, and the separate proceeding commenced by Victoria, and listed them together for hearing (after being advised that the same counsel team would be appearing for both the Jones and Victoria).

The following questions have been reserved for the consideration of the Full Court pursuant to s 18 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth):

In proceeding M32 of 2019:

1. In its application to Mr Martin Jones, is s 6(1) of the Citizenship Revocation Act invalid on the ground that it is not a law with respect to s 51(xix) of the Constitution?

2. In its application to Ms Zara Jones, is s 8(1) of the Citizenship Revocation Act invalid on the ground that it is not a law with respect to s 51(xix) of the Constitution?

In proceeding C13 of 2019:

3. Is the Inquiries Act contrary to an implied intergovernmental immunity to the extent that it im- poses an obligation on the Commonwealth to produce:

a. the legal advice prepared by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General dated 27 December 2018;

b. the police paper prepared within the Attorney-General’s Department examining the human rights impact of the Citizenship Revocation Bill?

***

NOTES

1. The parties should not refer to any legislative provisions other than those referred to in the above problem. Specifically, for the avoidance of doubt, while the Inquiries Act 2016 (Vic) closely resembles the real Inquiries Act 2014 (Vic), it is a hypothetical Act.

2. The parties should confine their submissions to the constitutional issues specifically identified in the questions reserved for the consideration of the Full Court

______

Melbourne Law School extends its sincerest gratitude to Dr Stephen Donaghue QC, the Solicitor- General of the Commonwealth, for gratefully writing the 2019 Moot Problem.

Dr Stephen Donaghue QC was appointed Solicitor-General on 14 De- cember 2016 and commenced in the role on 16 January 2017. He holds degrees in Arts and Law from the University of Melbourne and received the Supreme Court Prize as the top graduate in law at the University of Melbourne in 1995. He also holds a DPhil from Oxford University (Magdalen College), where he studied after receiving Menzies and Commonwealth scholarships. Prior to commencing at the Bar, Dr Donaghue was an Associate to Justice Hayne at the High Court of Australia.

Dr Donaghue joined the Victorian Bar in 2001 and took silk in 2011. He appeared regularly before the Full Court of the High Court, principally in matters involving constitutional and administrative law, and he also appeared in many complex appellate and trial matters in the Federal Court of Australia.

Sponsor

Australian Government Solicitor

The Australian Government Solicitor operates as the primary provider of legal services to the Australian Gov- ernment and its various agencies. It forms a part of the Attorney General’s Department and acts as a full-service legal practice. The AGS is one of Australia’s largest national legal services, with offices in every capital city and approximately 320 lawyers who cover some 40 different areas of law related to government. In addition, the AGS offers both clerkship and graduate employ- ment programs. We thank them for their generous support.

Competition Rules

PART 1: INTERPRETATION

Competition Name

1. This competition will be known as the Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot (‘the Competition’).

Definitions

2. In this document:

a. ‘Accredited law school’ means a law school that is geographically located within Australia and has available a Bachelor of Laws and/or a Juris Doctor;

b. ‘Competition’ means the Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot;

c. ‘Competition Organisers’ means the Competition Organising Committee and the Directors of Competitions at Melbourne Law School;

d. ‘Finals’ means the Quarter Final, Semi Final and Grand Final of the Competition; and

e. ‘Preliminary Rounds’ means rounds one (1) to round four (4) of the Competition.

PART 2: TEAMS

Registration

3. By entering this Competition, all competitors agree to be bound by the Competition Rules outlined in this document.

4. Each accredited law school may nominate a team of two (2) to three (3) people to compete in the Competition.

5. Each accredited law school is limited to entering one (1) team to compete in the Competition.

6. The two (2) or three (3) nominated members shall remain the same for the duration of the Compe- tition.

7. In a team of three (3) members, two (2) will act as Counsel and one (1) will act as Solicitor. Team members may rotate positions between Senior Counsel, Junior Counsel and Solicitor during the Com- petition.

8. In a team of two (2) members, both will act as Counsel. Team members may rotate positions between Senior and Junior counsel during the Competition.

9. Team members must not have graduated with a law degree in any jurisdiction.

10. Each team may only have one (1) coach to assist in preparation for the Competition. The coach may be a faculty member.

11. Teams must register by the registration date, 18 July 2019 at 17:00 AEST. The details of each team's competitors and coach must be finalised by 2 August 2019 at 17:00 AEST.

12. When registration for the Competition has closed, each team will be allocated a team number. The team numbers will be drawn at random by the Competition Organisers.

Penalty: Any contravention of a rule of Part 2 may result in disqualification or loss of points as decided at the absolute discretion of the Competition Organisers.

Release of the Problem Question

13. The problem question will be released via email to competitors on 5 August 2019 at 17:00 AEST. Every effort will be made to ensure that the problem is constructed in a way that does not disad- vantage or advantage participants from any particular jurisdiction.

14. The last date for clarifications of the problem will be Monday 26 August 2019 at 17:00 AEST. The clarifications will be released to all teams on Tuesday 3 September 2019.

15. Competitors will be asked to prepare the same problem question for all rounds of the Competition. Each team must prepare a written memorandum for both the plaintiff and defendant.

16. All moots will be held before the High Court of Australia. Jurisdiction will be assumed.

Research and Preparation

17. All research and preparation for the moots must be conducted solely by the competitors. Law school staff coaches must not be involved in the writing of the written memoranda. However, competitors may receive general advice and assistance with respect to skills relevant to the Competition prior to the release of the problem question.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 17 may result in disqualification.

18. After the release of the problem question until the completion of the competition, coaches may only provide general commentary on the quality of the team’s legal and factual arguments. General commentary in this sense is limited to basic characterizations about merit and non-merit of the arguments and does not include advice on how to improve arguments, the correction of error, or high- lighting omissions.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 18 may result in disqualification.

19. Competitors may not use electronic transmission devices at any time for any purpose during the competition, including, but not limited to, laptops, mobile phones (that are not switched off or on airplane mode) and computers. Penalty: Any contravention of clause 19 may result in disqualification.

Release of the Draw

20. The Preliminary Rounds will consist of a single (1) pool and teams will be randomly drawn against each other prior to the commencement of the competition.

21. The draw will be released to teams via email on 23 September 2019 at 17:00 AEST.

PART 3: WRITTEN MEMORANDA

22. Teams will be required to submit written memoranda for the Plaintiff and Defendant.

23. Written memoranda are to be submitted electronically in PDF format by email to [email protected]

24. The title of the document must be in the format [(Team Number) – (Plaintiff/Defendant)]. For example, [3 – Plaintiff].

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 22–24 may result in a 5-mark penalty per contravention.

25. The deadline for receipt of written memoranda for both the Plaintiff and Defendant is 16 September 2019 at 17:00 AEST.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 25 may result in a 2-mark penalty per 10 minutes (or part thereof).

26. The written memoranda will be distributed accordingly to the opposing teams and to the Judges of the moot.

a. In the Preliminary Rounds, teams will be provided with the written memorandum of the opposing teams on 20 September 2019.

b. In the Finals, teams will be provided with the written memorandum of the opposing team at least one (1) hour prior to their moot.

27. Written memoranda must contain a cover sheet, an outline of the structure of the team’s submis- sion, major arguments raised, allocations of speaking time and a list of authorities on which counsel rely.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 27 may result in a 5-mark penalty.

28. Written memoranda for each party must not exceed ten (10) pages in length, plus an additional one (1) cover page and two (2) pages for a list of authorities.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 28 may result in a 2-mark penalty.

29. Each team must format their written memorandum, cover page and list of authorities in accordance with a standard format:

a. Times New Roman, size 12 font must be used;

b. Line spacing must not be less than 1.5;

c. Margins must not be less than 2.0 cm on either side;

d. The division of time between speakers must be specified; and

e. Teams must not indicate their university name on any part of the written memorandum.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 29 (or its sub-sections) may result in a 3-mark penalty (only applied once).

30. Written memoranda may not be revised for any purpose whatsoever once they have been submitted.

31. During oral submissions, teams may not deviate from their written memoranda, unless invited to do so by the Judge.

PART 4: ORAL SUBMISSIONS

32. The Competition is comprised of four (4) Preliminary Rounds, a Quarter Final, a Semi Final and a Grand Final.

33. Each moot will consist of at least two (2) sides (e.g. one (1) Plaintiff and one (1) Defendant or any such title as specified in the question).

Procedure

34. Each team will have forty (40) minutes to present their case (excluding time taken to give appear- ances and time extensions granted by the Judge).

a. The time may be divided between Senior and Junior Counsel as they see fit, although each speaker must speak for a minimum of 15 minutes.

b. The division of time must be specified in written memoranda.

35. Judges may grant an extension of time up to five (5) minutes per competitor at their absolute discretion.

36. There will be no right of reply, and penalties will apply if Counsel exceeds their allocated or extended time. A competitor must stop speaking when their time has expired, or when asked to do so by the Judge.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 36 will result in a 2-mark penalty per 30 seconds exceeded time. A right of reply will attract a penalty of between 5–30 marks.

37. No written material may be tendered to the Judge during oral submissions.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 37 may result in a penalty of 10 marks per page handed to the Judge

38. Competitors must not be more than five (5) minutes late for the commencement of the moot.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 38 will result in a penalty of two (2) marks per five (5) minutes late or part thereof.

39. Procedural submissions must not be made during the moot.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 39 will result in a 5-mark penalty.

Preliminary Rounds

40. All teams will compete in each Preliminary Round.

41. Competitors may not observe, nor are they to be briefed on, proceedings of a Preliminary Round in which they are not competing.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 41 may result in disqualification.

42. Teams will be randomly allocated to sides. Every endeavour will be made to ensure that a team is not disadvantaged by the draw and will not meet the same team twice in the Preliminary Rounds.

43. In the case of an uneven number of teams in the Competition, a three-way moot will be held in each of the Preliminary Rounds.

a. There will be one (1) Plaintiff and two (2) Defendants.

b. One (1) team each round (the Odd Team) will be randomly drawn against another team (the Ghost Team) who is also the Plaintiff.

c. The Ghost Team’s score from that round will be compared against the Odd Team to determine the winner of that fixture.

d. The Odd Team will be declared the winner of their moot if their total score exceeds the total score of the Ghost Team.

e. The Plaintiff team can only be declared the winner against the Defendant team drawn in the fixture. The Defendant team can only be declared winner against the Plaintiff team drawn in that fixture.

44. In a three-way moot, the following procedure will apply.

a. The Plaintiff, Defendant, Odd Team and two (2) judges will hear the oral submissions of the Plaintiff.

b. Immediately following the Plaintiff’s oral submissions, both the Defendant and the Odd Team will present their oral submissions. The Odd Team will be moved to a different room to present their oral submissions, along with one (1) Judge.

c. The same Judge will hear the oral submissions of the Ghost Team and the oral submissions of the Odd Team.

d. Teams will only be given one (1) set of opposing written memoranda. Teams are expected only to respond to the arguments of the opposing written memoranda they receive.

e. As an exception to clause 41, the Odd Team is permitted to observe the Ghost Team’s oral sub- mission but must not observe any other part of that moot.

45. In the event that one (1) or more team(s) withdraw from the competition, resulting in an uneven number of teams, randomly allocated teams will be matched into a three-way moot as outlined in clause 43.

Timekeeping

46. Responsibility for timekeeping and adherence to allotted time periods and breaks rests with the Judges.

47. If resources and volunteers are available, timekeepers and timekeeping devices may be provided, and, in such cases, they will be solely responsible for all time keeping and penalties. A timekeeper shall not be an individual from the same team as any competitor in that particular moot.

48. Decisions by judges as to elapsed times are final and non-reviewable.

Observers

49. Observation of the Competition is allowed for Semi-Final and Grand Final rounds only. Although observation during these rounds is encouraged, potential for disruption must be minimised. Observers should not enter or leave the room whilst a competitor is speaking.

50. Judges may, if they wish, request that observers leave the room while they confer. Outside of this discretion, observers may watch all segments of a round.

PART 5: JUDGING AND SCORING

Judging

51. Every effort must be made by the Competition Organisers and the teams to ensure that Judges are unaware of the university that competitors are from until after they have finished judging the Com- petition.

52. All Judges must have suitable legal qualifications or relevant experience. Judges will be judges, legal practitioners, legal academics, or others with demonstrated relevant experience in competitions, and/or relevant professional experience.

53. Judges will be provided with:

a. The moot problem; b. A summary of the issues in the problem (at least one (1) page); c. The score sheet; d. A summary of the Competition Rules; and e. Written memoranda submitted by the teams competing in the moot.

54. Judges will award each individual in the moot a mark out of one hundred (100).

55. Where there is more than one Judge, each Judge will be asked to produce an individual score sheet and the winner will be determined by the majority opinion.

56. Each team’s score sheets will be submitted by the Judge to the Competition Organisers at the conclusion of each moot.

Progression from Preliminary Rounds

57. Teams will progress through the Quarter Final based on the procedure of ranking set out in clauses 58 and 59 below.

58. The eight (8) teams with the highest win-loss ratios will automatically progress through.

59. If two (2) or more teams have tied win-loss ratios, accumulated score differential percentages will be used to separate these teams. This method of calculation aims to remove the scoring discrepan- cies derived from teams being judged by different judges, and teams facing different opponents. The calculations will be made available to any team who requests them.

a. Score differentials are calculated by finding the difference between the scores awarded to both teams in a fixture. The value of the difference is divided by an average of the total scores of both teams in that fixture. This differential is then expressed as a percentage.

b. The winning team will receive a positive score differential percentage value, whereas the losing team will receive a negative score differential percentage value.

c. The score differential percentages of each team with a tied win-loss ratio will be added together to give an accumulated score differential percentage.

d. The accumulated score differential percentage of each team with a tied win-loss ratio will be compared side-by-side and the team with the highest value will be ranked higher and thus, progress to the Quarter Final.

Quarter Finals

60. Competitors may not observe, nor are they to be briefed on, proceedings of a Final in which they are not competing. This does not apply to competitors no longer in the Competition.

Penalty: Any contravention of clause 60 may result in disqualification.

61. The draw for the Quarter Final will be seeded based on the procedure of ranking set out in clauses 58 and 59.

62. Teams will be allocated sides by random draw.

63. Quarter Finalists will be announced after the conclusion of the Preliminary Rounds and teams will be informed of their side. Each team will only compete once in the Quarter Final Round.

Semi Finals

64. The winners of each Quarter Final round progress to the Semi Finals.

65. Semi Finalists will be announced after the conclusion of the Quarter Finals. Each team will only compete once in the Semi Final round.

66. Teams will be allocated sides by random draw.

Grand Final

67. The winning team from each Semi Final will proceed to the Grand Final.

68. Grand Finalists will be announced after the conclusion of the Semi Finals.

69. Teams will be allocated sides by random draw.

PART 6: PENALTIES AND FORFEITURE

Penalties

70. Where a penalty is levied against a team, the penalty will be divided equally amongst Counsel for that team. Where an individual competitor is disqualified, their team will be able to continue in the Competition provided that two (2) team members remain in the team.

71. Judges shall not be notified of the application of any penalties at any time by the Competition Or- ganisers.

72. If a Judge becomes aware that a penalty has been or will be applied, they will be instructed not to take this penalty into consideration when marking the competitors.

73. The Competition Organisers have full discretion as to the application of all penalties.

Forfeiture

74. Any team that forfeits will be deemed to have lost that moot. Counsel for the forfeiting team will be deemed to have a mark of zero (0) for that round.

75. Any team whose opponents forfeit a round will be deemed to have won that moot. The team’s mar- gin will be the average of their margins from the other rounds.

76. Any team which forfeits shall be excluded from progressing through to the Finals.

77. A forfeit will be considered to have occurred where a team withdraws after the opponent’s written memorandum has been released.

78. No member of a forfeiting team is eligible for the award of best speaker.

PART 7: SCORESHEETS AND AWARDS

Release of Score Sheets and Rankings

79. Score sheets will be made available to teams one (1) hour after the conclusion of every round. Each team may only view their own score sheet. Score sheets must be returned to the Competition Or- ganisers immediately afterwards.

80. Live rankings will be released via the Competition website () at the end of the first day of the Competition. Final rankings of the Preliminary Rounds will be released via the Competition website at the end of the second day of the Competition.

81. The Judge’s decision is final. No appeals are permitted on the basis of score sheets or rankings.

Best Speaker Awards

82. An award for best speaker will be given for the Preliminary Rounds and for the Grand Final.

83. The best speaker of the Preliminary Rounds must have competed in at least three (3) moots. Speakers will be ranked according to their mean percentage. The mean percentage shall be calculated each round by taking the competitor’s score and dividing it by the total number of points awarded in that moot. This value will then be added to the value derived from the competitor’s other moots and divided by the number of moots they speak in.

84. The award for best speaker of the Preliminary Rounds shall be announced at the Closing Gala.

85. The best speaker of the Grand Final will be selected by the adjudication panel presiding over the Grand Final.

86. The award for best speaker of the Grand Final will be announced at the Grand Final.

87. In the event of a tie, the competitors will share the prize.

Best Written Memorandum Awards

88. Awards will be given for Best Plaintiff Written Memorandum and Best Defendant Written Memo- randum from the Preliminary Rounds.

89. The best three (3) plaintiff written memoranda and the best three (3) defendant written memoranda from the Preliminary Rounds will be sent to an independent judging panel, who will select the winner. The written memoranda shall not identify which university the teams are from.

90. The best three (3) plaintiff written memoranda will be selected by the mean points awarded for each plaintiff memorandum in the Preliminary Rounds. This will be calculated in each round by taking the score for the plaintiff written memorandum from each Judge and dividing it by the total number of points awarded for written memoranda in that moot. This value will then be added to the value derived from the plaintiff written memorandum’s scores in other moots and divided by the number of moots in the Preliminary Rounds that the team competes as the plaintiff.

91. The same procedure in clause 90 will be used to determine the best three (3) defendant written memoranda.

92. The awards for best written memorandum will be announced at the Closing Gala.

93. In the event of a tie, the competitors will share the prize.

Maps & Directions

Getting to Prince Alfred’s Rooftop & Bar ● Walk from Melbourne Law School – 400-metre walk (5 minutes)

Getting to the Federal Court, Melbourne ● Walk to Peel Street and catch Tram 58 to Toorak. Get off at Flagstaff Station (5 stops) – requires valid Myki ticket; OR ● Walk from Melbourne Law School – 1.5km walk (20 minutes)

Campus Resources

PRINTING Teams will have limited access to printing during the competition. It is strongly recommended that teams print all necessary materials before arriving at the competition. Should any small print job be required, the relevant documents will need to be emailed to [email protected]. Please allow at least 15 minutes for printing to be completed. WIFI The University of Melbourne is part of the eduroam network, therefore if eduroam has been set up following your home university’s eduroam instructions before you arrive at Melbourne Law School, you will be able to connect to our free wifi via that service.

TRANSPORT Please note that to travel on metropolitan trains, trams and buses, you will need a valid myki. A myki Smartcard is a reusable plastic smart card that can be purchased for a small fee ($6 for adults, $3 for concessions) at all train stations, many tram stops as well as in some news agencies and other “myki retailers”. Once a card is purchased, users must load money onto the card to be used as public transport fares. Your myki will calculate the lowest fare based on where you travel. If you have an An- droid phone, rather than purchasing a physical myki, you can download an app called Mobile myki.

ATMS In Union House (Building 130) you will find a Commonwealth Bank ATM (ground floor, Deakin Court entrance), an ANZ ATM (ground floor, north court entrance) and a Bendigo Bank ATM (basement). On the ground floor of the Biosciences building (Building 143) you can access a NAB Bank and a Commonwealth Bank.

FOOD AND DRINK Lunch will be provided during the preliminary rounds of the competition. However, Melbourne Law School is surrounded by cafes, restaurants and bars in case you require any extra food or refresh- ments. If you are looking for a heartier meal, Lygon Street is a ten minute walk from MLS and home to many Italian restaurants (plus, check out Pidapipo for some of the best gelato in Melbourne). Alterna- tively, Union House on main campus is a great place for some cheaper meals (check out the Food Coop,

Egg Sake or Pronto Pizza, open weekdays 9am - 4pm). For coffee and snacks, you have multiple options just in the surrounding streets (see below).

Stovetop Cafe 1/108 - 128 Leicester St, Carlton Open: Monday - Friday 7am - 5pm, Weekends 8am - 4pm

Seven Seeds Coffee Roasters 114 Berkeley St, Carlton Open: Monday - Saturday 7am - 5pm, Sundays 8am - 5pm

Porta Via Melbourne Law School (185 Pelham Street) Ground Floor (Exterior) Open: Monday - Friday 7am - 6pm, Weekends 8am - 5pm

Prince Alfred’s Rooftop and Bar 191 Grattan St, Carlton Open: Monday - Friday 7.30am - late, Saturday 11.30am - late

The Last Jar 616 Elizabeth St, Melbourne Open: Tuesday - Sunday 11.30am - 1.00am

7-Eleven 743 - 751 Swanston St, Carlton Open: 24 hours * Can also purchase myki here or use their ATM

NOTES

!"#$%&'(")*(+,"'-+./)012)3.&4"(.-5)3%6+"./) !"#$