In 2025, Australian laws underwent significant changes, reflecting a shift towards increased flexibility and adaptability. Here are six notable amendments that illustrate this evolution:
Digital Food Delivery Workers' Rights: The Fair Work Commission now allows digital food delivery workers, such as those on platforms like Uber, UberEATS, DiDi, and DoorDash, to challenge unfair deactivation. Workers who have been active on a platform for at least six months can seek reinstatement or compensation if their accounts are removed without proper notice or explanation.
Pet Ownership in Divorce: The Family Law Act now considers various factors when determining pet ownership post-divorce, including the pet's acquisition, care, and the level of attachment between family members. This ensures that pets are not treated as mere property but as cherished companions.
Sovereign Citizen Crackdown: The legal system has taken a firmer stance against 'sovereign citizens' who misuse pseudolaw to avoid legal obligations. Cases like the Porepunkah police shootings and Warren Tredrea's attempt to offset debts with a handwritten IOU have highlighted the courts' rejection of such tactics.
Australian Recognition of Palestine: On September 21, 2025, Australia officially recognized the independent State of Palestine, aligning with international law. This decision strengthens Palestine's standing in international forums and reinforces the Palestinian people's right to self-determination.
Environmental Law Enforcement: Reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act introduced tougher penalties for environmental violations. Corporations and individuals now face significant financial risks if they breach environmental rules, with fines based on the value of benefits or detriments avoided.
Under-16 Social Media Ban: The Online Safety Amendment Act 2024, which came into effect on December 10, 2025, bans social media accounts for anyone under 16. Platforms must verify user age, and non-compliance can result in substantial fines. Critics argue that while the intention is good, the ban may not effectively protect children and could remove some social media benefits.
