The 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) occurred in 2023. Attached is a serious of podcasts prepared by Mr Phillip Tahmindjis. He earlier worked with the Hon. Michael Kirby in the Secretariat of the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association, based in London. He and Michael Kirby, at different stages in their careers, worked with Professor John Humphrey, Head of the Secretariat of Eleanor Roosevelt’s committee that drafted the UDHR. Each of them knew and admired John Humphrey. In this podcast, Phillip Tahmindjis includes conversations with John Humphrey about the process of drafting and completing the UDHR in 1948, in time for its adoption on 8 December 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations. In the podcast, Michael Kirby tells of his experience in receiving instruction at school in Sydney, Australia, on the language and purposes of the UDHR and of its importance for human rights, justice, peace and security.
On 28 September 2023, the Hon. Michael Kirby participated in two sessions of a podcast program concerning “Lives in the Law”.
The sessions were recorded in Melbourne at William and Lonsdale and they relate to the life of the Hon. Michael Kirby and his service in numerous judicial and other posts, including as a Justice of the High Court of Australia. The podcasts can be retrieved by clicking on the links.
Michael Kirby talks about his life in the law and the influence of his family especially in his early years.
In the attached public conversation, held at the Hilton Hotel in Sydney on Friday 23 June 2023, the Hon. Michael Kirby joins Sister Jayanti, a senior sister of the Brahma Kumaris when visiting Australia from India and the UK. They discuss the concepts of hope and resilience and how these goals of human life can be attained and enjoyed.
Broadcast in June 2023 for community radio 2xxfm in Canberra
“Reckoning with war crimes: who should be held responsible? – The Religion and Ethics report – ABC Radio National 3-5 February 2022, including comments by Michael Kirby on human rights abuses in North Korea.”
Michael Kirby's contribution is concerned with rendering those who commit serious international crimes (genocide, apartheid, war crimes and crimes against humanity) accountable to their victims and before the international community.
A masterclass given to class of Law students at Victoria University School of Law and Justice, Queen Street, Melbourne
The masterclass was on Company Law, now called Corporations Law. It concerned the original invention of the corporation in 17th-century England and France, specifically in the development of the East India Company in England.
It described the separation of the corporation from they legal personality of the shareholders who invest money in the company and whose liability to creditors is limited to the investment signalled by their shares.
The lecture described the importance of upholding requirements that corporations conform to basic principles of business efficacy and corporate morality. At the same time, they have to continue the limited liability of directors, managers and shareholders so as to preserve the brilliant idea of the legal corporation.
An interview that was made in August 2021 by the Murdoch University Student Law Society in Perth, Western Australia.
The interview records the answers of Michael Kirby to questions asked by student interviewers. The questions concern the necessities of live as a lawyer and a judge; the obligation to apply the law; and the leeways of choice that are sometimes present for judicial decision-making. Specific mention is made by the speaker to the decision of the High Court of Australia in : Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v B (2004) 219 CLR 365
The Decision illustrates the obligation to give effect to the law, even where that decision may appear to be individually unjust, but required by the provisions of the Australian Constitution, valid federal laws and mandated principles of statutory interpretation laid down by the High Court. Judges have leeways for choice. But they are not open-ended. The limits are set by the Constitution, any statute and neutral interpretation.