The times are they a-changin'? Can the Commonwealth parliament legislate for same sex marriages?

This article considers whether the marriage power contained in the Australian Constitution could support a Commonwealth law that recognised same sex marriages. To this end and after outlining the current constitutional meaning according to the High Court, three methods used for interpreting constitutional terms (connotation/denotation, moderate originalism, non-originalism) are examined to ascertain whether they could source such a law to the marriage power. It is submitted that none can do so without betraying their own core interpretative principle or the text and structure of the Constitution. However an alternative method for interpreting [*2] constitutional terms is proffered which may be able to establish a sufficient connection between a law that recognises same sex marriages and the marriage power. It involves recognising 'marriage' as a constitutionalised legal term of art whose meaning can be informed by developments since federation in common law and statute.

Case comment: Cubillo and Gunner V The Commonwealth: a denial of the stolen generation?

In the recent Australian decision in Cubillo and Gunner v The Commonwealth ( ‘Cubillo 3’ ), the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed an appeal by the Aboriginal claimants seeking damages for, inter alia, their removal from their families and detention at certain Aboriginal institutions. The removal and detention of the plaintiffs was held to be lawful in the earlier determination of O’Loughlin J because it was, inter alia, believed to be in the [then] child’s best interests and, as the plaintiffs bore the onus of proof, they had failed to show that they were taken without the consent of their parents/guardians. This decision was based upon the factual finding that ‘at the relevant times, there was no general policy in force in the Northern Territory supporting the indiscriminate removal and detention of part-Aboriginal children, irrespective of the personal circumstances of each child’. The Full Court did not comment on O’Loughlin J’s assertion that the policy of removing part-Aboriginal children, as asserted by the plaintiffs, could not be maintained. Moreover, the Full Court in fact joined O’Loughlin J in trying to distance their findings from the broader issue of the legal rights of members of the Stolen Generation, emphasising that they were only concerned with the particular circumstances of the two plaintiffs/appellants. This case comment is not aimed at evaluating the specific legal issues raised by the plaintiffs’ claims in this case or reviewing the history of the Stolen Generation, but rather seeks to examine O’Loughlin J’s comment as to the absence of a policy of indiscriminate removal and detention of part-Aboriginal children in a bid to determine the parameters intended by the court. It will be seen that, at its broadest, the statement is quite inflammatory and may be seen as a denial of the Stolen Generation. It will be submitted that this was not intended by the court. At its narrowest, the statement is merely an assertion that the particular plaintiffs failed to prove their cases. It will be submitted that, whilst this clearly was the view of the court, O’Loughlin J’s statement does have broader implications which, it will be contended, are not warranted.

Commonwealth legislative power and "non punitive" detention: a constitutional roadmap

In 2004 The High Court handed down a number of decisions concerning detention imposed for purposes allegedly unrelated to punishment. This paper outlines the way the Federal Constitution restricts (and also facilitates) the imposition of "non punitive detention" by our governments. Such laws (as passed by the Federal Legislature) are constitutionally valid provided they can be characterised as falling within a legislative head of power under  section 51 off he Constitution. The power to detain for non punitive purposes can be reposed by the Legislature in the either the Executive or Judicial arms of government. Detention by the Executive is non punitive (and therefore does not offend the separation of powers) even though it involves a deprivation of liberty, provided it is imposed for “legitimate non punitive purposes”.  Legitimacy is in turn determined by reference to the section 51 heads of power. Detention for non punitive purposes by the judicial arm of government is constitutionally valid provided that (i) a “judicial process ” is adopted and (ii) (arguably) there is some link (albeit tenuous) with a previous finding of criminal guilt. The continuing existence of the “constitutional immunity ”from being detained by other than judicial order identified by the High Court in its 1992 decision in Lim v Minister for Immigration is called into question.

Comparing Australian commonwealth, state and territory budget balance numbers

This article presents the findings from a case study of the 2004–05 annual budgets prepared by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments of Australia. The study examined the headline budget balance (general government sector surplus or deficit) announced in the budget papers and speeches of each of the nine governments. Findings indicate the adoption of varying measurement bases and a consequent lack of comparability in the headlined budget balance numbers. Accounting reforms have resulted in adoption of two different systems of accrual accounting by governments — the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) system and the professional Australian Accounting Standards (AAS) system — which provide significantly different measurements of the budget balance. However, there has been no prescription of the manner in which these alternative measures should be presented. This raises a number of questions from an accounting perspective.

General Cariappa encounters 'White Australia' : Australia, India and the Commonwealth in the 1950s

There have been a number of studies of the White Australia policy and some examination of white Australia's relationship to the new, multiracial Commonwealth that emerged after the Second World War. Drawing extensively on Indian sources, this article examines how Australia was viewed by India's high commissioner to Australia and New Zealand, General K. M. Cariappa. In the period from September 1953 to April 1956 he sparked considerable controversy by suggesting that the White Australia policy ran the risk of alienating Asian opinion and undermining the Commonwealth ideal in India and Pakistan. Cariappa maintained a high public profile throughout his stay in Australia and was widely regarded as one of the most prominent diplomats posted to Canberra in the 1950s.

Behind the headlines : an analysis of Australian Commonwealth, State and Territory budget balance numbers

The introduction of accrual accounting principles for government reporting in recent years has been complicated by the presence of two alternative financial reporting frameworks, the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) framework and the Australian professional accounting standard rules. This paper presents the findings from a study of the 2004-05 and 2005-06 annual budgets prepared by the Australian Commonwealth government and the governments of the six Australian States and the two Australian Territories. The study examined the basis for the budget balance numbers (government surplus or deficit) headlined in the budgets of each of the nine governments over the two year period. Findings indicate the adoption of varying measurement bases and a resultant lack of inter-governmental and inter temporal comparability. A number of departures from the measurements
prescribed in the reporting frameworks were also observed.

Corporate governance developments in commonwealth countries

Corporate failures, fraud and rising salaries have directed attention towards the corporate governance mechanisms of companies. A review of governance developments in selected Commonwealth countries is undertaken in order to inform the governance debate and provide an opportunity to discuss governance relating to some countries which may not receive much attention in the debate. The countries covered in this review are the United Kingdom, South Africa, India and Australia. Brief coverage of the respective countries' progressions in the corporate governance debate is provided.

Fiscal responsibility and Australian Commonwealth, State and Territory government budgets

The government sector in Australia has seen the introduction of accrual accounting principles in recent years. However, this process has been complicated by the presence of two alternative financial reporting frameworks in the form of a) the Government Finance Statistics (OFS) uniform framework and b) the accrual accounting rules specified in Australian professional accounting standards, principally AAS 31. While a variety of cash and accrual based measurements are available pursuant to these frameworks, there has been no prescription of the manner in which the alternative measures should be presented. This paper presents the findings from a case study of the 2005-06 annual budgets prepared by the Australian Commonwealth government and the governments of the six Australian States and the two Australian Territories. The study examined the headlined financial outcome (general government sector budget surplus or deficit) announced in the budget papers of the nine governments. Findings indicate the adoption of varying measurement bases and a consequent lack of inter-government comparability. A number of variations to the measurements prescribed in the accounting frameworks were also observed. The paper analyses these government budget surplus and deficit numbers in the context of fiscal responsibility, the Commonwealth government's Charter of Budget Honesty and the AASB's current GAAPIGFS Convergence project.

Leveraging the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne for community engagement: an examination of Equal First and the Adopt-a-Second-Team program

Event leverage provides information about what outcomes occur as a result of an event. Unlike event impact studies, event leverage analysis identifies why particular outcomes occurred, and the processes that can be used to optimise desired event outcomes. While research has been directed towards understanding how events can be leveraged to provide optimal economic outcomes for host communities, there is little research that examines social leverage within the context of events. The research presented in this paper is part of a larger study that investigated social leverage within the context of the 2006 Commonwealth Games, held in Melbourne, Australia. This paper presents preliminary results relating to two Victorian regions with regard to one the over-arching social policy, Equal First, and a subsidiary program called, Adopt-a-Second-Team. Participant observations and stakeholder interviews were employed to explore the development, operationalisation, implementation and outcomes of Equal First and Adopt-a-Second-Team. The results suggest that although each region achieved outcomes that were consistent with the directions of Equal First, each implemented the Adopt-a-Second-Team differently. The two case studies presented in this paper highlight that the model of implementation developed by the City of Port Phillip may provide a benchmark in social leverage of events. Implications for leveraging social impacts and managing social legacies of events through an approach that includes consideration of policy development and operationalisation from the event organising body and program implementation from the perspective of local community event organisers are discussed.

Invitation to Miss Deakin to celebrate the opening of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia

Framed invitation to Miss Deakin (Ivy) to an evening reception to meet the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York to celebrate the opening of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia at the Exhibition Buildings, 9 May 1901.

Invitation to Miss Deakin to the opening of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia

Framed invitation to Miss Deakin (Ivy) to the opening of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia at the exhibition Buildings, 9 May 1901.