The constitutional power to make war: domestic legal issues raised by Australia's action in Iraq

The legal power to declare war has traditionally been a part of a prerogative to be exercised solely on advice that passed from the King to the Governor-General no later than 1942. In 2003, the Governor- General was not involved in the decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to commit Australian troops to the invasion of Iraq. The authors explore the alternative legal means by which Australia can go to war - means the government in fact used in 2003 - and the constitutional basis of those means. While the prerogative power can be regulated and/or devolved by legislation, and just possibly by practice, there does not seem to be a sound legal basis to assert that the power has been devolved to any other person. It appears that in 2003 the Defence Minister used his legal powers under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) (as amended in 1975) to give instructions to the service head(s). A powerful argument could be made that the relevant sections of the Defence Act were not intended to be used for the decision to go to war, and that such instructions are for peacetime or in bello decisions. If so, the power to make war remains within the prerogative to be exercised on advice. Interviews with the then Governor-General indicate that Prime Minister Howard had planned to take the matter to the Federal Executive Council 'for noting', but did not do so after the Governor-General sought the views of the then Attorney-General about relevant issues of international law. The exchange raises many issues, but those of interest concern the kinds of questions the Governor-General could and should ask about proposed international action and whether they in any way mirror the assurances that are uncontroversially required for domestic action. In 2003, the Governor-General's scrutiny was the only independent scrutiny available because the legality of the decision to go to war was not a matter that could be determined in the High Court, and the federal government had taken action in March 2002 that effectively prevented the matter coming before the International Court of Justice

Student perceptions of the quality of property education in Australia : 1994 – 2009

Using the Graduate Careers Australia’s Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), the students’ perceptions of the quality of property education in Australia is assessed over 1994-2009. Analyses are presented for the major property universities in Australia regarding good teaching and overall satisfaction, as well as the property discipline benchmarked against the property-related disciplines of accounting, building, business, economics, law and planning. The link between good teaching and overall satisfaction, and the delivery of added value by property programs are also assessed. Changes over this 16-year period are highlighted in terms of student perceptions of the quality of property education in Australia.

Faculty and employee ownership of inventions in Australia

A recent decision by the Australian High Court means that, unless faculty are bound by an assignment or intellectual property (IP) policy, they may own inventions resulting from their research. Thirty years after its introduction, the US Bayh-Dole Act, which vests ownership of employee inventions in the employer university or research organization, has become a model for commercialization around the world. In Australia, despite recommendations that a Bayh-Dole style regime be adopted, the recent decision in University of Western Australia (UWA) v Gray1 has moved the default legal position in a diametrically opposite direction. A key focus of the debate was whether faculty’s duty to carry out research also encompasses a duty to invent. Late last year, the Full Federal Court confirmed a lower court ruling that it does not, and this year the High Court refused leave to appeal (denied certiorari). Thus, Gray stands as Australia’s most faculty-friendly authority to date.

CC & Government Guide: Using Creative Commons 3.0 Australia Licences on Government Copyright Materials

This guide explains how copyright law applies to Australian government material, how copyright can be managed to facilitate beneficial open access practices by government, how CC licenses can be used to achieve open access to government material, and provides practical step-by-step guidance for agencies and their officers on licensing and use of government copyright materials under CC 3.0 Australia licences.

How I became the first Aboriginal person in Australia to lead a national education organisation

In this paper, Bronwyn Fredericks reflects on how, in 1997, she became the National President of the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations Inc. (CAPA). The paper describes the election process faced by Fredericks, and identifies some of her key achievements during her time as National President. In becoming the National President, Bronwyn became the first Aboriginal person in Australia to lead a national education organisation. The story within this paper is told from the author’s autobiographical memory, drawing on the cultural, social and political context in which the story and the author were (and are) situated (Wojecki 2007). In this way the story teller reveals story lines which have not previously been articulated (Wojecki 2007). Throughout this paper, Fredericks ‘re-stories’ her experiences of leadership.

Toothless tiger, sleeping dragon : implied freedoms, internet filters and the growing culture of internet censorship in Australia

The internet by its very nature challenges an individual’s notions of propriety, moral acuity and social correctness. A tension will always exist between the censorship of obscene and sensitive information and the freedom to publish and/or access such information. Freedom of expression and communication on the internet is not a static concept: ‘Its continual regeneration is the product of particular combinations of political, legal, cultural and philosophical conditions’.

Steering (towards a post apology Australia) without a rudder

After Kevin Rudd’s Apology to Indigenous Peoples after his election as Prime Minister in 2008 the climate was hopeful with many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women (and non-Indigenous women, too) breathing a sigh of relief that the disastrous effects of White Australia’s government policies had at last been symbolically, publicly and officially acknowledged. There was also, though, skepticism about the ‘real’ change this Apology might have for Indigenous Australians. Many of us wondered if the Apology would make any difference at all in the ‘real’ world, where the gaps between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians is still so glaringly apparent in areas such as health, education, housing and employment.

Charity law reforms : overview of progress since 2001

In the UK, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, as in many other jurisdictions, charity law is rooted in the common law and anchored on the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601. The Pemsel classification of charitable purposes was uniformly accepted, and together with a shared and growing pool of judicial precedents, aided by the ‘spirit and intendment’ rule, has subsequently allowed the law to develop along much the same lines. In recent years, all the above jurisdictions have embarked on law reform processes designed to strengthen regulatory processes and to statutorily define and encode common law concepts. The reform outcomes are now to be found in a batch of national charity statutes which reflect interesting differences in the extent to which their respective governments have been prepared to balance the modernising of charitable purposes and other common law concepts alongside the customary concern to tighten the regulatory framework.

Law autonomy and advance directives

The principle of autonomy underpins legal regulation of advance directives that refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. The primacy of autonomy in this domain is recognised expressly in the case law, through judicial pronouncement, and implicitly in most Australian jurisdictions, through enactment into statute of the right to make an advance directive. This article seeks to justify autonomy as an appropriate principle for regulating advance directives and relies on three arguments: the necessity of autonomy in a liberal democracy; the primacy of autonomy in medical ethics discourse; and the uncontested importance of autonomy in the law on contemporaneous refusal of medical treatment. This article also responds to key criticisms that autonomy is not an appropriate organising principle to underpin legal regulation of advance directives.

Carbon capture and storage laws in Australia : project facilitation or a precautionary approach?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered to be an integral transitionary measure in the mitigation of the global greenhouse gas emissions from our continued use of fossil fuels. Regulatory frameworks have been developed around the world and pilot projects have been commenced. However, CCS processes are largely untested at commercial scales and there are many unknowns associated with the long terms risks from these storage projects. Governments, including Australia, are struggling to develop appropriate, yet commercially viable, regulatory approaches to manage the uncertain long term risks of CCS activities. There have been numerous CCS regimes passed at the Federal, State and Territory levels in Australia. All adopt a different approach to the delicate balance facilitating projects and managing risk. This paper will examine the relatively new onshore and offshore regimes for CCS in Australia and the legal issues arising in relation to the implementation of CCS projects. Comparisons will be made with the EU CCS Directive where appropriate.

The blogification of Australian journalism? Notes from the election

My overall contention is that from Mark Latham to Grogsgate, from Tony’s speedos to Julia’s treasonous lack of handbags, Australian political journalism hasn’t exactly wowed us with the quality of its coverage these past months – with ample help, it should be noted, from the two sides of politics and the respective small target strategies themselves. Tim Dunlop has gone as far as to suggest that during the election we’ve seen politics and the media locked in a death spiral (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35594.html) – an observation we might want to take up in the panel discussion – but even without the dramatic language the overall tendency has been that of a race to the bottom in the quality of political discourse in this country, with very few exceptions. And as a result, trust in journalism – the professional esteem in which journalists are held by their audiences – has been steadily declining for some time. Australian journalists are hardly alone in this, of course: this decline is a dynamic which has been observed in many other nations, too.