Development of a process for dealing with underutilised Queensland government properties with heritage significance

This thesis addresses the contemporary issue of the control, restoration and potential for reuse of State Government-owned heritage properties with commercial potential. It attempts to reconcile the sometimes competing interests of the range of stakeholders in such properties, particularly those seeking to maximise economic performance and return on one hand and community expectations for heritage preservation and exhibition on the other. The matters are approached principally from the Government's position as asset owner/manager. It includes research into a number of key elements - including statutory, physical and economic parameters and an analysis of the legitimate requirements of all stakeholders. The thesis also recognises the need for innovation in approach and for the careful structuring and pre-planning of proposals on a project-by-project basis. On the matter of innovation, four case studies are included in the thesis to exhibit some approaches and techniques that have already been employed in addressing these issues. From this research base, a series of deductions at both a macro and micro level are established and a model for a rational decision-making process for dealing with such projects is developed as a major outcome of the work. Finally, the general model is applied to a specific project, the currently unused Port Office heritage site in the Brisbane Central Business District.

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