*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).
The latest issue of the Public Law Review (Volume 30 Part 3) contains the following material:
EDITORIAL – General Editors: Cheryl Saunders AO and Janet McLean
COMMENTS – Editor: Dan Meagher
- Sir Anthony Mason in Hong Kong: A Contribution to Public Law – Hon William Gummow NPJ
- Senate Committee Report on Parliamentary Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation – Stephen Argument
- Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA  HCA 3 – Loretta Foran
Disclosure, Not Disqualification: A Democratic Proposal to Promote the Fidelity of Elected Representatives to the People – Matthew Stubbs and Adam Webster
What is the appropriate role for public law in promoting the fidelity of elected representatives to the people? We examine the qualification (and disqualification) of representatives in five common law jurisdictions: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We identify requirements seeking to ensure integrity and competency, and avoid conflicts of interest. We argue all are undemocratic, because courts do not need to intervene where electors could make their own judgements as to the suitability of their representatives. To facilitate informed electoral – not judicial – choices, we propose a regime of compulsory public disclosure by candidates.
The Injunction in Section 75(v) of the Constitution – Daniel Reynolds
The seminal case of Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth established that the inclusion of “prohibition” and “mandamus” in s 75(v) of the Constitution created an entrenched minimum provision of judicial review for jurisdictional error. The third remedy listed in that provision – “an injunction” – was not considered in detail. Sixteen years later, it is still unclear what precisely the injunction adds. The argument presented in this article is that the inclusion of that remedy in s 75(v) extends the entrenched jurisdiction conferred by that provision to all cases where an injunction can, at general law, properly be sought against a public officer.
The Executive Power to Withdraw from Treaties in Australia – Luke Chircop and Timothy Higgins
While the Australian Executive’s power to enter treaties is well recognised, there had been little reason to consider the corresponding power to withdraw from treaties until the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Miller. In this article, we discuss the Australian Executive’s treaty withdrawal power, and how it might interact with legislation enacted under the external affairs power. We argue that the treaty withdrawal power is subject to few constitutional limitations, though it may be curtailed expressly or impliedly by legislation. We also contend that it can be exercised in a way that has domestic legal consequences and, in some cases, might result in the invalidity of legislation.
BOOK REVIEW – Editor: Edward Willis
- Military Law in Australia, by Robin Creyke, Dale Stephens and Peter Sutherland – Reviewed by Samuel C Duckett White
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: PLR Vol 30 No 3 Contents
For general queries, please contact: email@example.com.