Public Law Review (PLR)
Critical analyses of public law and statutory interpretation
About the Journal
Public Law Review (ISSN: 1034-3024) is an influential and widely cited legal journal. The articles and commentary allow readers to stay on top of public law developments in Australasia and in other parts of the common law world. The subject of public law is broadly conceived, covering all aspects of law and government.
A feature of Public Law Review is the commentary, recent developments and book review sections, bringing to public lawyers in government, private practice and the courts coverage of topical issues and legal literature.
Articles published are critically appraised or reviewed by an academic or professional peer of the author for the purpose of maintaining the standards of the journal.
Laureate Professor Cheryl Saunders, Founding Director, Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne
Professor Janet McLean, Associate Dean Research, Faculty of Law, The University of Auckland
Georgina Clough, Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne
Professor Dan Meagher, Professor and Chair in Constitutional Law, Deakin Law School
Board of Advisors
Margaret Allars, Australia
Nicholas Aroney, Australia
Mark Aronson, Australia
Hugh Corder, South Africa
Paul Craig, United Kingdom
Michael Crommelin, Australia
Rosalind Dixon, Australia
Richard Ekins, United Kingdom
Mark Elliott, United Kingdom
Simon Evans, Australia
Andrew Geddis, New Zealand
Claudia Geiringer, New Zealand
Philip Joseph, New Zealand
Sir Kenneth Keith, New Zealand
Sir Anthony Mason, Australia
Justice Debbie Mortimer, Australia
Brian Opeskin, Australia
Thomas Poole, United Kingdom
Paul Rishworth, New Zealand
Justice Alan Robertson, Australia
Adrienne Stone, Australia
Anne Twomey, Australia
Kristen Walker, Australia
Fiona Wheeler, Australia
Hanna Wilberg, New Zealand
John Williams, Australia
Elisabeth Zoller, France
Subscribe or Purchase
To subscribe to this Journal or purchase individual articles, please visit our “Subscribe or Purchase” page.
For the individual contents pages for each Part, click here.
By Paul Kildea and George Williams* This comment was published in the Public Law Review at (2011) 22 PLR 9. The Water Act 2007 (Cth) is the most extensive Commonwealth intervention into water resource management in Australia since Federation. The Act brought the Murray-Darling Basin1 under Commonwealth management in order to remedy a longstanding over-allocation ...more
Who is sovereign now? The Momcilovic Court hands back power over human rights that Parliament intended it to have
By Julie Debeljak* The decision of R v Momcilovic concerned the rights-compatibility of a reverse legal burden of proof under drug control legislation. The Victorian Court of Appeal held that the reverse onus provision was an unjustified limit on the right to the presumption of innocence under s 25(1) of the Charter of Human Rights ...more
The March 2011 issue of Public Law Review contains comments and articles on outsourcing, the Murray-Darling Basis Plan, the Momcilovic Court and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights, and the role of the Governor-General in forming government in a hung Parliament.
Over 2009 and 2010, the Australian Research Council undertook to rank journals in the Arts & Humanities Sector as part of the “Excellence in Research for Australia” initiative. Law journals were included in the ranking. Now the rankings that were assigned are being reviewed and new rankings will be released in 2012. Thomson Reuters has observed there may be some unintended long-term consequences of the ERA methodology and outcomes. To communicate these concerns, we have released a position statement.
By James Allan. I am a bill of rights sceptic. A good number of the peer reviewed law journal articles I have written in the last decade or so, plus a bunch of book chapters, have been related to the issue of bills of rights, about a couple of dozen such pieces.
By Leighton McDonald. In Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, the High Court held that s 75(v) of the Constitution entrenches a “minimum provision of judicial review” which limits the effectiveness of statutory attempts to impair the judicial review of Commonwealth administrative action and constitutes a “textual reinforcement” of the “rule of law”.
By Chris Finn. In Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531, the High Court has made a strong statement setting out a clear Ch III basis for supervisory judicial review of inferior courts and tribunals acting under State legislation. The corollary is that privative clauses will be of limited effect, being unable to validly exclude review for jurisdictional error.