*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email:Â [email protected]Â orÂ contact us on 1300 304 195Â (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980Â (international customers) during business hoursÂ (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).
The latest issue of the Public Law Review (Volume 29 Part 4) contains the following material:
COMMENTS â€“ Editor: Dan Meagher
- The Imperative of Process in the Australian Republic Debate â€“ Gabrielle Appleby
- The Legislative Council and Cabinet Documents â€“ A Comment on Egan v Chadwick â€“ Tom Chisholm
- Forum of Choice? The Legislative Impact of the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Intelligence and Security â€“ Sarah Moulds
Arbitration of Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Cross-Claim Disputes â€“ Amokura Kawharu
MÄori have long participated in commercial arbitration, often as landlord in rent review arbitrations. MÄori participation in these arbitrations is not especially distinctive. Recently, MÄori have also participated in arbitrations involving inter- and intra-tribal disputes over the allocation, distribution and governance of Treaty of Waitangi settlements with the New Zealand Crown. The use of arbitration in this context has promise as well as certain drawbacks. The article examines two such arbitrations and the post-award litigation associated with them. It argues that, despite efforts to integrate MÄori law into the common law, arbitration provides a more effective means by which MÄori can secure the expression of cultural values in dispute resolution, including the application of MÄori law. It also argues that the success of arbitration of these disputes rests on ordinary principles, including respect for party autonomy and adherence to the inherent procedural attributes of the arbitral process.
There is a consensus among policymakers, lawmakers, legal scholars and â€œwe the peopleâ€ in the western world, that democracy is a blessing. However, how do we defend democracy from anti-democratic political parties that aim to overthrow the democratic regime by abusing the guarantees and the tolerance of democracy? This article argues that there are three public policy options: the traditional model that permits the dissolution of anti-democratic political parties; the business as usual model, that regulates such parties with ordinary administrative law and controls the conduct of their members via ordinary criminal law; and finally, the strategic model that employs an electoral system according to which political parties, like the anti-democratic, having more enemies than supporters are ostracised. That said, this article argues that while electoral law is the most rule-of-law based mechanism to safeguard democracies from anti-democratic parties, not all electoral systems are capable. Only the electoral systems that allow for â€œstrategic votingâ€ can be employed for this purpose.
This article considers constitutional limitations on the regulation of Australian public servantsâ€™ political expression. It begins by analysing current regulation, arguing that the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) cannot be read down to avoid constitutional concerns. The article thus assesses the statuteâ€™s validity, highlighting the inadequacies of constitutional and administrative review in undertaking this task. It therefore proposes a novel as-applied approach for determining compliance with the implied freedom of political communication. As the High Court prepares to hear Comcare v Banerji, this article offers a sophisticated framework to address shortcomings in the existing law.
BOOK REVIEW â€“ Editor: Janet McLean
- The Constitution of the Environmental Emergency â€“ Reviewed by Benjamin JÂ Richardson
For the PDFÂ version of the table of contents, click here: PLR Vol 29 No 4 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: [email protected].