*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email:\u00c2\u00a0LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Public Law Review<\/em> (Volume 32 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n COMMENTS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dan Meagher<\/em><\/p>\n More Than a Mere Piece of Paper: Citizenship, Character and Allegiance in Australian Law<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Helen Irving<\/p>\n In recent years, proposals to make Australian citizenship by conferral harder to acquire have been debated, and these proposals have been contextualised in, among other things, concerns about potential acts of disallegiance by Australian citizens and foreigners living or operating in Australia. In this context, executive refusals of applications for citizenship by conferral have become more frequent. Concerns about the character of applicants for citizenship have also been heightened. This article explores these concerns and associated claims through an examination of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) appeals (from 1993 to 2019) against ministerial refusals of citizenship by conferral on character grounds. It considers how the AAT understands \u00e2\u20ac\u0153good character\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, including against an idea of Australian citizenship conveyed in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 <\/em>(Cth) and other official documents. It also explores whether the record reveals a harsher, or alternatively, a more lenient approach on the AAT\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s part to determining whether an applicant is or is not of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153good character\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n Frank and Fearless: Public Servants and Political Communication<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Alexander Reilly and Sawinder Singh<\/p>\n In Comcare v Banerji, the High Court held that the termination of a public servant\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s employment under the Public Service Act 1999 <\/em>(Cth) (PSA) did not infringe the implied freedom of political communication. The article considers the significance public servants\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 political communication for a healthy democracy. It argues that the burden the PSA places on this communication is extensive and that there needs to be much greater scrutiny of what is required to maintain an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153apolitical\u00e2\u20ac\u009d public service. The article explores how the constitutional freedom can be interpreted consistent with earlier case law to limit the scope of the power to terminate the employment of public servants for their expression of political ideas. It concludes by outlining some of the criteria a disciplinary body ought to be required to take into account under the Code for the Code to be a valid exercise of Commonwealth legislative power.<\/p>\n On the Wane? The Principle of Legality in the High Court of Australia<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Dan Meagher<\/p>\n In 2018, Chief Justice Bathurst of the New South Wales Supreme Court observed extrajudicially that there are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153signs of waning\u00e2\u20ac\u009d on the High Court regarding the principle of legality. The case analysis to follow supports that view for the most part. The Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s commitment to the modern \u00e2\u20ac\u201c contextual \u00e2\u20ac\u201c approach to statutory interpretation has tempered the strictness with which it has applied legality in fundamental rights cases. The doctrinal vehicle used in order to do so is a more flexible conception of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153necessary implication\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. Yet this refinement of interpretive principle does not, necessarily, signal that legality is permanently on the wane. Relevantly, it will be suggested that there are at least three contexts where it still may play an important role in determining the legal meaning of a statute.<\/p>\n DEVELOPMENTS<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: PLR Vol 32 No 1 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n