*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: care.anz@tr.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 9171 9769 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Public Law Review<\/em> (Volume 34 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n COMMENTS \u2013 SYMPOSIUM ON THE VOICE \u2013 Guest Editor: Professor Gabrielle Appleby<\/em><\/p>\n Environmental Damage as a Threat to National Security: Australia\u2019s Legal Vulnerability to Enviro-Terrorism and Enviro-Sabotage<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Sarah Kendall and Brendan Walker-Munro<\/p>\n This article examines whether Australia\u2019s domestic criminal laws effectively address the threat of environmental damage that is intended to undermine our national security. It focuses on two specific types of conduct \u2013 enviro-terrorism (destruction of the natural environment to further the political and\/or ideological agendas of terrorist organisations) and enviro-sabotage (damage to the environment caused by foreign powers seeking to harm Australia\u2019s national security). Through an analysis of Australia\u2019s federal sabotage offences, State and Territory sabotage offences and crimes under environmental protection legislation, the article shows that Australia\u2019s domestic laws fail to adequately protect Australia\u2019s diverse and irreplaceable natural environment from deliberate attack by terrorists or foreign powers. The article concludes by making recommendations for law reform to better protect Australia\u2019s natural environment from attacks intended to undermine our national security.<\/p>\n The Constitutional Concept of an Alien <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Jamie Blaker<\/p>\n The Commonwealth Parliament has a constitutional power to make laws with respect to aliens. Our understanding of that power is in disarray. It has been settled and then upheaved in epicycles, for thirty years. For now, the understanding rests, uneasily, upon two facially inconsistent principles. The first is that the word \u201caliens\u201d in the Constitution has a variable meaning, in that the Parliament can choose who is and is not an \u201calien[]\u201d referred to by that constitutional word. The second is that the word \u201caliens\u201d in the Constitution has a fixed meaning the penumbra of which sets limits on the Parliament\u2019s aforementioned choice. Despite appearances, those established principles can be reconciled. Seen from an adjusted perspective \u2013 a perspective that distinguishes the constitutional concept of an alien from legislated conceptions of that concept \u2013 the established principles are coherent and appealing. We can rest where we stand. These are the terms of a settlement.<\/p>\n The High Court and Judicial Appointment Reform Comparatively Recast <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Rosalind Dixon and John Lidbetter<\/p>\n The most important test of a system of judicial appointment is its capacity to ensure the selection of suitably qualified and independent judges; on this measure, Australia has a long record of success. However, appointment processes must also be fair and transparent, while simultaneously seeking to promote diversity and democratic accountability within the judiciary. On this measure, Australia\u2019s current system of judicial appointment leaves clear room for improvement. This article canvasses potential models for reform and establishes a typology of systems based on the degree to which they involve one-stage versus two-stage and legal versus political models of appointment. Furthermore, comparative insights are explored concerning the benefits and drawbacks to different two-stage models of appointment involving an independent judicial commission. Drawing on this analysis, it argues for the desirability of a South African rather than UK-style model of judicial appointment as a potential template for reform efforts in Australia, especially at the High Court level.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Edward Willis<\/em><\/p>\n DEVELOPMENTS<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – PLR Vol 34 No 1 Contents<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n