The principle of subsidiarity was adopted as part of the law of the European Union as a response to perceptions of excessive centralisation and bureaucratisation within the European system of government. If subsidiarity is a solution to these problems in Europe, it might be asked: could it also be a solution to similar problems that arise in other federal systems, such as those of the United States and Australia? However, posing the question in this way is misleading because it is not at all clear that subsidiarity has been a solution in Europe, and in any case it cannot be assumed that a solution in one context will necessarily operate effectively in another.

This article closely examines the nature and operation of the principle of subsidiarity in Europe and asks what lessons might be learned from it. To do this, the article begins by identifying the carefully defined operation of the principle in EU law and then closely examining the application of the principle, firstly as a political decision-making procedure that involves the Member State parliaments in the European policy-making process, and secondly as a juridical principle enforceable by the European Court of Justice. The possible adoption of the principle in other federations is then discussed, but limitations on its effectiveness in Europe, as well as the different institutional and political circumstances of the Australian federal system, are shown to undermine its likely usefulness, unless other more fundamental issues about the way in which the federal system is understood, organised and operated are addressed.

The nomination in 1930 of an Australian, Sir Isaac Isaacs, as Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia has become a minor landmark in the development of Australian independence. Opposed or supported at the time as a measure of the strength of Australia’s links with Britain, the appointment has become, for lawyers and historians alike, a test-case for Australian autonomy and the countervailing cultural and legal force of the imperial connection. The central collision between Australian Prime Minister James Scullin (who nominated Isaacs) and King George V (who resisted strongly) added to the constitutional interest of the appointment but contributed to the long closure to researchers of key parts of the documentary record.

For some, the story is a heroic one. This interpretation has its most vivid expression in the final volume of Manning Clark’s History of Australia. In a chapter entitled ‘An Australian in the Palace of the King–Emperor’, Clark takes Scullin’s meeting with the King in November 1930 as his theme and describes how ‘Jimmy Scullin has not grovelled to the English governing classes … Jimmy Scullin has spoken for the Australia that was coming to be.’ In more measured ways, John Robertson's biography of Scullin and Ross McMullin’s history of the Australian Labor Party both make Scullin almost a lone champion fighting British resistance to Isaacs.

With close to five million women in paid employment and constituting over 45 per cent of the total workforce and 57 per cent of the Australian public service, holding 28 per cent of the seats in Senate and 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Representatives, one could be forgiven for entertaining the thought that as a nation, we are beginning to acknowledge the importance of gender equality. However we are quickly reminded that this is far from the truth when it comes to corporate boards which are important sites of decision making that affect us all. In Australia, although women hold 27 per cent of senior positions in private companies, they only hold 10.9 per cent of the board positions in the top 200 listed companies on the Australian stock exchange. Addressing this issue has taken on utmost importance with many governments threatening to introduce legislation to make it happen. Perhaps unlike some of the enormous challenges of climate change and the Global Financial Crisis, this area is one where nation states see that they can make a difference.

Drug foods are part of every food culture, so Sidney Mintz has argued, and the energy drink, Red Bull, might be understood as one of our latest drug foods. Drug foods pose a challenge from a regulatory point of view for they bring into focus two of the great food debates – the impact of food regulation on food innovation and the role of food regulators in regard to public health. In so far as drug foods have traditionally formed a part of every diet, any attempt to ban or limit new or novel drug foods opens the food regulator to ‘endless charges of hypocrisy and irrationality’, ‘paternalistic’ behaviour and standing in the way of food innovation. On the other hand, if the food regulator does allow new drug foods to be manufactured and sold it is accused of failing in its duty to protect public health or of being ‘amoral’ in this regard.

In Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth (‘Plaintiff M61’), the High Court held in a unanimous joint judgment that the plaintiff asylum seekers on Christmas Island were entitled to procedural fairness and to have their claims for refugee status determined according to law. This decision has significant ramifications for the government’s asylum seeker policy, and it has already been the subject of academic commentary from an immigration perspective. The case also has broader doctrinal significance because it is only the second time that the full bench has considered what this article will call a ‘no-consideration’ clause. The Court held that the legislature can validly confer a power on a decision-maker and at the same time provide that the decision-maker has no duty to consider exercising it. However, on the facts before it, the Minister had decided to consider all requests for asylum and thus had moved beyond the protection of the no-consideration clause.