This article considers the YouMeUnity Report proposal for the inclusion of new language provisions in the Australian Constitution as part of a package of reforms for the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The article outlines the important symbolic and substantive effects of recognising language rights in the Constitution. The article explains how the recognition of a national language and the recognition of minority languages are conceptually distinct — promoting a national language is aimed at promoting national unity and enhancing the political and economic participation of individuals in the state, whereas protecting minority languages is aimed at recognising linguistic diversity, enriching the cultural life of the State, maintaining connections with other nations, and recognising language choice as a basic human right. The article argues that there is a strong case for minority language recognition, and in particular, the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, in the Australian Constitution, but warns against the recognition of English as the national language.

In the past fifty years the High Court of Australia has scrutinised the constitutional validity of military service tribunals on several occasions. Each time, the validity of service tribunals to conduct trials and impose punishment in relation to the particular offence has been upheld on the basis that it derives from a proper exercise by the legislature of its power under s 51(vi) of the Constitution. On no occasion has this been considered by the Court as a whole to involve a breach of the separation of powers doctrine. However, while it is generally accepted that service tribunals exercise what would ordinarily be seen as falling within the definition of “judicial power”, there has been no unifying and satisfactory explanation as to why this does not breach the separation of powers doctrine.

Australia has recently acceded to the Vienna Convention on Treaties, one of the major codifying treaties concluded under United Nations auspices. Mr Brazil who was a member and later Leader of the Australian Delegation to the Conference that drew up the Convention, examines its scope, including its answer to the question—should the Convention cover the topic of treaty-making capacity of parts of federal States? Mr Brazil suggests that the Convention's rules on reference to preparatory materials as interpretative aids should be adopted by Australian courts. Its restatement of the topic of reservations and its reception of the notion of international public order (jus cogens) are evaluated. The themes of good faith and due process are seen to run through the Convention, which though not yet in force, has already gained wide acceptance.

Section 260 is a general anti-avoidance provision found in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Together with sections 25(1) and 51(1), it is one of the most important sections of the Act. To the “tax planner” section 260 spells anathema: to the Revenue it is an invaluable aid to prevent tax avoidance and preserve tax equity. Judges have tended to differ in their attitudes towards section 260. This article examines the treatment of the section in the hands of the judiciary, its interpretation and misinterpretation. In addition, the article seeks to highlight a significant point, namely, that the alternative to a general anti-avoidance provision is anti-avoidance legislation of a specific nature which would add tremendous complexity to an already complex Act. The plea therefore is that the judiciary should re-assess the situation they have helped bring about before it is too late, and that judicial common sense be substituted for the growing complexity of the Income Tax Assessment Act.

The current arrangements for taxation of superannuation in Australia are directed to ensuring that individuals make more adequate provision for their retirement than has occurred in the past. The use of tax concessions to do this obviously involves a cost to the public revenue. The use of tax concessions in relation to superannuation is both inefficient, because it provides concessions to those who would make provision for their retirement even without the concessions, and inequitable, because it provides the greatest concessions to those at the upper end of the income scale. Taxpayers who are unlikely to access the concessions fully are those who do not follow the traditional work pattern of a substantial unbroken period of employment. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that, at the turn of the century, many women have work patterns that differ from the traditional model and that the current arrangements for superannuation, which form a major component of the government's retirement incomes policy, are inequitable and should be changed.

It is clear that s 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (‘the Judiciary Act’) operates on the common law in cases in federal jurisdiction, but its precise effect is somewhat obscure. Section 80 provides:

Until recently, the High Court tended to concentrate on s 79 of the Judiciary Act (which applies the laws of the State and Territory where a court is exercising federal jurisdiction), and to consider s 80 only as an afterthought.

Medical biotechnology offers vast opportunity for the treatment of human genetic conditions, including the development and improvement of drugs, diagnostic capabilities and therapeutic techniques. Australian health and medical research has a rich and proud history. This has been recognised in numerous federal government reports, which examine the sustainability of research momentum and the ability of the Australian industry to capitalise on this research base. Australia‘s increasing $1 billion trade deficit in pharmaceuticals, medical equipment and other health and medical industries has been a major impetus for the push to develop Australia's medical research base.

Many domestic and export market opportunities for the Australian biotechnology industry exist. These opportunities have been taken up for the most part by the existing research sector, and by small companies, whether spin-off companies from research institutions, or companies independently conducting research. The industry is highly competitive and motivated to participate in the biotechnology revolution on an international level. To enable them to do this, intellectual property protection is crucial as a tool to enable trade, collaboration, and competitive advantage.

The paper posits a link between the Standard Babylonian Version of Nergal and Ereškigal and the Jacob Cycle in Genesis (Gen 25-35), one anchored by the former story’s cosmic stairway and the stairway with its top in heaven appearing to Jacob in his famous dream. It is argued that the proper understanding of the motive for that specific parallel opens the door to a considerably broader one, which offers important insight on the two traditions. This broader parallel informs on different aspects of Nergal and Ereškigal, including theological and historical issues that appear to stand behind that story. Such contact, it is suggested, challenges established Assyriological thinking about the place of comparative perspectives in the study of Mesopotamian literature.

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

Should it feel good to get an award for scholar activism? As well-intentioned the recognition of my activism is, it misses the point of what activism is by singling out one person, especially a scholar. The danger with claiming scholar activism as heroic is twofold. First, it makes activists exceptional, implying that society may rely on exceptional individuals instead of valuing the collective work. Second, it glorifies the activism of scholars, as if it were more valuable than that of others while ignoring the hierarchies that empower and protect academia. Instead, we must normalize scholar activism, sharing the load and using our bodies as shields. We’ll join the work of activism in constellation and value the power of emotions, embodying our ideas as we grow into activist scholars.

The phrase ‘Australian exceptionalism’ is most often used these days in relation to Australia's stand with the United States in the war against terror and the Australian government's attitude to international human rights law. Australia is exceptional also in being now the only English-speaking democracy without a judicially enforceable bill of rights at the federal level. Although not unrelated, here I want to explore whether the part of Australian public law that deals with judicial review of administrative action is also ‘exceptional’. I will identify the features that are commonly said to set Australia apart from other common law jurisdictions and justify Australia taking a different path in the elaboration of the principles of judicial review of administrative action.

This Digest is intended to provide lawyers with a key to those questions and Ministerial Statements in the Commonwealth Parliament in which they are most likely to be interested, and it is, of course, selective. It covers the period 21 February to 8 November 1967, and is compiled from the published debates of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Federal Court of Australia has only the jurisdiction conferred on it by statute. However, many disputes falling within that jurisdiction, particularly in trade practices matters, will also involve elements of common law or other State or federal statutory law. Section 32 invests in the Federal Court additional jurisdiction in some such cases in respect of “associated matters”. This may be compared with “pendent jurisdiction” developed by the federal courts in the United States. The object of this article is to analyse the meaning of the term “associated matters” and to consider the bearing it has upon the future relationship between the Federal Court and the various State courts.