The non-justiciability of certain executive decisions is based upon a number of notions including that of ‘polycentricity’, the unsuitability of certain types of power for review, deference to executive judgment, and the question of the judicially enforceable limits to power. In this article, it is argued that the concept is redundant. It is sufficient to consider whether a ground of review, invoked with an appropriate regard for the legalities merits distinction, is available. There is no further question of ‘justiciability’.

It is questionable whether it has ever really made sense to talk of ‘justiciability’ as a discrete notion, rather than justiciability upon this or that ground. Historically, it is trite to observe that questions of the existence and limits of the prerogative powers have been justiciable since at least the upheavals of the 17th century, even while courts would steadfastly refuse to examine the manner in which those powers were exercised. Thus, even prior to the decision in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (‘CCSU’), non-justiciability in relation to prerogative powers meant simply the non availability of grounds of review other than the simplest form of ultra vires. CCSU itself established the potential availability of review of such powers for denial of procedural fairness, leaving open the question of whether the various abuse of power grounds might also be available. In short, the issue appears to be whether a decision is justiciable upon this or that ground of review, rather than the blanket availability or non availability of review. Once this point is grasped the inchoate concept of ‘justiciability’ becomes problematic at best. One need simply ask whether one or more grounds of review can be made out.

On 26 February 1982, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia formally recognised the European Communities (EC) as a subject of public international law and granted accreditation to the Communities’ permanent delegation in Canberra. The delegation had been in place since April 1981. Australian representation in Brussels began in 1960 with a view to maintaining its Commonwealth tariff preference in the United Kingdom upon occasion that the British should decide to join the Common Market. Largely due to concern for the Commonwealth arrangements, the United Kingdom did not join the Common Market until 1973. At this point, the more developed Commonwealth nations were placed behind the Member States of the EC in the line of suppliers of the United Kingdom's import needs. Recognising the mutual desire to minimise the disturbance in an established trade channel, the then Vice-President for External Affairs of the EC Commission, Sir Christopher Soames, visited Canberra and arranged for regular high level consultations to be undertaken to ensure the smooth adaptation and continuation of Australia-EC trade.

The period of the Hawke Labor Governments has been one of considerable economic change. That change reflects two basic and interrelated factors. First, capital accumulation itself is a continually revolutionising process. Competition forces capitalists to search for new and cheaper ways of producing their products in order to gain an advantage over their rivals. Secondly, the international economic system has been in crisis since the mid-1970s. That crisis can be seen in Australia in the tendency of the rate of profit to decline over the last twenty years or so. The strategy underpinning the Hawke Government's actions, and this is as true of the taxation field as any other area, has been to adopt measures that will facilitate capital accumulation and improve profit rates for Australian based capitalists. This article will examine how some of the tax law changes that have been made have been affected by this strategy, in particular the internationalisation of the Australian economy. In the first place however, these changes have to be seen as part of the more general process of change itself.

Aboriginals – Land Rights – Administrative Law – Inquiry by Aboriginal Land Commissioner – Party not disclosing information to inquiry – Ex parte representations to Minister by party detrimentally affected – Failure to take into account relevant considerations – Obligation of Minister to have regard to exparte representation – Constructive knowledge of Minister of matters within his departmenrs knowledge – Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (C’th) ss 11, 50

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (C’th) s 5(2)(b).

Monumental roads were constructed during the ninth to thirteenth centuries by the regional society centred on Chaco Canyon in the US Southwest. Here, the authors present new lidar and field documentation of parallel roads at the Gasco Site, which sits within a ritual landscape south of Chaco Canyon. Their findings reveal that the Gasco Road is substantially longer than previously believed and forms alignments between natural springs and towards the winter solstice sunrise over Mount Taylor, a mountain sacred among contemporary Indigenous peoples. These findings highlight the agency of landscapes and skyscapes in structuring ritual practices in ancient societies worldwide.

Anti-discrimination law in Australia is at a crossroads. After four decades of proliferation of legislation to regulate discrimination, national attention has turned from increasing regulation to legislative consolidation and reform. This article contributes a theoretical analysis to the reform debate. Two liberal theoretical justifications for prohibiting discrimination, harm and redistributive justice, are considered. This investigation assists to determine when the state should intervene in order to restrict discrimination, and whether state and territory anti-discrimination regimes have a legitimate continuing role in Australia's legislative landscape.

We propose and unify classes of different models for information propagation over graphs. In a first class, propagation is modelled as a wave, which emanates from a set of known nodes at an initial time, to all other unknown nodes at later times with an ordering determined by the arrival time of the information wave front. A second class of models is based on the notion of a travel time along paths between nodes. The time of information propagation from an initial known set of nodes to a node is defined as the minimum of a generalised travel time over subsets of all admissible paths. A final class is given by imposing a local equation of an eikonal form at each unknown node, with boundary conditions at the known nodes. The solution value of the local equation at a node is coupled to those of neighbouring nodes with lower values. We provide precise formulations of the model classes and prove equivalences between them. Finally, we apply the front propagation models on graphs to semi-supervised learning via label propagation and information propagation on trust networks.

This is the third series in the annual Menzies Lecture series. The lectures were delivered at the University of Virginia and at William and Mary College Williamsburg on 8 and 12 October 1987.

In Singh v Commonwealth (‘Singh’), the High Court was presented with the question whether a person born in Australia can be considered an ‘alien’ for the purpose of s 51(xix) of the Constitution (‘naturalization and aliens’). In a 5:2 decision the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that birth in Australia necessarily accorded her the status of non-alien and thus a constitutional nationality which could not be displaced by legislative reliance on other heads of power. The decision is important, both for its elucidation of Parliament's scope to regulate Australian citizenship — the subject of a series of important cases over the last two decades involving strong dissents and two reversals in approach — and for its consideration of principles of constitutional interpretation.

Although some fifteen years have passed since Australia ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and so incurred an obligation to respect, protect, promote and ensure each individual's “right to adequate housing”, in Australia the right remains little more than a rhetorical tool used by welfare activists. Despite the increased political and legal profIle of human rights in Australia with the establishment of such bodies as the Commonwealth's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), the “right to .adequate housing”, like many other economic rights, has been largely ignored. In an attempt to highlight the gap between Australia's international commibnent and its domestic response, the first part of this paper examines the Eontent and implications of the right to adequate housing and Australia's obligation under Article 11 of the ICESCR. The second part focuses on the Federal Goyernment's response, discussing in particular the absence of any legal provision· for the right's protection and the lack of comprehensive administrative policies aimed at the right's progressive realisation. For the purposes of this latter discussion, a case study of federal policies concerning the homeless, a group most apparently lacking in “adequate housing”, demonstrates the extent to which administrative policies continue to embrace notions of “worthiness” rather than “universal dignity”, making realisation of a “right to adequate housing” impossible.

One of the primary consequences of the difficulties experienced by companies and by regulators in the decade of the 1980s has been a greater focus on corporate governance. The precise meaning and content of this expression is far from clear. It seems to be a term used to describe a number of related phenomena that are influencing the way in which companies are being managed, governed and regulated. The mode of governance of companies is being influenced by the growth in institutional investment, an increased focus on the role of the board of directors, increased levels of disclosure of financial information, as well as by the chal1ging and developing roles of regulatory bodies such as the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX), the Australian Securities Commission(ASC), and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

The Commonwealth grants power refers to the legislative power conferred by section 96 of the federal Constitution. Section 96 provides that:

There is no exact counterpart of this section in the United States Constitution, though Congress has authority to make grants to States under the so-called General Welfare clause—section 8 of Article I—which declares that:

Administrative law folklore in Australia concentrated for so long on the amusing British cases that portrayed courts as unpredictable and interventionist. Colourful examples included Roberts v Hopwood, which saw the proposal of the Poplar Borough Council to pay equal wages to men and women overturned as an eccentric and feminist exercise in socialistic philanthropy; Prescott v Birmingham Corporation, which displayed the same judicial aversion to a Council proposal to provide free bus transport to elderly pensioners; and Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, which disparaged a naively expressed but politically understandable Ministerial decision not to conduct an enquiry into inefficiencies in a milk marketing scheme.

The Australian reality, it was often overlooked, was usually more predictable and less interventionist. A predominant theme was the pertinence of judicial restraint in penetrating the exercise of a broad administrative discretion. Accordingly, some of the foundation cases of Australian administrative law reached conclusions which, by contemporary standards, seem astonishing.