Recognising the importance of species diversity in conserving and exploiting plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, international and domestic arrangements have attempted over the decades in situ conservation, ex situ germplasm collections and germplasm exchange mechanisms. These initiatives established valuable resources for the development of new crop and forage plant varieties but there were no uniform or binding arrangements for conserving and accessing these resources. A more formal and uniform arrangement to both facilitate the conservation and exchange of some crop and forage plant genetic materials and share the benefits is now addressed in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (‘PGRFA Treaty’). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (‘FAO’) adopted the PGRFA Treaty in 2001, although it has not yet entered into force. A separate and distinct PGRFA Treaty was the culmination of the re-negotiation of the United Nations' International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture recognising ‘the special nature of agricultural biodiversity, its distinctive features and problems needing distinctive solutions’.

Under section 128 of the Australian Constitution federal parliamentarians have the power to initiate constitutional amendments. This paper examines the justifications of politicians and public figures for proposing a referendum to introduce an Australian republic. From interviews conducted between 2008 and 2011, three important justifications for proposing change emerged: promoting a new national identity; success in passing a referendum and in re-election; and timeliness. An examination of these justifications raised additional questions, including: what reasons did politicians and public figures think were significant? How did their justifications form and develop? What were the reasons that inspired political action? The reasons for initiation of a referendum for a republic, and recognition of indigenous people in the Australian Constitution are also compared. The paper adds to the literature on formal constitutional change, and also offers a critique of the field.

In 1989 the Commonwealth Government released a policy statement entitled “New Directions in Commonwealth Fisheries Management”. Its aim was to establish a regulatory framework which would encourage the biologically sustainable exploitation of Australia's fisheries while increasing economic efficiency in the industry and facilitating the introduction of a resource rent. Heeding economists' arguments that the introduction of greater property rights for individual fishermen would meet these ends, the policy statement identified as central to its proposed reforms the introduction of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs). Most Australian fisheries achieve restrictions on catch by limiting the size and fishing capacity — that is, the efficiency — that is, the efficiency — of boats in a fishery. Alternatively, they limit fishing hours, thus encouraging over-development of fishing capacity by fishermen seeking maximum catches in the available time. ITQs, by comparison, grant to their owners the right to take a specified quantity of fish, at any time and with the most suitable equipment, thus avoiding wasteful use of costly fishing gear. Being a direct measure of productivity, they also lend themselves to the collection of a resource rent.

The scope of this summary is to review Ordinances made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1960-1963 and Regulations made pursuant to such Ordinances, which may be of interest to local practitioners in that they tie in with general schemes of legislation, and practitioners in general where they relate to the legal consequences of acts performed outside the Territory or are intended to provide a model for uniform legislation in the Commonwealth.

This article examines the third paragraph of s 53 from the high ground of history. Section 53 must not be seen as an isolated and unique problem. Rather, it is merely another manifestation of the intractable problem of defining the power to tax. The Bill of Rights, arising out of the Revolution of 1688, defined the constitutional prerogatives of the King, when it provided “[t]hat levying money for or to the use of the Crown, by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal”. Art 1 s 7 of the United States Constitution requires that “[a]ll bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills”. Story elegantly under-stated the position when he remarked, “What bills are properly ‘bills for raising revenue’, in the sense of the constitution, has been matter of some discussion”.

The internet is a new and ubiquitous tool for conducting business. In the age of e-commerce, distance and physical borders mean very little. The Constitution, however, was drafted at a time when trade and commerce was characterised by important geographical considerations, the most significant being the geo-political boundaries between the several colonies that became the States. The internet has all but destroyed whatever remnants of that age might have survived the previous 100 years. This tension between recent technological advancement and long established constitutional jurisprudence confronted the High Court in Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia.

Betfair is one of a long line of cases dealing with the freedom of interstate trade and commerce enshrined in s 92 of the Constitution, the most litigated section of Australia's highest document of government. But it is also truly unique: Betfair is the first time that the freedom of interstate trade and commerce has been considered in an e-commerce context. Presented with this opportunity, the High Court has elaborated upon the approach to s 92 set down nearly 20 years ago in Cole v Whitfield. The outcome has significant consequences for both State and Commonwealth internet regulators.

For a time, the discipline of Australian military forces provided an interesting study in the application of Imperial legislation. That feature of the system has fallen away at least since the enactment of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) ('Discipline Act’). Since then, attention has been directed to the consequences of a tension between the necessary (or at least universally accepted) nature of military discipline and the values embedded in Chapter III of the Constitution.

Beginning a discussion of the Constitution and military justice in 2005, Mr Tracey observed:

There is an assumption that government affects community action and implements its policy primarily through legal rules backed by sanctions. Reality however dictates that policy implementation occurs in a number of ways, one of the more significant being through the lure of money. Money has been utilised over the course of Australia’s history to impact a dramatic redistribution in federal and State power without constitutional amendment. Spending is also, by its very nature, less transparent than legislative regulation. There is growing disquiet about the unchecked and unaccountable nature of government spending which this article seeks to explore.

There are five recent decisions of the High Court of Australia, four of which were given in matters which had arisen under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (“the Act”), and all of which have a significance for the operation of the Act, as well as for public law generally. They are Park Oh Ho v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Chan fee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin, Haoucher v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond. The primary concern of this paper is to consider some aspects of their significance for the operation of the Act.

Concern for the environment is undoubtedly a “significant social and political force” within the international community. Where members of the international community once viewed environmental protection as a local or national issue, ther have now been compelled to see many environmental problems as global in scope. This change in attitude was exemplified in 1992 when the United Nations convened the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, attended by representatives from 170 nations, including 130 heads of state and government. One of the outcomes of the conference was the adoption of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration). The Rio Declaration is a declaration of internationally accepted fundamental principles on development and environmental protection. It declares that all nations have a right to development. However, this right must be exercised in such a manner as to “equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations”.

The Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (‘the Act’) pt VIB establishes a framework for the registration and enforcement of certified agreements, which are collective industrial instruments that regulate the employment relationship for a significant proportion of the workforce. The Act provides for agreements between unions of employees and employers and agreements between employers and employees directly. A certified agreement comes into effect only after it is approved by the employer and a ‘valid majority’ of its employees and is registered by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (‘the Commission’). The significance of registration of a certified agreement lies in the imposition of legally enforceable rights and obligations upon the parties bound by the agreement. One of the most significant obligations imposed on the parties bound by a registered certified agreement is the obligation not to engage in industrial action for the duration of the agreement, which is ordinarily no longer than three years.

The ability of ministers to exercise de facto control over statutory corporations presents a significant governance problem for the Australian public sector. Parliaments have attempted to define the degree of autonomy granted to the statutory corporation by regulating the flow of communication between ministers and boards. Reporting requirements are one legal technique. Another is the use of legislative provisions which grant the minister formal powers of direction over the corporation and which impose upon its directors obligations to disclose corporate information to the minister. These provisions vary widely in their language; and their meaning is often a source of concern for corporate office holders and third parties dealing with the corporation. Statutory powers of direction raise fundamental questions of institutional design: how closely ought statutory corporations be controlled by the Executive? And in what manner ought the Executive be accountable to Parliament for its activities?

In 1788, Andrew Jackson acquired an enslaved woman named Nancy. According to most accounts, Nancy followed Jackson from Jonesborough, Tennessee to Nashville and lived out the rest of her days at the Hermitage. Except she did not. A close review of the legal record suggests that Nancy never made it to Nashville and either left Jackson somewhere along the Wilderness Road or died at his hands trying to escape. Her act of resistance, this article posits, may have profoundly affected Jackson's views of race and sex on the southern frontier.