Guardianship laws either for intellectually disadvantaged people alone, or for anyone with diminished functional capacity (such as victims of brain trauma), are now popular in Australia (other than in Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory) and New Zealand. These laws are based on North American experience, particularly that of the Dependent Adults Act 1976 (Alberta). The common thread is that it permits a guardian to be appointed to manage the property or the personal affairs of the disadvantaged person, or to make one or more of the multitude of decisions lying within these two broad areas of human living.

Contemporary legislation is notable for three things. First, partial orders are permitted (in place of only plenary orders). Indeed they are positively encouraged where any intervention at all is called for (the normalisation principle). Secondly, personal guardianships have been revived (having existed all along under cumbersome equity jurisdictions of – or associated with – superior courts).

This article analyses arguments that the prerogative should be readily displaced by statute, where a statute deals with a subject matter similar to a prerogative. It does so by examining the leading cases on displacement of the prerogative in the United Kingdom and the Australian states, and displacement of the Australian Commonwealth's inherent executive power. The cases do not adopt a single rule but the question of whether a statute will be taken to displace a prerogative is highly dependent on the facts and the provisions of the particular statute. This article defends the current approach to displacement, for three reasons. First, the courts do not allow governments to subvert or ignore statutes by using the prerogative. Secondly, the courts have almost always decided in favour of liberty and against the conferral of coercive powers on government. Thirdly, a single rule could not do justice to all the variables involved in displacement cases. Ordinary principles of statutory interpretation are sufficient to deal with questions of displacement.

The early cases on the Australian territories approached them not as constituent parts of the Commonwealth, but as subordinate to it, with the result that the territories power, s 122 of the Constitution, was held to be unaffected by other constitutional provisions. Most strikingly, Ch III of the Constitution was wholly inapplicable to the courts and judicial proceedings of the territories. Even the important doctrine that Ch III is exhaustive of the judicial power of the Commonwealth did not restrict the Parliament’s power to confer appellate jurisdiction on the High Court under s 122.

In more recent cases, majorities of the High Court have adopted a more cohesive approach which considers s 122 in the context of the Commonwealth Constitution as a whole. The view that the territories are disjoined from the Commonwealth is no longer tenable, if it ever was.

This paper considers the guidance issue for attackers against aircraft with active defense in a two-on-two engagement, which includes an attacker, a protector, a defender and a target. A cooperative line-of-sight guidance scheme with prescribed performance and input saturation is proposed utilising the sliding mode control and line-of-sight guidance theories, which guarantees that the attacker is able to capture the target with the assistance of the protector remaining on the line-of-sight between the defender and the attacker in order to intercept the defender. A fixed-time prescribed performance function and first-order anti-saturation auxiliary variable are designed in the game guidance strategy to constrain the overshoot of the guidance variable and satisfy the requirement of an overload manoeuver. The proposed guidance strategy alleviates the influence of external disturbance by implementing a fixed-time observer and the chattering phenomenon caused by the sign function. Finally, nonlinear numerical simulations verify the cooperative guidance strategies.

As the work of feminist legal scholars has convincingly demonstrated, gendered assumptions underpin much of our law, including areas such as tort, property, tax or company law, where women are not so readily apparent. As the field of law that most overtly involves women, and deals extensively with relationships between women and men, family law shares, perhaps only with the law of sexual assault, the high visibility of women as parties or participants. It is therefore particularly susceptible to a gender analysis. However, any such analysis must take place against the background of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), legislation written in a gender-neutral fashion, though it operates in the context of a highly gendered world with all its consequences.The purpose of this article is to suggest some of the ways in which gender might operate under the Family Law Act to disadvantage women.

It is at last being recognized that there is need to reform the antiquated and costly apparatus of administrative law that we inherited frum England. Despite murmurs of dissatisfaction extending over many decades all that has been achieved so far by legislation amounts to little more than a tinkering with the machinery of adjudication in marginal areas. The problem is an old one. The public interest demands that administration, including the provision of multifarious services that are crucial to the community, be carried out as efficiently as possible. Equally the public interest demands that individual rights and expectations should not be overridden by an uncaring bureaucracy.

This Article discusses the emerging strategic litigation practice in the European Union through the lens of participatory democracy. After situating such a practice both historically and conceptually within the specificities of the EU legal order, it explores whether and the extent to which strategic litigation, understood as an additional form of participation in the Union’s democratic life, may contribute to EU participatory democracy and under which conditions. It unveils that while strategic litigation carries the potential to enhance democratic participation in the EU, it also risks—due to limited judicial literacy and unequal access to justice—empowering those already powerful. For strategic litigation to unleash its democratic potential at scale, EU courts must—as required by the “Provisions on Democratic Principles” of the Treaty of Lisbon—ensure a participatory enabling environment capable of proactively catalyzing and facilitating the ability of ordinary citizens—as well as diffuse, under-resourced and traditionally overlooked groups—to be better able to contribute to the Union’s democratic life. Ultimately, no legal order worth of its name should rely on the heroism of its citizens and residents to keep its legal system in check.

It is a real pleasure for Mrs Seitz and me to come to Melbourne, one of the truly great cities of the world. I am especially gratified to be speaking in the city where Prime Minister Robert Menzies resided.

I express my gratitude to the University of Virginia for affording me the opportunity and honour of delivering the first Menzies lectures in Australia. By the same token, I thank the Australian National University and the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust for their support of a lecture program designed to further enhance the understanding of our legal systems.

I have read a good deal of material about your country over the past few months. Much of it stressed that we share the English language. That is certainly true but, if Australia is anything like the United States, while we share the same general vocabulary, the younger generation has its own unique language. Fortunately, our legal language is largely interchangeable.

The well known writings and other contributions of Professor Zines on the High Court's interpretation of Australia’s Constitution and public law generally have justly earned him the admiration and deep respect of eminent jurists both within Australia and abroad. His interests extended to courts in other western liberal democracies.

In a book based on a series of lectures delivered at the University of Cambridge under the auspices of the Smuts Memorial Fund, Professor Leslie Zines ventured into a comparative study of, inter alia, the role of the courts in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. He noted that Canada, Australia and New Zealand share the common feature of the perplexing difficulty of pin-pointing an exact date when these countries obtained their independence from Britain. In other countries which were former British colonies, the date of independence could largely be identified by the date when the Union Jack was lowered and a new national flag was unfurled.

The Australian National University, the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust and the University of Virginia Law School have established an annual Menzies Lecture Series. The Lectures are held in honour of Sir Robert Menzies and mark his contribution to the law and public life. The Lectures are given in alternate years at the Law Schools of the University of Virginia and the Australian National University. The Lectures will be published in the “Federal Law Review”. The first Menzies Lecturer was The Honourable Sir Anthony Mason of the High Court of Australia who visited the University of Virginia in October 1985. The following article is based on Sir Anthony’s lecture.

Theories of moral responsibility have often assumed that praise does not require justification in the way that blame might. Recent accounts of oppressive praise have challenged this and demonstrated that oppressive praise will track and enforce oppressive norms. Existing solutions to the problem of oppressive praise have sought either to redistribute praise or to reorient praise to serve emancipatory goals. These solutions fail to acknowledge how emancipatory norms evolve over time, and the relationship between developing norms and developing practices of praise. This paper offers a practice-dependent account of progressive praise as a solution to oppressive praise, that (i) respects agent’s socially self-governed agency and (ii) does not reinforce oppressive norms, but (iii) can contribute to improvements to the social moral ecology.