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.

Tribunals and specialised courts with inquisitorial powers are now fairly common in Australia and appellate courts have begun to insist that in certain circumstances the powers be used. By “inquisitorial powers” is meant powers which enable the adjudicator to take the initiative in eliciting evidence and formulating legal arguments, and to control the way in which a case is presented. The Australian Committee on Administrative Discretions believed that it would be appropriate for their proposed administrative review tribunal to make use of an “investigative or inquisitorial process in most cases”. There have even been calls for the use of some inquisitorial procedures in ordinary courts of law. A radical change in the ordinary courts seems at present to be impracticable. On the other hand the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is still in a position to set its own pattern of development. It has been given almost carte blanche as to procedure and some wide inquisitorial powers. For the last six years it has been experimenting with the use of these powers, and some of its pre-trial procedures have already aroused interest. The Federal Court in its jurisdiction under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) is given power to exert far greater control over the conduct of proceedings than is normal in an adversary system.

The Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth) ('IC Act’) and the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Act 2006 (Cth) ('Amendment Act’) implement further key aspects of the federal government's workplace relations policy, following the passage of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth) ('Work Choices Act’). The Work Choices Act substantially amended the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ('WR Act’), introducing a national workplace relations system for employers who are (in the main) ‘constitutional corporations’ or federal public sector departments or agencies, and their employees. Through the Work Choices Act, the government also: transferred responsibility for minimum wage-setting from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ('AIRC’) to a new body, the Australian Fair Pay Commission; provided five minimum statutory employment conditions for all workers covered by the national system; removed much of the procedural regulation relating to workplace agreements and substantive requirements such as the ‘no disadvantage’ test; and exempted businesses with 100 employees or less from unfair dismissal regulation.

By a review of a series of comparable decisions in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) some of the problems that may arise as the jurisdiction and role of the AAT continues to expand in the review on the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions are identified. The problems include first, the apparent difficulty for democratic theory of unelected tribunal members (including persons who are also judges) reviewing policy determined by elected Ministers; secondly, the creation of a dichotomy between decisions made by the AAT and decisions of public servants faithfully and more consistently applying Ministerial policy; thirdly, the limitation upon the membership and procedures of the AAT which restrict any truly effective wide-ranging review of government policy; and, fourthly, the potential damage to community confidence in the judiciary, by the involvement of judges in the frank determination of controversial matters of public policy. The role of policy-making in the courts is acknowledged and similarities and differences in the function of the courts and the AAT in the review of policy issues are indicated. It is concluded that the AAT will require all arms of government in Australia to face more precisely the role of policy in adjudicative decision-making.

Two recent decisions of the High Court, Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (Mutual Pools) and Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunication Corporation (Georgiadis) have re-opened the debate about the source of the Commonwealth's liability to be sued in civil proceedings. The debate can be expressed in this form: does that liability arise from the Constitution so as to confer a constitutionally guaranteed right to sue the Commonwealth (the “constitutional argument”) or does it arise from rights conferred by s 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) — possibly in combination with “rights to proceed” allowed by the Constitution? In practical terms this is a difference between entrenching the Commonwealth's liability in the Constitution or acknowledging that those “rights to proceed” can be removed by Commonwealth legislation preventing action against it.