Current Law Journal Content
Washington & Lee Law School
  Current Law Journal Content
                  an index to legal periodicals
 


  Australian Journal of Administrative Law   (Australia)
  Volume 17, Number 1, November 2009
  homepage                   other issues
 

  • EDITORIAL
  • A return to proper case management
        p.5                                                                                          +cite    
  • Privative clauses
        p.5                                                                                          +cite    
  • Judges and democracy
        p.6                                                                                          +cite    
  • Judges and public service
        p.8                                                                                          +cite    

  • TRADE, COMMERCE AND REVENUE — Tim Moe
  • The clear light of day: Ombudsman investigations and normative values of public administration
        p.9                                                                                          +cite    

  • CASENOTES — Rebecca Heath
  • SZMKG v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship
        p.13                                                                                        +cite    

  • WORK AND EMPLOYMENT — Graeme Orr and Joo-Cheong Tham
  • Law-making and temporary migrant labour schemes: Accountability and the 457 visa scheme
        p.18                                                                                        +cite    

  • DISCRIMINATION AND REFUGEES — Edward Santow
  • The Brennan Committee Report: Reform of discrimination law
        p.21                                                                                        +cite    

  • ARTICLES
  • The use of administrative law to enforce human rights
        Janina Boughey
        p.25                                                                                        +cite        
        In the absence of specific or adequate laws designed to enable individuals to enforce their human rights, it is inevitable that human rights claims will he made through other, established legal avenues. Some academics have suggested that administrative law is particularly susceptible to its principles being used to pursue human rights claims because of the similarity between the underlying principles of administrative and human rights law. This article considers the success of such attempts, some conceptual limitations of using administrative law to advance human rights in certain circumstances, the impacts of using administrative law principles to achieve human rights on the "integrity" of administrative law and the effect of statutory rights protections on this process.
  • ASIO, adverse security assessments, and a denial of procedural fairness
        Keiran Hardy
        p.39                                                                                        +cite        
        Adverse security assessments play an important role in ASIO's mandate, yet they are largely immune to merits and judicial review. This article examines the limits of merits and judicial review of adverse security assessments by comparing the rights of non-citizens and citizens. Non-citizens cannot seek merits review of these assessments, and face immense difficulties when seeking judicial review. Citizens are ostensibly given a statutory right to merits review in the Security Appeals Division of the AAT, but this right is tainted by a statutory abrogation of common law procedural fairness. The Attorney-General's unconfined statutory discretion to issue public interest certificates means that citizens are effectively given no more rights than non-citizens when seeking review of an erroneous assessment. This irregularity requires legislative change if citizens are to be given a meaningful chance of holding ASIO accountable in law.
  • Inferences against Ministers who fail to give evidence in judicial review proceedings
        Anthony Papamatheos
        p.50                                                                                        +cite        
        There has been a tendency in judicial review cases for government lawyers representing Ministers to maintain that such Ministers are "never expected to give evidence". A number of decisions say this is not the case and are worthy of comment. The rule with respect to inferences against Ministers who fail to give evidence, modelled on Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, applies with equal force as it would in ordinary civil proceedings between two private litigants. This article shows that the availability of such inferences is tempered by the usual factors considered in civil proceedings and there is no special rule against inferences in judicial review cases.

  • BOOK REVIEWS - Matthew Groves
  • The Immigration Kit by Suhad Kamand, Rowena Irish, Peter Bollard, Kerry Murphy and Mark Webster
        p.53                                                                                        +cite    
  • A Simple Common Lawyer - Essays in Honour of Michael Taggart by David Dyzenhaus, Murray Hunt and Grant Huscroft
        p.54                                                                                        +cite