This is a review of the legacy of Victoria’s Bracks/Brumby government, which held office from 1999 to 2010, in regards to public law – a review directed beyond the usual legal audience. For the Bracks/Brumby legacy is important and will endure, partly because it has entrenched a great deal of it. Its reforms to the Legislative Council are generally positive, and strike a good balance between making the upper house a serious partner in legislating and preventing obstruction, but the quota for election should perhaps have been lower. However, the government was less enthusiastic about complying with the lawful demands for government documents made by the upper house it had itself created.

To understand the Australian military and its justice system requires a knowledge of its development since 1788. The essence of this article is to briefly examine the historical development of the legal basis of each stage of Australian naval and military discipline, from colonial times until the current period. As will be seen the ‘chain of command’ is considered crucial to the military justice system as an incidence of the management and functioning of the military. Specifically, this article addresses the following points: the historical development of military justice, the structure of the Australian Defence Force, the chain of command; and the constitutional exceptionalism of military justice.

Non-statutory, preliminary assessments by departmental staff or independent contractors may well be administratively efficient. They may even be necessary, considering the large administrative workloads now inherent in government decision-making. Such processes, however, can have a negative impact upon administrative justice when the formal decision is non-compellable. When that is so, an applicant rejected by a negative preliminary assessment can be left in limbo with no subsequent avenue to the formal, proper decision-maker. The result is the filtering of important administrative decisions away from the proper decision-makers. Here, the ultimate question is whether such non-statutory filters are compatible with administrative justice and, if not, whether the law can be reformed to make them compatible.

Interview with the President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal conducted on 1 September 2016 at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Melbourne.

Foreword to Volume 6, Issue 1.

This article has been adapted from the 4th Michael Kirby Justice Oration, delivered at the College of Law & Justice, Victoria University, Melbourne, on 7 October 2014.

This paper examines the legality of the use of depleted uranium munitions under international humanitarian law. It will do so by first providing an overview of the substance ‘depleted uranium’ and explaining how and why this substance is used in munitions. It explores the proliferation of these munitions and the armed conflicts in which they have been used. Following the overview of depleted uranium munitions, this paper explores the environmental and health consequences of the use of depleted uranium munitions in armed conflicts. Utilising this information, this paper considers the legality of depleted uranium munitions under international humanitarian law. Ultimately, this paper argues that although it is becoming increasingly clear that the use of depleted uranium munitions in armed conflicts may have environmental and health implications, depleted uranium munitions are nonetheless legal under international humanitarian law. Their use may, however, be restricted by the ‘precautionary principle’. This paper argues that a regulatory treaty should be developed in order to minimise the environmental and health risks of depleted uranium munitions and clarify their legal position.

Foreword to Volume 5, Issue 1.