On the ground and on tap—law reform, Australian style

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW
J. Barnes
{"title":"On the ground and on tap—law reform, Australian style","authors":"J. Barnes","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2018.1475611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Being governmental, the law reform processes of a country are closely associated with the constitutional framework of the country concerned. In the case of Australia, the framework combines English and American constitutionalism. Professor Saunders neatly describes the result as ‘hybrid, derivative but eventually Australian’. After a brief overview of sources of law reform advice in Australia, the article focuses on one part of Australian law reform processes—law reform bodies established by statute that advise in a particular area (‘specialist statutory advisors’). The main question the article poses is—like the constitutional framework, are specialist statutory advisors ‘hybrid, derivative but eventually Australian’? The research hypothesis is informed by an influential stream of Australian historical and legal thought. A number of commentators have propounded that Australian democracy is distinctive, and that Australians have time and again accepted a commanding role for government, and continue to give it great respect. It is said that Benthamite utilitarianism and legislation lie at the heart of the dominant political ideology. The article examines the Australian law reform scene in the light of these theories. The research hypothesis is that these distinctive aspects of Australian political life will manifest themselves in processes of law reform, namely specific legislative processes for facilitating law reform. The article identifies and analyses specialist law reform agencies established under statutes passed by parliaments of the Commonwealth, the States, and the Territories. This analysis is followed by an assessment of specialist advisors. They are compared with two other types of law reform bodies: Ministerial committees and generalist law reform bodies. The article concludes by reflecting on how specialist statutory advisors reflect the country’s constitutional framework. In their own way—on the ground and on tap—they too are found to be ‘hybrid, derivative but eventually Australian’.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475611","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2018.1475611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Being governmental, the law reform processes of a country are closely associated with the constitutional framework of the country concerned. In the case of Australia, the framework combines English and American constitutionalism. Professor Saunders neatly describes the result as ‘hybrid, derivative but eventually Australian’. After a brief overview of sources of law reform advice in Australia, the article focuses on one part of Australian law reform processes—law reform bodies established by statute that advise in a particular area (‘specialist statutory advisors’). The main question the article poses is—like the constitutional framework, are specialist statutory advisors ‘hybrid, derivative but eventually Australian’? The research hypothesis is informed by an influential stream of Australian historical and legal thought. A number of commentators have propounded that Australian democracy is distinctive, and that Australians have time and again accepted a commanding role for government, and continue to give it great respect. It is said that Benthamite utilitarianism and legislation lie at the heart of the dominant political ideology. The article examines the Australian law reform scene in the light of these theories. The research hypothesis is that these distinctive aspects of Australian political life will manifest themselves in processes of law reform, namely specific legislative processes for facilitating law reform. The article identifies and analyses specialist law reform agencies established under statutes passed by parliaments of the Commonwealth, the States, and the Territories. This analysis is followed by an assessment of specialist advisors. They are compared with two other types of law reform bodies: Ministerial committees and generalist law reform bodies. The article concludes by reflecting on how specialist statutory advisors reflect the country’s constitutional framework. In their own way—on the ground and on tap—they too are found to be ‘hybrid, derivative but eventually Australian’.
在土地和自来水法改革,澳大利亚风格
作为政府,一个国家的法律改革进程与该国的宪法框架密切相关。以澳大利亚为例,该框架结合了英国和美国的宪政。桑德斯教授巧妙地将结果描述为“混合,衍生,但最终是澳大利亚的”。在简要概述了澳大利亚法律改革建议的来源之后,本文将重点关注澳大利亚法律改革过程的一部分——根据法规设立的在特定领域提供建议的法律改革机构(“专业法律顾问”)。文章提出的主要问题是,像宪法框架一样,专业法律顾问是“混合的、衍生的,但最终是澳大利亚的”吗?该研究假设受到澳大利亚历史和法律思想的影响。一些评论家提出,澳大利亚的民主是独特的,澳大利亚人一次又一次地接受了政府的指挥作用,并继续给予它极大的尊重。据说,边沁的功利主义和立法是主流政治意识形态的核心。本文在这些理论的指导下考察了澳大利亚的法律改革现状。研究假设是,澳大利亚政治生活的这些独特方面将在法律改革的过程中表现出来,即促进法律改革的具体立法过程。本文确定并分析了根据联邦、各州和领地议会通过的法规设立的专门法律改革机构。分析之后是对专家顾问的评估。将它们与另外两种类型的法律改革机构进行比较:部长级委员会和通才法律改革机构。文章最后反思了专业法律顾问如何反映国家的宪法框架。他们也以自己的方式——无论是在地面上还是在水龙头上——被发现是“混合的,衍生的,但最终是澳大利亚的”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信