Federal Law Review最新文献_第3页

Regulating the Rorts: The Legal Governance of Grants Programs in Australia 规范基金:澳大利亚基金项目的法律治理

Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-04-11 DOI: 10.1177/0067205X231166704

Yee-Fui Ng

{"title":"Regulating the Rorts: The Legal Governance of Grants Programs in Australia","authors":"Yee-Fui Ng","doi":"10.1177/0067205X231166704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X231166704","url":null,"abstract":"Numerous recent scandals have surfaced relating to the Australian government allegedly engaging in ‘pork barrelling’, that is, the partisan channelling of grants funding to government electorates, instead of merit-based allocation. Yet the probity of the use of public money is crucial towards preserving public trust in Australian democratic institutions. This article will critically analyse the legal accountability mechanisms for grants funding through public finance legislation, ‘soft law’ such as grants, guidelines and ministerial standards, and the availability of legal redress. It will also examine political accountability mechanisms, including the operation of parliamentary committees, the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman. The author argues that although political regulation provides transparency in the government’s use of public funds, it remains ineffective to combat the government’s deeply entrenched incentives to allocate grants in a partisan manner. As such, it is contended that stronger legal accountability in terms of enforceable rules and regulations is required to reform grants regulation towards improving the probity and accountability of the use of public funding.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"205 - 231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41350752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

White Hat, Black Hat, Slouch Hat: Could Australia’s Military Cyber Capability be Deployed Under Commonwealth Call-Out Powers? 白帽、黑帽、慢帽：澳大利亚的军事网络能力能否在英联邦的号召下部署？

Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-04-07 DOI: 10.1177/0067205x231166697

Brendan Walker-Munro

引用次数: 0

Commonwealth Power to Improve Access, Quality, and Efficiency of Medical Care: Does section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Constitution Limit Politically Feasible Health Policy Options Today? 提高医疗服务的可及性、质量和效率的联邦权力：宪法第51条（xxiiiA）是否限制了当今政治上可行的卫生政策选择？

Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-04-06 DOI: 10.1177/0067205X231165872

F. McDonald, S. Duckett, Emma Campbell

{"title":"Commonwealth Power to Improve Access, Quality, and Efficiency of Medical Care: Does section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Constitution Limit Politically Feasible Health Policy Options Today?","authors":"F. McDonald, S. Duckett, Emma Campbell","doi":"10.1177/0067205X231165872","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X231165872","url":null,"abstract":"Legal and political battles about health policy in the immediate post-war years have cast a long shadow in Australia. The ‘civil conscription’ sub-provision in s 51(xxiiiA) (health and welfare power) of the Australian Constitution is still cited as a major barrier to developing health policy. But long after the High Court moved on from a very restrictive interpretation of Commonwealth powers, policymakers appear to be cautious about testing whether the Commonwealth has power to make laws about medical services to pursue a bold agenda about access, quality, and efficiency of medical care. In this article we will first describe the origin and phrasing of s 51(xxiiiA), the main head of power, then trace the development of the interpretation of the civil conscription sub-provision, and finally discuss whether politically realistic policy options are likely to founder on the shoals of High Court interpretation. We argue that the civil conscription limitation in s 51 (xxiiiA) in the Constitution looms larger as a policy constraint on regulation of health care by the Commonwealth government in the minds of decision-makers, and as a weapon in the hands of stakeholders, than contemporary analysis of it warrants.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"232 - 256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47740170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Australia’s Foreign Relations Act and Australia’s Relationship with International Law 澳大利亚的《外交关系法》与澳大利亚与国际法的关系

Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-04-06 DOI: 10.1177/0067205x231166158

Georgina Clough

引用次数: 0

Reinstatement of Previously Deregistered Health Professionals in Australia: Legal Determinations of Risk, Patient Safety, and Public Interest 澳大利亚先前注销的卫生专业人员的恢复：风险、患者安全和公共利益的法律决定

Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-02-20 DOI: 10.1177/0067205x221146334

J. Millbank

{"title":"Reinstatement of Previously Deregistered Health Professionals in Australia: Legal Determinations of Risk, Patient Safety, and Public Interest","authors":"J. Millbank","doi":"10.1177/0067205x221146334","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x221146334","url":null,"abstract":"Each year approximately 60 registered health practitioners in Australia have their registration cancelled for reasons of serious misconduct or, less commonly, impairment or criminal conviction. Cancellation remains in force unless the practitioner successfully brings a later application to be restored to the register. While the decision to deregister takes place in a public tribunal process, with published reasons, throughout most of Australia determinations concerning reinstatement are undertaken by professional Boards in private. This research examines available reinstatement decisions concerning 86 health practitioners to analyse how the health regulatory system in Australia determines questions of public interest and public safety when deciding whether deregistered health practitioners who seek reinstatement are now ‘fit and proper’ to practise their profession again. There is a considerable body of case law on the meaning of fitness to practise for health professionals, and the process by which it can be assessed. However, there is remarkably little legislative content or administrative guidance to structure the reinstatement inquiry, assist applicants in the process or to ensure consistency of decision-making, in particular by drawing attention to broader public protection factors. Reinstatement determinations would be improved through the introduction of structured guidance on how to apply the paramount objective of public protection. The article also suggests that having all reinstatement determinations take place in public with published reasons would improve public understanding of, and confidence in, the reinstatement process.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"3 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47307313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Federal Charities Law and the Taxation Power: Three Constitutional Problems 联邦慈善法与征税权:三个宪法问题

Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-02-17 DOI: 10.1177/0067205X221146330

N. Aroney

{"title":"Federal Charities Law and the Taxation Power: Three Constitutional Problems","authors":"N. Aroney","doi":"10.1177/0067205X221146330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X221146330","url":null,"abstract":"The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission Act 2012 and Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission Regulation 2013 have established a comprehensive regulatory framework for the charities and not-for-profit sector at a federal level. When making the Act and Regulation the Commonwealth relied upon several heads of legislative power in section 51 of the Constitution, the most important of which is the taxation power. This article develops and assesses three arguments why the relevant provisions of the legislative scheme are not supported by the taxation power. These arguments are, firstly, that the Act and Regulations do not have a sufficient connection to the subject matter of taxation, secondly, that they are not reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to achieving a legitimate purpose or object that falls within the taxation power and, thirdly, that in combination with the Income Tax Act 1986 and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, they impose an obligation to pay money in a manner that is so arbitrary that they cannot be characterised as laws with respect to the subject matter of taxation. It is concluded that these three lines of argument provide strong reasons why the Act and Regulations are not supported by the taxation power.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"78 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41750645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

The New Right and Aboriginal Rights in the High Court of Australia 澳大利亚高等法院的新权利与土著权利

Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-02-17 DOI: 10.1177/0067205X221146333

H. Hobbs

引用次数: 1

Fundamental Rights and Necessary Implication 基本权利和必要含义

Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-01-25 DOI: 10.1177/0067205X221146332

D. Meagher

引用次数: 0

Can a Protectionist Measure be Non-Discriminatory? Comparative Federal Markets and a Proposal for a Definition of Discrimination Under s 92 of the Australian Constitution 保护主义措施可以是非歧视性的吗?比较联邦市场和澳大利亚宪法第92条下歧视定义的建议

Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-01-24 DOI: 10.1177/0067205X221146336

C. Nagy