Law and Government in Australia: Essays in Honour of Enid Campbell
Publication Date :
1 Jan 2005
An unrivalled collection of scholars contribute to a book to explore how law and government may affect each other. The authors are all leaders in their field and have joined to honour one of Australia's most distinguished legal scholars - Enid Campbell - who was recently awarded a Companion of the Order of Australia for her services to the law and legal scholarship. The contributors examine problems within their special field of expertise. The constitutional law experts and their topics include: George Winterton on the changing role of the Governor-General Leslie Zines who examines one of the unresolved issues of intergovernmental immunities HP Lee who explains the implications of the High Court's most recent decisions on the implied freedom of political communication Jeff Goldsworthy who considers the extent to which a government can bind its successor The administrative law experts and their topics include:Mark Aronson who asks whether the doctrine of nullity has a future in Australian law Bruce Dyer who explains how the High Court has refashioned the 'legitimate expectation' and what that means for the requirements of natural justice Dennis Pearce, a former Commonwealth Ombudsman, who examines the most important issues facing Ombudsmen today Sir Anthony Mason who asks whether estoppel has a place in Australian public law. The papers that cover other important legal issues relevant to government include: Matthew Groves who details how the declining role of ministerial responsibility affects the operation of judicial review Mike Taggart, New Zealand's most eminent legal scholar, who explains the history of legislation used by Attorneys-General to have the most difficult people declared vexatious Richard Garnett, who explains the choices faced by the Australian government in the future of conflict of laws Enid Campbell examines the writings of the legendary American scholar Lon Fuller. She asks whether some government decision-making is just not suited to review by the courts.