Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2023.2243776
Samuel D. Blanch
ABSTRACT Faced by the apparent difference between legal traditions, how should scholars and policy makers assess their compatibility or incompatibility? What criteria should be used to adjudge the commensurability, or even the elements of incongruity, between traditions that have developed in different cultural, social and economic circumstances? This article argues for a shift from the way that much of the scholarship on Islamic legal traditions in Western polities pursues these questions. First, scholars assess Islamic legal traditions by explicitly or implicitly assessing their compliance with a contingent Western rendition of the rule of law. Second, comparisons tend to focus on a Western legal theoretical priority of the ‘rule’ itself, whereby conceptualisations of law are parsed out using an analytical infrastructure particular to the contingent history of the nation state. Such approaches may usefully assess migrant traditions’ political compatibility with a benevolent or hegemonic Western legal regime. Indeed, they may be defended philosophically on the basis of ‘difference blind’ legal arrangements or some kind of minimal secular baseline of governance. However, these approaches are insufficient for addressing the prior question of commensurability. Based on ethnographic data from the Shia Muslim tradition of legal training, I offer a brief account of two ‘repertoires of justification’ standing askance from this anyhow contingent rendition of Western law. This account serves as a counterpoint to rule based approaches, demonstrating why commensurability should be assessed through an attentiveness to the alternative logics of other legal traditions.
{"title":"Thinking about Islamic legal traditions in multicultural contexts","authors":"Samuel D. Blanch","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2023.2243776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2023.2243776","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Faced by the apparent difference between legal traditions, how should scholars and policy makers assess their compatibility or incompatibility? What criteria should be used to adjudge the commensurability, or even the elements of incongruity, between traditions that have developed in different cultural, social and economic circumstances? This article argues for a shift from the way that much of the scholarship on Islamic legal traditions in Western polities pursues these questions. First, scholars assess Islamic legal traditions by explicitly or implicitly assessing their compliance with a contingent Western rendition of the rule of law. Second, comparisons tend to focus on a Western legal theoretical priority of the ‘rule’ itself, whereby conceptualisations of law are parsed out using an analytical infrastructure particular to the contingent history of the nation state. Such approaches may usefully assess migrant traditions’ political compatibility with a benevolent or hegemonic Western legal regime. Indeed, they may be defended philosophically on the basis of ‘difference blind’ legal arrangements or some kind of minimal secular baseline of governance. However, these approaches are insufficient for addressing the prior question of commensurability. Based on ethnographic data from the Shia Muslim tradition of legal training, I offer a brief account of two ‘repertoires of justification’ standing askance from this anyhow contingent rendition of Western law. This account serves as a counterpoint to rule based approaches, demonstrating why commensurability should be assessed through an attentiveness to the alternative logics of other legal traditions.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"215 - 235"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44015889","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}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2023.2223481
Caitlin Murphy
ABSTRACT This article joins a conversation that examines the dynamics of extraction in global space and their relationship to practices of authorisation in international law. The article offers an analysis of a specific historical debate that occurred through the negotiation of the since-abandoned Convention on the Regulation of Antarctica Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA). The debate was largely over whether the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) should continue to govern Antarctica. This article argues that while extracting mineral resources from Antarctica has now been foreclosed, the jurisdictional form that remains is part of the enabling legal infrastructure that patterns contemporary global extraction. Specifically, this jurisdictional form entails the reassertion of international legal authority grounded in colonial territorial claims, and a reappropriation of the Common Heritage of Mankind principle (CHM) to appeal to a construction of universality that repeats the familiar colonial move of locating ‘humanity’ largely in the Global North. In the contested times of the Anthropocene, discussion of the ATS rightly celebrates an instance of restraining corporate extraction of hydrocarbons from an unstable climactic ecosystem. However, we could also take account of how the ATS’ jurisdictional form could contribute to contemporary global extraction and its highly unequal consequences.
{"title":"Extraction and jurisdiction: forms of law and the Antarctic Treaty System*","authors":"Caitlin Murphy","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2023.2223481","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2023.2223481","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article joins a conversation that examines the dynamics of extraction in global space and their relationship to practices of authorisation in international law. The article offers an analysis of a specific historical debate that occurred through the negotiation of the since-abandoned Convention on the Regulation of Antarctica Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA). The debate was largely over whether the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) should continue to govern Antarctica. This article argues that while extracting mineral resources from Antarctica has now been foreclosed, the jurisdictional form that remains is part of the enabling legal infrastructure that patterns contemporary global extraction. Specifically, this jurisdictional form entails the reassertion of international legal authority grounded in colonial territorial claims, and a reappropriation of the Common Heritage of Mankind principle (CHM) to appeal to a construction of universality that repeats the familiar colonial move of locating ‘humanity’ largely in the Global North. In the contested times of the Anthropocene, discussion of the ATS rightly celebrates an instance of restraining corporate extraction of hydrocarbons from an unstable climactic ecosystem. However, we could also take account of how the ATS’ jurisdictional form could contribute to contemporary global extraction and its highly unequal consequences.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"175 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46217343","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2023.2170616
A. Fletcher
ABSTRACT Surveillance technologies – particularly digital surveillance technologies – have proliferated and become increasingly powerful in recent years. This article discusses recent and emerging legal and policy developments in Australia with respect to facial recognition and related technologies in particular. It analyses these developments from the perspective of international human rights law, focussing on privacy and related rights. The article contends that greater attention needs to be paid in Australia to the risks to human rights posed by these technologies, both in the development of policy and legislation, and on the part of a citizenry which stands to have its freedom significantly restricted in the coming years.
{"title":"Government surveillance and facial recognition in Australia: a human rights analysis of recent developments","authors":"A. Fletcher","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2023.2170616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2023.2170616","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Surveillance technologies – particularly digital surveillance technologies – have proliferated and become increasingly powerful in recent years. This article discusses recent and emerging legal and policy developments in Australia with respect to facial recognition and related technologies in particular. It analyses these developments from the perspective of international human rights law, focussing on privacy and related rights. The article contends that greater attention needs to be paid in Australia to the risks to human rights posed by these technologies, both in the development of policy and legislation, and on the part of a citizenry which stands to have its freedom significantly restricted in the coming years.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"30 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45122108","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2023.2210450
A. Foerster, M. Spencer
ABSTRACT Corporate pledges to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions in line with the international Paris Agreement on climate change are proliferating around the world, including in Australia. Regulatory drivers include corporate law obligations to identify, disclose and manage climate-related financial risks, as well as a complex web of rapidly developing private regulatory initiatives. Non-state actors such as institutional investors, industry bodies and civil society, are increasingly involved in developing best practice standards for climate risk disclosure and management, engaging with companies to drive their uptake, and in some cases, litigating to embed best practice expectations and hold companies accountable for their climate commitments and performance. Although underlying corporate law obligations are climate-neutral and focus on transparency and process, the associated private climate regulation is increasingly organised around substantive Paris-aligned standards. Drawing on an empirical study of large Australian listed companies, this article explores whether private climate regulation is helping to drive robust corporate climate commitments, target-setting and associated activities, which have the potential to deliver real-world emissions reductions.
{"title":"Corporate net zero pledges: a triumph of private climate regulation or more greenwash?","authors":"A. Foerster, M. Spencer","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2023.2210450","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2023.2210450","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Corporate pledges to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions in line with the international Paris Agreement on climate change are proliferating around the world, including in Australia. Regulatory drivers include corporate law obligations to identify, disclose and manage climate-related financial risks, as well as a complex web of rapidly developing private regulatory initiatives. Non-state actors such as institutional investors, industry bodies and civil society, are increasingly involved in developing best practice standards for climate risk disclosure and management, engaging with companies to drive their uptake, and in some cases, litigating to embed best practice expectations and hold companies accountable for their climate commitments and performance. Although underlying corporate law obligations are climate-neutral and focus on transparency and process, the associated private climate regulation is increasingly organised around substantive Paris-aligned standards. Drawing on an empirical study of large Australian listed companies, this article explores whether private climate regulation is helping to drive robust corporate climate commitments, target-setting and associated activities, which have the potential to deliver real-world emissions reductions.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"110 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44576658","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2023.2188012
Judith E Grbich
{"title":"Tax and Government in the 21st Century","authors":"Judith E Grbich","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2023.2188012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2023.2188012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"143 - 148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45160259","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2023.2188014
Kellie Toole, Elaine Waddell
ABSTRACT This article presents the findings of the first empirical research project in Australia to explore the connection between military service and criminal offending from the perspective of the sentenced prisoner. Between 2018 and 2021, the authors undertook interviews with 16 male Australian Defence Force (ADF) veterans who had been sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in South Australia, and were either still serving that sentence or had been released from prison within the previous five years. The veterans express a widespread and deeply held view that certain aspects of military training and culture can contribute, both directly and indirectly, to offending. The thematic analysis of the interview data discloses that military service is apt to have a criminogenic effect where veterans have experienced traumatic pre-service experiences.
{"title":"Veteran perceptions of pathways to offending: ex-Australian Defence Force personnel in South Australian prisons","authors":"Kellie Toole, Elaine Waddell","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2023.2188014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2023.2188014","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 This article presents the findings of the first empirical research project in Australia to explore the connection between military service and criminal offending from the perspective of the sentenced prisoner. Between 2018 and 2021, the authors undertook interviews with 16 male Australian Defence Force (ADF) veterans who had been sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in South Australia, and were either still serving that sentence or had been released from prison within the previous five years. The veterans express a widespread and deeply held view that certain aspects of military training and culture can contribute, both directly and indirectly, to offending. The thematic analysis of the interview data discloses that military service is apt to have a criminogenic effect where veterans have experienced traumatic pre-service experiences.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"1 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49170636","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2023.2167543
Matin Pedram
ABSTRACT In Foucault’s narrative, neoliberalism is a rationale to delimit government power through certain actions called governmentalisation. This does not mean that individuals are exposed to a despotic state, but a government that warrants laissez-faire and controls through liberty. Central to this act of government is the market in which individuals can freely transact, provided that their conducts comply with the determined disciplines. Governmentality highlights that competition in the market preserves and protects individuals’ interests. However, governmentalisation in developing countries is encapsulated in the concept of good governance. In this case, these governments are encouraged to privatise state-owned enterprises to guarantee a free market while casting off ambitious welfare projects. Iran’s government implemented pseudo neoliberal policies to purportedly unlock the market, while the government is disinclined to lose its authority. This article considers Foucault’s view on governmentality to indicate how Iran’s government governmentalised the market and used competition law to maintain market power. It is argued that Iran’s act of government was a failed project in terms of providing individuals’ freedom while it strengthened well-connected firms.
{"title":"Power relations through the market: a Foucauldian critique of the competition law in Iran","authors":"Matin Pedram","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2023.2167543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2023.2167543","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Foucault’s narrative, neoliberalism is a rationale to delimit government power through certain actions called governmentalisation. This does not mean that individuals are exposed to a despotic state, but a government that warrants laissez-faire and controls through liberty. Central to this act of government is the market in which individuals can freely transact, provided that their conducts comply with the determined disciplines. Governmentality highlights that competition in the market preserves and protects individuals’ interests. However, governmentalisation in developing countries is encapsulated in the concept of good governance. In this case, these governments are encouraged to privatise state-owned enterprises to guarantee a free market while casting off ambitious welfare projects. Iran’s government implemented pseudo neoliberal policies to purportedly unlock the market, while the government is disinclined to lose its authority. This article considers Foucault’s view on governmentality to indicate how Iran’s government governmentalised the market and used competition law to maintain market power. It is argued that Iran’s act of government was a failed project in terms of providing individuals’ freedom while it strengthened well-connected firms.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"83 - 109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41469716","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}
Pub Date : 2022-12-20DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2152603
Louise Boon-Kuo
ABSTRACT The mobile phone enables people to be heard through walls of confinement. During the suspension of visits to immigration detention in the COVID-19 pandemic, mobile phones were a lifeline to family and friends. There is also a long history of people using phones to document and communicate their experience in Australian-run detention to the world. The Australian government’s attempts to ban mobile phones in detention provide a lens, and in this paper, a case study, to explore whether immigration detention in Australia is becoming more like prison. I argue that while the official purpose for detention remains administrative not punitive, the proposed mobile phone bans reveal the changing function of detention in Australian border control. Mobile phone bans show how people in influential roles have reimagined the legal subject of detention from the ‘asylum seeker’ to the ‘migrant criminal’. Proposals to ban mobile phones also convey a transformation in how immigration detention is legally conceived – from a civil space under the supervision of police and the general criminal law to a more segregated space ruled from within. Drawing on scholarship on law, crimmigration, and carcerality, this paper traces how mobile phone bans came to be regarded as the natural next step in detention law-making.
{"title":"Do mobile phone bans show that immigration detention is becoming more like prison?","authors":"Louise Boon-Kuo","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2152603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2152603","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The mobile phone enables people to be heard through walls of confinement. During the suspension of visits to immigration detention in the COVID-19 pandemic, mobile phones were a lifeline to family and friends. There is also a long history of people using phones to document and communicate their experience in Australian-run detention to the world. The Australian government’s attempts to ban mobile phones in detention provide a lens, and in this paper, a case study, to explore whether immigration detention in Australia is becoming more like prison. I argue that while the official purpose for detention remains administrative not punitive, the proposed mobile phone bans reveal the changing function of detention in Australian border control. Mobile phone bans show how people in influential roles have reimagined the legal subject of detention from the ‘asylum seeker’ to the ‘migrant criminal’. Proposals to ban mobile phones also convey a transformation in how immigration detention is legally conceived – from a civil space under the supervision of police and the general criminal law to a more segregated space ruled from within. Drawing on scholarship on law, crimmigration, and carcerality, this paper traces how mobile phone bans came to be regarded as the natural next step in detention law-making.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"62 - 82"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43663131","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2138140
Corinne Tan
ABSTRACT The spread of disinformation in recent years has caused the international community concerns, particularly around its impact on electoral and public health outcomes. When one considers how disinformation can be contained, one often looks to new laws imposing more accountability on prominent social media platforms. While this narrative may be consistent with the fact that the problem of disinformation is exacerbated on social media platforms, it obscures the fact that individual users hold more power than is acknowledged and that shaping user norms should be accorded high priority in the fight against disinformation. In this article, I examine selected legislation implemented to regulate the spread of disinformation online. I also scrutinise two selected social media platforms – Twitter and Facebook – to anchor my discussion. In doing so, I consider what these platforms have done to self and co-regulate. Thereafter, I consider the limitations on regulation posed by certain behavioural norms of users. I argue that shaping user norms lie at the heart of the regulatory approaches discussed and is pivotal to regulating disinformation effectively.
{"title":"Regulating disinformation on Twitter and Facebook","authors":"Corinne Tan","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2138140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2138140","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The spread of disinformation in recent years has caused the international community concerns, particularly around its impact on electoral and public health outcomes. When one considers how disinformation can be contained, one often looks to new laws imposing more accountability on prominent social media platforms. While this narrative may be consistent with the fact that the problem of disinformation is exacerbated on social media platforms, it obscures the fact that individual users hold more power than is acknowledged and that shaping user norms should be accorded high priority in the fight against disinformation. In this article, I examine selected legislation implemented to regulate the spread of disinformation online. I also scrutinise two selected social media platforms – Twitter and Facebook – to anchor my discussion. In doing so, I consider what these platforms have done to self and co-regulate. Thereafter, I consider the limitations on regulation posed by certain behavioural norms of users. I argue that shaping user norms lie at the heart of the regulatory approaches discussed and is pivotal to regulating disinformation effectively.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"513 - 536"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46147791","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2022.2109326
Lauren Paynter, Yee-Fui Ng
ABSTRACT The Australian system of government was founded on the Westminster tradition, which relies on the binary relationship between Ministers and the Australian Public Service (APS). However, the increasing number of ministerial advisers over the past 40 years has changed the balance of power in the Australian executive. While public servants are able to work in a Minister's office, this article considers whether the movement of public servants between the public service and ministerial offices has the effect of politicising the role of the APS. Based on 22 interviews with current and former Commonwealth Ministers, public servants and ministerial advisers, the authors argue that public servants gaining experience in ministerial offices is beneficial to both the APS and the Minister's office. This is because public servants are exposed to the political side of government which helps improve the output of the department, while the Minister's office gains technical expertise. Despite these benefits, there appears to be fewer public servants working in ministerial offices over recent years. This article considers the benefits of public servants working in a ministerial office, why the movement has reduced, and explores ways in which this can be changed to support the executive governance of Australia.
{"title":"A positive partnership: public servants in ministerial offices","authors":"Lauren Paynter, Yee-Fui Ng","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2109326","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2109326","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Australian system of government was founded on the Westminster tradition, which relies on the binary relationship between Ministers and the Australian Public Service (APS). However, the increasing number of ministerial advisers over the past 40 years has changed the balance of power in the Australian executive. While public servants are able to work in a Minister's office, this article considers whether the movement of public servants between the public service and ministerial offices has the effect of politicising the role of the APS. Based on 22 interviews with current and former Commonwealth Ministers, public servants and ministerial advisers, the authors argue that public servants gaining experience in ministerial offices is beneficial to both the APS and the Minister's office. This is because public servants are exposed to the political side of government which helps improve the output of the department, while the Minister's office gains technical expertise. Despite these benefits, there appears to be fewer public servants working in ministerial offices over recent years. This article considers the benefits of public servants working in a ministerial office, why the movement has reduced, and explores ways in which this can be changed to support the executive governance of Australia.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"537 - 559"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43203951","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：