Noticeboard
| Published date | 01 October 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712715599900 |
| Date | 01 October 2015 |
| Author | Jeremy Gans |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
Noticeboard
Jeremy Gans
Melbourne Law School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia
Law Reform and Source Material
Native title—Australia
Connection to Country: Review of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Australian Law Reform Commission,
Report No. 126, June 2015. Available at: http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/alrc126.
This report by Australia’s peak law reform agency reviews a statute regulating the law on native
(indigenous) land title. The review’s terms of reference include considering whether one require-
ment for current native title, the continuity of an indigenous group’s connection to their land,
should be presumed until disproven (as proposed in 2008 by a judge who later became Australia’s
current Chief Justice.) The Commission’s view is that difficulties of proof relating to connection
should be overcome by changing the substantive requirements for establishing a native title claim,
rather than by introducing a presumption. However, it recommends that the statute be amended to
‘provide guidance regarding when inferences may be drawn in the proof of native title rights and
interests’, including drawing such inferences from contemporary ev idence of traditional laws and
customs.
National security—New Zealand
National Security Information in Proceedings. Law Commission, Issues Paper 38, May 2015. Available
at: http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC-IP38-National-
Security-Information-in-Proceedings.pdf.
This issues paper for an inquiry by New Zealand’s law reform agency examines that nation’s laws for
Crown requestsfor protection from disclosureof evidence affecting national security,in particular whether
the law should be amendedto permit a decision maker to take accountof information that is not fullyavail-
able to a party or affected person. The paper reviews the relevanttypes of information at issue, the various
interests at stake and how they operate in criminal, administrative and civil proceedings.
In relation to criminal proceedings, the paper asks whether national security information should
be protected when used as grounds for a warrant; whether special advocates should play a role in
pre-trial disclosure proceedings; whether the national evidence statute and provisions on suppres-
sion orders are appropriate to deal with national security issues in criminal trials; and whether fur-
ther mechanisms are needed to deal with these issues. In relation to administrative proceedings, the
paper asks whether a single national security protection framework should be provided for all
administrative decisions and reviews; if so, what features should be provided for in such a
Corresponding author:
Jeremy Gans, Melbourne Law School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia.
Email: jeremy.gans@unimelb.edu.au
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2015, Vol. 19(4) 287–289
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1365712715599900
epj.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial