Year by eventful year, a century has passed since the birth of Edward Aloysius McTiernan on 16 February 1892 at Glen Innes, New South Wales. The second of two children of Patrick McTiernan, police constable, and Isabella McTiernan (nee Diamond) came into a world on the brink of great political and legal changes. His life virtually spanned the whole history to date of the Commonwealth of Australia. It saw mighty wars, great scientific and social changes and the apogee and fall of the British Empire. Instructive it is to reflect upon the world he entered and the controversies which were agitating Australia and the mother country at a time young Edward was born.

A year before his birth, an event was to take place which affected the course of his life. In 1890, provision was first made for the payment of members of Parliament elected at the next general election in the colony of New South Wales.

Rhetorically and ideologically, the nineteen eighties has been a decade in which the individual has held centre stage. From American Express advertisements to the assumptions of neo-classical economists (and back again), Western society is imagined to be, and justified as, a society of autonomous self regarding individuals. Yet for all that, we remain a society of institutions. We live our lives largely in (and, to a significant extent, through) the institutions where we grow up, work, play and procreate. Institutions dominate virtually every area of social life and simultaneously sustain and infuriate us by providing the best and the worst experiences of our daily lives. We seem to be forever complaining about them and often seek to change or supplant them. But few believe that we should, or even could, do away with them and recreate a society of free willing individuals without institutional links and ties. Those who want to get rid of the family generally want more egalitarian and supportive structures.

Although some fifteen years have passed since Australia ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and so incurred an obligation to respect, protect, promote and ensure each individual's “right to adequate housing”, in Australia the right remains little more than a rhetorical tool used by welfare activists. Despite the increased political and legal profIle of human rights in Australia with the establishment of such bodies as the Commonwealth's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), the “right to .adequate housing”, like many other economic rights, has been largely ignored. In an attempt to highlight the gap between Australia's international commibnent and its domestic response, the first part of this paper examines the Eontent and implications of the right to adequate housing and Australia's obligation under Article 11 of the ICESCR. The second part focuses on the Federal Goyernment's response, discussing in particular the absence of any legal provision· for the right's protection and the lack of comprehensive administrative policies aimed at the right's progressive realisation. For the purposes of this latter discussion, a case study of federal policies concerning the homeless, a group most apparently lacking in “adequate housing”, demonstrates the extent to which administrative policies continue to embrace notions of “worthiness” rather than “universal dignity”, making realisation of a “right to adequate housing” impossible.

I have had an interest in inquisitorial procedures and a lack of conviction to the often claimed superiority of adversarial procedures as long as I have have any interest in the law. Until recently however I found it difficult to engage other Australian lawyers in discussions which questioned whether the adversarias system is necessarily the best. It seems that my experience reflected the strength of the “Anglo-American legal culture”.

The decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v Glasscock demonstrates both th traditional view that a trial should be adversarial and a more open approach to the question. One submission of counsel for the appellant was that the trial hal miscarried because of the extent of judicial intervention, which was summed u by saying that the adversarial basis of the trial had been lost as a result of the judge's intervention.

The crucial problem arises when we ask, not what role mediation should play: in creating law, but how far and in what respects should it enter into the administration of laws.

Leon Fuller, Carter Professional General Jurisprudence, Harvard University.

Over the next generation, I predict that society's greatest opportunities will live in tapping human inclinations towards collaboration and compromise rather tha stirring our proclivities for competition and rivalry.

Dr Derek Bok, President, Harvart University, 1982 Cardozo Lecture.

Three very different books published in close succession combine to highlight and dramatise the unresolved issues presented by the need that all governments feel to engage in security and intelligence activities within with an borders.

For most of the twentieth century, this Earth has been the arena for a titanic infrontation between democracy and tyranny, between free debate and the great, between the rule of law and the tendency of people to disappear from the feets. The votaries of democracy, freedom and the rule of law have not always been possessed of absolute virtue and have at times been forced, or have chosen, adopt some of the methods of their adversaries. One of these is the practice of ercising surveillance over persons or activities that are judged to constitute a reat to national security. These threats are normally classified in three legories: terrorism, espionage and subversion.