Living Under Aboriginal Exemption: Negotiating State Governments' Policies and Practices

This volume of the Australian Journal of Politics and History presents an edited collection of papers delivered by emerging and established researchers at the Second Rethinking & Researching 20th Century Aboriginal Exemption Symposium, co-hosted by the University of the Sunshine Coast with La Trobe University in October 2021. The papers reveal the human costs, hardships and legacies of the state policies of Aboriginal Exemption last century which supposedly offered the promise of freedom to Indigenous Australians confined to reserves and missions. Equally, the papers explore innovative and culturally safe ways to investigate and further understand Aboriginal exemption that ensure Ancestors and Elders, who actively negotiated, resisted and subverted its use, are recognised and honoured.     

The Impact of Parties and Elections on Municipal Debt Policy in Mexico

Opportunistic electoral fiscal policy cycle theory suggests that all subnational officials will raise fiscal spending during elections. Ideological partisan fiscal policy cycle theory suggests that only left‐leaning governments will raise election year fiscal spending, with right‐leaning parties choosing the reverse. This article assesses which of these competing logics applies to debt policy choices. Cross‐sectional time‐series analysis of yearly loan acquisition across Mexican municipalities—on statistically matched municipal subsamples to balance creditworthiness across left‐ and right‐leaning governments—shows that all parties engage in electoral policy cycles but not in the way originally thought. It also shows that different parties favored different types of loans, although not always according to partisan predictions. Both electoral and partisan logics thus shape debt policy decisions—in contrast to fiscal policy where these logics are mutually exclusive—because debt policy involves decisions on multiple dimensions, about the total and type of loans.     

Feminist cautions about casuistry: The Supreme Court's abortion decisions as paradigms

This article explores recent efforts to resurrect casuistry as an effective means for resolving public policy debates on difficult issues such as abortion. The essay begins by comparing casuistical and legal methods of decision-making and goes on to consider the possible benefits of a casuistical approach to abortion policy. On the basis of a detailed examination ofRoe v. Wade andPlanned Parenthood v. Casey, I argue that apparent similarities between feminist methodologies and casuistry do not render casuistry an approach to moral reasoning compatible with feminist concerns for improving women's lives in relation to abortion decisions.     

Family, Social Inequalities, and the Persuasive Force of Interpersonal Obligation

To date, the privatization of the costs of social inequalitiesfor women and children has been criticized predominantly froma policy perspective. This article seeks to make a strongercase against remedying social inequalities through private lawobligations by addressing the theoretical difficulties withsuch privatization with a particular focus on familial obligations.I take my core examples from the current Canadian understandingof the spousal and child support obligations. My analysis proposes and proceeds on the basis of a new discoursefor obligations traditionally grouped together as "Family Law"obligations: first, interpersonal obligations, which arise fromand tie together two citizens through either a single interactionor through their relationship as a whole; second, social obligations,which are owed by the community as a whole to individual citizens. I argue that the persuasive force of the focus on an individual'sresponsibility for another's financial need has obscured thereality of the state's obligation, the broader social obligation,to respond to this need. I conclude with a discussion of theconsequences of my analysis for the future of the spousal andchild support obligations. If we deny an expanded role to thesesupport obligations, can we do so in a way that avoids leavingthe impoverished in an even more precarious position?     

Social justice in the modern regulatory state: duress,necessity and the consensual model in law

This paper examines the role of the consensual model in law and argues that if substantive justice is to be the goal of law, the use of individual choice as a legal criterion for distributive and retributive purposes must be curtailed and made subject to substantive considerations. Substantive justice arguably requires that human rights to life, well-being, and the commodities essential to life and well-being, be given priority whenever a societal decision is made. If substantive justice is a collective societal responsibility, the individual cannot be justly rewarded or punished for his or her choices with respect to life, well-being and essential commodities insofar as these choices are justified or excused by standards of substantive justice. Societal conditions and institutional arrangements should be recognized as grounds for justification and excuse because they may impose limits and constraints on the choices available to an individual that are as unavoidable and compelling as those imposed by chance or by another human being.     

Do Citizens really care about federalism? public preferences for the administration of governmental programs

In this paper we present a secondary analysis of a survey of Alabama residents. The focus of that survey was individual attitudes toward a variety of policy areas, five of which could reasonably be administered at either the state or national level. Rather than simply asking what level of government should have responsibility, we asked respondents to construct national and state budgets which might, or might not, include appropriations for these and other policy areas. In general, individuals allocated funds to each policy area at both the state and national level. This means either that most citizens favor cooperative federalism, or more likely, people are primarily interested in seeing that certain programs are funded and do not much care what level of government administers a policy area. This latter interpretation is supported by the fact that no theory taken from the current fed-eralism literature is able to explain individual attitudes toward federalism as measured by these budget allocations. Most people simply do not have very strong feelings about which level of government should be responsible for any given program.