Long day incoming today, but it's absolutely going to be the highlight of my week: spending the day discussing 14 in-progress papers from my grad seminar. Some really, really interesting stuff to talk about!

Kicking us off, Prakriti on remedying miscarriages of justice in India.

Arguing for a criminal cases review commission in India.

Tamsin next on the usage of government-initiated referendums in NZ.

(What do they do? Why use them? Do they work? (and what does 'binding' mean?))

Now Ella on rights limitation and the role of consent in justifying rights limitations with covid-19 tracing technology as a case study.

And finishing us off before morning tea, Charlie on substantive judicial accountability in NZ.

(If they're lawmakers, which pretty much everyone accepts now, why do normal questions of accountability that we apply to parliament and the exec not apply to them?)

Back after the break with Aidan on same-sex marriage reform and questions of procedural legitimacy.

Now Marko on the obligation to obtain community views and the nature of local government.

(and how courts get involved)

Next up Wiliame on the potential for using the concept of the honour of the Crown (most well-developed in Canada) as a mechanism for enforcing Crown obligations to Māori in NZ.

And last up before lunch Honor on the function of inquiries, calling into question their substantive value as public accountability mechanisms.

Picking back up with Rosa on the OIA, accountability for non-compliance, and the role (and limits) of law in securing accountability.

Next up Ana on the vexed task of reconciling the demands of accountability with the existence of privative clauses.

And Miranda taking us into the afternoon tea break with a discussion on the legislative response to emergencies - especially Covid-19 - and questions of public accountability.

(do we give powers to officials or Ministers? Expertise or democratic responsibility?)

Our final block of papers starting with Leilani interrogating universities: whose conscience and what critique?