The provision of visitable housing in Australia: Down to the detail

In response to the ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), Australian housing industry leaders, supported by the Australian Government, committed to transform their practices voluntarily through the adoption of a national guideline, called Livable Housing Design. They set a target in 2010 that all new housing would be visitable by 2020. Research in this area suggests that the anticipated voluntary transformation is unrealistic and that mandatory regulation will be necessary for any lasting transformation to occur. It also suggests that the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement are unfounded. This paper reports on a study that problematised these assumptions. The study used eleven newly-constructed dwellings in three housing contexts in Brisbane, Australia. It sought to understand the logics-of-practice in providing, and not providing, visitable housing. By examining the specific details that make a dwelling visitable, and interpreting the accounts of builders, designers and developers, the study identified three logics-of-practice which challenged the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement: focus on the point of sale; an aversion to change and deference to external regulators on matters of social inclusion. These were evident in all housing contexts indicating a dominant industry culture regardless of housing context or policy intention. The paper suggests that financial incentives for both the builder and the buyer, demonstration by industry leaders and, ultimately, national regulation is a possible pathway for the Livable Housing Design agreement to reach the 2020 goal. The paper concludes that the Australian Government has three options: to ignore its obligations under the CRPD; to revisit the Livable Housing Design agreement in the hope that it works; or to regulate the housing industry through the National Construction Code to ensure the 2020 target is reached.

The High Court of Australia and the Marlboro Man: The Battle Over the Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products

In 2012, the High Court of Australia handed down a landmark decision on the plain packaging of tobacco products. This chapter considers the historic ruling in the case of JT International SA v Commonwealth; British American Tobacco Australasia Ltd v Commonwealth. This chapter explores several themes in the decision. First, it highlights the historical work by the High Court of Australia on the role of health regulation, the use of health warnings, and tobacco control. Second, the chapter considers the High Court of Australia's view that intellectual property law promotes the public interest.Third, it explores the High Court of Australia’s analysis of the constitutional law on acquisition of property on just terms. Finally, this chapter contends that the High Court of Australia's ruling on plain packaging of tobacco products will spark an 'Olive Revolution' — and will encourage superior courts and policy-makers to follow suit.

From Kafka to KAFTA: Intellectual property, and the Korea-Australia free trade agreement

This paper provides a critical examination of the intellectual property sections of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. Chapter 13 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 deals with the subject of intellectual property law. The Chapter covers such topics as the purposes and objectives of intellectual property law; copyright law; trade mark law; patent law; and intellectual property enforcement. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament highlighted the controversy surrounding this chapter of the agreement: The intellectual property rights chapter of KAFTA has drawn considerable attention from academics and stakeholders regarding the proposed need for changes to Australian intellectual property law and the inclusion of intellectual property in the definition of investment with regard to the investor-state dispute mechanism. Other concerns raised with the Committee include the prescriptive nature of the chapter, the lack of recognition of the broader public interests of intellectual property rights, and possible changes to fair use provisions. Article 13.1.1 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 provides that: ‘Each Party recognises the importance of adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights, while ensuring that measures to enforce those rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.’ This is an unsatisfactory description of the objectives and purposes of intellectual property law in both Australia and Korea. There is a failure to properly consider the range of public purposes served by intellectual property law – such as providing for access to knowledge, promoting competition and innovation, protecting consumer rights, and allowing for the protection of public health, food security, and the environment. Such a statement of principles and objectives detracts from the declaration in the TRIPS Agreement 1994 of the public interest objectives to be served by intellectual property. Chapter 11 of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014 is an investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement regime. This chapter is highly controversial – given the international debate over investor-state dispute settlement; the Australian context for the debate; and the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. In April 2014, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) released a report on Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. The overall figures are staggering. UNCTAD reports a significant growth in investment-state dispute settlement, across a wide array of different fields of public regulation. Given the broad definition of investment, intellectual property owners will be able to use the investor-state dispute settlement regime in the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2014. This will have significant implications for all the various disciplines of intellectual property – including copyright law, trade mark law, and patent law.

A fair use project for Australia: Copyright law and creative freedom

This essay provides a critical assessment of the Fair Use Project based at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. In evaluating the efficacy of the Fair Use Project, it is worthwhile considering the litigation that the group has been involved in, and evaluating its performance. Part 1 outlines the history of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, and the aims and objectives of the Fair Use Project. Part 2 considers the litigation in Shloss v. Sweeney over a biography concerning Lucia Joyce, the daughter of the avant-garde literary great, James Joyce. Part 3 examines the dispute over the Harry Potter Lexicon. Part 4 looks at the controversy over the Shepard Fairey poster of President Barack Obama, and the resulting debate with Associated Press. Part 5 of the essay considers the intervention of the Fair Use Project as an amicus curiae in the ‘Column case’. Part 6 explores the participation of the Fair Use Project as an amicus curiae in the litigation over 60 Years Later, an unauthorised literary sequel to J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. Part 7 of the essay investigates the role of the Fair Use project in disputes over copyright law and musical works. Part 8 investigates the role of the Fair Use Project as an advocate in disputes over copyright law, fair use, documentary films, and internet videos. The conclusion has main three arguments. First, it contends that Australia should establish a Fair Use Project to support creative artists in litigation over copyright exceptions. Second, it maintains that Australia should adopt a flexible, open-ended defence of fair use, and draw upon the rich jurisprudence in the United States on the fair use doctrine. Finally, this paper argues that support should be given at an international level to the proposal for a Treaty on Access to Knowledge.

Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020 Submission to the National Biodiversity Strategy Review Taskforce

This submission focuses on “Priority for Change 3: Knowledge for all” and “Priority for Change 5: Involving Indigenous Australians”. Our particular interest lies with ensuring that Indigenous knowledge holders are engaged with in a manner that recognises their prior rights over their own knowledge and intellectual property. As the Preamble of the recently endorsed United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states, we need to; “Recognis[e] that respect for Indigenous Knowledge, cultures and traditional practises contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment”.

Translating training in the NYU Caregiver Intervention in Australia: Maintaining fidelity and meeting graduate standards in an online continuing professional education setting

The aim of this study was to develop an Internet-based self-directed training program for Australian healthcare workers to facilitate learning and competence in delivery of a proven intervention for caregivers of people with dementia: The New York University Caregiver Intervention (NYUCI). The NYUCI is a nonpharmacological, multicomponent intervention for spousal caregivers. It is aimed at maintaining well-being by increasing social support and decreasing family discord, thereby delaying or avoiding nursing home placement of the person with dementia. Training in the NYUCI in the United States has, until now, been conducted in person to trainee practitioners. The Internet-based intervention was developed simultaneously for trainees in the U.S. and Australia. In Australia, due to population geography, community healthcare workers, who provide support to older adult caregivers of people with dementia, live and work in many regional and rural areas. Therefore, it was especially important to have online training available to make it possible to realize the health and economic benefits of using an existing evidence-based intervention. This study aimed to transfer knowledge of training in, and delivery of, the NYUCI for an Australian context and consumers. This article details the considerations given to contextual differences and to learners’ skillset differences in translating the NYUCI for Australia.

Moral rights and their application in Australia: a book review

In Moral Rights and Their Application in Australia, Maree Sainsbury offers a summary of the new moral rights regime established in Australia in 2000. It is a decent guide and handbook to moral rights for legal practitioners, the authors of copyright work, and the users of copyright material. As the author notes: "The Australian moral rights legislation impacts on the rights and obligations of many people in diverse circumstances, from the creator of a highly unique work of art to the designer of a web site incorporating factual information or graphics which someone else has created. Any person creating or dealing with copyright material should be aware of the moral rights implications. This book provides a detailed analysis of the moral rights legislation, while stressing the fundamental provisions. It also provides some useful practical guidance for those who are affected, both in general terms and with respect to the more specific situations outlined above." Maree Sainsbury provides an enjoyable account of the history and nature of moral rights. She charts the romantic, Continental origins of moral rights, and explains their translation to countries, such as Australia and the United States.

The fight for fair use in Australia: Copyright law in an age of cloud computing

Fair Use Week has celebrated the evolution and development of the defence of fair use under copyright law in the United States. As Krista Cox noted, ‘As a flexible doctrine, fair use can adapt to evolving technologies and new situations that may arise, and its long history demonstrates its importance in promoting access to information, future innovation, and creativity.’ While the defence of fair use has flourished in the United States, the adoption of the defence of fair use in other jurisdictions has often been stymied. Professor Peter Jaszi has reflected: ‘We can only wonder (with some bemusement) why some of our most important foreign competitors, like the European Union, haven’t figured out that fair use is, to a great extent, the “secret sauce” of U.S. cultural competitiveness.’ Jurisdictions such as Australia have been at a dismal disadvantage, because they lack the freedoms and flexibilities of the defence of fair use.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Copyright Law, the Creative Industries, and Internet Freedom

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a highly secretive trade agreement being negotiated between the US and eleven Pacific Rim countries, including Australia. Having obtained a fast-track authority from the United States Congress, US President Barack Obama is keen to finalise the deal. However, he was unable to achieve a resolution of the deal at recent talks in Hawaii on the TPP. A number of chapters of the TPP will affect the creative artists, cultural industries and internet freedom — including the intellectual property chapter, the investment chapter, and the electronic commerce chapter. Legacy copyright industries have pushed for longer and stronger copyright protection throughout the Pacific Rim. In the wake of the Hawaii talks, Knowledge Ecology International leaked the latest version of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP. Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International commented upon the leaked text about copyright law: ‘In many sections of the text, the TPP would change global norms, restrict access to knowledge, create significant financial risks for persons using and sharing information, and, in some cases, impose new costs on persons producing new knowledge goods.’ The recent leaked text reveals a philosophical debate about the nature of intellectual property law. There are mixed messages in respect of the treatment of the public domain under copyright law. In one part of the agreement on internet service providers, there is text that says that the parties recognise the need for ‘promoting innovation and creativity,’ ‘facilitating the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, culture, and the arts’, and ‘foster competition and open and efficient markets.’ A number of countries suggested ‘acknowledging the importance of the public domain.’ The United States and Japan opposed the recognition of the public domain in this text.

Giving in Australia: Philanthropic Potential Beginning To Be Realized

Australia in a sense has two histories: that of its indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on a traditional culture of mutual dependence and reciprocal altruism (Turner, 1981) and the other from its eighteenth century colonization as a British penal outpost. These colonial overtones have proved an abiding cultural force. A dominant government presence, British legal platform, and ongoing sense that ‘the government will provide’ remain today (Liffman, 2008; McDonald & Scaife, 2011).

Litigiousness in Australia: Lessons from comparative law

How litigious are Australians? Although quantitative studies have comprehensively debunked the fear of an Australian civil justice system in crisis, the literature has yet to address the qualitative public policy question of whether Australians are under- or over-using the legal system to resolve their disputes. On one view, expressed by the insurance industry, the mass media and prominent members of the judiciary, Australia is moving towards an American-style hyper-litigiousness. By contrast, Australian popular culture paints the typical Australian as culturally averse to formal rights assertion. This article explores the comparative law literature on litigiousness in two jurisdictions that have attracted significant scholarly attention — the United States and Japan. More specifically, it seeks to draw lessons from this literature for both understanding litigiousness in modern Australia and framing future research projects on the issue.

Differences in grass pollen allergen exposure across Australia

Objective Allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma are important chronic diseases posing serious public health issues in Australia with associated medical, economic, and societal burdens. Pollen are significant sources of clinically relevant outdoor aeroallergens, recognised as both a major trigger for, and cause of, allergic respiratory diseases. This study aimed to provide a national, and indeed international, perspective on the state of Australian pollen data using a large representative sample. Methods Atmospheric grass pollen concentration is examined over a number of years within the period 1995 to 2013 for Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, and Sydney, including determination of the clinical' grass pollen season and grass pollen peak. Results The results of this study describe, for the first time, a striking spatial and temporal variability in grass pollen seasons in Australia, with important implications for clinicians and public health professionals, and the Australian grass pollen-allergic community. Conclusions These results demonstrate that static pollen calendars are of limited utility and in some cases misleading. This study also highlights significant deficiencies and limitations in the existing Australian pollen monitoring and data. Implications: Establishment of an Australian national pollen monitoring network would help facilitate advances in the clinical and public health management of the millions of Australians with asthma and allergic rhinitis.

American lessons: Implementing fair use in Australia

This article discusses the recent Australian Law Reform Commission report proposing a fair use defense to copyright infringement in Australia. It examines the experience of fair use cases in the United States and draws three lessons from the jurisprudential history. First, it suggests that decisions in fair use can only really be understood within a theoretical framework, and that unless we import that framework into Australia any fair use defense will not work as expected. Secondly, the article argues that the area where fair use jurisprudence appears to be most helpful, in dealing with “transformative” works, is actually much more limited than outsiders to the US would expect. And finally, it suggests that any implementation of a factor related to market substitution should take account of the gaming of the system that has gone on in the US.

An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia

The need to develop An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia (the “APPF”) was identified during the 2010 review of the competency standards for Australian pharmacists. The Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework Steering Committee, a collaborative profession-wide committee comprised of representatives of ten pharmacy organisations, examined and adapted existing advanced practice frameworks, all of which were found to have been based on the Competency Development and Evaluation Group (CoDEG) Advanced and Consultant Level Framework (the “CoDEG Framework”) from the United Kingdom. Its competency standards were also found to align well with the Domains of the National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia (the “National Framework”). Adaptation of the CoDEG Framework created an APPF that is complementary to the National Framework, sufficiently flexible to customise for recognising advanced practice in any area of professional practice and has been approved by the boards/councils of all participating organisations. The primary purpose of the APPF is to assist the development of the profession to meet the changing health care needs of the community. However, it is also a valuable tool for assuring members of the public of the competence of an advanced practice pharmacist and the quality and safety of the services they deliver.

Concentrations of phthalates and DINCH metabolites in pooled urine from Queensland, Australia

Dialkyl phthalate esters (phthalates) are ubiquitous chemicals used extensively as plasticizers, solvents and adhesives in a range of industrial and consumer products. 1,2-Cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, diisononyl ester (DINCH) is a phthalate alternative introduced due to a more favourable toxicological profile, but exposure is largely uncharacterised. The aim of this study was to provide the first assessment of exposure to phthalates and DINCH in the general Australian population. De-identified urine specimens stratified by age and sex were obtained from a community-based pathology laboratory and pooled (n = 24 pools of 100). Concentrations of free and total species were measured using online solid phase extraction isotope dilution high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Concentrations ranged from 2.4 to 71.9 ng/mL for metabolites of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and from < 0.5 to 775 ng/mL for all other metabolites. Our data suggest that phthalate metabolites concentrations in Australia were at least two times higher than in the United States and Germany; and may be related to legislative differences among countries. DINCH metabolite concentrations were comparatively low and consistent with the limited data available. Ongoing biomonitoring among the general Australian population may help assess temporal trends in exposure and assess the effectiveness of actions aimed at reducing exposures.