882 resultados para Queensland Criminal Code
Resumo:
This report is the culmination of a two-stage research project to inform the Australian property and construction industry generally, in addition to providing the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) with information to allow it to determine whether or not sustainability requirements are necessary in the Future Building Code of Australia (BCA21). The Australian Building Codes Board is a joint initiative of all levels of government in Australia. The Board’s mission is to provide for efficiency and cost effectiveness in meeting community expectations for health, safety and amenity in the design, construction and use of buildings through the creation of nationally consistent building codes, standards, regulatory requirements and regulatory systems. The Stage 1 (literature review) and Stage 2 (workshops) reports are intended to be read in conjunction with one another. These reports and the Database are provided as appendices. The Conclusions of this, the final report, are the result of the overall program of work.
Resumo:
Most buildings constructed in Australia must comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). Checking for compliance against the BCA is a major task for both designers and building surveyors. This project carries out a prototype research using the EDM Model Checker and the SMC Model Checker for automated design checking against the Building Codes of Australia for use in professional practice. In this project, we develop a means of encoding design requirements and domain specific knowledge for building codes and investigate the flexibility of building models to contain design information. After assessing two implementations of EDM and SMC that check compliance against deemed-to-satisfy provision of building codes relevant to access by people with disabilities, an approach to automated code checking using a shared object-oriented database is established. This project can be applied in other potential areas – including checking a building design for non-compliance of many types of design requirements. Recommendations for future development and use in other potential areas in construction industries are discussed
Resumo:
The Australian construction industry is moving towards the implementation of a voluntary code of practice (VCP) for occupational health and safety (OHS). The evidence suggests that highly-visible clients and project management firms, in addition to their subcontractors, will embrace such a code, while smaller firms not operating in high-profile contracting regimes may prove reticent. This paper incorporates qualitative data from a research project commissioned by Engineers Australia and supported by the Australian Contractors’ Association, Property Council of Australia, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Association of Consulting Engineers Australia, Australian Procurement and Construction Council, Master Builders Australia and the Australian CRC for Construction Innovation. The paper aims to understand the factors that facilitate or prevent the uptake of the proposed VCP by smaller firms, together with pathways to adoption.
Resumo:
The Australian construction industry, reflecting a global trend, is moving towards the implementation of a voluntary code of practice (hereafter VCP) for occupational health and safety. The evidence suggests that highlyvisible clients and project management firms, in addition to their subcontractors, look set to embrace such a code. However, smaller firms not operating in high-profile contracting regimes may prove reticent to adopt a VCP. This paper incorporates qualitative data from a high-profile research project commissioned by Engineers Australia and supported by the Australian Contractors’ Association, Property Council of Australia, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Association of Consulting Engineers Australia, Australian Procurement and Construction Council, Master Builders Australia and the Australian CRC for Construction Innovation. The paper aims to understand the factors that facilitate or prevent the uptake of the VCP by smaller firms, together with pathways to the adoption of a VCP by industry.
Resumo:
The majority of Australian construction firms are small businesses, with 97% of general construction businesses employing less than 20 employees and 85% employing less than five employees (Lin and Mills, 2001; Lingard and Holmes, 2001). The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ definition of a small to medium enterprise was used for the purpose of this study (McLennan, 2000). This included small business employing less than twenty people and medium business employing less than 200 people. Although small to medium enterprises (SME) make up the major share of construction organisations in Australia, there is a paucity of published research in relation to occupational health and safety (OHS) issues for this group. Typically, SME organisations “are frequently undercapitalized and depend on continuous cash flow for their continued business” (Cole, 2003; 12). Research by Lin and Mills (2001) indicates that these factors influence the smaller operators’ ability and motivation to achieve high levels of OHS compared to larger firms which tend to integrate OHS into their management systems. According to Lin and Mills (2001; 137) small firms “do not feel the need to focus on OHS in their management systems, instead they often believe that the control of risk is the responsibility of employees”. This report documents findings from a qualitative research study that examined SME organisations’ views of a newly developed voluntary code of practice (VCOP), and ways in which they might implement the code in their businesses. The research also explored respondents’ awareness of current safety issues in industry in the context of their personal experiences.
Resumo:
In Australia, between 1994 and 2000, 50 construction workers were killed each year as a result of their work, the industry fatality rate, at 10.4 per 100,000 persons, is similar to the national road toll fatality rate and the rate of serious injury is 50% higher than the all industries average. This poor performance represents a significant threat to the industry’s social sustainability. Despite the best efforts of regulators and policy makers at both State and Federal levels, the incidence of death, injury and illness in the Australian construction industry has remained intransigently high, prompting an industry-led initiative to improve the occupational health and safety (OHS) performance of the Australian construction industry. The ‘Safer Construction’ project involves the development of an evidence-based Voluntary Code of Practice for OHS in the industry.
Resumo:
Most buildings constructed in Australia must comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). Checking for compliance against the BCA is a major task for both designers and building surveyors. This project carries out a prototype research using the EDM Model Checker and the SMC Model Checker for automated design checking against the Building Codes of Australia for use in professional practice. In this project, we develop a means of encoding design requirements and domain specific knowledge for building codes and investigate the flexibility of building models to contain design information. After assessing two implementations of EDM and SMC that check compliance against deemed-to-satisfy provision of building codes relevant to access by people with disabilities, an approach to automated code checking using a shared object-oriented database is established. This project can be applied in other potential areas – including checking a building design for non-compliance of many types of design requirements. Recommendations for future development and use in other potential areas in construction industries are discussed.
Resumo:
This was a two-stage project to inform the Australian property and construction industry generally, and to provide the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) with information to allow it to determine whether or not sustainability requirements are necessary in the Future Building Code of Australia (BCA21). Research objectives included: examine overseas sustainability requirements for buildings and outline the reason why it is controlled and regulated in the particular country, state, principality etc. examine studies focusing on sustainability developments in buildings in Australia and overseas identify potential issues and implications associated with sustainable building requirements provide advice on whether provisions are necessary in the BCA21 to make buildings sustainable if the study determines there is a need for sustainability requirements in the BCA21, the study was to demonstrate the need to control and regulate along with the method to control and regulate. This research was broken down into two stages. Stage 1 was a literature review of international requirements as well as current thinking and practice for sustainable building developments. Stage 2 identified issues and implications of sustainability requirements for buildings and advice on whether provisions are necessary in the BCA21. This stage included workshops in all capital cities and involved key stakeholders, such as regulators, local government and representatives from key associations. This final report brings together the work of both stages, along with a searchable internet database of references and a series of nine key recommendations.
Resumo:
The recent Supreme Court decision of Queensland v B [2008] 2 Qd R 562 has significant implications for the law that governs consent and abortions. The judgment purports to extend the ratio of Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services (NT) v JWB and SMB (1991) 175 CLR 218 (Marion’s Case) and impose a requirement of court approval for terminations of pregnancy for minors who are not Gillick-competent. This article argues against the imposition of this requirement on the ground that such an approach is an unjustifiable extension of the reasoning in Marion’s Case. The decision, which is the first judicial consideration in Queensland of the position of medical terminations, also reveals systemic problems with the criminal law in that State. In concluding that the traditional legal excuse for abortions will not apply to those which are performed medically, Queensland v B provides further support for calls to reform this area of law.
Resumo:
Queensland’s legal labour disputes history does not exhibit the current trend seen in Canada and Switzerland (Gravel & Delpech, 2008) where cases citing International Labour Standards (ILS) are often successful (which is not presently the case in Queensland either). The two Queensland cases (Kuhler v. Inghams Enterprises P/L & Anor, 1997 and Bale v. Seltsam Pty Ltd, 1996) that have used ILSs were lost. Australia is a member state of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and a signatory of many ILSs. Yet, ILSs are not used in their legal capacity when compared to other international standards in other areas of law. It is important to recognize that ILSs are uniquely underutilized in labour law. Australian environmental, criminal, and industrial disputes consistently draw on international standards. Why not for the plight of workers? ILSs draw their power from supranational influence in that when a case cites an ILS the barrister or solicitor is going beyond legal precedence and into international peer pressure. An ILS can be appropriately used to highlight that Australian or Queensland legislation does not conform to a Convention or Recommendation. However, should the case deal with a breach of existing law based or modified by an ILS, citing the ILS is a good way to remind the court of its origin. It’s a new legal paradigm critically lacking in Queensland’s labour law practice. The following discusses the research methodology used in this paper. It is followed by a comparative discussion of results between the prevalence of ILSs and other international standards in Queensland case history. Finally, evidence showing the international trend of labour disputes using ILSs for victory is discussed.
Resumo:
Due to their similar colonial histories and common law heritage, Australia and Canada provide an ideal comparative context for examining legislation reflecting new directions in the field of juvenile justice. Toward this end, this article compares the revised juvenile justice legislation which came into force in Queensland and Canada in 2003 (Canada, Youth Criminal Justice Act, enacted on 19 February 2002 and proclaimed in force 1 April 2003; Queensland, Juvenile Justice Act, amended 2003). There are a series of questions that could be addressed including: How similar and how sweeping have been the legislative changes introduced in each jurisdiction?; What are likely to be some of the effects of the implementation of these new legislative regimes?; and, how well does the legislation enacted in either jurisdiction address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children who have been caught up in juvenile justice systems? This article addresses mainly the first of these questions, offering a systematic comparison of recent Queensland and Canadian legislative changes. Although, due to the recentness of these changes, there is no data available to assess long-term effects, anecdotal evidence and preliminary research findings from our comparative study are offered to provide a start at answering the second question. We also offer critical yet sympathetic comments on the ability of legislation to address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children caught up in juvenile justice systems. Specifically, we conclude that while more than simple legislative responses are required to address the difficulties faced by youth offenders, and especially overrepresented Indigenous young offenders, the amended Queensland and new Canadian legislation appear to provide some needed reforms that can be used to help address some of these fundamental difficulties.
Resumo:
This submission has been prepared on behalf of Australian consumer advocates by Nicola Howell, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology (‘the researcher’), under a consultancy arrangement with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The researcher has been engaged by ASIC to consult with consumer advocates across Australia in order to prepare a detailed consumer submission to the Review of the Code of Banking Practice and the Review Issues Paper.