Reparations for Indigenous People: International and Comparative Perspectives

Published in concomitance with the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this volume brings together a group of renowned legal experts and activists from different parts of the world who, from international and comparative perspectives, investigate the right of indigenous peoples to reparation for breaches of their individual and collective rights. The first part of the book is devoted to general aspects of this important matter, providing a comprehensive assessment of the relevant international legal framework and including overviews of the topic of reparations for human rights violations, the status of indigenous peoples in international law, and the vision of reparations as conceived by the communities concerned. The second part embraces a comprehensive investigation of the relevant practice at the international, regional, and national level, examining the best practices of reparations according to the ideologies and expectations of indigenous peoples and offering a comparative perspective on the ways in which the right of these peoples to redress for the injuries suffered is realized worldwide. The global picture painted by these contributions provides a view of the status of relevant international law that is synthesized in the two final chapters of the book, which include a concrete example of how a judicial claim for reparation is to be structured and prescribes the best practices and strategies to be adopted in order to maximize the opportunities for indigenous peoples to obtain effective redress. As a whole, this volume offers a comprehensive vision of its subject matter in international and comparative law, with a practical approach aimed at supporting legal academics, administrators, and practitioners in improving the avenues and modalities of reparations for indigenous peoples

The landlord's duty and unsafe premises

Case note on Sheehy v Hobbs [2012]. It is well established that a landlord owes a tenant a duty of care to “take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to their prospective tenants and members of their household”.1 What often arises is the question of how far the scope of that duty extends. In Sheehy v Hobbs [2012] QSC 333 the plaintiff was injured when she fell down a flight of internal stairs of the townhouse she leased from the defendants. The plaintiff claimed damages for a breach of duty owed to her in negligence, and also alleged breaches of the duties owed to her pursuant to s 103 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 (Qld) and her tenancy agreement.

The OHS regulatory challenges posed by agency workers: evidence from Australia

The purpose of this research is to analyse the problems for occupational health and safety (OHS)regulators posed by agency work/leased labour (also known as labour hire in Australasia), using Australian evidence. The analysis is based on an examination of prosecutions involving labour hire firms along with other documentary records (union, industry and government reports and guidance material). The study also draws on interviews with approximately 200 regulatory officials, employers and union representatives since 2001 and workplace visits with 40 OHS inspectors in 2004‐2005.The triangular relationship entailed in labour leasing, in combination with the temporary nature of most placements, poses serious problems for government agencies in terms of enforcing OHS standards notwithstanding a growing number of successful prosecutions for breaches of legislative duties by host and labour leasing firms. Research to investigate these issues in other countries and compare findings with those for Australia is required, along with assessing the effectiveness of new enforcement initiatives. The paper assesses existing regulatory responses and highlights the need for new regulatory strategies to combat the problems posed by labour. The OHS problems posed by agency work have received comparatively little attention. The paper provides insights into the specific problems posed for OHS regulators and how inspectorates are trying to address them.

Kumarina and bidders voting in transfer schemes

Transfer schemes are an alternative means of acquiring control of a company to making a takeover bid under the provisions in Ch 6 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The recent decision Re Kumarina Resources Ltd [2013] FCA 549 overturned long-standing practice in relation to a certain type of transfer scheme. If followed, the decision would allow a “bidder” to vote at scheme meetings where the scheme consideration for the acquisition of the target shares are shares in another company, and the scheme results in a merger. But the bidder is not allowed to vote where the scheme consideration is cash. The article points out the difficulties arising from this decision and argues that it should not be followed. In providing a “no objection” statement, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has created uncertainty as to the approach it will take towards the bidders being allowed to vote at scheme meetings where the scheme consideration for the acquisition of target shares are shares in another company. The article also points out that in providing the no objection statement in Kumarina, ASIC appears to have ignored breaches of s 606(1) of the Corporations Act. There is a pressing need for ASIC to clarify its position and, in particular, whether or not it will provide a no objection statement in respect of future transfer schemes where a bidder (or its parent company) votes at the scheme meeting.

Habitus realisation: Negotiating identities through Chinese looks and Chinese language

The increasing linguistic and cultural diversity of our contemporary world points to the salience of maintaining and developing Heritage Language of ethnic minority groups. The mutually constitutive effect between Heritage Language learning and ethnic identity construction has been well documented in the literature. Classical social psychological work often quantitatively structures this phenomenon in a predictable linear relationship. In contrast, poststructural scholarship draws on qualitative approaches to claim the malleable and multiple dynamics behind the phenomenon. The two schools oppose but complement each other. Nevertheless, both schools struggle to capture the detailed and nuanced construction of ethnic identity through Heritage Language learning. Different from the extant research, we make an attempt to ethno-methodologically unearth the nuisances and predicaments embedded in the reflexive, subtle, and multi-layered identity constructions through nuanced, inter-nested language practices. Drawing on data from the qualitative phase of a large project, we highlight some small but powerful moments abstracted from the interview accounts of five Chinese Australian young people. Firstly, we zoom in on the life politics behind the ‘seen but unnoticed’ stereotype that looking Chinese means being able to speak Chinese. Secondly, we speculate the power relations between the speaker and the listener through the momentary and inadvertent breaches of the taken-for-granted stereotype. Next, we unveil how learning Chinese has become an accountably rational priority for these young Chinese Australians. Finally, we argue that the normalised stereotype becomes visible and hence stable when it is breached – a practical accomplishment that we term ‘habitus realisation’.

Legal Issues Relating to the Notification of Australian Data Breaches

Advances in information and communications technologies during the last two decades have allowed organisations to capture and utilise data on a vast scale, thus heightening the importance of adequate measures for protecting unauthorised disclosure of personal information. In this respect, data breach notification has emerged as an issue of increasing importance throughout the world. It has been the subject of law reform in the United States and in other international jurisdictions. Following the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of privacy, data breach notification will soon be addressed in Australia. This article provides a review of US and Australian legal initiatives regarding the notification of data breaches. The authors highlight areas of concern based on the extant US literature that require specific consideration in Australia regarding the development of an Australian legal framework for the notification of data breaches.

Stakeholder perspectives regarding the mandatory notification of Australian data breaches

The advent of data breach notification laws in the United States (US) has unearthed a significant problem involving the mismanagement of personal information by a range of public and private sector organisations. At present, there is currently no statutory obligation under Australian law requiring public or private sector organisations to report a data breach of personal information to law enforcement agencies or affected persons. However, following a comprehensive review of Australian privacy law, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has recommended the introduction of a mandatory data breach notification scheme. The issue of data breach notification has ignited fierce debate amongst stakeholders, especially larger private sector entities. The purpose of this article is to document the perspectives of key industry and government representatives to identify their standpoints regarding an appropriate regulatory approach to data breach notification in Australia.

The mandatory notification of data breaches : issues arising for Australian and EU legal developments

Public and private sector organisations are now able to capture and utilise data on a vast scale, thus heightening the importance of adequate measures for protecting unauthorised disclosure of personal information. In this respect, data breach notification has emerged as an issue of increasing importance throughout the world. It has been the subject of law reform in the United States and in other jurisdictions. This article reviews US, Australian and EU legal developments regarding the mandatory notification of data breaches. The authors highlight areas of concern based on the extant US experience that require further consideration in Australia and in the EU.

Notification of data breaches under the continuous disclosure regime

Consumer personal information is now a valuable commodity for most corporations. Concomitant with increased value is the expansion of new legal obligations to protect personal information. Mandatory data breach notification laws are an important new development in this regard. Such laws require a corporation that has suffered a data breach, which involves personal information, such as a computer hacking incident, to notify those persons who may have been affected by the breach. Regulators may also need to be notified. Australia currently does not have a mandatory data breach notification law but this may be about to change. The Australian Law Reform Commission has suggested that a data breach notification scheme be implemented through the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). However, the notification of data breaches may already be required under the continuous disclosure regime stipulated by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) Listing Rules. Accordingly, this article examines whether the notification of data breaches is a statutory requirement of the existing continuous disclosure regime and whether the ASX should therefore be notified of such incidents.

Assignment of reversion on put option contained in a lease : what is the effect?

Justice Mullins of the Queensland Supreme Court recently considered the status of a put option contained in a registered lease in circumstances where there was an assignment of the reversion. The matter arose for determination in Denham Bros Ltd v W Freestone Leasing Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 307. The decision is of interest as a lease containing a put option, exercisable by a landlord, is perhaps less commonly encountered than a lease containing a call option, exercisable by a tenant.

Exploring the re-criminalising of OHS breaches in the context of industrial death

Since the 1980s the calls for further criminalisation of organisational conduct causing harm to workers, the public and the environment have intensified in Australia, Canada and England and Wales.' One focal point of this movement has been the criminal law's response to organisations (and their personnel) failing to comply with occupational health and safety ('OHS') standards, particularly when physical harm (death and serious injury) has resulted from those breaches. Some governments have responded with proposals to enable manslaughter prosecutions to be initiated 'more effectively' against organisations causing the deaths of workers or, in some cases, members of the public (Archibald et al, 2004; Haines and Hall, 2004; Hall et al, 2004; Tombs and Whyte, 2003). In Australia governments have also increased monetary penalties for regulatory OHS offences, a few have introduced other contemporary organisational sanctions, and some have initiated OHS prosecutions more vigorously and with larger fines.

Statutory protections from forfeiture of a leasehold estate following Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd

In Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd the Victorian Court of Appeal decided that termination of a lease under common law contractual principles following repudiation is an alternative to reliance upon an express forfeiture provision in the lease and that it is outside the sphere of statutory protections given against the enforcing of a forfeiture. The balance of authority supports the first aspect of the decision. This article focuses on the second aspect of it, which is a significant development in the law of leases. The article considers the implications of this decision for essential terms of clauses in leases, argues that common law termination for breach of essential terms should be subject to compliance with these statutory requirements and, as an alternative, suggests a way forward through appropriate law reform, considering whether the recent Victorian reform goes far enough.

The implication of a term of good faith in commercial leases

Much has been written in the past decade on the subject of the implication of a term of good faith in contracts in Australia, particularly since the judgment Priestley JA in Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234. Except for an early article by Rachael Mulheron, 'Good Faith and Commercial Leases: New Opportunities for the Tenant' (1996) 4 APLJ 223, very little else has been written with respect to the possible application of the doctrine to the commercial leases.With the advent of two later New South Wales Supreme Court decisions Alcatel Australia Ltd v Scarcella (1998) 44 NSWLR 349 and, more recently, Advance Fitness v Bondi Diggers [1999] NSWSC 264, the question of the application of the doctrine in the commercial leasing context has been examined. This article briefly considers the nature and substance of the doctrine against the background of the relationship of lessor and lessee and examines in some depth the Australian decisions on commercial leases where it has been sought, unsuccessfully, to apply the doctrine. The article concludes by suggesting that as a standard commercial lease usually covers the field of agreement between lessor and lessee and as a lessee has a high degree of statutory protection derived from equitable principles, there may be little room for the operation of the doctrine in this legal environment.