Expert Opinion: Serious Concerns regarding Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Draft Policy 3.7 “Planning for Bushfire Risk Management” and associated Guidelines (May 2014)

10 page document containing expert assessment of shortcomings of Western Australian State Planning Policy SPP3.7- Planning for Bushfire Risk Management. Document produced on behalf of QUT and submitted to and published by the WAPC as part of their public consultation process for their draft policy.

Contextualising merit and integrity within human research

The first consideration of any Australian Human Research Ethics Committee should be to satisfy itself that the project before them is worth undertaking. If the project does not add to the body of knowledge, if it does not improve social welfare or individual wellbeing then the use of human participants, their tissue or their data must be questioned. Sometimes, however, committees are criticised for appearing to adopt the role of scientific review committees. The intent of this paper is to provide researchers with an understanding of the ethical importance of demonstrating the merit of their research project and to help them develop protocols that show ethics committees that adequate attention has been paid to this central tenet in dealing ethically with human research participants. Any person proposing human research must be prepared to show that it is worthwhile. This paper will clarify the relationship between research merit and integrity, research ethics and the responsibilities of human research ethics committees.

Is Merit on the Agenda? Approaches to Recruitment and Promotion in Australian Organisations

Employment on the basis of merit is the foundation of Australia’s equal opportunity legislation, beginning with the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, and continuing through the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, all of which require organisations with more than 100 employees to produce an organisational program promoting employment equity for women (WGEA 2014a; Strachan, Burgess & Henderson 2007). The issue of merit was seen as critically important to the objectives of the original 1986 Act and the Affirmative Action Agency produced two monographs in 1988 written by Clare Burton: Redefining Merit (Burton 1988a) and Gender Bias in Job Evaluation (Burton 1988b) which provided practical advice. Added to this, in 1987 the Australian Government Publishing Service published Women’s Worth: Pay Equity and Job Evaluation in Australia (Burton, Hag & Thompson 1987). The equity programs set up under the 1986 legislation aimed to ‘eliminate discriminatory employment practices and to promote equal employment opportunities for women’ and this was ‘usually understood to mean that the merit principle forms the basis of appointment to positions and for promotion’ (Burton 1988a, p. 1).

Submission to the Productivity Commission issues paper business set-Up, transfer and closure

The Commission has been asked to identify appropriate options for reducing entry and exit barriers including advice on the potential impacts of the personal/corporate insolvency regimes on business exits...

Submission to the Productivity Commission draft report business set-up, transfer and closure

The Commission has released a Draft Report on Business Set-Up, Transfer and Closure for public consultation and input. It is pleasing to note that three chapters of the Draft Report address aspects of personal and corporate insolvency. Nevertheless, we continue to make the submission to national policy inquiries and discussions that a comprehensive review should be undertaken of the regulation of insolvency and restructuring in Australia. The last comprehensive review of the insolvency system was by the Australian Law Reform Commission (the Harmer Report) and was handed down in 1988. Whilst there have been aspects of our insolvency laws that have been reviewed since that time, none has been able to provide the clear and comprehensive analysis that is able to come from a more considered review. Such a review ought to be conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission or similar independent panel set up for the task. We also suggest that there is a lack of data available to assist with addressing questions raised by the Draft Report. There is a need to invest in finding out, in a rigorous and informed way, how the current law operates. Until there is a willingness to make a public investment in such research with less reliance upon the anecdotal (often from well-meaning but ultimately inadequately informed participants and others) the government cannot be sure that the insolvency regime we have provides the most effective regime to underpin Australia’s commercial and financial dealings, nor that any change is justified. We also make the submission that there are benefits in a serious investigation into a merged regulatory architecture of personal and corporate insolvency and a combined personal and corporate insolvency regulator.