Australian Consumer Law Commentary and Materials [5th Ed.]

"The Australian Consumer Law came into operation on 1 January 2011 as a single national law. It replaced 17 different pieces of Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation relating to consumer protection. Its introduction meant that for the first time, consumers throughout Australia had the same rights and remedies and correspondingly, businesses had the same obligations and responsibilities towards consumers without the barrier of confusing and expensive local variations in the law. Australian Consumer Law: Commentary and Materials contains up-to-date material on the Australian Consumer Law, and in particular the fifth edition incorporates: a revised treatment of unconscionability, taking account of the changes to Part 2-2 of the ACL that became effective in 2012; other State and Federal provisions relating to unfair terms and cases such as Kakavas v Crown Melbourne, ACCC v Lux Distributors, Director of Consumer Affairs v Scully and PT Ltd v Spuds Surf; a comprehensive treatment of the impact of Google v ACCC, Forrest v ASIC and ACCC v TPG – the trilogy of decisions that provide the most recent insights into the High Court’s thinking on aspects of the prohibitions of misleading conduct in the ACL and the Corporations Act 2001; numerous decisions of note; and the possible impact of the Harper Review."--publisher website

Enforceable undertakings: Perceptions of organisational justice

In this thesis the use of enforceable undertakings is examined as a sanction for a breach in work, health and safety legislation through the lens of organisational justice. A framework of justice types - distributive, procedural and interactional - is developed and the perceptions of the three parties to the process - the regulator, the business entity and the worker as the affected third party - are explored. It is argued that the three parties perceive the sanction to be distributively unfair, but procedurally and interactionally just.

Are we there yet? Advancing women in Canada and Australia: Similar goals, different policies

Differences in opportunities and outcomes in the workplace are inherent in a free and competitive market. However when differences between individuals and groups are identified as resulting from particular policies, behaviours or attitudes, any resulting inequality may be identified as unfair. Increasingly, unfair disparities in societies and their workplaces are regularly challenged. Many of the unfair disparities are recognised as caused through unfair discrimination (Anker 1997). When defining discrimination, the International Labour Organization Convention (ILO) No. 111 defines it as “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation” (ILO, 1958). Yet, the argument for addressing this ideal of ‘equality of opportunity’ is complex. Ekmekci (2013) identifies the difficulties as the determination of whether any process should be based on equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. In addition, there is the difficulty of determining what exactly constitutes a process for addressing unfair disparity due to the haziness of what constitutes discrimination and controversy in the meaning as well as policy implications of equality (Tomei, 2003).