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.

Go your own way : reporting of fundraising in Australian charity financial statements

Australian charities are facing increased public scrutiny of their financial reports, which must now be submitted to the national regulator, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. Some may wish to use reports to create so-called 'fundraising efficiency league tables'. This article seeks to provide a description of current best practice in fundraising financial reporting by examining annual reports that have been recognised with industry awards. We find a wide variation in how terms have been used, with no patterns discernible. Moreoever, reporting is influenced by regulatory requirements in the relevant jurisdiction, which differ substantially. It is unlikely that league tables will be meaningful if constructed from charities' current annual financial statements.

The competitive market for assurance engagements on greenhouse gas statements : is there a role for assurers from the accounting profession?

In response to current and increasing demand for assurance on greenhouse gas statements, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) released an exposure draft of a new assurance standard, ISAE 3410 'Assurance on a Greenhouse Gas Statement' (IFAC 2011), to provide comprehensive guidance on these types of greenhouse gas (GHG) assurance engagements. Internationally, approximately 50 percent of GHG statements are independently assured. The related assurance market is competitive, with the accounting profession and those outside the profession currently holding approximately equal shares. This paper highlights the characteristics of GHG assurance engagements that warrant multi-disciplinary teamwork, the unique and interdependent skill-sets that different practitioners bring to these engagements, and the market forces that create a demand for diverse providers.

Developing an international assurance standard on greenhouse gas statements

Worldwide public concern over climate change and the need to limit greenhouse gas (hereafter, GHG) emissions has increasingly motivated public officials to consider more stringent environmental regulation and standards. The authors argue that the development of a new international assurance standard on GHG disclosures is an appropriate response by the auditing and assurance profession to meet these challenges. At its December 2007 meeting, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (hereafter, IAASB) approved a project to consider the development of such a standard aimed at promoting trust and confidence in disclosures of GHG emissions, including disclosures required under emissions trading schemes. The authors assess the types of disclosures that can be assured, and outline the issues involved in developing an international assurance standard on GHG emissions disclosures. The discussion synthesizes the insights gained from four international roundtables on the proposed IAASB assurance standard held in Asia-Pacific, North America, and Europe during 2008, and an IAASB meeting addressing this topic in December 2008.

Learning the learning rate for prediction with expert advice

Most standard algorithms for prediction with expert advice depend on a parameter called the learning rate. This learning rate needs to be large enough to fit the data well, but small enough to prevent overfitting. For the exponential weights algorithm, a sequence of prior work has established theoretical guarantees for higher and higher data-dependent tunings of the learning rate, which allow for increasingly aggressive learning. But in practice such theoretical tunings often still perform worse (as measured by their regret) than ad hoc tuning with an even higher learning rate. To close the gap between theory and practice we introduce an approach to learn the learning rate. Up to a factor that is at most (poly)logarithmic in the number of experts and the inverse of the learning rate, our method performs as well as if we would know the empirically best learning rate from a large range that includes both conservative small values and values that are much higher than those for which formal guarantees were previously available. Our method employs a grid of learning rates, yet runs in linear time regardless of the size of the grid.

Prior and posterior linear pooling for combining expert opinions: Uses and impact on Bayesian Networks

The use of expert knowledge to quantify a Bayesian Network (BN) is necessary when data is not available. This however raises questions regarding how opinions from multiple experts can be used in a BN. Linear pooling is a popular method for combining probability assessments from multiple experts. In particular, Prior Linear Pooling (PrLP), which pools opinions then places them into the BN is a common method. This paper firstly proposes an alternative pooling method, Posterior Linear Pooling (PoLP). This method constructs a BN for each expert, then pools the resulting probabilities at the nodes of interest. Secondly, it investigates the advantages and disadvantages of using these pooling methods to combine the opinions of multiple experts. Finally, the methods are applied to an existing BN, the Wayfinding Bayesian Network Model, to investigate the behaviour of different groups of people and how these different methods may be able to capture such differences. The paper focusses on 6 nodes Human Factors, Environmental Factors, Wayfinding, Communication, Visual Elements of Communication and Navigation Pathway, and three subgroups Gender (female, male),Travel Experience (experienced, inexperienced), and Travel Purpose (business, personal) and finds that different behaviors can indeed be captured by the different methods.

The State of Queensland Charities: An examination of the first Annual Information Statements of charities operating in Queensland

The advent of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) in 2012 and submission of Annual Information Statements (AIS) in 2013 by those charities which registered with them, have allowed new measures to be taken of charities and their activities. This report examines the filed AIS data for Queensland charities and compares it with the overall Australian population of charities.

Adapting to concurrent expert evidence in medical litigation

In medical negligence litigation expert evidence has long played a dominant role. The trend towards the use of concurrent expert evidence is now well underway. However, for the lawyers and the doctors involved, the pathway is not yet familiar. Disputes have frequently arisen in the context of pre-hearing expert conclaves, given the adversarial nature of litigation and perhaps fuelled by fears of a less transparent process at this increasingly important stage. This article explains the concurrent expert evidence framework and examines areas of common dispute both in the conclaves and at trial, with a view to providing assistance to legal practitioners working in this area and the medical practitioners called upon to provide expert evidence in such litigation.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Global standard for the composition of infant formula: Recommendations of an ESPGHAN coordinated international expert group

The Codex Alimentarius Commission of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) develops food standards, guidelines and related texts for protecting consumer health and ensuring fair trade practices globally. The major part of the world's population lives in more than 160 countries that are members of the Codex Alimentarius. The Codex Standard on Infant Formula was adopted in 1981 based on scientific knowledge available in the 1970s and is currently being revised. As part of this process, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses asked the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition to initiate a consultation process with the international scientific community to provide a proposal on nutrient levels in infant formulae, based on scientific analysis and taking into account existing scientific reports on the subject. ESPGHAN accepted the request and, in collaboration with its sister societies in the Federation of International Societies on Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, invited highly qualified experts in the area of infant nutrition to form an International Expert Group (IEG) to review the issues raised. The group arrived at recommendations on the compositional requirements for a global infant formula standard which are reported here.

Assessing performance in critical care nursing practice using the Benner Novice to expert model: A pilot study

Background It is often believed that by ensuring the ongoing completion of competency documents and life-long learning in nursing practice guarantees quality patient care. This is probably true in most cases where it provides reassurances that the nursing team is maintaining a safe “generalised” level of practice. However, competency does not always promise quality performance. There are a number of studies that have reported differences in what practitioners know and what they actually do despite being deemed competent. Aim The aim of this study was to assess whether our current competency documentation is fit for purpose and to ascertain whether performance assessment needs to be a key component in determining competence. Method 15 nurses within a General ICU who had been on the unit <4 years agreed to participate in this project. Using participant observation and assessing performance against key indicators of the Benner Novice to Expert5 model the participants were supported and assessed over the course of a ‘normal’ nursing shift. Results The results were surprising both positively and negatively. First, the nurses felt more empowered in their clinical decision making skills; second, it identified individual learning needs and milestones in educational development. There were some key challenges identified which included 5 nurses over estimating their level of competence, practice was still very much focused on task acquisition and skill and surprisingly some nurses still felt dominated by the other health professionals within the unit. Conclusion We found that the capacity and capabilities of our nursing workforce needs continual ongoing support especially if we want to move our staff from capable task-doer to competent performers. Using the key novice to expert indicators identified the way forward for us in how we assess performance and competence in practice particularly where promotion to higher grades is based on existing documentation.

Eliciting and encoding expert knowledge on variable selection into classical or Bayesian species distribution models

The quality of species distribution models (SDMs) relies to a large degree on the quality of the input data, from bioclimatic indices to environmental and habitat descriptors (Austin, 2002). Recent reviews of SDM techniques, have sought to optimize predictive performance e.g. Elith et al., 2006. In general SDMs employ one of three approaches to variable selection. The simplest approach relies on the expert to select the variables, as in environmental niche models Nix, 1986 or a generalized linear model without variable selection (Miller and Franklin, 2002). A second approach explicitly incorporates variable selection into model fitting, which allows examination of particular combinations of variables. Examples include generalized linear or additive models with variable selection (Hastie et al. 2002); or classification trees with complexity or model based pruning (Breiman et al., 1984, Zeileis, 2008). A third approach uses model averaging, to summarize the overall contribution of a variable, without considering particular combinations. Examples include neural networks, boosted or bagged regression trees and Maximum Entropy as compared in Elith et al. 2006. Typically, users of SDMs will either consider a small number of variable sets, via the first approach, or else supply all of the candidate variables (often numbering more than a hundred) to the second or third approaches. Bayesian SDMs exist, with several methods for eliciting and encoding priors on model parameters (see review in Low Choy et al. 2010). However few methods have been published for informative variable selection; one example is Bayesian trees (O’Leary 2008). Here we report an elicitation protocol that helps makes explicit a priori expert judgements on the quality of candidate variables. This protocol can be flexibly applied to any of the three approaches to variable selection, described above, Bayesian or otherwise. We demonstrate how this information can be obtained then used to guide variable selection in classical or machine learning SDMs, or to define priors within Bayesian SDMs.

Conclaves and concurrent expert evidence: A positive development in Australian legal practice?

Many Australian courts now prefer pre-hearing meetings of experts (conclaves) being convened to prepare joint reports to identify areas of agreement and disagreement, followed by concurrent expert evidence at trial. This contrasts to the traditional approach where experts did not meet before trial and did not give evidence together. Most judges, lawyers and expert witnesses favour this as a positive development in Australian legal practice, at least for civil disputes. This new approach impacts medical practitioners who are called upon to give expert evidence, or who are parties to disputes before the courts. Arguably, it is too soon to tell whether the relative lack of transparency at the conclave stage will give rise to difficulties in the coronial, disciplinary and criminal arenas.

Policing expert testimony in a death investigation: Medical opinion as legal fact

Within coronial investigations, pathologists are called upon to given evidence as to cause of death. This evidence is given great weight by the coroners; after all, scientific ‘truth’ is widely deemed to be far more reliable than legal ‘opinion’. The purpose of this paper is to examine the ontological and epistemological status of that evidence, from the perspectives of both the pathologists and the coroners. As part of an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, interviews were conducted with seven pathologists and 10 coroners from within the Queensland coronial system. Contrary to expectations, and the work of philosophers of science, such as Feyerabend (1975), pathologists did not present their findings in terms of unequivocal facts or objective truths relating to causes of death. Rather, their evidence was largely presented as ‘educated opinion’ based upon ‘the weight of evidence’. It was actually the coroners who translated that opinion into ‘medical fact’ within the proceedings of their death investigations, arguably as a consequence of the administrative necessity to reach a clear-cut finding as to cause of death, and on the basis of their own understanding of the ontology of medical knowledge. These findings support Latour’s (2010) claim that law requires a fundamentally different epistemology to science, and that science is not entirely to blame for the extravagant truth-claims made on its behalf