Advance Directives and the Promotion of Autonomy: a Comparative Australian Statutory Analysis

Legislation regulating advance directives exists in six Australian jurisdictions. In all of these jurisdictions, legislation was enacted to enshrine the common law right of a competent adult to refuse treatment in advance, even if that treatment was required to sustain life. It was thought that enshrining the common law would also enshrine the principle of autonomy on which the common law was based. This article explores whether this is the case by examining the legislative restrictions that are imposed on a competent adult who wishes to complete an advance directive refusing treatment. The article reviews the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions and concludes that, while many of the legislative restrictions can be justified, many cannot as they effectively erode rather than promote the right of a competent adult to refuse treatment.

Advance Directives Refusing Treatment as an Expression of Autonomy: Do the Courts Practise What They Preach?

The principle of autonomy is at the heart of the right of a competent individual to make an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment, and to have that directive complied with by medical professionals. That right is protected by both the common law and, to an extent, by legislation that has been enacted in the United Kingdom and many jurisdictions in Australia. The courts have a critical role in protecting that autonomy, both in those jurisdictions in which the common law continues to operate, and in those jurisdictions which are now governed by statute, and in which judicial determinations will need to be made about legislative provisions. The problem explored in this article is that while the judiciary espouses the importance of autonomy in its judgments, that rhetoric is frequently not reflected in the decisions that are reached. In the United Kingdom and Australia, there is a relatively small number of decisions that consider the validity and applicability of advance directives that refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. This article critically evaluates all of the publicly available decisions and concludes that there is cause for concern. In some cases, there has been an unprincipled evolution of common law principles, while in others there has been inappropriate adjudication through operational irregularities or failure to apply correct legal principles. Further, some decisions appear to be based on a strained interpretation of the facts of the case. The apparent reluctance of some members of the judiciary to give effect to advance directives that refuse treatment is also evidenced by the language used in the judgments. While the focus of this article is on common law decisions, reference will also be made to legislation and the extent to which it has addressed some of the problems identified in this article.

Towards compatible and integrated airport and regional land use planning in Australia

Over the past decade privatised capital city airports in Australia have planned developed a range of non aviation commercial and retail land uses on airport land. Many surrounding municipalities consider this development in conflict with existing regional land use planning. Conversely airport operators are alarmed at continued urban consolidation and encroachment of incompatible regional development. Land use planning within and surrounding Australian capital city airports does not support compatible and integrated land use. It is currently a fragmented process due to: 1) current legislative and policy frameworks; 2) competing stakeholder priorities and interests; and 3) inadequate coordination and disjointed decision-making. This paper will examine privatised Australian airport development and consider three case studies to detail the context of airport and regional land use planning. A series of stakeholder workshops have served to inform the procedural dynamics and relationships between airport and regional decision-making. This exploratory research will assist in informing the knowledge gaps between aviation, airport development and broader urban land use policy. This paper will provide recommendations to enhance approaches to land use planning for airports and adjacent metropolitan regions in Australia and overseas.

Energy polarization and popular representation: Evidence from the Russian Duma

In this article we introduce the term “energy polarization” to explain the politics of energy market reform in the Russian Duma. Our model tests the impact of regional energy production, party cohesion and ideology, and electoral mandate on the energy policy decisions of the Duma deputies (oil, gas, and electricity bills and resolution proposals) between 1994 and 2003. We find a strong divide between Single-Member District (SMD) and Proportional Representation (PR) deputies High statistical significance of gas production is demonstrated throughout the three Duma terms and shows Gazprom's key position in the post-Soviet Russian economy. Oil production is variably significant in the two first Dumas, when the main legislative debates on oil privatization occur. There is no constant left–right continuum, which is consistent with the deputies' proclaimed party ideology. The pro- and anti-reform poles observed in our Poole-based single dimensional scale are not necessarily connected with liberal and state-oriented regulatory policies, respectively. Party switching is a solid indicator of Russia's polarized legislative dynamics when it comes to energy sector reform.