Mortgages and insolvency

With an amalgam of statutory and common law duties, great care has always been required when considering the obligations of either mortgagees or receivers when exercising power of sale. Unfortunately, that position has only become more complicated with the enactment of the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld).

Empowerment as a framework for Indigenous workforce development and organisational change

Relative powerlessness resulting from colonial dispossession and associated passive welfare policies has long been recognised as a critical factor influencing the health and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians, yet it is hard to find well-evaluated health and social interventions that take an explicit empowerment approach. This paper presents the findings of a Family Wellbeing Empowerment programme pilot delivered to Cairns Region Department of Families Indigenous youth workers and family and community workers in 2003/2004. The aim of the pilot was to build the capacity of these workers to address personal and professional issues as a basis for providing better support for their clients. The pilot demonstrated the effectiveness of the programme as a tool for worker empowerment and, to a lesser degree, organisational change.

Surrogacy and IVF

While in the past surrogacy was illegal in Queensland, since June 2010 the Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld) (“the Act”) has made altruistic surrogacy arrangements lawful in Queensland. In addition, it provides a mechanism for transfer of legal parentage from the surrogate to the person(s) wishing to have a child (the intended parent(s)). Commercial surrogacy – where a payment, reward or other material benefit of advantage (other than the reimbursement of the “birth mother’s surrogacy costs” (s11 of the Act) is made for entering into a surrogacy arrangement – remains unlawful. The paramount guiding principle underpinning the Act is that of the wellbeing and best interests of a child born as a result of surrogacy. The Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld) allows a single person or a couple (heterosexual or same sex couples) to enter into an agreement with a woman, and her partner (if she has one), to become pregnant with the intention that the child will be relinquished to the intended parent(s). The Act also provides a mechanism for the intended parent(s) to be legally recognised as the parent(s) of the child. In order for the intended parent(s) to be legally recognised (via a parentage order, discussed below) it must be shown that the surrogacy arrangement was entered into when all the parties were over 25 years of age and the intended parent(s) are male or, in a heterosexual or lesbian couple the female(s) are not likely to conceive or give birth to a healthy child due to medical reasons. The arrangement must be entered into before the surrogate becomes pregnant and all parties must have obtained independent legal advice and counselling about the proposed arrangement, and evidence of this is required at the time a parentage order is applied for. For the purposes of the Act it does not matter how the surrogate conceives the child or if the child is genetically related to the parties. During the period of the pregnancy, the surrogate has the right to manage her pregnancy in the way she wishes. Although she cannot profit from acting as a surrogate, section 11 states that she is entitled to surrogacy costs. These include, for example, reasonable medical costs related to pregnancy and the birth of the child; counselling and legal costs associated with the surrogacy arrangement; actual lost earnings because of leave taken during pregnancy or following birth and any reasonable travel expenses incurred. The surrogacy arrangement itself is not legally enforceable; however, obligations to pay a surrogate’s surrogacy costs are enforceable unless she chooses not to relinquish the child to the intending parents. While the Act does not specifically deal with the situation where the surrogate decides she is unprepared to relinquish the child to the intended parents, there have been examples where parties have entered into these kinds of arrangements, and the arrangements have become difficult. For example, the Family Court case of Re Evelyn (1998) FLC 92–807 involved a child born to a surrogate mother who decided not to surrender her. The child was the genetic child of the surrogate mother and the husband of the couple who had contracted with the surrogate mother. Both sets of parents brought proceedings in the court, seeking that the child live with them. In hearing the application, the court applied the paramount principle of the ‘best interests of the child’. The court made clear that there is no presumption in favour of the birth mother, although in this case the court found that the child may be better placed with the surrogate mother’s family.

Surrogacy - A Path of Obstacles

Surrogacy has become an effective and accepted form of reproductive technology. It enables couples, regardless of gender or sexuality, to achieve the dream of becoming a parent in circumstances where other forms of reproductive technology and adoption are either not possible or have failed. To its credit, the Queensland parliament has recently brought this state up to date by enacting surrogacy laws that are in line with the majority of statutes implemented throughout the country. The Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld) allows for the court to make a parentage order in certain circumstances where parties have entered into a surrogacy arrangement. A parentage order effectively transfers parental rights from the birth mother (and her spouse or de facto if there is one) to the intended parents. The requirements which must be satisfied to obtain a parenting order are comprehensive and onerous, making the path to parenthood through a surrogacy arrangement by no means easy. At the heart of the surrogacy issue lies a question, the answer to which has shifted and continues to shift as reproductive technologies continue to increase in success, method and popularity - what is a parent? A recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Hudson v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, brought to attention the meaning of the word ‘parent’ as it appears in s 16(2) Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Section 16(2) deals with citizenship by descent and provides that a person born outside Australia may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen if a parent of the person was an Australian citizen at the time of the birth.

Punishing 'poor parents': 'Respect', 'responsibility' and parenting orders in Scotland

This article critiques the rise of parenting orders in Scotland within New Labour’s self-styled model of ‘respect’ and ‘responsibility’. It examines the emergence of parenting orders in Scotland, which became available in April 2005, and argues that Scottish local authorities are sceptical of an approach they perceive as an ideological and legislative mix premised on punitive notions of individual responsibility and justice.

Pool safety in Queensland

This article examines recent changes to the Building Act 1975 (Qld) intended to promote pool safety in Queensland. The impact of these statutory changes is considered in relation to both compliance obligations and disclosure obligations associated with sale and leasing transactions. The interrelationship of these changes with the operation of standard contractual provisions in Queensland is also examined.

Devil's in the detail : judgment highlights need for invoice transparency

This article considers the implications of the decision in Clayton Utz Lawyers v P & W Enterprises Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 5, and the meaning of "itemised bill" as defined in the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

Sale of property gifted under a will by an attorney acting under an enduring power of attorney : does the gift adeem and what is the attorney's duty?

The authors examine Moylan v Rickard and how the case illustrates the effectiveness of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld) to provide remedies and other possible avenues of redress

Environmental law and the economic impact on Australian firms

In response to international awareness of environmental issues and the inadequacies of common law actions, legislation has been enacted by Australian governments to facilitate environmental protection. The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) and accompanying Environmental Protection (Interim) Regulation 1995 (Qld) is one example of government response to mounting public pressure to legislate for the environment. Investigation into the operation of the legislation exposes the costs faced by Australian firms in its application. The legislation identifies a number of environmentally relevant activities and imposes licensing and reporting requirements on firms undertaking such activities. In view of these legislative requirements and the increasing public awareness of environmental issues over the last decade in Australia, it could be expected that firms undertaking environmentally sensitive activities will place greater importance on the management of environmental issues. If so, the greater prominence placed on environmental management may be reflected in disclosures made by the firm to its shareholders and other interested parties. This article investigates the type and extent of costs currently imposed by the body of environmental laws in Australia with the discussion primarily focusing upon costs imposed due to the operation of environmental legislation in Queensland. Further, the article reports empirical analysis of management response to environmental issues where firms are undertaking environmentally sensitive activities.

Accounting for costs

In Golder Associates Pty Ltd v Challen [2012] QDC 11 Samios DCJ recognised a solicitor’s lien over the file for unpaid fees and confirmed that a lien should not be lightly set aside. The decision, which is under appeal, adds to the range of authorities which are now grappling with some of the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (the LPA) relating to costs billing and assessment. These would appear to have been drafted without a great deal of intellectual rigour (cf. Turner v Mitchells Solicitors [2011] QDC 61 at [26]).

Victims Speak: Comparing Child Sexual Abusers and Their Victims Accounts of Offence Circumstances

This article presents findings from a longitudinal study. The research aimed to explore the effectiveness of a treatment program for offenders which lasted for three years. The research design was structured around the program with interviews and psychometric testing undertaken at key points in time with the same group of respondents. View all notes that sought to evaluate a treatment program for child sexual abusers. A triangulated methodological approach was adopted drawing upon quantitative and qualitative methodological techniques. The focus here is upon one element of this research. 2 2The quantitative element of this research will be published shortly but is referred to in the following reports Davidson 2000, 2003 [research funded by the National Probation Service]. Psychometric testing was undertaken over a four-year period with the men attending the treatment program to explore shifts in the extent of denial, blame attribution, and victim empathy over time. Offender cognitive distortions, general health, and self-esteem were also explored via psychometric testing. An interview-administered survey was undertaken with all sex offenders registered with the Probation Service (those on probation and in custody) in order to gather demographic data, and 117 of 150 offenders responded. View all notes Ninety-one in-depth interviews were conducted over a four-year period with a small, nonrandom sample of twenty-one male offenders who had been convicted of sexual offenses against children. All of the men were subject to probation orders with a psychiatric condition (Criminal Justice Act, 1991). One of the aims of this element of the research was to explore the extent to which evidence of denial could be found in offenders’ accounts of offense circumstance and also to explore the extent to which offenders minimized the nature and extent of abuse perpetrated. Offenders’ accounts of offense circumstances were compared to victim statements, and stark differences emerge. These findings have considerable implications for treatment practice with sex offenders, where victims’ perceptions could be used to directly confront offender denial and minimization.

Living and Working on the Cusp of Contradictions

In this article Jo Phoenix argues that the struggles practitioners face to have the complex welfare needs of sexually exploited young people recognised are likely to continue into the future. The argument is made by examining three profound tensions shaping the context which both young people and practitioners inhabit. These tensions are between the, broadly, protectionist agenda of policy development on sexual exploitation and: firstly, socio-cultural changes in respect of consumption, sex and identities; secondly political changes and punitive youth justice system expansionism; and, finally, the closed and moralist rhetoric justifying recent policy changes. In the final analysis, young people and practitioners get caught in these contradictions in ways that foreclose critical examination of policy development and recognition of the complexities of the issues involved.

Educational accountability tests, social and legal inclusion approaches to discrimination for students with disability : a national case study from Australia

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) promotes equal and full participation by children in education. Equity of educational access for all students, including students with disability, free from discrimination, is the first stated national goal of Australian education (MCEETYA 2008). Australian federal disability discrimination law, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), follows the Convention, with the federal Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE) enacting specific requirements for education. This article discusses equity of processes for inclusion of students with disability in Australian educational accountability testing, including international tests in which many countries participate. The conclusion drawn is that equitable inclusion of students with disability in current Australian educational accountability testing in not occurring from a social perspective and is not in principle compliant with law. However, given the reluctance of courts to intervene in education matters and the uncertainty of an outcome in any court consideration, the discussion shows that equitable inclusion in accountability systems is available through policy change rather than expensive, and possibly unsuccessful, legal challenges.