The extent of the insured’s duty of disclosure : a comparative analysis of the disclosure obligations of insured in Australia, Singapore and China

Pre-contractual material disclosure and representation from an insurance policy proposer is the most important element for insurers to make a decision on whether a proposer is insurable and what are the terms and conditions if the proposal by the proposer is able to be insured. The issue this thesis researches and investigates focus on the issues related to the pre-contractual non-disclosures and misrepresentations of an insured under the principle of utmost good faith, by operation of laws, can achieve with different results in different jurisdiction. A similar disputed claim involving material non-disclosed personal information or misrepresentation at the pre-contractual stage from an insured with respect to both general and life insurance policies settled by an insurer in Australia could be that the policy is set aside ab initio by the insurers in Singapore or China. The jurisdictions this thesis examines are • Australia; • Singapore; and • China including Hong Kong.

How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis from which to start an informed and rational dialogue in Australia about voluntary euthanasia (VE) and assisted suicide (AS). It does this by seeking to chart the broad landscape of issues that can be raised as relevant to how this conduct should be regulated by the law. It is not our purpose to persuade. Rather, we have attempted to address the issues as neutrally as possible and to canvass both sides of the argument in an even-handed manner. We hope that this exercise places the reader in a position to consider the question posed by this paper: How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide? In line with the approach taken in the paper, this question does not take sides in the debate. It simply asks how VE and AS should be regulated, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve regulation. We begin by considering the wider legal framework that governs end of life decision-making. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment that result in a person’s death can be lawful. This could be because, for example, a competent adult refuses such treatment. Alternatively, stopping or not providing treatment can be lawful when it is no longer in a person’s best interests to receive it. The law also recognises that appropriate palliative care should not attract criminal responsibility. By contrast, VE and AS are unlawful in Australia and could lead to prosecution for crimes such as murder, manslaughter or aiding and abetting suicide. But this is not to say that such conduct does not occur in practice. Indeed, there is a body of evidence that VE and AS occur in Australia, despite them being unlawful. There have been repeated efforts to change the law in this country, mainly by the minor political parties. However, apart from a brief period when VE and AS was lawful in the Northern Territory, these attempts to reform the law have been unsuccessful. The position is different in a small but increasing number of jurisdictions overseas where such conduct is lawful. The most well known is the Netherlands but there are also statutory regimes that regulate VE and/or AS in Belgium and Luxembourg in Europe, and Oregon and Washington in the United States. A feature of these legislative models is that they incorporate review or oversight processes that enable the collection of data about how the law is being used. As a result, there is a significant body of evidence that is available for consideration to assess the operation of the law in these jurisdictions and some of this is considered briefly here. Assisting a suicide, if done for selfless motives, is also legal in Switzerland, and this has resulted in what has been referred to as ‘euthanasia tourism’. This model is also considered. The paper also identifies the major arguments in favour of, and against, legalisation of VE and AS. Arguments often advanced in favour of law reform include respect for autonomy, that public opinion favours reform, and that the current law is incoherent and discriminatory. Key arguments against legalising VE and AS point to the sanctity of life, concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of safeguards, and a ‘slippery slope’ that will allow euthanasia to occur for minors or for adults where it is not voluntary. We have also attempted to step beyond these well trodden and often rehearsed cases ‘for and against’. To this end, we have identified some ethical values that might span both sides of the debate and perhaps be the subject of wider consensus. We then outline a framework for considering the issue of how Australia should regulate VE and AS. We begin by asking whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are). If VE and AS should continue to attract criminal responsibility, the next step is to enquire whether the law should punish such conduct more or less than is presently the case, or whether the law should stay the same. If a change is favoured as to how the criminal law punishes VE and AS, options considered include sentencing reform, creating context-specific offences or developing prosecutorial guidelines for how the criminal justice system deals with these issues. If VE and AS should not be criminal acts, then questions arise as to how and when they should be permitted and regulated. Possible elements of any reform model include: ensuring decision-making is competent and voluntary; ascertaining a person’s eligibility to utilise the regime, for example, whether it depends on him or her having a terminal illness or experiencing pain and suffering; and setting out processes for how any decision must be made and evidenced. Options to bring about decriminalisation include challenging the validity of laws that make VE and AS unlawful, recognising a defence to criminal prosecution, or creating a statutory framework to regulate the practice. We conclude the paper where we started: with a call for rational and informed consideration of a difficult and sensitive issue. How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

CCi Submission to ALRC Copyright Inquiry

The attached report was prepared by Professor Terry Flew, Dr. Nicolas Suzor and Dr. Bonnie Liu of the Queensland University of Technology.   It was developed in consultation with Professor Stuart Cunningham, Professor Anne Fitzgerald, Associate Professor Axel Bruns, Associate Professor Jean Burgess (QUT), Professor Julian Thomas (Swinburne University of Technology), Professor Christoph Antons (Deakin University), and film producer Ms. Cathy Henkel (Virgo Productions and Adjunct Professor, QUT).

Revisiting the debate about public service media exceptionalism

The development of public service broadcasters (PSBs) in the 20th century was framed around debates about its difference compared to commercial broadcasting. These debates navigated between two poles. One concerned the relationship between non‐commercial sources of funding and the role played by statutory Charters as guarantors of the independence of PSBs. The other concerned the relationship between PSBs being both a complementary and a comprehensive service, although there are tensions inherent in this duality. In the 21st century, as reconfigured public service media organisations (PSMs) operate across multiple platforms in a convergent media environment, how are these debates changing, if at all? Is the case for PSM “exceptionalism” changed with Web‐based services, catch‐up TV, podcasting, ancillary product sales, and commissioning of programs from external sources in order to operate in highly diversified cross‐media environments? Do the traditional assumptions about non‐commercialism still hold as the basis for different forms of PSM governance and accountability? This paper will consider the question of PSM exceptionalism in the context of three reviews into Australian media that took place over 2011‐2012: the Convergence Review undertaken through the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy; the National Classification Scheme Review undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission; and the Independent Media Inquiry that considered the future of news and journalism.

How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

This paper invites consideration of how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We have attempted to pose this question as neutrally as possible, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve decisions about regulation. We begin by charting the wider field of law at the end of life, before considering the repeated, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempts at law reform in Australia. The situation in Australia is contrasted with permissive jurisdictions overseas where voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are lawful. We consider the arguments for and against legalisation of such conduct along with the available empirical evidence as to what happens in practice both in Australia and overseas. The paper concludes by outlining a framework for deliberating on how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We ask a threshold question of whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are), the answer to which then leads to a range of possible regulatory options.

Classification—Content Regulation and Convergent Media

On 24 March 2011, Attorney-General Robert McClelland referred the National Classification Scheme to the ALRC and asked it to conduct widespread public consultation across the community and industry. The review considered issues including: existing Commonwealth, State and Territory classification laws the current classification categories contained in the Classification Act, Code and Guidelines the rapid pace of technological change the need to improve classification information available to the community the effect of media on children and the desirability of a strong content and distribution industry in Australia. During the inquiry, the ALRC conducted face-to-face consultations with stakeholders, hosted two online discussion forums, and commissioned pilot community and reference group forums into community attitudes to higher level media content. The ALRC published two consultation documents—an Issues Paper and a Discussion Paper—and invited submissions from the public. The Final Report was tabled in Parliament on 1 March 2012. Recommendations: The report makes 57 recommendations for reform. The net effect of the recommendations would be the establishment of a new National Classification Scheme that: applies consistent rules to content that are sufficiently flexible to be adaptive to technological change; places a regulatory focus on restricting access to adult content, helping to promote cyber-safety and protect children from inappropriate content across media platforms; retains the Classification Board as an independent classification decision maker with an essential role in setting benchmarks; promotes industry co-regulation, encouraging greater industry content classification, with government regulation more directly focused on content of higher community concern; provides for pragmatic regulatory oversight, to meet community expectations and safeguard community standards; reduces the overall regulatory burden on media content industries while ensuring that content obligations are focused on what Australians most expect to be classified; and harmonises classification laws across Australia, for the benefit of consumers and content providers.

The right to choose an assisted death : time for legislation?

The legal framework that operates at the end of life in Australia needs to be reformed. • Voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are currently unlawful. • Both activities nevertheless occur not infrequently in Australia, in part because palliative care cannot relieve physical and psychological pain and suffering in all cases. • In this respect, the law is deficient. The law is also unfair because it doesn’t treat people equally. Some people can be helped to die on their own terms as a result of their knowledge and/or connections while some are able to hasten their death by the refusal of life-sustaining treatment. But others do not have access to the means for their life to end. • A very substantial majority of Australians have repeatedly expressed in public opinion polls their desire for law reform on these matters. Many are concerned at what they see is happening to their loved ones as they reach the end of their lives, and want the confidence that when their time comes they will be able to exercise choice in relation to assisted dying. • The most consistent reason advanced not to change the law is the need to protect the vulnerable. There is a concern that if the law allows voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide for some people, it will be expanded and abused, including pressures being placed on highly dependent people and those with disabilities to agree to euthanasia. • But there is now a large body of experience in a number of international jurisdictions following the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. This shows that appropriate safeguards can be implemented to protect vulnerable people and prevent the abuse that opponents of assisted dying have feared. It reveals that assisted dying meets a real need among a small minority of people at the end of their lives. It also provides reassurance to people with terminal and incurable disease that they will not be left to suffer the indignities and discomfort of a nasty death. • Australia is an increasingly secular society. Strong opposition to assisted death by religious groups that is based on their belief in divine sanctity of all human life is not a justification for denying choice for those who do not share that belief. • It is now time for Australian legislators to respond to this concern and this experience by legislating to enhance the quality of death for those Australians who seek assisted dying.

The Australian nonprofit sector legal and accounting almanac 2012

This is the fifth year that The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies has published an Almanac summarising annual developments in the law relevant to Australia's nonprofit sector. The Almanac provides comprehensive summaries of legal cases in Australia and overseas, and changes to relevant legislation in all Australian jurisdictions, during 2012. It also includes articles outlining developments in taxation and charity law, and the regulation of nonprofit organisations. This edition naturally includes extensive discussion of the new national regulator, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), and the legal arrangements surrounding its establishment. There are also articles on matters of interest arising in New Zealand, the UK, and Canada.

The Convergence Review and the principle of Australians' access to and opportunities for participation

The recent Australian Convergence Review’s second principle states: “Australians should have access to and opportunities for participation in a diverse mix of services, voices, views and information”. However, in failing to define its own use and understanding of the terms ‘access’ and ‘participation’ the Convergence Review exposes itself to criticism. These terms would no doubt be made unambiguously clear should the Review’s recommendations move towards policy, and this paper contributes to this discussion by framing access and participation, from the perspective of the ‘produser’ (Bruns, 2008), around three separate but related issues: the failure to frame the discussion that will be undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2012 2013 Copyright Inquiry; the prioritising of the market over and above media accountability and the health of the public sphere; and the missed opportunity to develop a national framework for digital literacy and advanced digital citizenry.

Australia - taxation of trusts – the problem of aligning concepts of income

The Australian government is currently considering options for the rewrite and reform of the current provisions which apply to the taxation of trust income. This article provides a discussion of the current regime and the proposed reforms. It is suggested that a major revamp of taxation of trust income in Australia is problematic and a simpler approach may be to leave the law as is, with modification where necessary to address key issues as and when they arise.

Camera trapping and invasions of privacy : an Australian legal perspective

Camera trapping is a scientific survey technique that involves the placement of heat-and motion-sensing automatic triggered cameras into the ecosystem to record images of animals for the purpose of studying wildlife. As technology continues to advance in sophistication, the use of camera trapping is becoming more widespread and is a crucial tool in the study of, and attempts to preserve, various species of animals, particularly those that are internationally endangered. However, whatever their value as an ecological device, camera traps also create a new risk of incidentally and accidentally capturing images of humans who venture into the area under surveillance. This article examines the current legal position in Australia in relation to such unintended invasions of privacy. It considers the current patchwork of statute and common laws that may provide a remedy in such circumstances. It also discusses the position that may prevail should the recommendations of either the Australian Law Reform Commission and/or New South Wales Law Reform Commission be adopted and a statutory cause of action protecting personal privacy be enacted.

The impact of auditor independence regulations on established and emerging firms.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to study whether auditor independence reforms introduced in 2004 led to an enhancement in earnings quality in the post-reform era. Design/methodology/approach – This study predicts that as the cost of compliance will vary based on a firm's existing corporate governance regime and the level of external scrutiny (monitoring) it faces, we compare the earnings quality of a sample of “established” (S&P/ASX 100) to a sample of “emerging” (S&P/ASX Small Ordinaries Index) firms. The paper examines the reporting behaviour of the two groups of listed entities, covering the regulatory change period 2003-2006. The paper uses regression modelling to test the associations between increased audit independence, earnings quality and corporate governance mechanisms over the pre- and post-regulatory period. Findings – The paper's results confirm that earnings quality for the established firms was enhanced in the post-reform period; while this was not the case for emerging firms. The evidence also suggests that corporate governance mechanisms of board independence and board financial skill are associated with higher earnings quality; while the higher the concentration of insider firm ownership is associated with lower earnings quality. Practical implications – This study provides policy makers with evidence as to changes in reporting behaviour following law reform aimed at strengthening auditor independence. Originality/value – The studies on earnings quality are informed by the US market practices. Australia provides a unique setting through its auditor independence reforms to examine the impact of reform choices. This study also investigates two specific subsets of the market: established firms and emerging firms.

Academics and activists in the policy process : engagement with Australian media inquiries 2011-13

After its narrow re-election in June 2010, the Australian Labor government undertook a series of public inquiries into reform of Australian media, communications and copyright laws. One important driver of policy reform was the government’s commitment to building a National Broadband Network (NBN), and the implications this had for existing broadcasting and telecommunications policy, as it would constitute a major driver of convergence of media and communications access devices and content platforms. These inquiries included: the Convergence Review of media and communications legislation; the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) review of the National Classification Scheme; the Independent Media Inquiry (Finkelstein Review) into Media and Media Regulation; and the ALRC review of Copyright and the Digital Economy. One unusual feature of this review process, discussed in the paper, was the degree to which academics were involved in the process, not simply as providers of expert opinion, but as review chairs seconded from their universities. This paper considers the role played by activist groups in all of these inquiries and their relationship to the various participants in the inquiries, as well as the implications of academics being engaged in such inquiries, not simply as activist-scholars, but as those primarily responsible for delivering policy review outcomes. The latter brings to the forefront issues arising in from direct engagement with governments and state agencies themselves, which challenges traditional understandings of the academic community as “critical outsiders” towards such policy processes.

Pro Bono partnerships : community lawyering to promote environmental justice

Rural communities across Australia are increasingly being asked to shoulder the environmental and social impacts of intensive mining and gas projects. Escalating demand for coal seam gas (CSG) is raising significant environmental justice issues for rural communities. Chief amongst environmental concerns are risks of contamination or depletion of vital underground aquifers as well as treatment and disposal of high-saline water close to high quality agricultural soils. Associated infrastructure such as pipelines, electricity lines, gas processing and port facilities can also adversely affect communities and ecosystems great distances from where the gas is originally extracted. Whilst community submission (and appeal) rights do exist, accessing expert independent information is challenging, legal terminology is complex and submission periods are short, leading ultimately to a lack of procedural justice for landholders and their communities. Since August 2012, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has worked in partnership with not-for-profit legal centre - Queensland’s Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) - to help better educate communities about mining and CSG assessment processes. The project, now entering its third semester, aims to empower communities to access relevant information and actively engage in legal processes on their own behalf. Students involved in the project so far have helped to research chapters of a comprehensive community guide to mining and CSG law as well as organising multidisciplinary community forums and preparing information on land access and compensation rights for landholders. While environmental justice issues still exist without significant law reform, the project has led to greater awareness amongst the community of the laws relating the CSG. At the same time, it has led to a greater understanding by students and academics of real life environmental justice issues currently faced by rural communities.

Convergent media policy : the Australian case

This chapter considers the implications of convergence for media policy from three perspectives. First, it discusses what have been the traditional concerns of media policy, and the challenges it faces, from the perspectives of public interest theories, economic capture theories, and capitalist state theories. Second, it looks at what media convergence involves, and some of the dilemmas arising from convergent media policy including: (1) determining who is a media company; (2) regulatory parity between ‘old’ and ‘new’ media; (3) treatment of similar media content across different platforms; (4) distinguishing ‘big media’ from user-created content, and: (5) maintaining a distinction between media regulation and censorship of personal communication. Finally, it discusses attempts to reform media policy in light of these changes, including Australian media policy reports from 2011-12 including the Convergence Review, the Finkelstein Review of News Media, and the Australian Law Reform Commission’s National Classification Scheme Review. It concludes by arguing that ‘public interest’ approaches to media policy continue to have validity, even as they grapple with the complex question of how to understand the concept of influence in a convergent media environment.