The Politics and Legality of Prisoner Disenfranchisement in Australian Federal Elections

To remove the right of prisoners to vote does many things. … It signals that whatever the prisoner says is not of interest to those at the top, that you are not interested in talking to them or even listening to them, that you want to exclude them and that you have no interest in knowing about them. INTRODUCTION In June 2006, Australia passed legislation disenfranchising all prisoners serving full-time custodial sentences from voting in federal elections. This followed a succession of changes dating from 1983 that alternately extended and restricted the prisoner franchise. In 1989 and 1995, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) federal government prepared draft legislation removing any restrictions on prisoner voting rights in federal elections; the measures were defeated and withdrawn. With the 2006 legislation, the Howard Coalition government (composed of the Liberal and National parties) successfully achieved the total disenfranchisement it first sought in 1998. This chapter examines the politics and legality of the 2006 disenfranchisement. This will be approached, first, by briefly outlining the key provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, offering a short legislative history of prisoner franchise, and examining some of the key constitutional issues. Second, the 2006 disenfranchisement introduced in the Electoral and Referendum (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 will be examined in greater detail, particularly in terms of the manner in which it was achieved and the arguments that were mobilized both in support of and against the change.

Analysing the Prospects of a Successful Application Under s 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)

Section 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) makes provision for an applicant to seek a statutory right of user over a neighbour’s property where such right of use is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. In recent years, the Queensland courts have been confronted with a number of such applications. Litigation has also been common in New South Wales which has a statutory provision in largely similar terms. This article seeks to identify those factors that have underpinned successful applications, the obstacles that an applicant may encounter and the considerations that have guided the courts when considering the associated issues of compensation and costs.

The free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit: the shifting values of Wikipedia editors

Wikipedia is often held up as an example of the potential of the internet to foster open, free and non-commercial collaboration. However such discourses often conflate these values without recognising how they play out in reality in a peer-production community. As Wikipedia is evolving, it is an ideal time to examine these discourses and the tensions that exist between its initial ideals and the reality of commercial activity in the encyclopaedia. Through an analysis of three failed proposals to ban paid advocacy editing in the English language Wikipedia, this paper highlights the shift in values from the early editorial community that forked encyclopaedic content over the threat of commercialisation, to one that today values the freedom that allows anyone to edit the encyclopaedia.

Disclosure of documents : by duty, court order, or beyond reach?

The article examines the decision in Erskine v McDowall [2001] QDC 192, where the Court considered an application for an order that the defendant disclose documents to which she had a right of access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

Medical negligence, causation and liability for non-disclosure of risk : a post-wallace framework and critique

Through an examination of Wallace v Kam, this article considers and evaluates the law of causation in the specific context of a medical practitioner’s duty to provide information to patients concerning material risks of treatment. To supply a contextual background for the analysis which follows, Part II summarises the basic principles of causation law, while Part III provides an overview of the case and the reasoning adopted in the decisions at first instance and on appeal. With particular emphasis upon the reasoning in the courts of appeal, Part IV then examines the implications of the case in the context of other jurisprudence in this field and, in so doing, provides a framework for a structured consideration of causation issues in future non-disclosure cases under the Australian civil liability legislation. As will become clear, Wallace was fundamentally decided on the basis of policy reasoning centred upon the purpose behind the legal duty violated. Although the plurality in Rogers v Whitaker rejected the utility of expressions such as ‘the patient’s right of self-determination’ in this context, some Australian jurisprudence may be thought to frame the practitioner’s duty to warn in terms of promoting a patient’s autonomy, or right to decide whether to submit to treatment proposed. Accordingly, the impact of Wallace upon the protection of this right, and the interrelation between it and the duty to warn’s purpose, is investigated. The analysis in Part IV also evaluates the courts’ reasoning in Wallace by questioning the extent to which Wallace’s approach to liability and causal connection in non-disclosure of risk cases: depends upon the nature and classification of the risk(s) in question; and can be reconciled with the way in which patients make decisions. Finally, Part V adopts a comparative approach by considering whether the same decision might be reached if Wallace was determined according to English law.

Unspeakably present: The (un)acknowledgment of diverse sexuality and gender human rights in Australian youth justice systems

A number of international human rights frameworks protect the rights of young people in contact with the criminal justice system in states parties, including Australia. These frameworks inform youth justice policy in Australia’s jurisdictions. While the frameworks protect young people’s right to non-discrimination on the grounds of ‘race’, religion and political opinion, the rights of young people to non-discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and gender diversity are not explicitly protected. This is problematic given that lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) young people appear over-represented in youth justice systems. This article argues that the exclusion of this group from human rights frameworks has an important flow-on effect: the marginalisation of the right of LGBTIQ young people to non-discrimination in policy and discourse that is informed by international human rights frameworks. After outlining the relevant frameworks, this article examines the evidence about LGBTIQ young people’s interactions with youth justice agencies, particularly police. The evidence indicates that the human rights of LGBTIQ young people are frequently breached in these interactions. We conclude by arguing that it is timely to consider how best to protect the human rights of LBGTIQ young people and keep their rights on the agenda.

Examining the effectiveness of Police-Citizens Youth Clubs on crime prevention and community safety

PCYCs, individually and as a whole, are highly valued in communities across Queensland. Participants in this evaluation identified numerous benefits of PCYCs, including: providing structured low-cost activities for young people and other community groups; developing positive relationships and trust between young people and police; developing young people into effective citizens; providing a safe place for young people and a hub for whole communities; addressing disadvantages faced by young people; and fostering social inclusion. Depending on the particular activities and programs delivered by a branch, PCYCs have the capacity to minimise risk factors and enhance protective factors relating to young people’s involvement in crime. For example, PCYCs can play an important role in strengthening young people’s engagement with education and family. However, the crime prevention and community safety aims of PCYCs, and measures that might work towards these aims are not widely- or well-understood, or appreciated, by those working in and with PCYCs. The key recommendation of this evaluation is therefore that the crime prevention and community safety aims of PCYCs in Queensland need to be better articulated, understood and reflected in the practice of those working in and with PCYCs. A related key finding is that many of the activities and programs currently provided by PCYCs could be better oriented towards the goals of crime prevention and community safety without major resource implications.

Working the story : News curation in social media as a second save of citizen journalism

For the first decade of its existence, the concept of citizen journalism has described an approach which was seen as a broadening of the participant base in journalistic processes, but still involved only a comparatively small subset of overall society – for the most part, citizen journalists were news enthusiasts and “political junkies” (Coleman, 2006) who, as some exasperated professional journalists put it, “wouldn’t get a job at a real newspaper” (The Australian, 2007), but nonetheless followed many of the same journalistic principles. The investment – if not of money, then at least of time and effort – involved in setting up a blog or participating in a citizen journalism Website remained substantial enough to prevent the majority of Internet users from engaging in citizen journalist activities to any significant extent; what emerged in the form of news blogs and citizen journalism sites was a new online elite which for some time challenged the hegemony of the existing journalistic elite, but gradually also merged with it. The mass adoption of next-generation social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, however, has led to the emergence of a new wave of quasi-journalistic user activities which now much more closely resemble the “random acts of journalism” which JD Lasica envisaged in 2003. Social media are not exclusively or even predominantly used for citizen journalism; instead, citizen journalism is now simply a by-product of user communities engaging in exchanges about the topics which interest them, or tracking emerging stories and events as they happen. Such platforms – and especially Twitter with its system of ad hoc hashtags that enable the rapid exchange of information about issues of interest – provide spaces for users to come together to “work the story” through a process of collaborative gatewatching (Bruns, 2005), content curation, and information evaluation which takes place in real time and brings together everyday users, domain experts, journalists, and potentially even the subjects of the story themselves. Compared to the spaces of news blogs and citizen journalism sites, but also of conventional online news Websites, which are controlled by their respective operators and inherently position user engagement as a secondary activity to content publication, these social media spaces are centred around user interaction, providing a third-party space in which everyday as well as institutional users, laypeople as well as experts converge without being able to control the exchange. Drawing on a number of recent examples, this article will argue that this results in a new dynamic of interaction and enables the emergence of a more broadly-based, decentralised, second wave of citizen engagement in journalistic processes.

A Submission to the Inquiry into the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 (Cth)

A right of resale, or droit de suite (a right to follow), is a legislative instrument under intellectual property law, which enables artists to receive a percentage of the sale price whenever artistic works are resold. A French legal scholar, Albert Vaunois, first articulated the need for a 'droit de suite' in connection with fine art back in 1893. The French Government introduced a scheme to protect the right of resale in 1920, after controversy over artists living in poverty, while public auction houses were profiting from the resale of their artistic creations. In the United States, there has been less support for a right of resale amongst legislatures. After lobbying from artists such as the king of pop art, Robert Rauschenberg, the state of California passed the Resale Royalties Act in 1977. At a Federal level, the United States Congress has shown some reluctance in providing national recognition for a right of resale in the United States. A number of other European countries have established a right of resale. In 2001, the European Council adopted the Artists' Resale directive and recognised that the 'artist's resale right forms an integral part of copyright and is an essential prerogative for authors.' In 2006, the United Kingdom promulgated regulations, giving effect to a right of resale in that jurisdiction. However, a number of Latin American and African countries have established a right of resale. The New Zealand Parliament has debated a bill on a right of resale.

Damned to fame: The moral rights of the Beckett estate

The Company B production of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot raises important questions about copyright law, moral rights, and dramatic works. The playwright's nephew and executor, Edward Beckett, threatened to bring a legal action against the Sydney company for breach of contract on the grounds that unauthorised music appeared in the production. The Company B production denied that the contract made any such express provisions. The director Neil Armfield complained: 'In coming here with its narrow prescriptions, its dead controlling hand, the Beckett estate seems to me to be the enemy of art'. In the biography Damned to fame, James Knowlson documents a number of other proceedings taken by Beckett and his agents to control the productions of his work: 'He was often represented as a tyrannical figure, an arch-controller of his work, ready to unleash fiery thunderbolts onto the head of any bold, innovative director, unwilling to follow his text and stage directions to the last counted dot and precisely timed pause.' However, Knowlson notes that Beckett was inconsistent in his willingness to use legal action: 'It made a tremendous difference if he liked and respected the persons involved or if he had been able to listen to their reasons for wanting to attempt something highly innovative or even slightly different'. Famously, in 1988, Beckett brought legal action against a Dutch theatre company, which wanted to stage a production of Waiting for Godot, with women acting all the roles. His lawyer argued that the integrity of the text was violated because actresses were substituted for the male actors asked for in the text. The judge in the Haarlem court ruled that the integrity of the play had not been violated, because the performance showed fidelity to the dialogue and the stage directions of the play. By contrast, in 1992, a French court held a stage director was liable for an infringement of Beckett's moral right of integrity because the director had staged Waiting for Godot with the two lead roles played by women. In 1998, a United States production of Waiting for Godot with a racially mixed cast attracted legal threats amid accusations it had 'injected race into the play'. In the 2000 New York Fringe Festival, a company made light of this ongoing conflict between the Beckett estate and artistic directors. The work was entitled: The complete lost works of Samuel Beckett as found in an envelope (partially burned) in a dustbin in Paris labelled 'Never to be performed. Never. Ever. EVER! Or I'll sue! I'LL SUE FROM THE GRAVE!'. The plot concerned a fight between three producers and the Beckett estate. In the wake of such disputes, Beckett and later his estate sought to tighten production contracts to state that no additions, omissions or alterations should be made to the text of the play or the stage directions and that no music, special effects or other supplements should be added without prior consent.

Evolution of the concept of compulsory licensing: A critical analysis of key developments before and after TRIPS

Patents provide monopoly rights to patent holders. There are safeguards in patent regime to ensure that exclusive right of the patent holder is not misused. Compulsory licensing is one of the safeguards provided under TRIPS using which patent granting state may allow a third party to exploit the invention without patent holder’s consent upon terms and conditions decided by the government. This concept existed since 1623 and was not introduced by TRIPS for the first time. But this mechanism has undergone significant changes especially in post-TRIPS era. History of evolution of compulsory licensing is one of the least explored areas of intellectual property law. This paper undertakes an analysis of different phases in the evolution of the compulsory licensing mechanism and sheds light on reasons behind developments especially after TRIPS.

All of Us

All of Us is a ground-breaking Australian government approved anti-bullying educational resource comprised of seven online videos that feature gender diverse, sexual diverse and intersex youths. The videos, along with unit guides and student handouts, have been designed to address a gap in high school curriculum as they teach not just about sexual diversity and gender diversity but also the values of empathy and respect, which has been demonstrated to improve students’ wellbeing and educational engagement. The resource captures the real life experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex young people through a collection of short videos and teaching activities that are aligned to the Year 7/8 Health and Physical Education learning area of the Australian Curriculum. All Of Us has been developed to have a real impact on student attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people and to encourage whole school change that affirms and supports the right of all students, staff and families to feel safe at school. This free video resource is widely available and allows all schools, regardless of experience, location or funding, the chance to create an environment where every student can learn, every teacher can teach and every family can belong from the beginning of 2016. The resource was launched on Thursday, 26 November 2015 at Treasury Theatre, 1 Macarthur St, Melbourne. The launch was attended by almost 200 people including former Safe Schools Coalition Ambassador Jason Ball, Victorian Commissioner for Gender and Sexuality Ro Allen, Chris Bush, Executive Producer of All Of Us, Micah Scott, CEO of Minus18, All Of Us Margot Fink; Safe Schools Coalition Victoria's Manager Roz Ward and; Sally Richardson, National Program Director of Safe Schools Coalition Australia.

Portrait of Elisabeth Bell Portraits Women

Signed bottom left of photograph and bottom right of mat

Seated portrait of Elisabeth Bell holding small dog Portraits Women

Signed bottom left of photograph and bottom right of mat