Carbon capture and storage laws in Australia : project facilitation or a precautionary approach?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered to be an integral transitionary measure in the mitigation of the global greenhouse gas emissions from our continued use of fossil fuels. Regulatory frameworks have been developed around the world and pilot projects have been commenced. However, CCS processes are largely untested at commercial scales and there are many unknowns associated with the long terms risks from these storage projects. Governments, including Australia, are struggling to develop appropriate, yet commercially viable, regulatory approaches to manage the uncertain long term risks of CCS activities. There have been numerous CCS regimes passed at the Federal, State and Territory levels in Australia. All adopt a different approach to the delicate balance facilitating projects and managing risk. This paper will examine the relatively new onshore and offshore regimes for CCS in Australia and the legal issues arising in relation to the implementation of CCS projects. Comparisons will be made with the EU CCS Directive where appropriate.

Mental harm, rescuers and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

At common law, a duty of care may be owed to a claimant who suffers nervous shock or pure mental harm due to witnessing, or hearing about, physical injury caused to another due to a defendant’s negligence. “Pure mental harm” is the ‘impairment of a person’s mental condition’ that is not suffered as a consequence of any other kind of personal injury to them. However, as many accidents have the potential to create a wide circle of mental suffering to bystanders, family members or others not physically injured themselves, it has traditionally been ‘thought impolitic that everybody so affected should be able to recover damages from the tortfeasor.’ ‘To allow such extended recovery would stretch liability too far.’ Nevertheless, whilst adopting a restrictive approach to liability, the common law courts have recognised that a defendant might owe a duty in relation to the pure mental harm suffered by one who foreseeably attends an accident scene to rescue another from a situation created by the defendant’s negligence.

Does pornography harm young people?

In recent debates about the regulation of technologies that deliver pornographic content, the greatest concerns have been about the increasing ease with which young people can access such material. Because of the ethical difficulties in researching this topic, little data has been available on the potential harm done to young people by exposure to pornography. This paper gathers a number of data sources that address this issue indirectly—including the results of our own survey of over 1000 consumers of pornography—to explore this issue. Research shows that healthy sexual development includes natural curiosity about sexuality. Retrospective studies show that accidental exposure to real-life scenes of sexuality does not harm children. Our survey shows that age of first exposure to pornography does not correlate with negative attitudes towards women. Studies with non-explicit representations of sexuality show that young people who seek out sexualised representations tend to be those with a pre-existing interest in sexuality. These studies also suggest that current generations of children are no more sexualised than previous generations, that they are not innocent about sexuality, and that a key negative effect of this knowledge is the requirement for them to feign ignorance in order to satisfy adults’ expectations of them. Research also suggests important differences between pre- and post-pubescent attitudes towards pornography, and that pornography is not addictive.

Duty of care for mental harm suffered by rescuers

In Wicks v State Rail Authority NSW; Sheehan v State Rail Authority NSW [2010] HCA 22 (16 June 2010) the duty of care owed to rescuers, who were police officers, at a train derailment, was considered in conjunction with the interpretation of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002.

Causing economic harm to property developers : damages for starting an incurably bad appeal?

A recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal involved an unusual statement of claim made on behalf of the developer of a proposed resort in Port Douglas. The decision is The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2005] QCA 475. The issue The defendant had objected to a development application of the plaintiff developer and lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court against the council decision granting a development permit. The main issue in the Planning and Environment Court was whether the site coverage of the proposed resort was excessive. In a separate action (the subject matter of the present appeal), the plaintiff developer claimed damages for ‘negligence’ alleging that the defendant had breached a duty of care not to appeal without properly or reasonably assessing whether the development qualified for a permit given that the resort qualified for the maximum allowable site coverage. It was alleged that the appeal lodged by the defendant in the Planning and Environment Court had no reasonable prospects of success and that any reasonable person properly advised would know, or ought reasonably to have known, that to be so. The defendant had been “put on notice” that the plaintiff would incur loss of $10,000 for every day there was a delay in starting construction of the resort. The claim made by the developer required the court to consider those circumstances where a person may lawfully and deliberately cause economic harm to another. Was a duty of care owed by the defendant for negligent conduct of litigation that caused economic loss to the plaintiff?

Defending the sanctity of life principle : a reply to John Keown

This article is a response to Professor Keown’s criticism of my paper “Finding a Way Through the Ethical and Legal Maze: Withdrawal of Medical Treatment and Euthanasia” (2005) 13 (3) Medical Law Review 357. The article takes up and responds to a number of criticisms raised by Keown in an attempt to further the debate concerning the moral and legal status of withdrawing life-sustaining measures, its distinction from euthanasia, and the implications of the lawfulness of withdrawal for the principle of the sanctity of life.

Safeguarding rural Australia : addressing masculinity and violence in rural settings : suicide and other violent self-harm in an Australian rural context : analysis of secondary data

This report is an update of an earlier one produced in September 2009 (see Carrington et al. 2009) which remains as an ePrint through the project’s home page. The report focuses on our examination of extant data which have been sourced with respect to self-harm and suicide among males living in regional and remote Australia and which were available in public data bases at production time. Moreover, specific areas of concern regarding elevated rates of suicide for rural males and data anomalies which emerged during our examination of these data are discussed.

Safeguarding rural Australia: addressing masculinity and violence in rural settings : intentional violent harm to others in an Australian rural context: analysis of secondary data analysis

This report is an update of an earlier one produced in January 2010 (see Carrington et al. 2010) which remains as an ePrint through the project’s home page. This report focuses on our examination of extant data which have been sourced with respect to intentional violence perpetrated or experienced by males living in regional and remote Australia . and which were available in public data bases at production. The nature of intentional violent acts can be physical, sexual or psychological or involve deprivation or neglect.

Safeguarding rural Australia: addressing masculinity and violence in rural settings : unintentional violent harm including injuries in an Australian rural context : analysis of secondary data analysis

This report is an update of an earlier one produced in January 2010 (see Carrington et al. 2010) which remains as an ePrint through the project’s home page. This report focuses on our examination of extant data which have been sourced with respect to unintentional serious and violent harm, including injuries, to males living in regional and remote Australia . and which were available in public data bases at production. Such harm typically might be caused by, for example, transport accidents, occupational exposures and hazards, burns and so on. Thus unintentional violent harm can cause physical trauma the consequences of which can lead to chronic conditions including psychological harm or substance abuse.

Safeguarding rural Australia : addressing masculinity and violence in rural settings : consequences of violent harm in a rural Australian context : analysis of secondary data analysis

This report is an update of an earlier one produced in January 2010 (see Carrington et al. 2010) which remains as an ePrint through the project’s home page. The report considers extant data which have been sourced with respect to some of the consequences of violent acts, incidents, harms and risky behaviour involving males living in regional and remote Australia and which were available in public data bases at production.

Free software as a democratic principle

Software forms an important part of the interface between citizens and their government. An increasing amount of government functions are being performed, controlled, or delivered electronically. This software, like all language, is never value-neutral, but must, to some extent, reflect the values of the coder and proprietor. The move that many governments are making towards e-governance, and the increasing reliance that is being placed upon software in government, necessitates a rethinking of the relationships of power and control that are embodied in software.

Book Review : Beyond criminology : taking harm seriously edited by Paddy Hillyard, Christina Pantazis, Steve Tombs and Dave Gordon (2004)

Hillyard et al.'s Beyond Criminology: Taking Crime Seriously is an innovative collection that attempts to take criminology beyond state definitions of crime to discourses involving harm, or what the editors refer to as ‘zemiology’, or what could be called ‘social harm theory’. The central theme of the book is that ‘it makes no sense to separate out harms, which can be defined as criminal, from all other types of harm’ (p. 2). At long last, ‘harm’ is discussed with the theoretical and practical integrity it deserves as an academic and intellectual narrative. For too long it has been ignored or omitted from the criminological lexicon. This book ensures that it captures centre stage within analyses that refocus the agenda to deleterious acts not always covered by the state legislature...