Mandatory Reporting Laws for Child Sexual Abuse in Australia : A Legislative History

This work conducts a comprehensive historical review and analysis of the legislative principles for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in each State and Territory of Australia. The research traces and explains all the significant changes in the development of the laws in each jurisdiction since their inception in 1969 to the year 2013. The research also identifies why the legislation changed in each jurisdiction, covering research into publicly available records, focusing on significant government inquiries and law reform reports, and parliamentary debates. The research is situated within a treatment of the modern discovery of child sexual abuse as a widespread phenomenon of significant public health concern.

Developing countries and the potential of mandatory reporting laws to identify severe child abuse and neglect

This chapter considers the key characteristics of different types of child abuse and neglect, and outlines the nature and justifiability of mandatory reporting laws. The issue of whether these laws may be useful for child protection in developing countries with emerging economies is an important one. ‘Developing country’ is a term used by various institutions to describe a nation which has a lower living standard, industrial base, and human development index (HDI) compared to other countries (World Bank 2012; United Nations Development Programme 2013). In the context of developing countries, the chapter addresses two questions: first, might some forms of maltreatment be more suited to mandatory reporting than others? Second, what options for child protection may be considered by developing countries, taking into account children’s needs, cultural conditions and practices, economic imperatives, and the different levels of preparedness to implement child protection strategies?

Does Australia need laws for 'Biotrespass' to protect organic farmers?

The supreme court of Western Australia handed down a landmark decision yesterday, on genetically modified crop liability. The ruling in Marsh v Baxter is an enormous win for the agricultural biotechnology industry, and has disappointed organic farmers and their advocates.

The Down Under book and film remind us our copyright law’s still unfair for artists

Australian copyright law is broken, and the Australian Government isn’t moving quickly to fix it. Borrowing, quoting, and homage are fundamental to the creative process. This is how people are inspired to create. Under Australian law, though, most borrowing is copyright infringement, unless it is licensed or falls within particular, narrow categories. This year marks five years since the very real consequences of Australia’s restrictive copyright law for Australian artists were made clear in the controversial litigation over Men at Work’s 1981 hit Down Under. The band lost a court case in 2010 that found that the song’s iconic flute riff copied some of the 1934 children’s song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gumtree. A new book and documentary tell us more about the story behind the anthem – and the court case. The book, Down Under by Trevor Conomy, and the documentary, You Better Take Cover by Harry Hayes, bring renewed interest and new perspectives on the tragic story.

Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect

This book provides the first comprehensive international coverage of key issues in mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect. The book draws on a collection of the foremost scholars in the field, as well as clinicians and practice-based experts, to explore the nature, history, impact and justifiability of mandatory reporting laws, their optimal form, legal and conceptual issues, and practical issues and challenges for reporters, professional educators and governments. Key issues in non-Western nations are also explored briefly to assess the potential of socio-legal responses sex trafficking, forced child labour and child marriage. The book is of particular value to policy makers, educators and opinion leaders in government departments dealing with children, and to professionals and organisations who work with children. It is also intended to be a key authority for researchers and teachers in the fields of medicine, nursing, social work, education, law, psychology, health and allied health fields.

Mandatory reporting laws: Their origin, nature, and development over time

Dozens of countries have enacted mandatory reporting laws in various forms to respond to child abuse and neglect. Other countries including England are currently considering whether to introduce them, and if so in what form. It is important for policymakers, practitioners and researchers to understand these laws’ background, nature and purpose. This chapter outlines the origins and provenance of the first mandatory reporting laws; discusses their nature; describes major developments over time; and identifies some major effects and their consequences. It is shown that the laws are a heterogeneous, organic, flexible mechanism enabling social intervention where otherwise such intervention is severely compromised or impossible. Their primary function is to comprise but one aspect of a multifaceted child welfare system by identifying cases of serious maltreatment which would not otherwise come to light: sexual abuse and severe physical abuse are paradigm examples. The essential role of these laws is therefore primarily a tertiary aspect of a public health model, rather than a purely preventative strategy. Mandatory reporting laws are made by each specific jurisdiction according to its preferred design and function within its socio-political system. There is a spectrum of different approaches from which a jurisdiction can choose: they can apply to a broad or a narrow range of reporter groups, a broad or a narrow range of types of maltreatment, and a broad or a narrow range of instances where abuse or neglect occurs.

Insolvency academics contributing to the review of insolvency laws: An Australian perspective

Introduction 1 It gives me great pleasure to contribute to this publication to honour Professor Ian Fletcher on his retirement as Foundation Chair of the INSOL International Academic Group. A collection of essays that include topics on domestic, cross-border and international insolvency appropriately reflects the breadth of Professor Fletcher’s impact on the scholarship of insolvency law – not only in his “home” jurisdiction of England and Wales and closer to home in Europe, but also stretching around the globe, in this case, to Australia. 2 In the early 1990s when I first began to research in the area of cross-border insolvency law, a colleague mentioned that they had recently attended the XIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law in Montreal in August 1990 and heard the Cross-border Insolvency: General Report expertly delivered by an English academic, Ian Fletcher, who was widely regarded as an authority in the area. This was my first introduction to Professor Fletcher’s work and over the intervening years I have referred often to his scholarship....

Global rules on conflict-of-laws matters in international insolvency law cases: An Australian perspective

The 2012 Report “Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Co-operation in International Insolvency Cases” – commissioned by The American Law Institute in conjunction with The International Insolvency Institute – annexed 23 “Global Rules on Conflict-of-Laws Matters in International Insolvency Cases”. These proposed “Global Rules” are intended to “serve as legislative recommendations” to (inter alia) promote uniformity and greater certainty in the unpredictable area of conflict of laws. This article provides a brief commentary upon the 23 proposed Global Rules from an Australian perspective (comparing the effect and intent of each rule with the current Australian conflict-of-laws position) and offers some conclusions as to the merits of the “Global Rules” initiative.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Sports anti-siphoning laws and the controversy of sports broadcasting: A case study of Pakistan

Controversies between private and public broadcasters over the broadcasting of live sports, especially cricket, during important sports events have emerged as a serious legal issue in Pakistan. Controversy between Geo Super and Pakistan Television over live telecast of the ICC Cricket World Cup is a typical example of such controversies. An aggressive legal battle, during a most important cricketing event, not only hampered the enjoyment of cricket viewers across the country but also gave Pakistan a bad name across the globe. This article discusses in detail this controversy and highlights lacunas in the existing sports broadcasting regime of Pakistan. There are no clear and well defined sports broadcasting laws in Pakistan. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) rules are of general nature. Secondly, PEMRA rules are not comprehensive and explicit enough to provide clear guidelines about sports broadcasting. This may be a possible reason why sports broadcasting controversies reach the highest court in Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Despite these ugly battles between broadcasters, the government of Pakistan has never given due importance to this issue and no efforts have been made at any level to come up with legislation on sports broadcasting to avoid such controversies or to resolve them amicably in the light of well-defined laws on this subject. The purpose of this article is to draw the attention of the concerned authorities towards this important issue because in future more such controversies may be expected in the absence of a sports broadcasting regime in the country.

Finite volume evolution Galerkin method for hyperbolic conservation laws with spatially varying flux functions

We present a generalization of the finite volume evolution Galerkin scheme [M. Lukacova-Medvid'ova,J. Saibertov'a, G. Warnecke, Finite volume evolution Galerkin methods for nonlinear hyperbolic systems, J. Comp. Phys. (2002) 183 533-562; M. Luacova-Medvid'ova, K.W. Morton, G. Warnecke, Finite volume evolution Galerkin (FVEG) methods for hyperbolic problems, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. (2004) 26 1-30] for hyperbolic systems with spatially varying flux functions. Our goal is to develop a genuinely multi-dimensional numerical scheme for wave propagation problems in a heterogeneous media. We illustrate our methodology for acoustic waves in a heterogeneous medium but the results can be generalized to more complex systems. The finite volume evolution Galerkin (FVEG) method is a predictor-corrector method combining the finite volume corrector step with the evolutionary predictor step. In order to evolve fluxes along the cell interfaces we use multi-dimensional approximate evolution operator. The latter is constructed using the theory of bicharacteristics under the assumption of spatially dependent wave speeds. To approximate heterogeneous medium a staggered grid approach is used. Several numerical experiments for wave propagation with continuous as well as discontinuous wave speeds confirm the robustness and reliability of the new FVEG scheme.

Fatigue Laws Via Functional Equations

In routine industrial design, fatigue life estimation is largely based on S-N curves and ad hoc cycle counting algorithms used with Miner's rule for predicting life under complex loading. However, there are well known deficiencies of the conventional approach. Of the many cumulative damage rules that have been proposed, Manson's Double Linear Damage Rule (DLDR) has been the most successful. Here we follow up, through comparisons with experimental data from many sources, on a new approach to empirical fatigue life estimation (A Constructive Empirical Theory for Metal Fatigue Under Block Cyclic Loading', Proceedings of the Royal Society A, in press). The basic modeling approach is first described: it depends on enforcing mathematical consistency between predictions of simple empirical models that include indeterminate functional forms, and published fatigue data from handbooks. This consistency is enforced through setting up and (with luck) solving a functional equation with three independent variables and six unknown functions. The model, after eliminating or identifying various parameters, retains three fitted parameters; for the experimental data available, one of these may be set to zero. On comparison against data from several different sources, with two fitted parameters, we find that our model works about as well as the DLDR and much better than Miner's rule. We finally discuss some ways in which the model might be used, beyond the scope of the DLDR.

Submission to Queensland Law Reform Commission WP 73 Review of Child Protection Mandatory Reporting Laws for the Early Childhood Education and Care Sector

In 2015 the QLRC is conducting an inquiry into whether to extend legislative mandatory reporting duties for physical abuse and sexual abuse to early childhood education and care practitioners. The current legislation does not require these practitioners to report suspected cases of significant harm from physical or sexual absue to child welfare agencies. Based on the literature, and a multidisciplinary analysis, our overall recommendation is that we endorse the extension to selected early childhood education and care practitioners of Queensland’s current mandatory reporting duty in the Child Protection Act 1999 s 13E.