The Australian Qualifications Framework for bachelor degree in property economics

The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) requires every course in Australia to be reviewed and compliant by 2015. This paper compares the difference between AQF level 7 and level 8 and outlines the paradigm shift in course development, improvement and quality assurance. The AQF requires an outcome oriented process which influences the development, monitoring and implementation of AQF courses. Firstly the graduate profile is defined to underscore the direction of the property course development. Required graduate attributes are then defined, together with course learning outcomes. Each unit/subject assessment is then designed to reflect the desired learning outcomes, and then finally the unit/subject content is backfilled. This reverse engineered process will ensure that all students have been taught and assessed on the graduate attributes which will form the graduate profile. Therefore, monitoring the inclusion of learning outcomes on unit/subject level during course restructure and development is crucial to achieve the course learning outcomes. This paper recommends that further evaluation needs to be conducted in the course development phases by involving professional accreditation bodies, industry representatives, students and recent graduates in this course development process. It also discusses challenges for developing an undergraduate property course.

Property law reforms in Queensland: Is the regulatory burden on land transactions reduced?

The reduction of unnecessary regulation was a clear policy objective of the Queensland government during 2014. In the area of property sales significant reforms were introduced from 1 December 2014. This article examines the key aspects of these reforms and whether there has been a reduction in red tape for sellers and buyers of land.

Effective emergency messaging during natural disasters: An application of message compliance theories

Study/Objective This research examines the types of emergency messages used in Australia during the response and early recovery phases of a natural disaster. The aim of the research is to develop theory-driven emergency messages that increase individual behavioural compliance during a disaster. Background There is growing evidence of non-compliant behaviour in Australia, such as refusing to evacuate and travelling through hazardous areas. This can result in personal injury, loss of life, and damage to (or loss of) property. Moreover, non-compliance can place emergency services personnel in life-threatening situations when trying to save non-compliant individuals. Drawing on message compliance research in psychology and sociology, a taxonomy of message types was developed to ascertain how emergency messaging can be improved to produce compliant behaviour. Method A review of message compliance literature was conducted to develop the taxonomy of message types previously found to achieve compliance. Seven categories were identified: direct-rational, manipulation, negative phrasing, positive phrasing, exchange appeals, normative appeals, and appeals to self. A content analysis was then conducted to assess the emergency messages evident in the Australian emergency management context. The existing messages were aligned with the literature to identify opportunities to improve emergency messaging. Results & Conclusion The results suggest there is an opportunity to improve the effectiveness of emergency messaging to increase compliance during the response and early recovery phases of a natural disaster. While some message types cannot legally or ethically be used in emergency communication (e.g. manipulative messaging), there is an opportunity to create more persuasive messages (e.g. appeals to self) that personalise the individual’s perception of risk, triggering them to comply with the message.

The Global Protection of Personal Health Data

The workshop is an activity of the IMIA Working Group ‘Security in Health Information Systems’ (SiHIS). It is focused to the growing global problem: how to protect personal health data in today’s global eHealth and digital health environment. It will review available trust building mechanisms, security measures and privacy policies. Technology alone does not solve this complex problem and current protection policies and legislation are considered woefully inadequate. Among other trust building tools, certification and accreditation mechanisms are dis-cussed in detail and the workshop will determine their acceptance and quality. The need for further research and international collective action are discussed. This workshop provides an opportunity to address a critical growing problem and make pragmatic proposals for sustainable and effective solutions for global eHealth and digital health.

Submission for the Queensland Government Parliamentary Inquiry into personal health promotion interventions using telephone and web-based technologies

Telephone and web-based technologies such as SMS, smartphone apps, gamification, online/mobile games, online quizzes and tools can be used in personal health interventions in two ways: health promotion or social marketing. In response to the Queensland government's call for submissions to the parliamentary inquiry, a social marketing and design submission from four of the faculties at Queensland University of Technology was submitted. There appears to be a great deal of confusion in government circles about the terms ‘social marketing’ and ‘health promotion’ and often they are used interchangeably when they are actually significantly different approaches. Social marketing is the science and practice of behaviour change and involves goods and services that offer a value proposition, and which incentivises citizens to change their behaviour voluntarily. However, social marketing is often mistakenly used to describe advertising and communication or social media marketing. This submission contains an overview of how technology interventions need to be implemented to be successful, provides examples of the evidence that telephone and web-based interventions can effectively influence public health outcome. This submission poses seven critical factors.

Putting the 'Personal' back into injury: An interpretation of Pt 3-5 of the ACL

There is an ongoing debate in relation to Part 3-5 of the ACL, particularly over its use in relation to other civil liability remedies. This article looks more closely at ss 138 and 139. It argues that, because of a possible design flaw in the statutory construction of s 138, it can be interpreted much more broadly than it has been to date. Also, the paper discusses the effect on an interpretation of s 139 ACL of both the High Court’s decision in Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd, and a small but significant amendment to s 139 when the ACL was enacted. It argues that s 139 can now be interpreted broadly to include claims not just for loss of financial support or services but for all loss or damage or injury caused.

Inhaled particle surface area dose: Stationary vs personal monitoring

The aim of this paper is to determine the suitability of solely stationary measurements for exposure assessment and management applications. For this purpose, quantified inhaled particle surface area (IPSA) doses using both stationary and personal particle exposure monitors were evaluated and compared.

Exploring the Potential to Educate “Good Citizens” through the Australian Civics and Citizenship Curriculum.

This chapter examines the ways in which notions of ‘a good citizen’ and ‘civic virtue’ have been conceptualized in the new Civics and Citizenship Curriculum for students in Years 3 – 10 in Australia. It argues that whilst Civics and Citizenship Education (CCE) has, over time and in various ways, been recognized as a significant aspect of Australian education, only recently has attention been given to the relational and multidimensional conceptions of citizenship. Considerations of ‘morality’, ‘a good citizen’ and ‘civic virtue’ offer possibilities to engage with multidimensional notions of citizenship, which acknowledge that citizenship perspectives can be affected by personal, social, spatial and temporary situations (Cogan & Derricott, 2000). In the current statement on national goals for schooling in Australia, which informed the development of CCE, the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) called for young Australians to be educated to “act with moral and ethical integrity” and be “committed to national values of democracy, equity and justice, and participate in Australia’s civic life” (MCEETYA, 2008, pp. 8–9). The chapter claims that this maximal emphasis (McLaughlin, 1992), based on active, values based and interpretive approaches to democratic citizenship which encourage debate and participation in civil society, was evident in the new Civics and Citizenship Curriculum. However, it contends that the recommendations of the recent Review of the Australian Curriculum: Final report (Australian Government, 2014a & b), will now limit CCE’s potential to deliver the sort of active and informed citizenship heralded by the Melbourne Declaration. This is because the Review advocates for a content-focused minimal (McLaughlin, 1992) emphasis on civic knowledge, with diminished attention to citizenship participation and processes. In doing so, the Review foregrounds conceptions of the ‘good citizen’ in more limited terms of responsibility, obligations and compliance with the status quo.

Claiming the moral high ground in the copyright wars

Copyright was once one of the more obscure areas of law. It applied primarily to resolve disputes between rival publishers, and there was a time, not too long ago, when ordinary people gave it no thought. Copyright disputes were like subatomic particles: everyone knew that they existed, but nobody had ever seen one. In the digital age, however, copyright has become a heated, passionate, bloody battleground. The 'copyright wars' now pitch readers against authors, pirates against publishers, and content owners against communications providers. Everyone has heard a movie producer decry the rampant infringement of streaming sites, or a music executive suggest that BitTorrent is the end of civilisation as we know it. But everyone infringes copyright on an almost constant basis - streaming amateur videos with a soundtrack that isn't quite licensed, filesharing mp3s, copying LOLcat pictures from Facebook, posting pictures on Pinterest without permission, and so on - and most know full well they're in breach of the law.

Inventing life: Intellectual property and the new biology

In 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a report on A New Biology for the 21st Century. The council preferred the term ‘New Biology’ to capture the convergence and integration of the various disciplines of biology. The National Research Council stressed: ‘The essence of the New Biology, as defined by the committee, is integration—re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology, and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle a broad range of scientific and societal problems.’ They define the ‘New Biology’ as ‘integrating life science research with physical science, engineering, computational science, and mathematics’. The National Research Council reflected: 'Biology is at a point of inflection. Years of research have generated detailed information about the components of the complex systems that characterize life––genes, cells, organisms, ecosystems––and this knowledge has begun to fuse into greater understanding of how all those components work together as systems. Powerful tools are allowing biologists to probe complex systems in ever greater detail, from molecular events in individual cells to global biogeochemical cycles. Integration within biology and increasingly fruitful collaboration with physical, earth, and computational scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are making it possible to predict and control the activities of biological systems in ever greater detail.' The National Research Council contended that the New Biology could address a number of pressing challenges. First, it stressed that the New Biology could ‘generate food plants to adapt and grow sustainably in changing environments’. Second, the New Biology could ‘understand and sustain ecosystem function and biodiversity in the face of rapid change’. Third, the New Biology could ‘expand sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels’. Moreover, it was hoped that the New Biology could lead to a better understanding of individual health: ‘The New Biology can accelerate fundamental understanding of the systems that underlie health and the development of the tools and technologies that will in turn lead to more efficient approaches to developing therapeutics and enabling individualized, predictive medicine.’ Biological research has certainly been changing direction in response to changing societal problems. Over the last decade, increasing awareness of the impacts of climate change and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels can be seen to have generated investment in fields such as biofuels, climate-ready crops and storage of agricultural genetic resources. In considering biotechnology’s role in the twenty-first century, biological future-predictor Carlson’s firm Biodesic states: ‘The problems the world faces today – ecosystem responses to global warming, geriatric care in the developed world or infectious diseases in the developing world, the efficient production of more goods using less energy and fewer raw materials – all depend on understanding and then applying biology as a technology.’ This collection considers the roles of intellectual property law in regulating emerging technologies in the biological sciences. Stephen Hilgartner comments that patent law plays a significant part in social negotiations about the shape of emerging technological systems or artefacts: 'Emerging technology – especially in such hotbeds of change as the life sciences, information technology, biomedicine, and nanotechnology – became a site of contention where competing groups pursued incompatible normative visions. Indeed, as people recognized that questions about the shape of technological systems were nothing less than questions about the future shape of societies, science and technology achieved central significance in contemporary democracies. In this context, states face ongoing difficulties trying to mediate these tensions and establish mechanisms for addressing problems of representation and participation in the sociopolitical process that shapes emerging technology.' The introduction to the collection will provide a thumbnail, comparative overview of recent developments in intellectual property and biotechnology – as a foundation to the collection. Section I of this introduction considers recent developments in United States patent law, policy and practice with respect to biotechnology – in particular, highlighting the Myriad Genetics dispute and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bilski v. Kappos. Section II considers the cross-currents in Canadian jurisprudence in intellectual property and biotechnology. Section III surveys developments in the European Union – and the interpretation of the European Biotechnology Directive. Section IV focuses upon Australia and New Zealand, and considers the policy responses to the controversy of Genetic Technologies Limited’s patents in respect of non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. Section V outlines the parts of the collection and the contents of the chapters.

Climate-ready crops: Intellectual property, agriculture, and climate change

In The Climate Change Review, Ross Garnaut emphasised that ‘Climate change and climate change mitigation will bring about major structural change in the agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors’. He provides this overview of the effects of climate change on food demand and supply: ‘Domestic food production in many developing countries will be at immediate risk of reductions in agricultural productivity due to crop failure, livestock loss, severe weather events and new patterns of pests and diseases.’ He observes that ‘Changes to local climate and water availability will be key determinants of where agricultural production occurs and what is produced.’ Gert Würtenberger has commented that modern plant breeding is particularly concerned with addressing larger issues about nutrition, food security and climate change: ‘Modern plant breeding has an increasing importance with regard to the continuously growing demand for plants for nutritional and feeding purposes as well as with regard to renewal energy sources and the challenges caused by climate changes.’ Moreover, he notes that there is a wide array of scientific and technological means of breeding new plant varieties: ‘Apart from classical breeding, technologies have an important role in the development of plants that satisfy the various requirements that industrial and agricultural challenges expect to be fulfilled.’ He comments: ‘Plant variety rights, as well as patents which protect such results, are of increasingly high importance to the breeders and enterprises involved in plant development programmes.’ There has been larger interest in the intersections between sustainable agriculture, environmental protection and food security. The debate over agricultural intellectual property is a polarised one, particularly between plant breeders, agricultural biotechnology companies and a range of environmentalist groups. Susan Sell comments that there are complex intellectual property battles surrounding agriculture: 'Seeds are at the centre of a complex political dynamic between stakeholders. Access to seeds concerns the balance between private rights and public obligations, private ownership and the public domain, and commercial versus humanitarian objectives.' Part I of this chapter considers debates in respect of plant breeders’ rights, food security and climate change in relation to the UPOV Convention 1991. Part II explores efforts by agricultural biotechnology companies to patent climate-ready crops. Part III considers the report of the Special Rapporteur for Food, Olivier De Schutter. It looks at a variety of options to encourage access to plant varieties with climate adaptive or mitigating properties.

Patent-busting: The public patent foundation, gene patents and the Seed Wars

This chapter considers the Public Patent Foundation as a novel institution in the patent framework. It contends that such a model can play a productive role in challenging the validity of high-profile patents; working as an amicus curiae in significant court cases; and also promoting patent law reform. However, there are limits to the ‘patent-busting’ of the Foundation. The not-for-profit legal services organization has only had the time and resources to challenge a number of noteworthy patents. Other jurisdictions – such as Australia – lack such public-spirited "patent-busting" entities. This chapter considers a number of key disputes involving the Public Patent Foundation. Part I examines the role of the Public Patent Foundation in the landmark dispute over Myriad Genetics’ patents in respect of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Part II considers the role of the Public Patent Foundation in litigation between organic farmers and Monsanto. Part III examines the role of the Public Patent Foundation in larger debates about patent law reform in the United States – particularly looking at the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 2011 (US). The conclusion contends that the patent-busting model of the Public Patent Foundation should be emulated in respect of other technological fields, and other jurisdictions – such as Australia. The initiative could also be productively applied to other forms of intellectual property – such as trade mark law, designs law, plant breeders’ rights, plant breeders’ rights, and access to genetic resources.

Intellectual property and global warming: Climate justice

Engaging in a close analysis of legal and political discourse, this chapter considers conflicts over intellectual property and climate change in three key arenas: climate law; trade law; and intellectual property law. In this chapter, it is argued that there is a need to overcome the political stalemates and deadlocks over intellectual property and climate change. It is essential that intellectual property law engage in a substantive fashion with the matrix of issues surrounding fossil fuels, clean technologies, and climate change at an international level. First, this chapter examines the debate over intellectual property and climate change under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, and the establishment of the UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre and Network. It recommends that the technology mechanism should address and deal with matters of intellectual property management and policy. Second, the piece examines the discussion of global issues in the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO GREEN. It supports the proposal for a Global Green Patent Highway to allow for the fast-tracking of intellectual property applications in respect of green technologies. Third, the chapter investigates the dispute in the TRIPS Council at the World Trade Organization over intellectual property, climate change, and development. This section focuses upon the TRIPS Agreement 1994. This chapter calls for a Joint Declaration on Intellectual Property and Climate Change from the UNFCCC, WIPO, and the WTO. The paper concludes that intellectual property should be reformed as part of a larger effort to promote climate justice. Rather than adopt a fragmented, piecemeal approach in various international institutions, there is a need for a co-ordinated and cohesive response to intellectual property in an age of runaway, global climate change. Patent law should be fossil fuel free. Intellectual property should encourage research, development, and diffusion of renewable energy and clean technologies. It is submitted that intellectual property law reform should promote climate justice in line with Mary Robinson’s Declaration on Climate Justice 2013.