Religion, Charity and Human Rights

For the first time in 400 years a number of leading common law nations have, fairly simultaneously, embarked on charity law reform leading to an encoding of key definitional matters in charity legislation. This book provides an analysis of international case law developments on the ever growing range of issues now being generated by clashes between human rights, religion and charity law. Kerry O'Halloran identifies and assesses the agenda of 'moral imperatives', such as abortion and gay marriage that delineate the legal interface and considers their significance for those with and those without religious belief. By assessing jurisdictional differences in the law relating to religion/human rights/charity the author provides a picture of the evolving 'culture wars' that now typify and differentiates societies in western nations including the USA, England and Wales, Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

The rule of law, the public interest and the management of natural resources in Australia

The statutory arrangements for the management of natural resources in Australia confer powers of decision-making upon government agencies and, at the same time, restrict how these powers are to be exercised by reference either to stated criteria or in some instances to the public interest. These restrictions perform different functions according to their structure, form and language: for example they may be in the form of jurisdictional, deliberative or purposive rules. This article reviews how the offshore resources legislation of the Commonwealth and some examples of the onshore resources legislation of Queensland address the functions performed by the public interest in determining whether there is compliance with the principle of the rule of law.

Cutting the Gordian knot of futility : a case for law reform on unilateral withholding and withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment

In this paper, we propose law reform with respect to the unilateral withholding or withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment in Australia and New Zealand. That is, where a doctor withholds or withdraws potentially life-sustaining treatment without consent from a patient or a patient’s substitute decision-maker (where the patient lacks capacity), or authorisation from a court or tribunal, or by operation of a statute or justifiable government or institutional policy. Our proposal is grounded in the core values that do (or should) underpin a regulatory framework on an issue such as this; these values are drawn from existing commitments made by Australia and New Zealand through legislation, the common law, and conventions and treaties. It is also grounded in a critical review of the law on unilateral withholding and withdrawal as well as the legal context within which this issue sits in Australasia. We argue that the current law is inconsistent with the core values and develop a proposal for a legal response to this issue that more closely aligns with the core values it is supposed to serve.

Adults who lack capacity : substitute decision-making

• Mechanisms to facilitate consent to healthcare for adults who lack capacity are necessary to ensure that these adults can lawfully receive appropriate medical treatment when needed. • In Australia, the common law plays only a limited role in this context, through its recognition of advance directives and through the parens patriae jurisdiction of superior courts. • Substitute decision-making for adults who lack capacity is facilitated primarily by guardianship and other related legislation. This legislation, which has been enacted in all Australian States and Territories, permits a range of decision-makers to make different types of healthcare decisions. • Substitute decision-makers can be appointed by the adult or by a guardianship or other tribunal. Where there is no appointed decision-maker, legislation generally empowers those close to the adult to make the relevant decision. Most Australian jurisdictions have also provided for statutory advance directives. • For the most serious of decisions, such as non-therapeutic sterilisations, consent can only be provided by a tribunal. Other decisions can generally be made by a range of substitute decision-makers. Some treatment, such as very minor treatment or that which is needed in an emergency, can be provided without consent. • Guardianship legislation generally establishes a set of principles and/or other criteria to guide healthcare decisions. Mechanisms have also been established to resolve disputes as to who is the appropriate decision-maker and how a decision should be made.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment

• At common law, a competent adult can refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, either contemporaneously or through an advance directive which will operate at a later time when the adult’s capacity is lost. • Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions also provides for a competent adult to complete an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment. • At common law, a court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction can consent to, or authorise, the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining medical treatment from an adult or child who lacks capacity if that is in the best interests of the person. A court may also declare that the withholding or withdrawal of treatment is lawful. • Guardianship legislation in all jurisdictions allows a substitute decision-maker, in an appropriate case, to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for an adult who lacks capacity. • In terms of children, a parent may refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for his or her child if it is in the child’s best interests. • While a refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment by a competent child may be valid, this decision can be overturned by a court. • At common law and generally under guardianship statutes, demand for futile treatment need not be complied with by doctors.

Succession law keeping pace with changes in technology and community expectations – informal wills

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into recent developments in the way the law of succession allows people to use new technologies to document their testamentary intentions in an informal way. Design/methodology/approach – This article considers one area in which the law has arguably kept good pace with advances in society’s expectations and technological change – the law of succession. This article examines the legislative reforms in Queensland and other jurisdictions permitting the recognition of informal wills and the decided cases in the area. In particular, the article examines the decision in a Queensland Supreme Court case in which the court recognised the validity of a will made on an iPhone. Research limitations/implications – This is a doctrinal analysis, not an empirical study, and accordingly is limited to providing details specific to the legislation and the court cases selected.

The 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) and refugee policy in Southeast Asia : twenty years forward what has changed?

In 2012, the only South East Asian countries that have ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter referred to as the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol) is Philippines (signed 1954), Cambodia (signed 1995) and Timor Leste (signed 2001). Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have annual asylum seeking populations from Myanmar, South Asia and Middle East, that are estimated to be at 15 000-20 000 per country (UNHCR 2012). The lack of a permanent and formal asylum processing process in these countries means that that asylum-seeking populations in the region are reliant on the local offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees based in the region to process their claims. These offices rely upon the good will of these governments to have a presence near detection camps and in capital cities to process claims of those who manage to reach the UNHCR representative office. The only burden sharing mechanism within the region primarily exists under the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime (the Bali Process), introduced in 2002. The Bali Process refers to an informal cooperative agreement amongst the states from the Asia-Pacific region, with Australia and Indonesia as the co-chairs, which discusses its namesake: primarily anti-people smuggling activities and migration protocols. There is no provision within this process to discuss the development of national asylum seeking legislation, processes for domestic processing of asylum claims or burden sharing in contrast to other regions such as Africa and South America (i.e. 2009 African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of the Internally Displaced, 1969 African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees [Americas]) (PEF 2010: 19).

Vulnerability : an issue for law and policy in pandemic planning?

The 2009 H!Nl 'swine flu' pandemic was the first influenza pandemic of the twenty-first centmy. Unlike the first influenza pandemic of the twentieth century, the so-called 'Spanish flu' which killed millions of people worldwide, the 2009 pandemic was relatively mild. While the mildness of the 2009 pandemic meant that the 'Yorld was spared from the impact of a high-mortality event that would cause widespread social and economic disruption, the 2009 pandemic did provide an opportunity to road-test pandemic readiness. In other work we have assessed Australia's pandemic plans and emergency management legislation, finding that both provide flexible and adaptive forms of regulation that are capable of adapting to the scale and severity of a pandemic or other public health emergency. 1 In this chapter we consider whether pandemic planning adequately addresses the needs of vulnerable individuals and groups, both within countries and between them. Central to this is the question of whether vulnerability is itself a useful concept for both law and policy, and if so, the implications of expressly incorporating the concept of vulnerability into pandemic planning.

Australian Environmental Law : Norms, Principles & Rules, 3rd Edition

Australian Environmental Law: Norms, Principles and Rules, 3rd Edition provides a detailed examination of the fundamental concepts and principles of the environmental legal system in Australia. This new edition updates relevant State, Territory and Commonwealth legislation and case law and expands on the themes set out in the 2nd edition, namely:the origins and contexts of environmental governance; the movement toward ecologically sustainable development; the relevance and function of ecologically sustainable development today in the legal system; and the range of instrumental rules supporting environmental governance. The 3rd edition in particular expands upon the range of instrumental rules by analysing through the case law the emerging sets of rules of competence and limitation on the one hand and the emerging sets of purposive, deliberative, methodological, strategic, liability and market rules on the other hand. This thematic and principled approach adopted in Australian Environmental Law: Norms, Principles and Rules, 3rd Edition presents the reader with coverage of the important issues surrounding this area of the law in a clear and concise way.

The fresh start goal of the Bankruptcy Act : giving a temporary reprieve or facilitating debtor rehabilitation?

Providing debtors with the opportunity for a fresh start is popularly regarded as one of the main goals of bankruptcy legislation. However, there has been limited analysis of this goal. This article confirms that the fresh start is one of the main goals of the Australian Bankruptcy Act, and argues that this fresh start focuses on discharge of debt and does not explicitly address debtor rehabilitation. A review of the key goals could examine whether, and to what extent, rehabilitation should also be a focus of the fresh start in Australian bankruptcy law.

Mandatory reporting laws

As part of the effort to protect children from significant abuse and neglect, each state and territory in Australia has enacted legislation commonly known as "mandatory reporting laws". There is much confusion about the nature and effects of these laws, both generally and within each jurisdiction. Accordingly, the main aim of this chapter is to review and explain the legislative principles across Australia. In doing so, the chapter will identify differences between the state and territory laws and will situate the laws as part of a system of responses to the whole spectrum of child abuse and neglect. We will also highlight the need for effective reporter training and public awareness, especially given the tension between the widely perceived need for a community response to child abuse and neglect and the simultaneous concern to avoid unnecessary reporting of innocuous events and situations.

Book Review : "Statutory Will Applications : A practical Guide by Richard Williams and Sam McCullough"

The jurisdiction of Australian courts to make wills for those lacking testamentary capacity is relatively new, having been granted by legislation progressively enacted across the various states and territories between 1996 and 2010. Given increasing numbers of statutory will applications since the legislative reform, and a growing body of law, the publication of the specialist work, Statutory Will Applications: A Practical Guide, by Richard Williams and Sam McCullough, is timely and valuable. This work will be of great interest to those who act for individual clients, especially wills and estates practitioners, but also personal injury practitioners acting for incapacitated persons who have been awarded substantial damages.

Book Review : "Statutory will Applications in Australia : A Practical Guide by Richard Williams & Sam McCullough"

Although UK courts have, for many years, had power to make wills for those lacking testamentary capacity, this jurisdiction jurisdiction is relatively new in Australia, having been granted by legislation enacted between 1996 and 2010.