An overview of Australian intrans*igence : a systemic Pandora’s Box

Despite the fact that Australia is a socially progressive country and boasts one of the largest Gender Dysphoria Clinics in the Southern Hemisphere, delivering services for almost four decades, Australian Governments fail to arrive at any consensus on the legal and human rights approaches to Trans*people. The subsequent lack of recognition does little more than increase the levels of frustration of and the continued discrimination to Trans*people, including adverse mental health problems, in this country. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of the Australian systems that govern Trans*people and to identify how Trans*identities are manipulated in our Federal system of government; a system which offers little to protect the human rights of Trans*people. In order to contextualise the Australian situation, I commence with a brief description on the layers of government which will include how Australian Trans*people are currently protected under the law in those jurisdictions. I then present some of the impracticalities endured by the transitioning individual (single or married) including change of documentation and legal gender status before, during and after surgical transition for both those born on and off shore. This presentation will also include discussion of legislation that has been described by Trans*advocates as “Gesture”, “Cart before the Horse” and “Harmful”. I will conclude with a way forward by suggesting the development of a coordinated all of government approach in consultation with key stakeholders for “Trans* Friendly Legislation” to improve the human and legal rights, and ultimately the health and wellbeing of Australian Trans*identities.

Making media participatory: Digital storytelling

From journalism to social media, the practices of our professional storytellers continue to evolve and change along with our storytelling institutions and their functions. Comprehending these developments is a key problem of contemporary media and cultural studies. Are the politics of representation giving way to a new progressive politics of self-representation and direct participation? Or, instead, are these new genres of self-representation part of a more general demotic turn in the function of contemporary media? Do media merely mediate or amplify cultural identities, or is media functionality becoming, closer to that of a translator or even an author of identities? How can we know if the changing actor-networks of storytelling contribute to a wider democratisation, a reshaping of the hierarchies of voice and agency? This chapter considers the place of one specific critical participatory media production practice known as 'digital storytelling’ in addressing these larger questions of socio-cultural change.

Introduction : health and human rights

Over recent years there has been a growing awareness of the relevance of human rights to health and the provision of health care. While human rights are seen as universal in nature, and all of humanity shares the need for good health as a precondition of human flourishing, the articulation of shared goals, values and policies has proven to be a complex matter. This special issue of the International Journal of Law in Context brings together international scholars to analyse and explore the relationship between health and human rights.

Health Law's Kaleidoscope : Health Law Rights in a Global Age

Within contemporary society the themes of globalization, health and regulation interlock in complex patterns, changing in response to the mix of cultural differences, regulatory preferences and available resources. To turn the kaleidoscope and to change the mix is to change the pattern. This book is about those patterns as they arise in the contemporary legal, health and ethical context, exploring the transformations and challenges brought by technological change and the regulatory options in the contemporary global village.

When should private property rights give way to the public interest?

Since Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 177 it has been recognised that corporations with substantial market power are subject to special responsibilities and restraints that corporations without market power are not. In NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority (2004) 219 CLR 90 McHugh A-CJ, Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ in their joint reasons stated (at [76]), that s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) can operate not only to prevent firms with substantial market power from doing prohibited things, but also compel them positively to do things they do not want to do. Their Honours also stated (at [126]) that the proposition that a private property owner who declines to permit competitors to use the property is immune from s 46 is “intrinsically unsound”. However, the circumstances in which a firm with substantial power must accommodate competitors, and private property rights give way to the public interest are uncertain. The purpose of this Note is to consider recent developments in two areas of the CCA where the law requires private property rights to give way to the public interest. The first part of the Note considers two recent cases which clarify the circumstances in which s 46 of the CCA can be used to compel a firm with substantial market power to accommodate a competitor and allow the competitor to make use of private property rights in the public interest. Secondly, on 12 February 2014 the Minister for Small Business, the Hon Bruce Billson,released the Productivity Commission’s Final Report, on the National Access Regime in Pt IIIA of the CCA (National Access Regime, Inquiry Report No 66, Canberra). Pt IIIA provides for the processes by which third parties may obtain access to infrastructure owned by others in the public interest. The Report recommends that Pt IIIA be retained but makes a number of suggestions for its reform, some of which will be briefly considered.

Raising levels of awareness of rights and obligations in the provision of financial product advice to retail clients

In September-December 2012, 548 financial planning retail clients and 77 financial advisers responded to online surveys addressing consumer satisfaction with financial planning services and the provision of information concerning regulatory and rights issues. Retail clients commented on areas related to the best interests duty in s 961B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), in particular the extent to which advisers considered their clients’ financial objectives and lifestyle situations, and the client-centredness of the financial advice they received. Retail clients also indicated their level of awareness of their substantive rights in relation to receiving advice, the legal obligations imposed on advisers, and whether they would access internal and external complaints processes if warranted. Advisers reported on the extent to which they provide clients with information relating to their substantive rights, and complaints processes available to them. Responses were analysed in relation to client demographics (e.g., age, gender, education), and experience of financial advice. This article reports on the findings of the surveys and their implications for financial planners.

Property : an instrumental institution for environmental governance

Property in an elusive concept. In many respects it has been regarded as a source of authority to use, develop and make decisions about whatever is the subject matter of this right of ownership. This is true whether the holder of this right of ownership is a private entity or a public entity. Increasingly a right of ownership of this kind has been recognised not only as a source of authority but also as a mechanism for restricting or limiting and perhaps even prohibiting existing or proposed activities that impact upon the environment. It is increasingly therefore an instrument of control as much as an instrument of authorisation. The protection and conservation of the environment are ultimately a matter of the public interest. This is not to suggest that the individual holders of rights of ownership are not interested in protecting the environment. It is open to them to do so in the exercise of a right of ownership as a source of authorisation. However a right of ownership – whether private or public – has become increasingly the instrument according to which the environment is protected and conserved. This article addresses these issues from a doctrinal as well as a practical perspective about how the environment is managed. It does so in five ways: ●considering briefly property as a concept ●reviewing property in its historical context ●analysing property as a human right ●examining property in natural resources ●reviewing judicial approaches to property in natural resources.

Health, Rights and Globalisation

Draws together essays from leading scholars on the challenges that arise for health, law, policy and ethics at the intersections of health, rights and globalization. This book addresses global issues in public health, globalization and bioethics, and globalization and biotechnology.