The conceptual and operational compatibility of data breach notification and information privacy laws

Mandatory data breach notification laws are a novel and potentially important legal instrument regarding organisational protection of personal information. These laws require organisations that have suffered a data breach involving personal information to notify those persons that may be affected, and potentially government authorities, about the breach. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has proposed the creation of a mandatory data breach notification scheme, implemented via amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). However, the conceptual differences between data breach notification law and information privacy law are such that it is questionable whether a data breach notification scheme can be solely implemented via an information privacy law. Accordingly, this thesis by publications investigated, through six journal articles, the extent to which data breach notification law was conceptually and operationally compatible with information privacy law. The assessment of compatibility began with the identification of key issues related to data breach notification law. The first article, Stakeholder Perspectives Regarding the Mandatory Notification of Australian Data Breaches started this stage of the research which concluded in the second article, The Mandatory Notification of Data Breaches: Issues Arising for Australian and EU Legal Developments (‘Mandatory Notification‘). A key issue that emerged was whether data breach notification was itself an information privacy issue. This notion guided the remaining research and focused attention towards the next stage of research, an examination of the conceptual and operational foundations of both laws. The second article, Mandatory Notification and the third article, Encryption Safe Harbours and Data Breach Notification Laws did so from the perspective of data breach notification law. The fourth article, The Conceptual Basis of Personal Information in Australian Privacy Law and the fifth article, Privacy Invasive Geo-Mashups: Privacy 2.0 and the Limits of First Generation Information Privacy Laws did so for information privacy law. The final article, Contextualizing the Tensions and Weaknesses of Information Privacy and Data Breach Notification Laws synthesised previous research findings within the framework of contextualisation, principally developed by Nissenbaum. The examination of conceptual and operational foundations revealed tensions between both laws and shared weaknesses within both laws. First, the distinction between sectoral and comprehensive information privacy legal regimes was important as it shaped the development of US data breach notification laws and their subsequent implementable scope in other jurisdictions. Second, the sectoral versus comprehensive distinction produced different emphases in relation to data breach notification thus leading to different forms of remedy. The prime example is the distinction between market-based initiatives found in US data breach notification laws compared to rights-based protections found in the EU and Australia. Third, both laws are predicated on the regulation of personal information exchange processes even though both laws regulate this process from different perspectives, namely, a context independent or context dependent approach. Fourth, both laws have limited notions of harm that is further constrained by restrictive accountability frameworks. The findings of the research suggest that data breach notification is more compatible with information privacy law in some respects than others. Apparent compatibilities clearly exist as both laws have an interest in the protection of personal information. However, this thesis revealed that ostensible similarities are founded on some significant differences. Data breach notification law is either a comprehensive facet to a sectoral approach or a sectoral adjunct to a comprehensive regime. However, whilst there are fundamental differences between both laws they are not so great to make them incompatible with each other. The similarities between both laws are sufficient to forge compatibilities but it is likely that the distinctions between them will produce anomalies particularly if both laws are applied from a perspective that negates contextualisation.

The Australian nonprofit sector legal and accounting almanac 2011

Summaries of legal cases, legislation and developments in law and accounting relevant to nonprofit organisations and charity law during 2011; including articles on special issues such as accounting standards and the chart of accounts; law reform (e.g. the new national regulator, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission); and taxation.

Mandatory auditor rotation : Australian evidence

A key part of the auditor independence reforms in Australia, as represented by Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004 (Cth) (CLERP 9), mandates audit partner rotation. The change was criticised predominantly due to the costs imposed on both the audit firms and the audit clients. This study examines the Australian experience post-CLERP 9 with mandated auditor rotation. Based on data of audit partner rotation over 2003–2009 (on average 1200 listed Australian companies over the sample period), we show that audit partner tenure sat at a median of 2–3 years, but that the maximum audit partner tenure was as high as 20 years in the pre-CLERP 9 period. For around 85% of the market, audit partner rotation occurred voluntarily at between 1–5 years. The interesting result is that for 15% of the market, the mandated audit partner rotation had a significant impact on corporate governance practice. There is also a greater observed impact of mandatory rotation on audit engagements involving the non-global auditing firms. These findings inform the debate as to the ‘costliness’ of the law reform.

Regulating assisted reproductive technologies in Victoria : the impact of changing policy concerning the accessibility of in vitro fertilisation for preimplantation tissue-typing

On 1 January 2010, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Vic) came into force. The legislation was the outcome of a detailed review and consultation process undertaken by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. Arguably, the change to the regulatory framework represents a significant shift in policy compared to previous regulatory approaches on this topic in Victoria. This article considers the impact of the new legislation on eligibility for reproductive treatments, focusing on the accessibility of such services for the purpose of creating a “saviour sibling”. It also highlights the impact of the Victorian regulatory body’s decision to abolish its regulatory policies on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation tissue-typing, concluding that the regulatory approach in relation to these latter issues is similar to other Australian jurisdictions where such practices are not addressed by a statutory framework.

Archimedes, aid/watch, constitutional levers and where we now stand

Significant reform of the laws regulating charities is under way in Australia. The reforms cover almost every facet of the relationship between charities and government and the process has brought to the surface different assumptions about the role of charities in society, their entitlement to fiscal and other privileges and the scope and nature of regulation that can or should be imposed on the charities. This paper explores these broader issues in the context of the Aid/Watch case, involving an organisation used by citizens to challenge the State. Such organisations occupy contested space as to what does and does not constitute a charity. Accordingly the case provides a useful perspective from which to consider the broader issues in the relationship between government and charity. This paper seeks to build on the contribution made by other academics, by exploring the constitutional significance of political purposes and drawing from philosophy to provide context and meaning to potentially significant aspects of the judgment that might be missed when it is analysed only in terms of legal precedent through the narrow lens of the existing four heads of charity. Revenue implications for taxation of charities and political parties are also considered and it is suggested that in practice, if not in theory, the fence between them has come down.

Media classification : Content regulation in an age of convergent media

This article outlines the key recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of the National Classification Scheme, as outlined in its report Classification – Content Regulation and Convergent Media (ALRC, 2012). It identifies key contextual factors that underpin the need for reform of media classification laws and policies, including the fragmentation of regulatory responsibilities and the convergence of media platforms, content and services, as well as discussing the ALRC’s approach to law reform.

The extent of the insured’s duty of disclosure : a comparative analysis of the disclosure obligations of insured in Australia, Singapore and China

Pre-contractual material disclosure and representation from an insurance policy proposer is the most important element for insurers to make a decision on whether a proposer is insurable and what are the terms and conditions if the proposal by the proposer is able to be insured. The issue this thesis researches and investigates focus on the issues related to the pre-contractual non-disclosures and misrepresentations of an insured under the principle of utmost good faith, by operation of laws, can achieve with different results in different jurisdiction. A similar disputed claim involving material non-disclosed personal information or misrepresentation at the pre-contractual stage from an insured with respect to both general and life insurance policies settled by an insurer in Australia could be that the policy is set aside ab initio by the insurers in Singapore or China. The jurisdictions this thesis examines are • Australia; • Singapore; and • China including Hong Kong.

How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis from which to start an informed and rational dialogue in Australia about voluntary euthanasia (VE) and assisted suicide (AS). It does this by seeking to chart the broad landscape of issues that can be raised as relevant to how this conduct should be regulated by the law. It is not our purpose to persuade. Rather, we have attempted to address the issues as neutrally as possible and to canvass both sides of the argument in an even-handed manner. We hope that this exercise places the reader in a position to consider the question posed by this paper: How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide? In line with the approach taken in the paper, this question does not take sides in the debate. It simply asks how VE and AS should be regulated, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve regulation. We begin by considering the wider legal framework that governs end of life decision-making. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment that result in a person’s death can be lawful. This could be because, for example, a competent adult refuses such treatment. Alternatively, stopping or not providing treatment can be lawful when it is no longer in a person’s best interests to receive it. The law also recognises that appropriate palliative care should not attract criminal responsibility. By contrast, VE and AS are unlawful in Australia and could lead to prosecution for crimes such as murder, manslaughter or aiding and abetting suicide. But this is not to say that such conduct does not occur in practice. Indeed, there is a body of evidence that VE and AS occur in Australia, despite them being unlawful. There have been repeated efforts to change the law in this country, mainly by the minor political parties. However, apart from a brief period when VE and AS was lawful in the Northern Territory, these attempts to reform the law have been unsuccessful. The position is different in a small but increasing number of jurisdictions overseas where such conduct is lawful. The most well known is the Netherlands but there are also statutory regimes that regulate VE and/or AS in Belgium and Luxembourg in Europe, and Oregon and Washington in the United States. A feature of these legislative models is that they incorporate review or oversight processes that enable the collection of data about how the law is being used. As a result, there is a significant body of evidence that is available for consideration to assess the operation of the law in these jurisdictions and some of this is considered briefly here. Assisting a suicide, if done for selfless motives, is also legal in Switzerland, and this has resulted in what has been referred to as ‘euthanasia tourism’. This model is also considered. The paper also identifies the major arguments in favour of, and against, legalisation of VE and AS. Arguments often advanced in favour of law reform include respect for autonomy, that public opinion favours reform, and that the current law is incoherent and discriminatory. Key arguments against legalising VE and AS point to the sanctity of life, concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of safeguards, and a ‘slippery slope’ that will allow euthanasia to occur for minors or for adults where it is not voluntary. We have also attempted to step beyond these well trodden and often rehearsed cases ‘for and against’. To this end, we have identified some ethical values that might span both sides of the debate and perhaps be the subject of wider consensus. We then outline a framework for considering the issue of how Australia should regulate VE and AS. We begin by asking whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are). If VE and AS should continue to attract criminal responsibility, the next step is to enquire whether the law should punish such conduct more or less than is presently the case, or whether the law should stay the same. If a change is favoured as to how the criminal law punishes VE and AS, options considered include sentencing reform, creating context-specific offences or developing prosecutorial guidelines for how the criminal justice system deals with these issues. If VE and AS should not be criminal acts, then questions arise as to how and when they should be permitted and regulated. Possible elements of any reform model include: ensuring decision-making is competent and voluntary; ascertaining a person’s eligibility to utilise the regime, for example, whether it depends on him or her having a terminal illness or experiencing pain and suffering; and setting out processes for how any decision must be made and evidenced. Options to bring about decriminalisation include challenging the validity of laws that make VE and AS unlawful, recognising a defence to criminal prosecution, or creating a statutory framework to regulate the practice. We conclude the paper where we started: with a call for rational and informed consideration of a difficult and sensitive issue. How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

CCi Submission to ALRC Copyright Inquiry

The attached report was prepared by Professor Terry Flew, Dr. Nicolas Suzor and Dr. Bonnie Liu of the Queensland University of Technology.   It was developed in consultation with Professor Stuart Cunningham, Professor Anne Fitzgerald, Associate Professor Axel Bruns, Associate Professor Jean Burgess (QUT), Professor Julian Thomas (Swinburne University of Technology), Professor Christoph Antons (Deakin University), and film producer Ms. Cathy Henkel (Virgo Productions and Adjunct Professor, QUT).

Revisiting the debate about public service media exceptionalism

The development of public service broadcasters (PSBs) in the 20th century was framed around debates about its difference compared to commercial broadcasting. These debates navigated between two poles. One concerned the relationship between non‐commercial sources of funding and the role played by statutory Charters as guarantors of the independence of PSBs. The other concerned the relationship between PSBs being both a complementary and a comprehensive service, although there are tensions inherent in this duality. In the 21st century, as reconfigured public service media organisations (PSMs) operate across multiple platforms in a convergent media environment, how are these debates changing, if at all? Is the case for PSM “exceptionalism” changed with Web‐based services, catch‐up TV, podcasting, ancillary product sales, and commissioning of programs from external sources in order to operate in highly diversified cross‐media environments? Do the traditional assumptions about non‐commercialism still hold as the basis for different forms of PSM governance and accountability? This paper will consider the question of PSM exceptionalism in the context of three reviews into Australian media that took place over 2011‐2012: the Convergence Review undertaken through the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy; the National Classification Scheme Review undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission; and the Independent Media Inquiry that considered the future of news and journalism.

How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

This paper invites consideration of how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We have attempted to pose this question as neutrally as possible, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve decisions about regulation. We begin by charting the wider field of law at the end of life, before considering the repeated, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempts at law reform in Australia. The situation in Australia is contrasted with permissive jurisdictions overseas where voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are lawful. We consider the arguments for and against legalisation of such conduct along with the available empirical evidence as to what happens in practice both in Australia and overseas. The paper concludes by outlining a framework for deliberating on how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We ask a threshold question of whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are), the answer to which then leads to a range of possible regulatory options.

Classification—Content Regulation and Convergent Media

On 24 March 2011, Attorney-General Robert McClelland referred the National Classification Scheme to the ALRC and asked it to conduct widespread public consultation across the community and industry. The review considered issues including: existing Commonwealth, State and Territory classification laws the current classification categories contained in the Classification Act, Code and Guidelines the rapid pace of technological change the need to improve classification information available to the community the effect of media on children and the desirability of a strong content and distribution industry in Australia. During the inquiry, the ALRC conducted face-to-face consultations with stakeholders, hosted two online discussion forums, and commissioned pilot community and reference group forums into community attitudes to higher level media content. The ALRC published two consultation documents—an Issues Paper and a Discussion Paper—and invited submissions from the public. The Final Report was tabled in Parliament on 1 March 2012. Recommendations: The report makes 57 recommendations for reform. The net effect of the recommendations would be the establishment of a new National Classification Scheme that: applies consistent rules to content that are sufficiently flexible to be adaptive to technological change; places a regulatory focus on restricting access to adult content, helping to promote cyber-safety and protect children from inappropriate content across media platforms; retains the Classification Board as an independent classification decision maker with an essential role in setting benchmarks; promotes industry co-regulation, encouraging greater industry content classification, with government regulation more directly focused on content of higher community concern; provides for pragmatic regulatory oversight, to meet community expectations and safeguard community standards; reduces the overall regulatory burden on media content industries while ensuring that content obligations are focused on what Australians most expect to be classified; and harmonises classification laws across Australia, for the benefit of consumers and content providers.

The right to choose an assisted death : time for legislation?

The legal framework that operates at the end of life in Australia needs to be reformed. • Voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are currently unlawful. • Both activities nevertheless occur not infrequently in Australia, in part because palliative care cannot relieve physical and psychological pain and suffering in all cases. • In this respect, the law is deficient. The law is also unfair because it doesn’t treat people equally. Some people can be helped to die on their own terms as a result of their knowledge and/or connections while some are able to hasten their death by the refusal of life-sustaining treatment. But others do not have access to the means for their life to end. • A very substantial majority of Australians have repeatedly expressed in public opinion polls their desire for law reform on these matters. Many are concerned at what they see is happening to their loved ones as they reach the end of their lives, and want the confidence that when their time comes they will be able to exercise choice in relation to assisted dying. • The most consistent reason advanced not to change the law is the need to protect the vulnerable. There is a concern that if the law allows voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide for some people, it will be expanded and abused, including pressures being placed on highly dependent people and those with disabilities to agree to euthanasia. • But there is now a large body of experience in a number of international jurisdictions following the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. This shows that appropriate safeguards can be implemented to protect vulnerable people and prevent the abuse that opponents of assisted dying have feared. It reveals that assisted dying meets a real need among a small minority of people at the end of their lives. It also provides reassurance to people with terminal and incurable disease that they will not be left to suffer the indignities and discomfort of a nasty death. • Australia is an increasingly secular society. Strong opposition to assisted death by religious groups that is based on their belief in divine sanctity of all human life is not a justification for denying choice for those who do not share that belief. • It is now time for Australian legislators to respond to this concern and this experience by legislating to enhance the quality of death for those Australians who seek assisted dying.

The Convergence Review and the principle of Australians' access to and opportunities for participation

The recent Australian Convergence Review’s second principle states: “Australians should have access to and opportunities for participation in a diverse mix of services, voices, views and information”. However, in failing to define its own use and understanding of the terms ‘access’ and ‘participation’ the Convergence Review exposes itself to criticism. These terms would no doubt be made unambiguously clear should the Review’s recommendations move towards policy, and this paper contributes to this discussion by framing access and participation, from the perspective of the ‘produser’ (Bruns, 2008), around three separate but related issues: the failure to frame the discussion that will be undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2012 2013 Copyright Inquiry; the prioritising of the market over and above media accountability and the health of the public sphere; and the missed opportunity to develop a national framework for digital literacy and advanced digital citizenry.

Australia - taxation of trusts – the problem of aligning concepts of income

The Australian government is currently considering options for the rewrite and reform of the current provisions which apply to the taxation of trust income. This article provides a discussion of the current regime and the proposed reforms. It is suggested that a major revamp of taxation of trust income in Australia is problematic and a simpler approach may be to leave the law as is, with modification where necessary to address key issues as and when they arise.