National Cultural Policy submission

This was my submission to the Australian Federal Government’s call for submissions in response to the National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper.

IT pricing: Copyright law, consumer rights, and competition policy. A submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications Inquiry into IT Pricing

For a hundred years, since Federation, Australian consumers have suffered the indignity and the tragedy of price discrimination. From the time of imperial publishing networks, Australia has been suffered from cultural colonialism. In respect of pricing of copyright works, Australian consumers have been gouged; ripped-off; and exploited. Digital technologies have not necessarily brought an end to such price discrimination. Australian consumers have been locked out by technological protection measures; subject to surveillance, privacy intrusions and security breaches; locked into walled gardens by digital rights management systems; and geo-blocked.

Submission to the draft Migration Assurance Policy - Improving the transition to the fixed-line national broadband network review

The rights of individuals to self-determination and participation in social, political and economic life are recognised and supported by Articles 1, 3 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.4 Article 1 of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council’s Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on the Internet of July 2012 confirms individuals have the same rights online as offline. Access to the internet is essential and as such the UN: Calls upon all States to promote and facilitate access to the Internet and international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information and communications facilities in all countries (Article 3) Accordingly, access to the internet per se is a fundamental human right, which requires direct State recognition and support.5 The obligations of the State to ensure its citizens are able, and are enabled, to access the internet, are not matters that should be delegated to commercial parties. Quite simply – access to the internet, and high-speed broadband, by whatever means are “essential services” and therefore “should be treated as any other utility service”...

Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety. Inquiry into the Cybersafety of Seniors.

This submission addresses the following terms of reference: 1) the nature, prevalence and level of cybersafety risks and threats experienced by senior Australians; 2) the impact and implications of those risks and threats on access and use of information and communication technologies by senior Australians; 3) the adequacy and effectiveness of current government and industry initiatives to respond to those threats, including education initiatives aimed at senior Australians; 4) best practice safeguards, and any possible changes to Australian law, policy or practice that will strengthen the cybersafety of senior Australians.

Submission to National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from The Australian Psychological Society

Executive Summary The Australian Psychological Society categorically condemns the practice of detaining child asylum seekers and their families, on the grounds that it is not commensurate with psychological best practice concerning children’s development and mental health and wellbeing. Detention of children in this fashion is also arguably a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A thorough review of relevant psychological theory and available research findings from international research has led the Australian Psychological Society to conclude that: • Detention is a negative socialisation experience. • Detention is accentuates developmental risks. • Detention threatens the bonds between children and significant caregivers. • Detention limits educational opportunities. • Detention has traumatic impacts on children of asylum seekers. • Detention reduces children’s potential to recover from trauma. • Detention exacerbates the impacts of other traumas. • Detention of children from these families in many respects is worse for them than being imprisoned. In the absence of any indication from the Australian Government that it intends in the near future to alter the practice of holding children in immigration detention, the Australian Psychological Society’s intermediate position is that the facilitation of short-term and long-term psychological development and wellbeing of children is the basic tenet upon which detention centres should be audited and judged. Based on that position, the Society has identified a series of questions and concerns that arise directly from the various psychological perspectives that have been brought to bear on estimating the effects of detention on child asylum seekers. The Society argues that, because these questions and concerns relate specifically to improvement and maintenance of child detainees’ educational, social and psychological wellbeing, they are legitimate matters for the Inquiry to consider and investigate. • What steps are currently being taken to monitor the psyc hological welfare of the children in detention? In particular, what steps are being taken to monitor the psychological wellbeing of children arriving from war-torn countries? • What qualifications and training do staff who care for children and their families in detention centres have? What knowledge do they have of psychological issues faced by people who have been subjected to traumatic experiences and are suffering high degrees of anxiety, stress and uncertainty? • What provisions have been made for psycho-educational assessment of children’s specific learning needs prior to their attending formal educational programmes? • who are suffering chronic and/or vicarious trauma as a result of witnessing threatening behaviour whilst in detention? • What provisions have been made for families who have been seriously affected by displacement to participate in family therapy? • What critical incident debriefing procedures are in place for children who have witnessed their parents, other family members, or social acquaintances engaging in acts of self-harm or being harmed while in detention? What psychotherapeutic support is in place for children who themselves have been harmed or have engaged in self- harmful acts while in detention? • What provisions are in place for parenting programmes that provide support for parents of children under extremely difficult psychological and physical circumstances? • What efforts are being made to provide parents with the opportunity to model traditional family roles for children, such as working to earn an income, meal preparation, other household duties, etc.? • What opportunities are in place for the assessment of safety issues such as bullying, and sexual or physical abuse of children or their mothers in detention centres? • How are resources distributed to children and families in detention centres? • What socialization opportunities are available either within detention centres or in the wider community for children to develop skills and independence, engage in social activities, participate in cultural traditions, and communicate and interaction with same-age peers and adults from similar ethnic and religious backgrounds? • What access do children and families have to videos, music and entertainment from their cultures of origin? • What provisions are in place to ensure the maintenance of privacy in a manner commensurate with usual cultural practice? • What is the Government’s rationale for continuing to implement a policy of mandatory detention of child asylum seekers that on the face of it is likely to have a pernicious impact on these children’s mental health? • In view of the evidence on the potential long-term impact of mandatory detention on children, what processes may be followed by Government to avoid such a practice and, more importantly, to develop policies and practices that will have a positive impact on these children’s psychological development and mental health?

Submission to the inquiry into the high level of involvement of Indigenous juveniles and young adults in the criminal justice system

Introduction • The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) is Australia's national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice. • The Institute seeks to promote justice and reduce crime by undertaking and communicating evidence-based research to inform policy and practice. • The AIC is governed by the Criminology Research Act and has been in operation since 1973. • The AIC is pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the Committee's Inquiry into the high level of involvement of Indigenous juveniles and young adults in the criminal justice system. • There is a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that Indigenous young people are significantly over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system in Australia.

Submission : Proposed reforms to youth justice in Queensland

The proposed reforms to the youth justice system in Queensland are premised on the assumption that offending by young people is increasing. We noted (Carrington, Dwyer, Hutchinson and Richards 2012, 8) in a recent submission about the boot camps legislation that: "Statistics suggest that this concern is not warranted. Certainly studies show that ‘rates per 100,000 juveniles in detention in Queensland have been relatively stable compared with the national trend’ (Richards 2011) and that rates of detention of child offenders have declined generally in Australia over the last three decades. Youth offending statistics are affected by the diversion options used by the police, as well as by the numbers and levels of policing, and any special strategies such as Operation Colossus in the northern part of the state. ‘Community concern’ about crime does not always reflect the true rates of crime across Queensland. Policy should be based on valid evidence, not on ‘community concern’. With stable numbers of young people being detained in Australia, the research clearly suggests that youth offending is not escalating."...

Civil litigation limitation periods : submission to the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse

This submission makes one simple yet powerful recommendation for law reform to promote justice for survivors of child sexual abuse. It is informed by extensive analyses of the phenomenon of child sexual abuse and its psychological sequelae, legislative time limits and case law across Australia and internationally, the policy reasons underpinning statutory time limits generally, and the need for fairness, certainty and practicability in the legal system. The recommendation is that legislative reform is required in all Australian States and Territories to remove time limitations for civil claims for injuries caused by child sexual abuse.

Expert Opinion: Serious Concerns regarding Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Draft Policy 3.7 “Planning for Bushfire Risk Management” and associated Guidelines (May 2014)

10 page document containing expert assessment of shortcomings of Western Australian State Planning Policy SPP3.7- Planning for Bushfire Risk Management. Document produced on behalf of QUT and submitted to and published by the WAPC as part of their public consultation process for their draft policy.

Submission to the Productivity Commission draft report business set-up, transfer and closure

The Commission has released a Draft Report on Business Set-Up, Transfer and Closure for public consultation and input. It is pleasing to note that three chapters of the Draft Report address aspects of personal and corporate insolvency. Nevertheless, we continue to make the submission to national policy inquiries and discussions that a comprehensive review should be undertaken of the regulation of insolvency and restructuring in Australia. The last comprehensive review of the insolvency system was by the Australian Law Reform Commission (the Harmer Report) and was handed down in 1988. Whilst there have been aspects of our insolvency laws that have been reviewed since that time, none has been able to provide the clear and comprehensive analysis that is able to come from a more considered review. Such a review ought to be conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission or similar independent panel set up for the task. We also suggest that there is a lack of data available to assist with addressing questions raised by the Draft Report. There is a need to invest in finding out, in a rigorous and informed way, how the current law operates. Until there is a willingness to make a public investment in such research with less reliance upon the anecdotal (often from well-meaning but ultimately inadequately informed participants and others) the government cannot be sure that the insolvency regime we have provides the most effective regime to underpin Australia’s commercial and financial dealings, nor that any change is justified. We also make the submission that there are benefits in a serious investigation into a merged regulatory architecture of personal and corporate insolvency and a combined personal and corporate insolvency regulator.