Forum 1 – Using Public Interest Litigation to Highlight Indigenous Issues

Confirmed speakers:

Simon Rice OAM (moderator): Associate Professor, Australian National University
Andrea Durbach: Director of Australasian Human Rights Centre and Associate Professor, University of New South Wales
The Hon. Ronald Sackville QC AO: Acting Judge of Appeal, NSW Supreme Court

Public interest litigation is the use of the adversarial court process to achieve social justice outcomes. But is litigation an effective means for achieving better outcomes for disadvantaged persons in Australian society? What are the benefits engendered by public interest litigation and what are the problems? How might the strategic conduct of public interest litigation be improved?

This forum will explore these issues with a focus on the legal mechanisms used to pursue social justice for indigenous Australians. The major challenge in using litigation as a tool to better the lives of indigenous persons is the need to package a real-life problem into a legal cause of action; that is, to turn a problem faced by indigenous peoples into a legal vehicle to which the courts can apply a remedy. Other issues include whether one action or class action can have a social and economic benefit for all persons in a similarly disadvantaged situation, and the risks of backlash when reform is imposed top-down by the courts instead of through grassroots change in the community.

Forum 2 – Intellectual Property Reform: The Role of Australian Innovations

Confirmed speakers:

Natatlie Stoianoff (moderator): Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Technology, Sydney
Philip Noonan: Director General, IP Australia
Dr. Richard Jefferson: Chief Executive Officer, Cambia
Dr. Luigi Palombi: Director, Genetic Sequence Right Project

The contemporary intellectual property framework intends to balance the interests of rights-holders and users of scientific innovations. How does the law seek to reconcile such a disparity of interests, one seeking the protection of property rights and the other easy and accessible dissemination of that property? Some argue that the current legal landscape prevents worldwide access to groundbreaking innovations to develop biotechnologies with the potential to remedy food shortages and global health challenges. But, what is a desirable balance in this circumstance? And can the legal framework seek to continue to propel innovation in these areas?

The panel will discuss the role intellectual property developments will have on economic globalization and on Australian law. An area of debate will be a potential solution offered through the Australia innovation, BioS, which seeks to navigate the problems of private ownership through creating ‘intellectual commons’.

Forum 3 – Corporate Criminality Under International Law

Confirmed speakers:

Justine Nolan (moderator): Deputy Director, Australian Human Rights Centre and Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales Faculty of Law
Dr. Joanna Kyriakakis: Research Fellow in International Law, Monash University Faculty of Law
Sarala Fitzgerald: Senior Adviser with the Human Rights Unit, Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
Peter Gordon: Non-Executive Director and Deputy Chair, Slater & Gordon

In June 2009, Royal Dutch Shell settled the case against it for the sum of $15.5 million. Shell was alleged to be complicit in the torture, killing and abuse of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other non-violent Nigerian activists in the mid-1990s.

Corporations are increasing one of the most dominant and common legal bodies. Of the 100 world entities with the highest annual Gross Domestic Product, 51 of these entities are corporations, not states. With the persuasive power of foreign direct investment increasing within developing countries, the question of how to regulate the activities of transnational corporations outside the boundaries of their own state.

This forum will discuss the possibilities for addressing this novel, legal frontier. Is it a matter of corporate, social responsibility, civil liability or corporate criminality? What remedies are there, at international law? How limited is the role of domestic law? And, what do we need to change?

Forum 4 – Same-Sex Equality: Adoption Rights

Confirmed speakers:

Wayne Morgan (moderator): Senior Lecturer, Australian National University
Nicholas Toonen: Complainant in Toonen v. Australia
Alexandra Harland: Family law solicitor
Lynne Moggach: Deputy Senior Manager and Principal Officer, Adoption at Barnardos Australia

Earlier this year the NSW Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Law and Justice conducted a parliamentary inquiry into the issue of adoption by same-sex couples. The results of the inquiry was tabled in a report which recommended that discrimination against same-sex couples and their children be removed from the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW). How do you reconcile the issue of there being no right to adoption with the right to non-discrimination for same-sex couples? Is faith or religion relevant to our modern understanding of family? What action should the NSW State Government take? This is a divisive subject which transgresses legal issues, human rights considerations and belief.

Forum 5 – Internet Regulation and the Role of Government

Confirmed speakers:

David Vaile (moderator): Executive Director, Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre
Geordie Guy: Board Member and Spokesperson, Electronic Frontiers Australia
Stilgherrian: Independent journalist, broadcaster and industry consultant
James McDougall: Director, National Children’s and Youth Law Centre
Mark Newton: Network Engineer and Commentator

In 2007, the Rudd Government made an election promise to address cyber-safety. In 2008 the Government announced that central to its plan to make the internet a safer place for children is the introduction of Internet Service Provider (ISP) level filtering of material such as child pornography. The filtering proposal has two tiers. The first tier is mandatory. This means that it will be compulsory for all ISPs in Australia to enforce a blacklist created by the Office of Film and Literature Classification Board and enforced by ACMA. The panel will reflect and analyse the fact that we know very little about the full nature of the blacklist. From what we do know, many principles of administrative law are missing.

The debate surrounding the filtering proposal has been infused with moral panic including framing the argument in terms of the benefits of protecting the children; as an adult’s rights versus children’s rights issue; and use of descriptors such as ‘protection’ or ‘clean feed’ or ‘censorship’. Are these issues being deliberately placed at the forefront of the debate to mobilize support while ignoring the real practicalities that lie behind the purported dangers of the internet? What does this mean for fair-minded debate of the internet filtering proposal? Does this legislation reflect evidence based policy or policy based evidence?

This legislation forces us to challenge, and always be conscious of the fact that the law is not a neutral result derived from concrete facts. Ultimately, the panel seeks to encourage students to question and to provoke our political leaders for answers, for public, transparent debate and to remain vigilant.