Review of state and territory legislation
Proposal 10–1 State and territory governments should review laws that deal with decision-making by people who need decision-making support to ensure they are consistent with the National Decision-Making Principles and the Commonwealth decision-making model. In conducting such a review, regard should also be given to: (a) interaction with any supporter and representative schemes under Commonwealth …
Publications
Read moreAged care
6.36 The following section outlines how the National Decision-Making Principles and the Commonwealth decision-making model may apply to aged care. Aged care is an increasingly important area of federal responsibility in the context of Australia’s ageing population. The Australian Government is responsible for the funding and regulation of most residential aged care and home care …
Publications
Read moreInformation sharing
Proposal 4–10 The Australian Government should develop mechanisms for sharing information about appointments of supporters and representatives, including to avoid duplication of appointments. 4.98 The appointment of supporters and representatives in accordance with the Commonwealth decision-making model would represent a significant reform to current Commonwealth decision-making arrangements. As outlined earlier in this chapter, one of …
Publications
Read moreSupported decision-making at a Commonwealth level
Proposal 4–1 Commonwealth laws and legal frameworks should encourage supported decision-making by adopting a model for individual decision-making consistent with the National Decision-Making Principles and Proposals 4–2 to 4–9 (the ‘Commonwealth decision-making model’). 4.5 In the ALRC’s view, it is desirable to introduce statutory mechanisms for formal supported decision-making at a Commonwealth level. A range …
Publications
Read moreSupported and substituted decision-making
2.51 There is an important distinction between ‘substituted’ and ‘supported’ decision-making. It is the key issue in the discussion surrounding the meaning and effect of art 12 of the CRPD.2.52 Decision-making supports and arrangements for persons with disability take many forms along a spectrum, including: informal arrangements—usually involving family members, friends or other supporters; formal …
Publications
Read moreTerms of Reference
Review of equal recognition before the law and legal capacity for people with disability I, Mark Dreyfus QC MP, Attorney-General of Australia, having regard to: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which Australia is a party and which sets out: o rights for people with disability to recognition before …
Publications
Read moreTerms of Reference
Review of Commonwealth Laws for Consistency with Traditional Rights, Freedoms and PrivilegesI, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, Attorney-General of Australia, having regard to the rights, freedoms and privileges recognised by the common law,REFER to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for inquiry and report pursuant to section 20(1) of the Australian Law Reform Commission …
Inquiries
Read moreCause of action limited to natural persons
Proposal 9–2 The new Act should provide that the new tort be limited to natural persons. 9.33 The ALRC proposes that the statutory cause of action for serious invasion of privacy be limited to natural persons.[28] This means that corporations, government agencies or other organisations[29] would not have standing to sue for invasions of privacy. …
Publications
Read moreForums
Proposal 9–1 Federal, state and territory courts should have jurisdiction to hear an action for serious invasion of privacy under the new Act. Question 9–1 If state and territory tribunals should also have jurisdiction, which tribunals would be appropriate and why? 9.5 The Terms of Reference require the ALRC to make recommendations concerning jurisdiction and …
Publications
Read moreFault—intentional or reckless
Proposal 5–2 Second element of action: The new tort should be confined to intentional or reckless invasions of privacy. It should not extend to negligent invasions of privacy, and should not attract strict liability. 5.59 The ALRC proposes that the cause of action be confined to intentional or reckless invasions of privacy, even though this …
Publications
Read more