System dynamics modelling and the use of evidence to inform policymaking

In recent years there has been growing interest in the policy community to apply insights from system dynamics modelling to address the complexity of many policy issues. This, however, has occurred in parallel to recent developments in critical scholarship on the nature of evidence use within public policymaking. While system dynamics aims to assist in the analysis and solving of complex policy problems, in doing so it also serves to identify which pieces of data and evidence are considered policy-relevant, or how pieces of evidence fit within a complex policy space. In this paper, we combine insights from the fields of complex systems modelling and critical policy studies in relation to these issues. Scholars working on the use of evidence within policymaking have explored how policy problems, and their potential solutions, have a range of potential framings and constructions. They further identify how processes are undertaken to define problems, apply evidence, and choose solutions can themselves specify which constructions become realized. As system dynamics modelling is increasingly applied as a policy-informing tool, it is critical to reflect on how policy issues and their solutions are constructed or understood, as well as whose values and views are represented in doing so

The implications of Mabo v Queensland [No 2] : perspectives on Mabo. by Justin Malbon

The High Court ruled out terra nullius as part of the Australian common law

Delivering justice. by Justin Malbon

In an off the cuff speech to his advisers the night before the last election, the PM mused that Mabo offers a unique opportunity for the Australian community to "do something with Aboriginal reconciliation

The fiduciary duty : the next step for Aboriginal rights? by Justin Malbon

Can the common law limit the power of government to arbitrarily and unfairly exercise its power over Aboriginal people

Indigenous rights under the Australian constitution :a reconciliation perspective

This thesis examines the possibilities for building a reconciliatory jurisprudence for the protection of indigenous rights under the Australian Constitution. The thesis first examines what could be meant by the term reconciliation in a legal context and argues that it requires (1) acknowledgement of and atonement for past wrongdoing, (2) the provision of recompense, and (3) the establishment of legal and constitutional structures designed to ensure that similar wrongs are not repeated in the future. The thesis focuses on the last of these three requirements. It is further argued that developing a reconciliatory jurisprudence first requires the courts to free themselves from the dominant paradigm of strict positivism so that they are liberated to pay due regard to questions of morality. Given this framework, the thesis then sets out to examine the purpose and scope of the race power (section 51(xxvi)) of the Australian Constitution, with particular regard to the case of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth in which the High Court directly considered the power. The thesis concludes that the majority of the Court had not, for various reasons, properly considered the nature of the power. An appropriate ruling, it is argued, should find that the power does not enable Parliament to discriminate adversely against racial minorities. The thesis then proceeds to consider whether there are implied terms under the Constitution that protect fundamental rights. It is argued that these rights are indeed protected because the Constitution is based upon the rule of law. In addition constitutional provisions are to be interpreted subject to the presumption that its terms are not to be understood as undermining fundamental rights unless a constitutional provision expressly states otherwise. The thesis also considers whether there is an implied right to equality under the Constitution. The conclusion drawn is that such a right exists and that it is both procedural and substantive in nature

Comparative analysis of overseas consumer policy frameworks

The Commonwealth Department of Treasury (Commonwealth Treasury) on behalf of Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ) has engaged the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) to conduct a comparative review of international consumer policy frameworks. The principal jurisdictions identified for the purposes of the comparison are the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, and Singapore. This comparative analysis identifies emerging issues and key developments in consumer policy and possible alternative approaches for providing consumer protection. It highlights where the chosen jurisdictions adopt different approaches to Australia, but does not identify best practice models in other jurisdictions

What Should Farmers’ Rights Look Like? The Possible Substance of a Right

Farmers’ Rights formally appeared in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) as a means of recognising the past, present, and future contributions of farmers in conserving, improving, and making available the plant genetic materials that are important for food and agriculture. Discussions have been underway under the auspices of the ITPGRFA’s Governing Body with the recent Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Farmers’ Rights (AHTEG-FR) collecting together views, experiences, and best practices to produce an inventory and options for encouraging, guiding, and promoting the realisation of Farmers’ Rights. While this is useful, this article reports on the outcomes of a workshop that applied a different methodology. Our purpose was to identify what could be and should be the substance of Farmers’ Rights so that the policy substance drives the implementation rather than the AHTEG-FR’s retro-fitting Farmers’ Rights to existing views, best practices, and measures. The contribution of this article is to develop and set out a list of possible substantive Farmers’ Rights as a contribution and foundation for further consultations and negotiations