The seminar will discuss the current system of regulating multi-jurisdictional mergers. A merger may be "multi-jurisdictional" because the parties are located in more than one jurisdiction, or because it has the potential to impact upon competition in more than one jurisdiction.

The proliferation of competition laws and the significant increase in the number of countries now imposing pre-merger notification obligations has prompted several proposals for multi-jurisdictional merger reform, ranging from proposals for an international law and adjudicative body to more modest proposals for soft harmonisation. To some degree, the International Competition Network has, over the last decade, facilitated greater 'soft harmonisation' in the national approach to merger regulation, but inefficiencies still remain.

The Engineers Case is well known for exploding a doctrine called the reserve powers doctrine. The paper argues that if such a doctrine ever existed, it had been abandoned by the High Court by the time of Huddart Parker v Moorehead. That case agreed that State powers were residual and that exclusive State powers could only be identified after Commonwealth powers had been interpreted. It also accepted that section 107 was not a grant of any definable exclusive powers to the States.

It disagreed with later cases in that it held that limitations on one power were relevant to the interpretation of others. These are express not implied limits.

Engineers did not deal with these arguments only noting that some early cases were influenced by the doctrine of implied prohibitions and would need to be reconsidered. Huddart Parker was not such a case.

When the ABC “Four Corners” program aired images of Australian export cattle being systematically abused by Indonesian abattoir workers, it focussed the nation’s attention on the treatment of food animals. Millions of chickens, cattle and pigs are slaughtered in Australia each day to satisfy the taste preferences of Australian consumers. While most people do not accept that these food animals possess rights, they nevertheless expect them to be treated “humanely”, an expectation expressed in consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium for welfare-friendly food animal products, such as “free-range” eggs. However, while the Commonwealth government professes to care for animal welfare, it simultaneously permits cruel animal husbandry practices in exploiting animals as part of developing efficient and profitable primary industries. In multi-cultural Australia, this includes practices associated with the religious slaughter of animals.

Recent California, New York, and Illinois civil law precedent concerning the juvenile “age of consent” for sexual activity reveal that states treat adolescent “consent” erratically. The new neuroscience and psychosocial evidence of adolescent development adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida supports the movement to treat adolescents different from more developmentally mature adults. Moreover, adult prejudice and judicial bias against sexually active teenagers places teenagers at risk for sexual harassment and predation.

Conflicts between law and science, as well as between state civil and criminal law, mandate a revision of legal approaches to teenage “consent.” This presentation introduces a new mechanism to replace adolescent “consent,” legal assent. Legal assent presumes no threshold legal capacity but affords teenagers autonomous decision-making authority, as well as protection following misguided decisions. It highlights that recognition of legal assent might reduce legal bias, better protect teenagers, and encourage their responsible decision-making.

Data breaches, such as hacking incidents, are situations in which personal information is acquired by a third party without authorisation. Mandatory data breach notification laws are a key legislative response to the growing problem of data breaches. These laws require organisations that have suffered a data breach involving personal information to notify those persons that may be affected. The laws originated in the state-based legislatures of the United States and have subsequently garnered worldwide legislative interest. This seminar critically examines the assumption that data breaches are an information privacy law problem and can thus be effectively addressed within existing legal frameworks.

Although few so far, U.S. courts and courts around the world, including Australia, are likely to see more challenges to the validity and reliability of climate science. This shift will be fueled by an increase in the number of cases challenging the manner in which regulators and even private parties have (or have not) taken reasonable measures to adapt to increased drought, sea level rise and more intense storm events. In such cases, the admissibility and weight accorded climate science, a quickly-developing area of scientific research often fraught with uncertainty, will be a key factor.

This paper examines the applicability, to climate science (and other relevant science fields), of the Frye “general acceptance” and the Daubert tests employed by U.S. state and federal trial courts to exclude evidence deemed unreliable or irrelevant. I argue that the current tests apply poorly to a non-laboratory science, such as climate science. More importantly, I argue that the growing practice of Judges to apply scrutiny to scientists’ conclusions, as opposed to the validity of their methods, will make climate science predictions especially susceptible to ad hoc judicial exclusion. Because much scientific testimony focuses on applying a method to a particular set of facts, this practice invites ad hoc judicial decisionmaking that inappropriately usurps the role of the scientific expert.

I argue that courts should limit the current admissibility tests to the methodology employed by a scientist and permit scientists to testify unhindered as to their conclusions provided the court is satisfied the scientist is schooled in the method and is in good standing within a field that itself adheres to standards of quality. This approach respects the expertise of scientists and is arguably the most appropriate role for generalist judges with respect to increasingly specialized fields of inquiry such as climate science.

For most of history persons with disabilities have been targets of charity, medical interventions and excluded from education and work. In the 1980s particularly scholarship started to emerge that challenged the charity and medical model of disability. This new paradigm became known as the social model. This model argued that the cause of disablement is not caused by a medical state but by the way in which society constructs difference.

A key ‘menu’ item for campaign finance reformers is the conviction that spending limits, effectively enforced and fairly set, will enhance fairness in elections. Ideally, the design of election spending limits should ensure easier and inexpensive access for new entrants onto the political stage, an entrée that enables a wider cross-section of aspirants hitherto excluded, to win a voice in parliaments. In addition, election expenditure limits relieve major parties of the necessity to find exorbitant (and escalating) levels of cash to compete. And finally, capping the amount parties can spend implies there will be less need to raise substantial amounts from interests which may expect – or be seen to expect - favour or partiality for their largesse.

This lecture examines disclosed financial data by all parties in three New South Wales elections (1999 to 2007) in the light of a recent escalating election spending frenzy. It considers what election dynamics might be found to provide an explanation for the ‘arms race’ between the major contenders in that state before expenditure limits existed. The lecture ends with an examination of the details of the 2010 legislation, and speculates on its implications for various parties in future NSW electoral contests.

The Waitangi Tribunal recently released its report into the Wai 262 claim concerning the place of Māori culture, identity and traditional knowledge in New Zealand’s laws, and in government policies and practices. In this lecture Dr Morgans  examines the process by which the Wai 262 claim was brought before the Tribunal, and reviews aspects of the tribunal’s discussion of the protection of matauranga Māori (traditional knowledge) and taonga works (traditional cultural expressions). The seminar focuses on the issues and recommendations from Chapter 1 involving Māori interest in creative works in the context of intellectual property law, particularly copyright and trade marks. Although the conclusions and recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal are necessarily directed towards the claims of Māori, there are lessons for indigenous people in other jurisdictions.

As part of his Labor Law course Professor Bales creates a company, ‘Labor Law Inc’ with himself as president and the students as employees. On the first day of class, he issues students with an oppressive employment handbook, the ‘syllabus,’ and begins to mistreat them. The students quickly figure out that the only way to obtain better treatment is to organise themselves into a union to negotiate better terms and conditions of ‘employment.’ By overcoming the myriad of obstacles Professor Bales places in their path, students gain an appreciation for the premise of American labor law - employee ‘free’ choice, the difficulty of forming a union in the face of employer opposition, the tension between the collectivist nature of American labor laws and the individualism that pervades American culture, and the challenges of negotiating agreements when there are multifaceted interests even among those ostensibly on the same side.

The modern movement to combat human trafficking is now more than a decade old. In that time, most governments have relied primarily on law enforcement measures to combat human trafficking. Criminal law and law enforcement are necessary but not sufficient. In the past decade, despite thousands of prosecutions globally, there is little evidence that the incidence of human trafficking has declined. To achieve meaningful progress in the fight against human trafficking, other sectors of society need to play a more significant role. This seminar explores places and perspectives policy makers might look to in order to develop law, policy, and programs that are better equipped to prevent this gross violation of human dignity.

Tax reform is high on the public policy agenda in Washington, D.C. – especially now as the United States teeters on the brink of a fiscal crisis. Because of the recent recession, an aging population, and overspending politicians, the United States has a current federal budget deficit of US$1.5 trillion (10% of gross domestic product), and it has a public debt equal to almost 70% of GDP. In order to get budget deficits back down to a tolerable 2 or 3% of GDP, many recent deficit reduction plans have included proposals to generate additional receipts by getting rid of tax expenditures or by adding a value-added tax or a tax on carbon-based fuels. Many policymakers would also like to reduce the maximum income tax rates on corporations and individuals from 35% to 25%. After a brief overview of the U.S. tax system and the federal budget outlook, Professor Forman discusses the most recent tax reform proposals and their prospects for adoption.

Biblical law is one of the most remarkable bodies of law the world has ever seen. Yet despite its cultural influence and staying power, it is not always well understood. This lecture considers how we should conceive biblical law, legal thinking and legal institutions by setting biblical texts in their ancient Near Eastern literary, social and theological context. It argues that we should see biblical law as an integration of different instructional genres of the Bible. In doing so, we are better placed to appreciate the substantive and presentational differences between biblical law and modern legal concepts and legal assumptions.

UQ’s TC Beirne School of Law and the Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law (CPICL) presents guest speaker Mr Les Malezer, Co-Chair of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples.

Mr Malezer, of the Gabi-Gabi community, was awarded the 2008 Human Rights Medal for his work in advancing the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people both nationally and internationally. For the past decade he has been a delegate to the United Nations forums on Indigenous Issues and was recently elected Co-Chair of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, an organisation established to provide a national representative voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

In this UQ Seminar Mr Malezer discusses his new role and how the organisation will work with the Australian government to achieve recognition of the fundamental rights of Indigenous peoples.