Thomas Faunce

In 2017/2018 the Australian Capital Territory held its first citizens' jury to deliberate changes to the Territory's Compulsory Third Party (CTP) insurance scheme, for injury compensation after motor vehicle accidents. Such citizens' juries were designed to aid the transition to next-generation parliamentary processes (such as liquid democracy - citizen direct electronic voting on laws or individual transfer of their vote to respected politicians) by enabling a variety of key stakeholders and interests to be actively represented in the process of statutory development. In effect such a process is a democratic alternative to the current model of corporate lobbyists covertly influencing the legislative process. This column investigates how the citizens' jury chose one from four proposed CTP models. It then critiques how, following the jury's recommendation, the Australian Capital Territory Government introduced the Motor Accidents Injuries Bill 2018 (ACT). Once enacted, this is designed to create a "no-fault" expedited scheme, but on our analysis, at the cost of certain adverse outcomes. These include greatly reducing an injured person's entitlements to fair compensation, a "whole person impairment threshold" that limits entitlements to treatment and care, wage loss and compensation for pain and suffering, removing the right to compensation for gratuitous care, and giving the insurance companies unfettered power over the provision of entitlements.

It is a politically controversial but by no means scientifically contentious hypothesis that many of the root causes of contemporary climate change emerge from the profit-seeking activities of multinational corporations-for instance in the oil, coal, deforestation and livestock industries. Contemporary corporatogenic warming of the climate is recognised scientifically as not only having tragic environmental consequences, but also creating significant biosecurity risks. Using the 2008 Dengue Fever outbreak in Northern Queensland as a critical focal point, this article explores the implications of corporatogenic climate change to Australian biosecurity in the context both of Australia's new federal biosecurity legislation (Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth)) and the investor-State dispute settlement provisions of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) particularly as they may impact the health and international human rights of Australia's northerly indigenous populations.

This article explores the benefits likely to arise from Australia's ratification of the Minamata Convention on Mercury with regard to reducing public health risks from mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The current legislative frameworks regulating mercury pollution are critiqued, an exploration of the international approaches is undertaken, and recommendations are made aiming to produce a stronger, more stringent and long-term mercury protection policy for Australian communities.

The 2018 export ban of recyclables to China provides an additional important reason for Australia in particular to act internationally and domestically to reduce its plastic waste. The problems Australia faces from single-use non-biodegradable plastics are replicated in every nation on Earth. Focusing on the Australian context, this article examines regulatory approaches to the problem of plastic production, consumption and disposal and its negative impact on public and ecosystem health. It scrutinises the current legal framework for managing plastic waste at Commonwealth, State and international levels, advocating greater regulation. Its regulatory recommendations include a Pigouvian tax in the form of an excise on plastic production to alter consumer behaviour and raise revenue for further investment in reusable alternatives. They also involve mandatory corporate responsibility obligations, a concept we term "corporate marriage". Other alternative and additional measures to combat single-use plastic waste as utilised in other jurisdictions are proposed for Australian implementation.

Recent technological breakthroughs in ribonucleic acid (RNA) research and the creation of synthetic gene drives using CRISPRICas9 have increased attention on the ethical and legal regulation of this field. RNA is now perceived as not merely a passive carrier of DNA information but especially through its propensity to mutate as a computation engine of cell biology, developmental biology and evolution. Synthetic Gene drives have been hailed as a potential strategy to reduce climate-change-mediated biosecurity threats such as spreading malaria and have attracted significant investment, with the Gates Foundation pledging US$75 million and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency awarding US$65 million. Calls for a global moratorium on RNA-mediated genetic engineering may overstate the potential risks of the developing technology, but form a background to the contest between "process"- and "product"-based approaches to regulation, the former purportedly favoured by the public and regulatory agencies and the latter favoured by the broad scientific community and corporate investors. At stake may be the democratic legitimacy of and equitable access to a technology that could be important to reduce the incidence of biosecurity threats both globally and in Australia.

The first official pill testing at an Australian music festival was conducted at Groovin' The Moo in Canberra on 29 April 2018. As the trial was the first of its kind in Australia, it was not without legal hurdles and uncertainty. Primarily, there was concern over the legal consequences for patrons participating in the pill testing, as well as the legal liability of those facilitating and conducting the testing. This article will discuss the legal hurdles that were overcome in order to facilitate the trial, and the future consequences and position of pill testing at Australian festivals.

Among developing strategies for renewable energy conversion and storage, artificial photosynthesis (AP) has many long‐term advantages over currently favored strategies such as small‐ and large‐scale lithium‐ion batteries. Such advantages may not be clearly revealed by recent methods of AP including hybrid nanotechnology–synthetic biology systems. This paper critiques some of these recent developments in the context of the long‐term goal of integrating AP (conducted without enslaving biological life) into every road and building on the Earth's surface. It considers the advantages and disadvantages of this as a long‐term energy storage solution and reflects on how such disadvantages may be overcome.

On 28 March 2018 the Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee issued its final report on transvaginal mesh devices. It found these devices have caused unnecessary physical and emotional pain and suffering to thousands of women who were not told by their doctors of the objective material risks associated with their use. The Senate Committee concurred with the description by the Public Health Association of Australia of the complications resulting from transvaginal mesh implants as constituting a serious public health issue requiring a response at both an individual and at a population level, including counselling, public education, clinical interventions and long-lasting protective mechanisms. The committee's inquiry highlighted significant shortcomings in Australia's reporting systems for medical devices, with flow-on consequences for the health system's ability to respond in a timely and effective way. Among other recommendations, the Senate Committee backed the establishment on a cost recovery basis of a national registry of high-risk implantable devices linked to a system of mandatory reporting of adverse events.

On 16 June 2016 the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) came into force. This legislation replaced the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) which had regulated biosecurity in Australia for over a century. Impetus for the change arose from a number of reviews (the Nairn Report and later Beale Review) into Australia's biosecurity system. These identified systemic flaws that were causing the country to be vulnerable to incursions of foreign pests and diseases through the administration of an archaic regulatory regime. The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) includes new terminology, increased powers for the regulator and additional requirements for industry. The responsible agency, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, has stated that the new biosecurity laws are designed to be user-friendly, to be flexible and responsive to changes in technology and future challenges, to remove cluttered and confusing sections of the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) and to achieve the difficult balance of making biosecurity regulation risk-based and equipping the regulator with strong enforcement powers while also being economically prudent and supportive of increasing Australian trade and market access. This column analyses such claims, including the short, and long-term implications of providing biosecurity officers with two sets of authorising legislative powers and sharing the responsibility of biosecurity emergencies with the Department of Health.

A recent Senate Inquiry investigated the Prostheses List (PL) which has been an integral part of the private health care system since its introduction in 1985. The PL sets the price of various prostheses products available for private health insurance patients. In recent years however, the PL has come under scrutiny due to the inflated prices of prostheses, lack of transparency from the list's creators and regulators, and increased premiums. This column critically analyses the recent Senate report, particularly as to whether it appropriately addressed the various concerns and issues raised in submissions and terms of reference of the inquiry and what ongoing role the PL should have in the Australian Healthcare System.