20 August 2014

Victorian Offender Registration Regime

The Victorian Police Minister has announced that the state Government will introduce legislation to amend Victoria's sex offender registration regime.

The forthcoming Bill "responds directly to recommendations made by the Victorian Law Reform Commission after a review of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004".

The Minister's media release states that
Convicted sex offenders could be charged with a raft of new offences under laws that have been strengthened by the Napthine Government. 
Minister for Police and Emergency Services Kim Wells said amended laws around the Sex Offender Register create new indictable offences for sex offenders who fail to report or deliberately mislead police over contact with children. ... 
under the new, tougher measures, if an offender willfully misleads or fails to tell police about relationships with children, grooming, or interaction with children that could lead to reoffending, they will face indictable offences. 
"This Bill makes clear the obligations of those people on the Sex Offender Register," Mr Wells said. "It includes any kind of online contact with children and it also makes it a summary offence for someone on the register if they fail to tell police of changes to their personal details, for instance if they get a new tattoo or change cars." 
Mr Wells said the Amendment Bill gives police the powers they need to keep Victorian children as safe as possible. "It clears up any ambiguity over what information police require from people on the register." 
The Amendment Bill will also:
  • Impose stricter controls on the overseas travel of those on the register, helping combat child sex tourism; 
  • Permit police to disclose the identity of someone on the register to a parent, guardian or other third party in order to protect a child's safety; 
  • Help police to investigate child sex offences by allowing law enforcement agencies to retain information and intelligence on people on the register after they have completed their reporting obligations; and 
  • Make offenders more accountable for reporting contact with children by overhauling the definition of contact with children to make it clearer and more enforceable.
The Age adds detail and cautions, reporting
The announcement comes more than two years after a Victorian Law Reform Commission review of the Sex Offenders Registration Act handed down 79 recommendations, including enhanced information sharing about sex offenders between police and parents of at-risk children. 
The commission review was conducted after a damning Ombudsman report into a failure by police to notify the Department of Human Services of more than 300 registered sex offenders who had unsupervised access to children or were living with them. 
On Wednesday Mr Wells said the amendments would give police more powers to track sexual offenders and that it was “common sense” to allow police to share sex offender details with the family of a child that has had contact with an offender. 
The new powers could be used in cases where a sex offender has contact with a child, for example through their work, in a situation where that child’s family may not be aware, such as a perpetrator regularly serving a child in a shop. 
“If there is information on the sex offenders register that can be made available to a parent or made available to a third party then that person should have it if Victoria Police believe that a child is in danger,” Mr Wells said. 
When asked whether this provision would extend to notifying neighbours about the identity of a sex offender Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton said it was “primarily focused on the guardian or person responsible for the safety of that child”. 
“That’s the person we want to communicate to,” he said. “We’ve had cases where we’ve wanted to tell people about the risks to a particular child and have not been able to do so.” 
Information sharing between Victoria Police and the Department of Human Services would also be strengthened by the new legislation, in line with another commission recommendation from 2012. … 
The changes would affect about 3500 people already on the sex offenders register and anyone subsequently added.
The 2012 Law Reform Commission report stated
The scheme has been operating since October 2004. Under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, all adults sentenced for committing sexual offences involving a child are automatically included in a register of sex offenders. Sex offenders under the age of 18 years, and adults sentenced for sexual offences against adult victims, are not automatically included in the register but they may be included by order of the court. Registration is not part of the offender’s sentence. It is a separate scheme administered by Victoria Police. It is intended to be protective, not punitive.
Registered sex offenders living in the community must keep the police informed about their personal details and whereabouts for a period determined by the Act. They must also report the names and ages of children with whom they live or have had 'regular unsupervised contact'. Adult offenders report for 8 years, 15 years or life, depending on the offences. Young offenders report for 4 years or 7.5 years.
Why the report was prepared
The Attorney-General, the Hon Robert Clark MP, asked the Commission to review the registration of sex offenders in April 2011. The request followed a report by the Ombudsman to Parliament about the management of information that registered sex offenders give the police. Victoria Police were found to have not informed the Department of Human Services of more than 300 registered sex offenders who were living with children or had unsupervised contact with them.
The Ombudsman referred in his report to concerns held by various senior office holders about the limitations of the Sex Offenders Registration Act. The Commission found that others with direct experience of the operation of the scheme and the management and treatment of sex offenders share these concerns.
The Commission’s report examines the issues that have arisen from its conduct of the reference. It proposes systemic reform to the registration scheme to strengthen the focus on protecting children from those who may harm them in a sexual way and to enable Victoria Police and the Department of Human Services to direct their resources more effectively to that purpose.
The Commission’s findings
The purpose of the scheme has evolved
The scheme was established to provide information to the police for law enforcement purposes and reduce the likelihood that sex offenders will re-offend. Now, one of its primary functions is to operate as a source of information for child protection authorities about children who may be at risk of harm.
The Sex Offenders Registration Act does not readily accommodate the shift in expectations of the scheme and the Commission has made a series of recommendations to sharpen the focus on the protection of children. The recommendations will enable police to: • better manage those offenders who could pose a risk of sexual harm to children and • provide child protection authorities with timely information about children who might be at risk unless those authorities and the children's parents take action to safeguard the child. Later legislation contributed to the evolving purpose of the scheme
The Sex Offenders Registration Act is one of three statutory post-sentencing schemes in Victoria that seek to protect children from exposure to convicted child sex offenders who are living in the community. As it was the first comprehensive legislative scheme to take a preventative approach to sexual offending in Victoria, it led the government into uncharted territory.
Since then, post-sentencing schemes have been introduced under the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic) and the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (which was replaced by the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009). They have contributed to the evolving purpose of the registration scheme by providing additional ways of taking preventative action when responsible authorities fear that a particular convicted sex offender might pose a risk to the sexual safety of children.
The later schemes have taken over and refined some of the preventative expectations of the registration scheme. The Working with Children Act addresses the risk of harm from any sex offenders targeting and sexually abusing children through their paid or voluntary work. The serious sex offenders legislation permits a targeted response when there is evidence to suggest that an offender should be detained in custody, or subjected to close supervision while living in the community, because of an unacceptable risk of re-offending. It applies to offenders who sexually abuse adults as well as those who sexually abuse children.
Expectations of the scheme should take into account the risk of harm to children from sex offenders
Existing research indicates that child sex offenders do not comprise a homogenous and coherent group. For example, commonly held assumptions that child sex offenders have high rates of recidivism and predominantly prey upon children who are unknown to them are not supported by evidence.
Research overseas has found that sex offenders have lower recidivism rates and less criminal history than offenders who commit non-sexual serious crimes. Most serious violent and sex offenders do not have previous convictions for offences of that type, and nor are they convicted again for offences of that type.
Australian research into registered sex offenders has found that: fewer than a quarter of the registered sex offenders studied had previous convictions for sexual offences. 94 per cent abused their own child or a child they already knew. In Victoria, over the period 2006-07 to 2007-08, 93.1 per cent of the charges in Victoria for sexual penetration of a child aged 10 to 16 years were against defendants with no prior convictions for sexual offences. The highest proportion of defendants with a prior sexual offence conviction occurred in cases with charges of sexual penetration of a child aged under 10 (22.5 per cent). Sexual assaults of children by strangers are uncommon. The Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded 1000 victims of sexual assault under the age of 15 in Victoria in 2010. Of these, 399 (40 per cent) were assaulted by family members, 499 (50 per cent) were assaulted by someone else they knew, and 67 (7 per cent) were assaulted by a stranger. In 41 cases, the relationship of the offender to the victim was not known. These results are consistent with findings elsewhere in Australia and overseas. On the other hand, criminological studies demonstrate the existence of a subset of child sex offenders who do re-offend frequently against a high number of victims. The Commission considers that the registration scheme should be refined and strengthened in order to concentrate upon those people who pose the most risk to children.
In his report, the Ombudsman observed that 899 registered sex offenders had reported to the police that they had contact with a child between October 2004 and March 2010. The police did not notify the Department of Human Services about the contact reported by 376 of these offenders. Discovery of this omission saw the Department of Human Services undertake a risk assessment of all of those cases and it found that the 376 offenders had been in contact with a total of 641 children. Following further investigation, most cases did not require further protective action. Of the cases requiring protective intervention, the Department of Human Services only commenced protection application proceedings in the Children’s Court in 11 cases. In half of these protection application cases, the Department’s primary concern was risk of harm from sexual abuse.
The scheme is not adequately focused on the risk of harm to children
As not all sex offenders present the same risk of re-offending, the automatic registration of every adult who commits a sexual offence against a child has extended the reach of the scheme to offenders who are highly unlikely, based on any reasonable assessment, to offend again.
The Sex Offenders Registration Act proceeds on the assumption that all people convicted of the same offence pose the same risk of re-offending and should have the same reporting obligations for the same period. The approach is generic and not based on individual assessments of risk. The current undifferentiated, and generic rather than individual, method of selecting who should be registered has led to a Register which appears to have outstripped initial estimates of size.
The Register, which is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain, contains a vast amount of information of variable usefulness. The Commission found that it is time to assess whether the benefits of the scheme in its current form justify its escalating cost, especially as there are approximately 50 new registrants each month.
As at 1 December 2011, 4165 people had been included on the Sex Offenders Register in the seven years since the scheme commenced. At the current rate of increase, there will be approximately 10,000 registrations by 2020. As details are collected from all registered offenders for many years—and from some for life — the value of the information that is collected is highly likely to decline as the register continues to expand.
Details about people who might be potentially dangerous sex re-offenders sit alongside those of offenders who pose no risk of harm, with police and child protection authorities having no reasonable means of allocating risk ratings, and investigative resources, to particular offenders.
The long reporting periods impose a significant burden on the police to compile and manage information that may be of little operational value in many instances. Demands on the time of child protection workers at the Department of Human Services are also building as the number of reports of contact between registered sex offenders and children continues to rise. Understandably, all of these reports are investigated regardless of the risk of re-offending posed by a particular offender, unless there is compelling evidence of the child's safety.
Recommendations for systemic reform
Strengthening the focus of the scheme Individual assessment instead of automatic inclusion
The Commission considers that if registration were more closely aligned with the risk of harm to children, the rate of growth in numbers of registered offenders might be manageable. The police and child protection resources allocated to administering the scheme and taking protective action could be directed to those people who are more likely to re-offend. 
Replacing automatic inclusion in the register with a process that allows for individual assessment of the offender is highly likely to enhance the effectiveness of a scheme that places a great strain on the resources of Victoria Police and the Department of Human Services without, as yet, any clear evidence of its success in reducing child sexual abuse. Risk management of an offender is best informed by an individual formulation of the risk relating to that offender, rather than by a one size fits all approach.
Revised registrable offences
Another important means of strengthening the scheme's contribution to child protection is by revising the character and categorisation of the offences that lead to registration. The Commission has devised a refined list of offences which will assist in focusing the scheme on offenders who pose a risk of sexually harming children.
The refined list orders the sexual offences against or involving children into three categories according to the type of offending. The categories seek to reflect, in very broad terms, the risk of sexual abuse of children from re-offending.
The Commission proposes that the courts be given clear legislative guidance when making individual assessments of the need for offenders in each category to be registered. They would be required to apply a different test for each category. The policy underpinning these tests is clear: the higher the category of offence, the higher the expectation that the court will make a registration order.
The proposed changes seek to ensure that the court assesses whether the individual offender poses a risk of sexual harm to children. By directing courts to consider whether registration will serve a useful protective purpose, the new system should avoid the over-inclusiveness of the current scheme which has led to unnecessary diversion of police and child protection resources from dealing with people who pose some risk of re-offending.
The practical outcome will be that most adults who commit penetrative sexual offences against children will be registered, and all other child sexual offenders will be registered if the court finds that this step will serve a useful protective purpose.
In the Commission's view, the registration scheme should apply only to offenders who have committed sexual offences against children. Offenders who have committed sexual offences against adults currently account for less than three per cent of all registered offenders. The Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act provides a more suitable protective legislative response to the risk of harm these offenders pose to the community.
Reporting obligations
Special conditions
All registered sex offenders have the same reporting obligations regardless of their risk of re-offending or their need for assistance to avoid offending behaviour. Again, a generic rather than an individual approach is taken. There is no capacity for individual assessment of the needs of the community or the offender. Consequently, there is no opportunity to include any components that may assist the offender to comply with their reporting obligations or which could reduce the risk of re-offending. There is no scope to impose any additional preventative measures that may assist child protection authorities to safeguard particular children from harm or permit the police to monitor a particular offender more closely than others.
The Commission believes it should be possible to tailor reporting conditions to support registered offenders in functioning successfully in the community and to better manage the risk of harm to children when there are heightened concerns about the likely behaviour of a particular individual.
It recommends that courts should be permitted to impose special conditions that: • provide for offenders who are of particular concern to report more frequently • require an offender with a cognitive disability or mental illness to be accompanied by an independent third person, assigned by the Office of the Public Advocate, when making a report in person • direct an offender to attend and participate in rehabilitation programs that provide behavioural guidance and assist with integration into the community • authorise a representative of the Department of Human Services to be present when a registered sex offender is reporting information about their contact with a child or children to the police. 
Duration and extension
The duration of a registered sex offender's reporting obligations depends upon the nature of the offences for which the offender was sentenced, and whether the offender was an adult or a child at the time of committing the offences— again adopting a generic rather than an individual approach.
As at 1 December 2011, 711 of the 2830 registered sex offenders who were living in the community faced lifetime reporting obligations. Another 1178 were required to report for 15 years, while 912 registrants were required to report for 8 years. A person who faces lifetime registration can apply to the Supreme Court for removal after 15 years. It will not be possible for anyone to make an application of this nature until 1 October 2019.
The Commission believes that the current reporting periods should be re-considered because they are producing spiralling workloads for Victoria Police and the Department of Human Services without any evidence of the benefits that such lengthy registration produces. Shorter initial reporting periods for the proposed three new categories of offenders are recommended. Category 1 and Category 2 offenders would be registered for five years, while Category 3 offenders would be registered for three years.
However, the Commission envisages that the total period for which a registered sex offender may be required to report could be longer. It would be possible for the Chief Commissioner of Police to apply to a court to extend a registration order (and the associated reporting period) for all three categories of offenders. There would be no limit to the number of extensions that could be made in relation to a particular offender.
The reviewing court would consider whether further monitoring would be useful and whether additional assistance such as ongoing participation in rehabilitation programs is desirable. A person's registration would cease if no useful preventative purpose would be served by ongoing reporting obligations.
Regular review will provide an incentive to the person to comply with conditions such as rehabilitation programs, and to seek reintegration into the community. It would also enhance the allocation of police and Department of Human Services resources by enabling them to focus on those offenders who pose a real risk of harm.
Suspension
There are only a few circumstances in which reporting obligations may be suspended under the Sex Offenders Registration Act. The Commission understands that the reporting obligations of some registered sex offenders are currently suspended for medical reasons, even though there is no provision under the Act to deal with these situations.
It recommends permitting the Chief Commissioner of Police to suspend the reporting obligations for up to 12 months if satisfied that the offender is no longer able to comply with them due to physical or cognitive impairment.
Transitional arrangements
Implementation of the Commission's proposed changes to the sex offenders registration scheme would result in two very different schemes for two groups of people—those already on the Sex Offenders Register and those placed on the Register by a court order under the revised scheme—unless the new arrangements can be applied to those people now on the Register.
There is a need for consistency in the way sex offenders are managed under a registration scheme, regardless of the time at which they were registered.
The absence of appropriate transitional arrangements would prolong the inefficiency and expense caused by the current undifferentiated and generic approach to the selection of offenders for inclusion on the Register. These arrangements are also necessary as a matter of fairness to existing registered sex offenders so that they are treated in the same way as later registered sex offenders.
After considering various options, the Commission believes that a rigorous, efficient, transparent and fair process would be to establish a panel of experts to review the circumstances of each existing registered sex offender in order to determine how that person should be dealt with under the proposed new scheme.
The Commission proposes that the panel comprise a retired judge, a health professional who is experienced in treating child sex offenders, and at least one other person with experience making decisions about the management of offenders, such as a current or former member of the Adult Parole Board. A panel of this nature should bring appropriate experience to the task of making transitional decisions. Offenders registered under another scheme
All other Australian states and territories have sex offender registration schemes. Each scheme recognises and enforces the registration of offenders under the other schemes. A sex offender who is registered in one state or territory cannot escape their reporting obligations by visiting or moving interstate.
The Commission does not believe that interstate registrants should be encouraged to re-locate in order to benefit from any changes to Victoria's legislation. Victoria should continue to require interstate offenders who re-locate to Victoria to remain on the Register for the period determined by the law in the original jurisdiction.
Police powers and breaches of reporting obligations
The police have the power to enter and search any premises without a warrant when they have reasonable grounds for believing that a registered sex offender has committed the offence of failing to comply with their reporting obligations. The same powers are not available to the police in relation to the offence of furnishing false and misleading information. The Commission believes that the police should be given specific entry and search powers when dealing with all suspected breaches of the Sex Offenders Registration Act. The Commission also proposes that the two offence provisions be combined into a single summary offence for which the maximum penalty is proportionate to the degree of wrongdoing. Reportable contact with children
The Commission makes a number of recommendations to enhance the timely flow of useful information from the Register to the Department of Human Services to assist it in investigating protective concerns about a registered sex offender having contact with a particular child or children. These recommendations include clearly defining the type of 'contact' with a child that registered sex offenders are required to report to police, and amending the process by which information about registered sex offenders' contact with children is collected by Victoria Police and shared with the Department of Human Services. It is necessary that the obligations imposed on registered sex offenders are clear and unambiguous. That is not the case under the current legislation and consequently the Commission has recommended changes to rectify this deficiency.
Child protection prohibition orders
Sometimes a person who has completed a sentence following a conviction for a sexual offence involving a child might behave in a way that is lawful but of concern to the police or child protection authorities. Such behaviour could include contacting a child against whom the person has previously committed offences, or frequenting a place where grooming or other offending previously occurred, such as a municipal swimming pool or park. Other Australian jurisdictions have introduced child protection prohibition orders to enable a court to place restrictions upon this type of behaviour.
Child protection prohibition orders provide a preventative mechanism that permits a court to order that a registered offender not engage in certain types of behaviour or employment, go to certain places, or contact certain people. They are similar to other types of preventative orders made under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 and the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010. The Commission recommends that child protection prohibition orders should be available in Victoria. They would enable Victoria Police to take appropriate action to protect a child who may be at risk of harm from a registered sex offender without child protection authorities having to follow the existing practice of making a protection application in relation to the child.
Information sharing
The Commission's terms of reference direct it to consider 'the management and use of information about registered sex offenders'. The Ombudsman reported that various people expressed concerns to him about the Sex Offender Registration Act's limitations concerning information sharing between Victoria Police, Corrections Victoria and the Department of Human Services.
Sharing by Victoria Police and Corrections Victoria with the Department of Human Services
The Commission believes that the Chief Commissioner of Police should have clear, legislative authority to pass information to the Secretary of the Department of Human Services about a registered sex offender's contact with an identified child or children. That is not the position under the current legislation.
The Commission also recommends amending the Children, Youth and Families Act to authorise the Secretary of the Department of Justice to disclose risk summary reports or assessment reports in relation to a registered sex offender where the Secretary of the Department of Human Services holds concerns about the risk the offender poses to a particular child or children.
Giving information to parents and carers
There are no express powers in the Sex Offenders Registration Act that permit police or child protection workers to inform members of the community that a particular person is a registered sex offender. The Commission considers that, in certain circumstances, police officers and child protection workers should be permitted to disclose to a child's parent or carer that a person having contact with the child is a registered sex offender.
Disclosures of this nature should take place with clear statutory authorisation within narrowly defined circumstances.
Given the sensitivity of the information that would be disclosed, the Commission recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Human Services and the Chief Commissioner of Police authorise only officers of a particular grade or rank (designated officers) to make these disclosures. Further, disclosures should only be made if the designated officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure is necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the child. The Commission's proposals draw upon guided disclosures for child protection purposes in the United Kingdom.
Designated officers, parents and carers must comply with court suppression orders and laws concerning identification of victims of sexual offences and children who are, or have been, parties to proceedings. The Commission suggests that the Chief Commissioner and the Secretary of the Department of Human Services keep this matter under on-going review as they are both well placed to recommend legislative action if unauthorised disclosures occur. 
In order to assist the child's parent or carer to respond to a disclosure under the recommended new provisions, the designated officer should be required to refer the child's parent or carer to an appropriate counselling service.
The Commission proposes that, if a designated officer intends to make a disclosure of this kind to a child's parent or carer, that officer should be required to make all reasonable efforts to notify the registered offender prior to making the disclosure. This step will permit registered sex offenders to be involved in the process and prepare themselves for the possible effects of the disclosure. Research from the United Kingdom illustrates the need for any disclosure scheme to complement the rehabilitation of registered sex offenders.
However, if the designated officer believes on reasonable grounds that notifying the registered sex offender before making a disclosure to a parent or carer would endanger the life or safety of any person, they should be permitted to dispense with this requirement.
Contribution to a national approach
The Sex Offenders Registration Act is based on a model endorsed by all state and territory police ministers. All jurisdictions now have similar registration schemes, though they have departed from the model in different ways and are increasingly divergent. Importantly, however, registered offenders cannot avoid their obligations by moving interstate because each state and territory recognises and enforces the reporting obligations imposed in any Australian jurisdiction.
Underpinning the national approach to registration is a national database of registered offenders, known as the Australian National Child Offender Register, to which all police forces and other law enforcement agencies have access. CrimTrac, a Commonwealth executive agency, maintains the database.
Although the Act was passed in the context of building a national approach to registration, and allows Victoria Police to share information with other law enforcement agencies, it does not provide for the disclosure of information to CrimTrac. The Commission recommends that the Act be amended to rectify this anomaly.
Accountability and review
This report, and the Ombudsman's report, have permitted the Victorian Parliament to receive some information about the operation and impact of the sex offenders registration scheme. Such opportunities for review are not currently built into the Sex Offenders Registration Act. The Commission believes they should be.
The Commission recommends: • expanding the compliance monitoring role that has been performed by the Director, Police Integrity and which is expected to be transferred to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, and requiring compliance reports to be tabled in Parliament • requiring the Chief Commissioner of Police to report statistical information on the operation of the scheme to the Police Minister annually, for tabling in Parliament • external review of the effectiveness of the legislation every five years. 
The Commission also recommends further research into the extent to which sex offender registration schemes discourage re-offending. It would be conducted as a national project under the auspices of police ministers.

Confidentiality in Kitson v Playfair

'Privileged Communications: Medical Confidentiality in Late Victorian Britain' by Angus McLaren in (1993) 37 Medical History 129 comments
Do doctors have the right, indeed the duty, to keep confidential everything that is imparted to them by their patients? Such secrecy certainly seems to be demanded by the Hippocratic Oath:
Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not in connection with it, I see or hear in the life of men which ought not to be spoken abroad I will not divulge,as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. 
But at the turn of the century a number of court cases brought home to British doctors the fact that there were no hard and fast rules governing disclosure. Some in the profession argued that since medical colleagues in Europe and parts of North America had the legal right to defend the secrecy of their "privileged communications", British doctors' reputations would suffer if they did not win the same power to guard secrets. At the June 1920 meeting of the British Medical Association a resolution urged its members to fight to keep confidential what they learnt in their consulting rooms. Doctors opposed to such views immediately made their voices heard. One asked rhetorically if the physician was to remain blithely silent and indifferent when he knew that a male patient suffering from venereal disease risked infecting his innocent family. "Does that resolution mean this - that we are, as a profession, to allow a bounder to live and his wife and child to die?" In conjuring up the image of the chivalrous physician gallantly protecting a wife from her brutish husband, those arguing in favour of a doctor's right to decide when and if to divulge information struck upon an appealing ploy. Who could fail to respond to the call to protect women and children? But if doctors were simply relied upon to use their discretion and good sense in such matters, was it likely that most would turn their knowledge to the purposes of protecting the weak from the strong, women from men, servants from their masters?  
Only when a court action ensued was the fact that a doctor had disclosed a patient's secrets brought to public attention. Accordingly, an obvious way of probing the complexities raised by the issue is to examine what was long taken to be Britain's most publicized test of "privileged communication", the sensational Kitson versus Playfair trial of 1896. This celebrated case centred on a doctor's defence of his right of betraying, not a male, but a female patient's confidences. The primary importance of the trial and the responses made to it both inside and outside the medical profession is that it casts a revealing light on late-nineteenth-century doctors' confused understanding of exactly what confidentiality meant, a confusion exacerbated rather than clarified by court rulings. Secondly, the case demonstrates how the medical profession found, to its discomfort, that it was not left alone to police its duties, but was dictated to by its old rival, the legal profession. The last, though certainly not the least significant, aspect of the trial is that it shows how class and gender preoccupations shaped the practices of both law and medicine. The legal wrangles in Kitson v. Playfair took such surprising twists and turns precisely because such preoccupations were used to counter both the leter of the law and the scientific pronouncements of the London medical elite.
McLaren concludes -
At the turn of the century the discussion of privileged communication took place within the context of rising public preoccupation with venereal disease, declining fertility, and changing sex roles. The press and laity thought that the Kitson v. Playfair trial had played an important role in establishing a clearer definition of doctors' duties as regards confidentiality. This was, as we have seen, untrue. Despite the general belief that doctors followed some elaborate secret code of ethics, the reality still was, noted one 1905 commentator, that "obedience to the dictates of medical ethics implies application to the ordinary chances of professional life of the rule that a man should do as he would be done by". In the age of AIDS the whole question of medical disclosure is being debated once more. Is the assumed good sense and ethical behaviour of doctors sufficient protection against abuse of the patient's confidences? A review of Kitson v. Playfair serves as a timely reminder that it is not quite that simple, that it is impossible to disentangle ethical issues from class, gender, and professional preoccupations.

19 August 2014

ACT Information Privacy Commissioner

In two steps forward one step backward mode the ACT Government has announced that the national Privacy Commissioner (who at this state is expected to move to the Human Rights Commission at the end of the year when the OAIC ceases to exist) will act as the Territory's Information Privacy Commissioner. That role was established by the Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT).

The ACT Attorney-General indicates that the Government has
signed a new memorandum of understanding with the Office of the Australian Privacy Commissioner for privacy services in the ACT. 
Attorney General, Simon Corbell, said the arrangement provided the ACT with quality privacy services that draw on the commission's long established expertise in working to improve privacy protection and awareness. 
Under the MOU, which will operate from 2014 over three years until 2017, the Australian Privacy Commissioner will act as the ACT Information Privacy Commissioner and will be responsible for investigating and resolving privacy complaints about the handling of personal information by the ACT Government. 
The ACT Government committed an additional $320,000 funding over four years in the 2014-15 Budget to expand the range of services provided to the ACT to support privacy protection. 
In addition to handling complaints and the continuation of a system for regular assessments of the information handling practices of specific agencies, the MOU includes privacy policy and legislative advice to the ACT Government and to MLAs. 
Access to these services will allow ACT Government agencies to effectively administer privacy requirements under the new Information Privacy Act 2014. 
"The independent oversight and auditing of information handling by ACT Government directorates under this MOU will help protect the privacy of Canberrans," Mr Corbell said.
Given uncertainties about resourcing of the national Commissioner and - more subtly - its passivity  or permissiveness the agreement is a step back.

new ACT Events Regime

The Australian Capital Territory is to introduce a Major Events Bill 2014 (ACT) to "establish new legislation for security management and commercial protections for major events".

The Bill is an echo of the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Bill 2014 (Cth) noted here and the more problematical Queensland legislation highlighted here.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell comments that
This legislation is a critical part of the ACT's preparations for hosting games as part of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Asian Cup and the International Cricket Council (ICC) World Cup in 2015. 
The Bill repeals the Major Events Security Act 2000 (ACT), introduced ahead of the Sydney Olympics.

The Bill makes "important changes to improve the operation and management of major events in the ACT" by -
  • creating a new scheme for major event declarations. 
  • allowing additional crowd management security provisions to apply at certain declared events. 
  • allowing advertising and intellectual property rights protection at declared events. 
  • making pitch invasion an offence. 
  • prohibiting ticket scalping. 
  • giving police and authorised people improved capacity to effectively manage security, including the ability to search bags and others items including through the use of electronic scanning. 
Corbell indicates that event organisers and corporate sponsors will benefit from
new prohibitions on advertising near major event venues and the use of protected symbols without permission. Symbols such as logos, designs, emblems or words can be declared as 'protected symbols' for a defined period.

Trolls

'Trolls and Other Patent Inventions: Economic History and the Patent Controversy in the Twenty-First Century' [PDF] by B. Zorina Khan argues that
The most significant changes to the patent and innovation system in the past two centuries have been, or are in the process of being, implemented in the United States today. Critics of patent grants and intellectual property institutions propose alternatives such as unprecedented constraints on the rights of patent owners, and many advocate the award of technological prizes as superior alternatives. Such proposals are motivated by claims that the patent system is in crisis, with new developments that require departures from traditional approaches to property rights and technology policy. The historical record sheds light on the nature and validity of these controversies. In particular, data on patents granted, litigation rates over the past two centuries, and the role of non-practicing entities, indicate that these features of the current market in intellectual property are hardly anomalous. Indeed, they have been inherently associated with disruptive technologies that transformed the United States into the world leader in industrial and economic growth. By contrast, extensive empirical analyses of prize systems in Europe and the United States explain why early enthusiasm about such administered nonmarket-oriented awards had waned by the end of the nineteenth century. 
Khan's NBER paper states that
The patent system is the source of widespread dissatisfaction, many scholars and observers call for multifaceted reforms in its rules and standards, and some even propose the abolition of state-mandated grants of intellectual property. Patents are vilified as unnecessary monopolies that serve to enrich a few corporations and their robber baron executives while harming their competitors and the general public. The popular press is filled with ubiquitous headlines about negative-sum “patent wars” that are waged in boardrooms and courtrooms across the world, culminating in huge litigation and enforcement costs, where the only winners are the lawyers on both sides of the dispute who garner lavish fees regardless of the outcomes. Pervasive copyright piracy of music and other cultural goods leads many to fear the demise of domestic creativity and output. In response to the urging of paid lobbyists, Congress engages in lengthy debates and considers abundant proposals for reforming the patent and copyright system. Prizes and other alternatives to patents are gaining greater favour among the opponents of the existing intellectual property system. In general, these debates and policy proposals are primarily based on rhetoric and self-interest rather than on objective assessments of empirical evidence.
The previous paragraph refers to discussions and debates that were rife in the nineteenth century about patent and copyright systems. Similar claims and counterclaims were prevalent when the British Statute of Monopolies authorized the world’s first statutory patent institution in 1624, and have persisted through the centuries with periodic upsurges that replicate the same questions and concerns. In 1950, another period when Congress was paying closer attention to calls for reform, Fritz Machlup and Edith Penrose published an article on “the patent controversy in the nineteenth century,” in order to prove that “despite all the changes in the economic scene, our thinking on the subject has hardly changed over the century.” They described the historical evolution of the patent system and its tendency to generate discontent and debates, culminating in a call to abolish patents in the second half of the nineteenth century. Their report effectively demonstrated how the same issues and positions were still being rehashed a hundred years later, as if nothing had been learned from history. However, although the authors’ stated objective was to provide a more systematic approach to the subject, their article was largely descriptive and not based on empirical evidence.
Facile rejoinders to historical accounts tend to dismiss such experiences as irrelevant to the twenty-first century and the Brave New World of smartphones, silicon chips and one-click patents. Both the new anti-patent abolitionists and their opponents often recycle inaccurate and misinformed historical anecdotes when it serves their purpose, without much regard for the validity of these claims. According to a noted jurist, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” A systematic historical perspective is necessary to filter out the signal from the noise of the plethora of contradictory claims that are currently prevalent. For, although the technologies are obviously different, much of the underlying economic and legal fundamentals remain unchanged. Legal rules and social reforms may be necessary to fit radical new circumstances, but many of the concerns of today are hardly radical or new, and some have even proved to productive feature of markets in invention since their inception. And, in a social system based on norms and precedent, “if a thing has been practiced for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case … to affect it.”
Who are the new patent dissidents of the twenty-first century? As one might expect, the primary core of the movement consists of lobbies in industry who would benefit from royalty-free usage of patented ideas, but disinterested analysts and academic observers also highlight a range of concerns.
Many criticize specific aspects of the administration or consequences of patent rules and standards. Some wish to increase access to essential medicines, and others argue that patents do not function effectively in particular contexts such as gene therapies and software. It is interesting to note that the most radical critics consist of a number of eminent theoretical economists with little specialized expertise in intellectual property. They highlight the sort of analysis that is standard in principles of economics classes: patents comprise monopolies which drive up prices above marginal cost, produce “contrived scarcity,” and lead to a social deadweight loss. Gary Becker concludes that it would be advisable to “maintain the patent system on drugs and a few other products that are expensive to innovate and cheap to copy, and eliminate patents on everything else.” Joseph Stiglitz, noted for landmark contributions to mathematical theories of asymmetrical information, now advocates prize systems as superior alternatives to patents, “an idea whose time has come.” Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, general equilibrium theorists, are less temperate; they refer to the “evils” of the patent system, and lobby for its complete abolition.
This paper addresses several specific debates about innovation and institutions. The intention is not to provide a comprehensive survey of the literature, but rather to present research findings that may shed light on a number of these issues. The empirical evidence is based on the analysis of large original panel data sets that were compiled from patent records, biographical information about inventors, assignment transfers, lawsuits and legal treatises, and over 20,000 observations of technological prizes that were granted in Britain, France and the United States. The first section of the paper considers the general argument that patents function as inefficient monopolies. The second section highlights the role of “non-practicing entities” in early markets for invention. “Trolls” are often associated with excessive enforcement of patent rights through litigation, so the third section assesses patterns of litigation over major innovations, involving patent-related disputes and disputes in general that were reported in state and federal courts. The next section analyzes prize systems, which are being advocated as superior alternatives to patent institutions, and examines the identity of prize-winners, as well as the social consequences in the form of technological spillovers. The final section offers a brief summary conclusion.

Legal Aid Profiles

Victoria Legal Aid has released a 19 page  research brief on High contact users of legal aid services, commenting that
We have analysed client data over a ten year period from 2003 to 2013 to map the frequency with which clients used our services.
The top one percent of our users were identified as 'frequent' or 'high contact' users. Their demographic characteristics were examined to see if and how they differed from the remainder of our client group.
While all users of our services, particularly those who receive grants of legal assistance, are relatively disadvantaged, we found that frequent (or high-contact) users were more likely to exhibit certain demographic characteristics. The characteristics that stood out amongst this cohort were they:
  • had early contact with Victoria Legal Aid (prior to 18 years of age) 
  • started criminal offending at a young age, specifically between 10 and 17 years of age 
  • identified as having a psychiatric issue, acquired brain injury or a cognitive disability 
  • identified as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
They were also more likely to have seen us for a child protection or family violence issue before the age of 18. This has implications for how we predict who may be likely to continue to use our services and how we deliver services to this group.
The brief states that
VLA should consider either introducing and/or enhancing the following approaches:
  • providing more intensive service delivery when the person has initial contact with VLA, including careful case management and provision of a single contact point within the organisation for that client 
  • providing more holistic services, with a focus on appropriate referrals to non-legal service providers 
  • embracing a multi-disciplinary approach, where VLA lawyers work actively with social workers, teachers, doctors and police to address the problems of the individual that is contributing to or causing their legal problem(s) 
  • advocating for systemic change, where current practice or policies may contribute to criminalisation, particularly of vulnerable people, such as young children or people with mental health issues or cognitive disabilities.
It is worth noting that VLA does prioritise vulnerable clients, such as children or people with disabilities, for intensive service delivery and aims to provide holistic legal services for its vulnerable clients. Our services in the child protection area are particularly focused on linking them to other practice areas (such as Youth Crime) and to provide continuity of representation where possible.
It is suggested that this approach could further benefit from additional resources to provide even more intensive case management and advocacy. Any outcomes from other similar projects, such as the NSW Children’s Civil Law Service Pilot, will provide useful insights for VLA in improving outcomes for high-contact users.
Any changes to service delivery would need to be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of these approaches, and whether they do in fact, reduce further contact with the criminal justice system or the risk of additional legal problems. VLA would also need to evaluate whether the provision of intensive services early in an individual’s contact with VLA provides other tangible benefits for that person.

16 August 2014

Parentage

The report by the Family Law Council on 'who is considered to be a parent of a child under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)' has been released.

The Council was to "consider and advise" on the following issues and have regard to the legal parentage of children as determined by State and Territory laws -
i. Whether the provisions in Part VII of the Family Law Act that deal with the parentage of children lead to outcomes that are appropriate, non-discriminatory and consistent for children. 
ii. Whether there are any amendments that could be made to the Family Law Act that will clarify the operation, interaction and effect of the relevant provisions. 
iii. Whether there are any amendments that should be made to make the Family Law Act more consistent with State and Territory legislation that provides for the legal parentage of children. 
iv. Are there any amendments that would assist the family courts to determine the parentage of children born as a result of assisted reproductive technology, including surrogacy, where the State and Territory Acts do not apply? 
v. Are there any amendments to the Family Law Act that could be made to assist other Commonwealth agencies, such as those responsible for immigration, citizenship and passports, to identify who the parents of a child are for the purposes of Commonwealth laws?
In response it states that
The reference responds to the increasing diversity of families in Australia and the rapidly changing nature of reproductive technology and community attitudes to family formation. It also reflects a concern to ensure that as far as possible children are not disadvantaged by the nature of their family or the way in which it was formed. 
In its work, Council has considered the complex interaction of the legal and social aspects of families with a focus on the outcomes for children. Council has also considered Australia’s international human rights obligations as well as Australian, state and territory laws. Council conducted a number of consultations with community organisations, representatives of the Courts and the legal profession, government departments and academics. Council also made a public call for written submissions from interested members of the public. Council conducted its own research through searches of the relevant case law and academic literature. The cases were analysed with the aim of identifying who is a legal parent and whether the current provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act lead to outcomes for children that are appropriate, consistent and non-discriminatory. In addition, Council identified a range of issues where there was uncertainty in the law and inconsistencies at both the state/territory and federal levels and between different Commonwealth agencies. Council also reviewed the data on the diversity of family forms and structures in Australia, which show that many children are living in families that are not based on the traditional form of a married couple and children who are biologically related to both parents. 
Council has taken all of this information into consideration in formulating its response and recommendations. The complete set of recommendations is provided at the end of this Summary. 
Council is making a general recommendation that the Australian Government introduce a federal Status of Children Act which would provide a clear statement of parentage laws for the purposes of all the laws of the Commonwealth. The rationale for this recommendation has developed out of Council’s consideration of all the issues raised by the terms of reference. Council’s work on this reference has reinforced its view that the appropriate focus of concern for Part VII of the Family Law Act is resolving disputes about post-separation care and parenting arrangements for children. In decision making in this area, the courts have consistently been guided by the principles of the best interests of the child (as they have developed) and not by the legal status of the adults who care for those children. In other words, the fact of parentage (or legal parenthood), although obviously important, is not the determinative question in disputes arising under Part VII. In contrast, a range of different considerations may apply to the determination of parentage for the purposes of other Commonwealth laws, including those relating to citizenship and migration, which raise issues that are different from the concerns pertinent to post-separation parenting matters. 
1st Term of Reference—Whether the provisions in Part VII of the Family Law Act that deal with the parentage of children lead to outcomes that are appropriate, non-discriminatory and consistent for children. 
The main purpose of Part VII Family Law Act is to provide a decision making framework for cases involving disputes about the care arrangements for children. These disputes may involve decisions about where a child is to live, how much time children will spend with parents and other people of significance, and who has legal responsibility for children. In considering this term of reference, Council examined whether the current Part VII framework is being consistently for all children across different kinds of families. Council also considered the definition of parent for the purposes of this framework and whether changes need to be made to the relevant provisions of Part VII to more appropriately reflect children’s perspectives of family and the empirical evidence of the diversity of families in Australia. 
The cases 
Council reviewed a selection of cases from the family courts that involved ‘non-traditional’ families and compared the process of decision making that was applied with that in cases involving ‘traditional’ families. The surveyed cases revealed a number of inconsistencies in the operation of the current provisions in Part VII, and suggest the need for Part VII to be amended to better support decision making and settlement of disputes in cases where a child’s family does not conform to the ‘traditional’ model. 
Submissions 
Council received submissions that highlighted the lack of an appropriate definition of a parent for the purposes of Part VII. The submissions also reflected concern about the impact of the limitation of a number of provisions in Part VII to ‘parents’. The submissions suggest that for many in the community and legal sectors of the family law system, the legislative distinction between social parents and legal parents does not reflect their day-to-day work with children and families and is not relevant to their consideration of what is in the child’s best interests. 
On the other hand, some submissions raised concerns about the effects on children and their families if the position of legal parents is not adequately recognised and supported in the legislation. Some noted that children in families with same sex parents may be adversely affected by a failure to recognise the legal status of both mothers as parents. Similar concerns were raised about the interests of children in circumstances where an extended family member, or step-parent, has assumed caring responsibility for the child. 
Council’s views and recommendations 
In Council’s view, the provisions of Part VII that govern decision making about children’s best interests should recognise the diversity of families in Australia and children’s understandings of their families. Council recommends a number of changes to the Family Law Act to ensure that children are not disadvantaged by the nature or form of their family. These include changes to the objects and the principles underpinning Part VII to better reflect the reality of children’s lives. Council also believes that a more inclusive definition of parent is needed in the Family Law Act. 
2nd Term of Reference—Whether there are any amendments that could be made to the Family Law Act that will clarify the operation, interaction and effect of the relevant provisions. 
The parentage provisions of the Family Law Act are spread over a number of different divisions. In addition to the definition of a parent in s 4 of the Family Law Act, Part VII contains a number of rebuttable ‘presumptions of parentage’, a number of provisions that ‘deem’ a child to be a child of particular people in certain circumstances (such as when an assisted reproductive technology is used) and a power to make declarations of parentage. There is a lack of certainty about the operation and effect of a number of these provisions. In particular, there is a lack of certainty about the application of the provisions dealing with children born from assisted reproductive technologies (s 60H) and surrogacy arrangements (s 60HB). This includes uncertainty about the parental status of known donors of genetic material and the parental status of intending parents in surrogacy arrangements where state and territory Acts do not apply. The interaction between the general presumptions of parentage and the ‘deeming’ provisions in the Family Law Act, (s 60H for example), have also caused some problems. For instance, although being registered as a parent under a law of the Commonwealth, or a state or territory law raises a presumption of parentage (s 69R), this presumption may conflict with the provisions in s 60H Family Law Act, as happened in the domestic surrogacy case of Re Michael: Surrogacy Arrangements [2009] FamCA 691. The Family Law Act is not clear about whether the presumptions of parentage in Part VII can be rebutted by other provisions in the Family Law Act. The application of the provisions relating to declarations of parentage and parentage testing procedures are also unclear in some cases. A declaration of parentage (s 69VA) is ‘conclusive evidence of parentage for the purposes of all laws of the Commonwealth’. However the current provision appears to be limited by a number of factors. Firstly, it is not a stand-alone power, but requires ‘parentage’ of a child to be in issue in proceedings in respect of another matter. Secondly, the power is limited by the fact that the court can only make a declaration if it finds that a person is a parent. 
The cases
The cases relating to the parentage provisions and assisted reproductive technologies have considered whether s 60H Family Law Act provides an ‘exhaustive’ definition of who is a parent (the ‘restrictive’ approach), or whether it merely ‘enlarges’ the range of parents, without necessarily excluding other people from being considered a parent (the ‘expansive’ approach). This question arises where a single woman has a child as a result of an assisted reproductive technology, because s 60H Family Law Act does not explicitly exclude a donor of genetic material from being found to be a parent in this circumstance. This is an area where inconsistencies between the Family Law Act and state and territory laws arise. 
In addition, the ‘expansive’ approach has, on occasion, been applied in surrogacy cases in order to find that an intending father is a parent. However, as in the case above, this is only possible where the woman who gives birth does not have a partner. In both cases, the inconsistent application of the provision raises issues of discrimination. 
Submissions 
There was broad agreement in the submissions about the need for several amendments to clarify the operation of various provisions. The inconsistent interpretative approaches to s 60H Family Law Act were the subject of criticism in a number of submissions. This included concerns that the ‘expansive’ approach discriminates against single women by treating them differently to women with partners, and concerns that its application would mean that a sperm donor will automatically be considered a legal parent where a woman does not have a partner. Council also received a number of submissions suggesting that the provision dealing with parentage of children born from assisted reproductive treatments (s 60H Family Law Act) should be amended to make it clear that it does not apply to children born from surrogacy arrangements. There was widespread agreement on this point. 
Council’s views and recommendations 
Council agrees there is a need to clarify the operation of s 60H Family Law Act. Council’s views on this issue are expanded on in its discussion of the third term of reference, as this issue also raises an inconsistency with state and territory laws. Council has also made a number of other recommendations to clarify the operation of the power to make declarations of parentage. 
3rd Term of Reference—Whether there are any amendments that should be made to make the Family Law Act more consistent with State and Territory legislation that provides for the legal parentage of children. 
Council identified two specific areas of inconsistency between the Family Law Act and state and territory laws dealing with parentage. The first issue is the inconsistency between the definition of parents in the Family Law Act and the more inclusive definition of parents in state and territory statutes that define parents to include people recognised as parents according to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tradition or custom. The second area is the inconsistency in approach to the parental status of known donors of genetic material where single women have children as a result of assisted reproductive technologies. In addition, the overall lack of consistency between the states, territories and Commonwealth laws dealing with parentage was a common theme in many submissions. 
The cases 
A recent case, Groth & Banks [2013] FamCA 4031 has highlighted the continuing inconsistency that arises under the provisions relating to assisted reproductive technology. In this case Cronin J found that there was a direct inconsistency between the Family Law Act provision which covers the situation where a single woman has a child using assisted reproductive technology (s 60H(3) Family Law Act) and the provision in the Victorian Status of Children Act 1975, that covers the same situation (s 15). Cronin J applied the ‘expansive’ approach to s 60H Family Law Act, discussed above, to make a finding that a known sperm donor was a parent for the purposes of the Family Law Act and that the Victorian provisions were inoperative as a result of a the direct inconsistency. 
Submissions 
Council received a number of submissions that were in favour of uniform parentage laws as a general principle. There was a range of submissions in relation to how the Family Law Act should apply to known donors of genetic materials. Some recommended that the Family Law Act should be amended to make it clear that donors of genetic material are not legal parents, regardless of the relationship status of the woman who gives birth following assisted reproductive technology. This would be consistent with the majority of state and territory laws. This could be done be either prescribing state and territory laws for all of s 60H Family Law Act (and not just where women have partners), or by including provisions in the Family Law Act that mirror those that exist in the state and territory laws. 
Council’s views and recommendations 
Council agrees that the Family Law Act should be as consistent with state and territory laws as possible and recommends that s 60H Family Law Act be amended to reflect that position. This would mean that the same parenting presumptions would apply to intending parents using assisted reproductive technology or entering surrogacy arrangements under state or territory laws and the Family Law Act. In terms of ‘uniformity’ across all jurisdictions, it is beyond the scope of the Family Law Act to achieve this goal. Council agrees with the recommendations that suggested the need for further work on harmonisation of parentage laws to be referred to the Standing Council on Law and Justice. However, Council believes that there are a number of legislative changes the Australian Government could introduce that would assist in this area. Principally, Council recommends that the Australian Government enact a separate Status of Children Act for the purposes of all Commonwealth laws. In addition, Council is making a further recommendation (in Chapter 5) that the Australian Government introduce separate legislation to enable the Family Court of Australia to transfer parental status to Torres Strait Islander receiving parents. 
4th Term of Reference—Are there any amendments that would assist the family courts to determine the parentage of children born as a result of assisted reproductive technology, including surrogacy, where the State and Territory Acts do not apply? 
Over the past several years, the family courts have received a number of applications for parenting orders relating to children born from surrogacy in circumstances where the surrogacy arrangement used by the parties did not meet the requirements for a transfer of parentage under the relevant state or territory law. In most of these cases the intended parents had used a commercial surrogacy arrangement and the child/ren had been born outside Australia. Commercial surrogacy arrangements are prohibited by state and territory Acts (the Northern Territory has no legislation). Despite this prohibition, many hundreds of children have been born to Australian couples as a result of overseas surrogacy arrangements, and the numbers are growing each year. 
The provision in the Family Law Act that was intended to govern the recognition of parental status arising from surrogacy arrangements (s 60HB) does not apply to these cases. Consequently, the children born as a result of these arrangements are at risk of having no secure legal relationship to the people who are raising them. Council was asked to consider possible amendments to the Family Law Act to assist decision making by the family courts in these cases. 
The cases 
The decisions in these cases have highlighted that as a result of the preparedness of intending parents to commission surrogacy arrangements that do not meet the requirements of the state or territory law, the child/ren born of these arrangements face the prospect of being unable to secure appropriate and non-discriminatory legal status. The cases in this area also reveal the potential for inconsistent outcomes for children, for example, as between children born of surrogacy arrangements within Australia that do not meet the requirements of state and territory laws and children born of overseas commercial surrogacy arrangements. 
Further, the cases demonstrate a lack of certainty about the application of the other parentage provisions—such as s 60H Family Law Act, which deals with children born as a result of an artificial conception process—to surrogacy cases that fall outside s 60HB Family Law Act. They also raise questions, as they have for the court in England, about the relevance of public policy considerations (such as the illegality of the surrogacy arrangement) to decision making in commercial surrogacy cases. In considering this term of reference, Council had regard to relevant cases and legislation in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, New Zealand and Canada. 
Submissions 
Council received submissions expressing a broad range of views as to whether, and if so how, the Family Law Act should be amended in relation to the determination of parentage in surrogacy cases. Some submissions recommended that the current Family Law Act provision (s 60HB), which recognises parentage transfers made under state and territory laws, is appropriate and that no amendments are needed. Other submissions proposed wide reaching changes to enable the courts to give automatic effect to overseas birth certificates, court orders, or the surrogacy agreement itself. A third group of submissions suggested the need for a parentage transfer process for overseas surrogacy cases that is subject to judicial oversight, in order to safeguard the rights of the child and the surrogate in these cases and ensure the children are not disadvantaged by the status of their family. 
Council’s views and recommendations 
Council has had regard to the strongly held views in relation to this term of reference. Council has considered the research literature on overseas surrogacy arrangements and notes the limited empirical information about the practices in emerging surrogacy market countries and the long-term outcomes for children born from overseas surrogacy arrangements. Council is conscious that the number of children conceived as a result of overseas commercial surrogacy arrangements has increased dramatically in the past several years, despite the existence of Australian laws prohibiting such arrangements. Council believes this issue requires a coordinated international regulatory response of the kind embodied in the Hague Adoption Convention. 
In Council’s view, the most appropriate course to assist the family courts in the meantime is one aimed at addressing the concerns that underpin current state and territory surrogacy laws (such as concerns about exploitation of surrogates and to protect children’s identity rights) whilst also recognising the need to ensure that children born of illegal surrogacy arrangements are not disadvantaged by a lack of legal status. Council’s view is that the best way to achieve this outcome is by providing the family courts with a power to effect a post-birth transfer of parentage from the surrogate (and her partner) to the intended parents where certain ‘safeguard’ criteria have been met. Council believes that a process of judicial oversight (rather than a contract-based presumption, or prescribing overseas jurisdictions) is necessary given the current, largely unregulated, circumstances of some overseas surrogacy markets. These unregulated markets give rise to concerns about the arrangements, including issues of full, informed consent of surrogate mothers and the (identity) rights of the child. 
As noted above, Council recommends that the Government introduce a new federal Status of Children Act, which would include specific provisions dealing with the parentage of children born as a result of assisted reproductive technologies and surrogacy arrangements where the state and territory Acts do not apply. Council has recommended a set of minimum requirements that the courts should have regard to in determining whether to transfer parentage. These minimum requirements are based on the types of matters that the courts (in Australia and other jurisdictions) have considered in these kinds of cases to date, and include similar requirements as currently exist in state and territory laws. 
5th Term of Reference—Are there any amendments to the Family Law Act that could be made to assist other Commonwealth agencies, such as those responsible for immigration, citizenship and passports, to identify who the parents of a child are for the purposes of Commonwealth laws? 
A number of inconsistencies have arisen in different areas of Commonwealth laws, particularly how various Commonwealth agencies determine who the parent of a child is. This is despite the fact that many pieces of Commonwealth legislation explicitly refer to the parentage provisions in Part VII Family Law Act. In addition to the lack of certainty about legal parentage, overseas surrogacy arrangements also raise uncertainty about citizenship. When a child is born overseas as a result of a surrogacy arrangement, Australian intending parents need to obtain either citizenship (including a passport) or a visa, in order to bring the child back to Australia. In all cases, eligibility is largely determined by a finding that there is a parent child relationship as defined by the various pieces of legislation and related policy manuals. One route to citizenship has been for intending parents to apply for citizenship by descent. The eligibility requirement for applying for citizenship by descent has raised the problem of the status of the intending parents at the time of birth of the child overseas. The policy of the former Department of Immigration and Citizenship (now the Department of Immigration and Border Protection) has been to grant citizenship by descent where at least one intending parent can demonstrate a biological connection with the child. However, the grant of citizenship does not mean that the intending parents are legal parents for the purposes of any other Commonwealth, state or territory laws, including the Family Law Act. 
Similar difficulties arise in the case of passport applications for children born overseas as a result of surrogacy arrangements and in visa applications for children under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 
Submissions 
Council received submissions that expressed the view that the Family Law Act should recognise legal parentage of intending parents based on the former Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s application of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth). On the other hand, some submissions were heavily critical of the practice of granting citizenship by descent in international surrogacy cases on the basis that this effectively bypasses all state and territory legislation that provide a mechanism for a transfer of parentage and which prohibit commercial surrogacy arrangements. 
Council’s views and recommendations 
Council’s view is that the Family Law Act is not the appropriate vehicle for providing a definition of parents for the purposes of other Commonwealth laws. The grant of citizenship by descent does not mean the intending parents are considered legal parents in Australian law and this means these children are vulnerable if there is no legally recognised parent in Australia. Many intending parents do not seek parenting orders when they return to Australia. There have been only 19 reported cases dealing with overseas surrogacy arrangements in the family courts, while there have been many hundreds of children born to Australian couples through overseas surrogacy arrangements. This means that the great majority of children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements overseas do not have the legal protection of having a legally recognised parent in Australia. Council is of the view that it is in the best interests of children born from international surrogacy arrangements that a child has at least one parent in Australia who is legally recognised as a parent. As noted above, Council believes that a process of parentage transfer, subject to judicial oversight, is the preferred option pending an international regulatory response to the issue of overseas surrogacy arrangements. 
Other matters 
In addition to the above, in the course of Council’s reference, a number of related issues were brought to the attention of Council. In particular, the recognition of ‘receiving parents’ under Torres Strait Islander customary adoption was also considered under the first and third terms of reference. Council recommends that the Australian Government enact a separate piece of legislation to provide for legal recognition of Torres Strait Islander customary adoption. Council also notes that questions of legal parentage also raise issues about birth certificates. Council recommends that this is an area where further harmonisation and integration between states and territories and the Commonwealth would be beneficial.