The Framework intends to:

• set increasingly strong minimum performance standards over time for new buildings and major renovations, with standards to be reviewed and increased periodically;
• cover all classes of residential and commercial buildings;
• apply to new and existing buildings;
• cover the building envelope including roof, walls, doors and windows as well as the energy efficiency of key building services;
• aim to bring together assessment and rating tools for existing and new buildings;
• include common measurement and reporting to help in setting building standards and assessing building performance;
• allow for the use of rating tools developed by the market, provided they are accurate, transparent and user friendly;
• encourage innovation in meeting defined performance standards;
• continue to communicate energy efficiency improvements using star ratings; and
• facilitate effective monitoring and compliance.

Measures under the Framework will be implemented through the Building Code of Australia where they affect new buildings work.

An Australian, state and territory government working group has been established to lead the development of the framework and consult with stakeholders. An industry consultative forum has been established to facilitate targeted consultation with peak industry bodies. An expert reference group has also been established to provide technical feedback on options being considered for the Framework.

The framework is expected to be agreed by governments by the end of 2010.  The Senior Officials Group on Energy Efficiency (SOG-EE) is calling for feedback on its Discussion Paper and/or on the Framework generally by 5pm Monday 7 May 2010. Submission forms may be downloaded via this link .
 

Junior Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said the measure would require owners of commercial office buildings covering 2000 square metres or more to obtain and disclose energy efficiency information before selling or leasing them.

The law will also apply to head tenants intending to sublease space.

Mr Combet said a full building energy efficiency certificate would have to be given to interested parties.

The certificate would include a star rating of the building's energy efficiency and additional information on how efficiency could be improved.

Mr Combet said the European Union and California had begun comparable schemes.
 

Source: Nine News, 18 March 2010: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1028834/new-disclosure-rules-for-office-blocks

 

 

Tasmania’s Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 came into force on 17 December 2009.

The Australian Capital Territory’s Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Bill 2009 is due to come into operation on 1 July 2010.

South Australia’s Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 is expected to come into operation during 2010 (on a date yet to be fixed).

The Tasmanian, ACT and South Australian Security of Payment legislation is similar to that already in force in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The principal objective of the scheme is to reform payment behaviour in the building and construction industry throughout Australia.

 

 

Following a tender process in 2000, BSkyB selected EDS to design, build, manage, implement and integrate the process and technology for the CRM System. In 2008 HP Enterprise Services aquired EDS. The project was problemantic, and in 2002 BSkyB took over the performance of EDS’ role of Systems Integrator. BSkyB alleged, among other things, that EDS made fraudulent misrepresentations which led to EDS being selected.

Initially the CRM Project was to go live on 31 July 2001 and be completed by 1 March 2002 at a budget of £47.6m. BSkyB claimed that the functionality for the CRM System was only completed in March 2006 at a cost of about £265m. In the Particulars of Claim, as they stood at the commencement of the hearing, Sky claimed damages of £709m.

The contract included a £30m limitation of liability clause.

The case was heard over a period of 10 months, where there were 109 hearing days. It took some 18 months, following the conclusion of the hearing, before Judgment (468 pages).

The Court ruled, among other things, that Electronic Data Systems Ltd misrepresented its capabilities when bidding for and selling the CRM system to BSkyB. There remain oustanding issues as to quantum, however HP was ordered to pay an interim amount of £200m. EDS is seeking permission to appeal the decision.
 

In other new anti-doping measures announced today, AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said the league would also conduct extensive blood testing and profiling and freeze samples obtained from players for a period of up to eight years.

Anderson said the new measures were being taken to ensure the integrity of the sport was not threatened.

"Performance-enhancing drugs are a massive threat world-wide to sports and their integrity and we are determined to stay ahead of the game, that is why we are entering into this agreement," Anderson said.

ASADA acting chief executive Richard Ings said the new AFL deal contained every element his agency had wanted and set the example for other Australian sports.

"ASADA considers the AFL 2010 anti-doping program to be the gold standard of anti-doping programs in Australian sports," Ings said.

Anderson said the freezing of samples for future testing would give the league the ability to retrospectively penalise players who used drugs that were currently unable to be detected, once the testing technology became more advanced in future years.

He said it was possible that the AFL could use that power to strip players of individual awards such as the Brownlow Medal or even to strip a club of a premiership if they were later found to have been using banned substances at the time.
 

Source: The Age 9 March 2010
 

Additionally, the International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2009 received its second reading on 25 November 2009 and will be debated this year.

The Act provides for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the conduct of international commercial arbitrations in Australia. The amendments give the Federal Court jurisdiction in relation to:

1. applications to stay proceedings or part of proceedings where the parties have agreed to arbitrate disputes
2. the enforcement of a foreign award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (‘The New York Convention’)
3. the enforcement of an award under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (‘The ICSID Convention’)
4. applications under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 ('Model Law') for orders concerning: appointment and termination of an arbitrator; challenges against an arbitrator for lack of impartiality or independence or necessary qualifications; whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction; and, setting aside an arbitral award

State and Territory courts are expected to amend their respective Commercial Arbitrations Acts and adopt the Model Law. Such uniformity is aimed at ensuring that Australia's legislation accords with international best practice, as well as promoting consistency in interpretation of the legislation.

The Federal Court's Practice Note ARB1 sets out the arrangements when orders are sought under the Act.

An Explanatory Memorandum on the amending legislation has been published by the Commonwealth.
 

At issue in Arnold was the licensee's groundwater entitlement under an aquirer access licence issued under the NSW Water Management Act 2000, which replaced bore licences issued under the NSW Water Act 1912 (Cth). The new licences had the effect of reducing the amount of water that Arnold and others were able to take.

Special leave was sought to argue that the National Water Commission Act 2004 (Cth) and the Funding Agreement between NSW and the Cth which provided ex gratia payments to allow the transition of licence holders from bore licences to aquifer access licences.

The challenge failed. Special leave was granted but the appeal was dismissed. In so doing, however, the High Court did not have to consider the correctness of Morgan because the case could be decided on a more narrow basis, namely that the Cth laws did not apply to "waters of rivers"; rather, they applied to underground water and thus did not come within the protection of s 100: at [29] per French CJ; at [55] per Gummow and Crennan JJ; at [75] per Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Consequently, Arnold was not an appropriate vehicle for the ventilation of the correctness or otherwise of Morgan. In those circumstances, Morgan, of course, represents accepted constitutional doctrine. A summary of the drafting background of s 100 is described by French CJ's judgment at [18]-[22], [26] and [28].

It is also interesting to note that, at [15], French CJ criticised the pleading as being a "less than substantial factual foundation" for the invocation of s 100.

In essence, the High Court did not consider the correctness of Morgan (and furthermore it did not cast any doubt on its correctness).

Albert Dinelli’s guidance on this summary gratefully acknowledged (any errors are ours) - Editor

1. Per French CJ, Gummow and Crennan JJ: There was no acquisition of property within the meaning of the Constitution s 51(xxxi). The ground water was a natural resource and NSW always had the power to limit the volume of water to be taken from that resource.

2. Per Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ: There was no acquisition of property as NSW received no identifiable or measurable advantage by cancellation of the licences. The measure of control which NSW had over the resource was unaltered by the cancellation of any particular entitlements to extract ground water.

Heydon J dissented, reasoning that the legislation acquiring the licences was directed towards the acquisition of property in the licences as such. Accordingly, the National Water Commission Act 2004 (Cth) was invalid, because it was legislation providing for the acquisition by NSW of property other than on just terms. The states, subject to their own legislation, were at liberty to make uncompensated expropriations, at least in fields which the Constitution s 109 left open.