The euthanasia debate has picked up steam in Australia once again, with both NSW and VIC voting on euthanasia bills in last month.

New South Wales

In New South Wales, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017 (NSW) recently failed to pass in the Upper House with 20 votes against and 19 in favour. The Bill proposed that those over 25 were eligible to be assisted in ending their lives if they had 12 months or less to live and where there is severe pain.

The Bill allowed a doctor to prescribe, prepare and supply a voluntary assisted dying substance that could be self-administered, or if the patient was unable, administered by a doctor. Numerous protections and requirements existed to avoid an abuse of the process, some of which included:

• Examination by at least two doctors, one of which is a specialist in that terminal illness
• Determination by a psychiatric or psychological evaluation that the patient has decision making ability and that it is voluntary
• At least 48 hours between a request certificate and administration of the drug
• Doctors can refuse assistance and patients may withdraw their request at any time
• The Supreme Court can invalidate a request certificate if satisfied the conditions under the Bill have not been met

Victoria

In contrast, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017 (Vic) was just approved by both the Lower and the Upper House, and is set to take effect in 2019 pursuant to the proposed amendments being ratified in the Lower House.

Key differences

The minimum requirements for medical practitioners that prescribe and/or administer the drug are subject to stricter guidelines in the Victorian bill, with a minimum of 5 years registration post-fellowship or vocational registration.

The Victorian bill also put in place a further safeguard as a two requests must be made by the patient at least 9 days apart, and a permit must be obtained from the Secretary of the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. Finally, the Victorian Bill establishes a Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board to monitor and review the functions carried out under the proposed legislation as well as provide reports to Parliament regarding operation and potential improvements.

So what does this all mean?

If the formalities regarding the amendments are ratified, the Victorian Bill may take effect as soon as June 2019. From this point on patients suffering from terminal illness, with little time left and severe pain have the ability to end their life.

National MP Trevor Khan, who introduced the private members’ bill in NSW has vowed to “never give up the fight”. If a bill on voluntary euthanasia is once again put before parliament, it is likely that a close scrutiny of the safeguards in place in Victoria will lead to heightened safeguards in any NSW bill.

In the last decade, Australia has seen a significant increase in overseas migration and this in turn results to the migrants inviting their parents and relatives to visit them in Australia.  Whether it be for studies, business or to start a family, more expats from the Indian sub-continent are calling Australia home than ever before.

Naturally it is common for expats to invite their parents and relatives to visit them in Australia.  Even though you have always intended to ensure that any visit to Australia is a remarkable experience for them, what one fails to realise is the importance of having the visitor obtain a local travel insurance.

In our legal practice we regularly come across cases where people are either left out of pocket or are caught short due to inadequate travel insurance because of the insurance coverage they had obtained from their country of origin.

Things to look out for:-

1. It is imperative that you are aware of the type of cover that you are signing up for your visitors, parents or people you are sponsoring or requesting to obtain insurance coverage for.

2. If people travel to Australia without medical insurance, you then face the risk of attending to paying a hospital bill or a medical bill out of your own pocket.

3. If travel insurance is in fact obtained from the country of origin to cover the entire length of stay/visit in Australia, kindly peruse the terms and conditions of that relevant insurance coverage because in most scenarios our client’s relatives are invariably not covered for all the medical treatments that they have in fact undertaken whilst they holiday in Australia. This also means that apart from having to pay a humungous bill in Australia privately, it is only after you pay these invoices that you are able to return to your country of origin and lodge an application requesting for it to be reimbursed. In addition and in most cases, you will not be able to recover the entire reimbursement of the entire invoice.

This would certainly give you the peace of mind and also the ability to enjoy your holiday to the maximum.

For starter, we believe it is a must for all travellers to ensure they are adequately covered for the entire length of their visit to Australia. We also believe it is imperative that you are aware of the type of cover that you are signing up for, and what all in fact covered by the insurer.

Inadequate consideration to either of the above may result in you experiencing significant financial heartache and an unwanted medical debt which you are felt to pay.

Accordingly, we would strongly recommend and advise that you proceed to ensure and read the Terms and Conditions in relation to any Travel Insurance coverage that you obtain. More importantly we strongly recommend that you proceed to obtain a local travel insurance coverage that is best suited to the travelling party’s needs, requirements and length of stay.

If you have any questions in relation to travel insurance, or insurance in general, please feel free to contact us on (02) 8917 8700.

Recently, Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull announced a postal plebiscite on the issue of same-sex marriage, and you may be wondering to yourself how exactly this will affect you and what social changes may come about as a result.

A plebiscite is a vote put out to the public by the government on an important public issue, as a way for them to gain an insight into the public’s views. It is relatively uncommon with Australia’s last plebiscite occurring in 1977 on the issue of our national anthem. In this case, the issue is same-sex marriage and whether or not it should be legalised in Australia. Given that this is such a prevalent issue which has been debated relentlessly throughout society, a plebiscite appears to be ground-breaking in Australia’s progress towards marriage equality. However, there are a few aspects of this postal plebiscite that distinguish it from voting as we know it in Australia and questions its effectiveness in enacting change.

Voluntary Voting

Firstly, while anyone who is registered on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll is eligible to vote, the vote itself is not compulsory and no penalties will be issued to people who choose not to vote. This means that the results of the vote may not be indicative of the entire population and their opinion. Further, given the nature of postal votes, there is also no guarantee that someone else has not filled in another person’s ballot.

Legal Implications

The results of the vote is not in itself, legally binding. Instead, the government has stated that a ‘Yes’ vote will simply mean that they will allow a private member’s bill to be introduced to the House of Representatives. This bill would then have to undergo the process of a normal bill, with discussions and possible amendments, and there is no guarantee that it will be accepted by the Senate or Governor-General and become law.

High Court Challenge

There has been arguments that the plebiscite itself is against the Constitution in the way it is being funded and the information it is collecting. Several challenges have been put out and the High Court is set to hear and decide on them a week before the votes are due to be posted out. There are several key issues that will be determined:

• No legislation was passed in Parliament which required the plebiscite or granted the $122 million funding from taxpayer’s money which this plebiscite is estimated to cost. This questions whether Malcolm Turnbull actually had the power to announce the vote.
• The plebiscite is being run by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) whose power is technically to collect facts and statistics rather than opinions. As a result, they lack the proper legislative framework regarding voting which affects aspects including advertising and voting eligibility, questioning the legality of the vote.

While many marriage equality advocates, including former High Court Judge Michael Kirby, are opposing the postal plebiscite and its effectiveness, if the High Court does not deem it illegal and allows it to go ahead, it may be beneficial to get the votes of as many eligible Australians as possible. Discussions in Parliament from the introduction of a private member bill is a progressive step towards equality compared to Parliament’s approach in the past.

To vote, ensure that you are enrolled by Thursday 24 August 2017. The postal votes will start being sent out from Tuesday 12 September 2017 (if it has not been deemed illegal by the High Court). All forms must be returned by Tuesday 7 November 2017 with the results being released on Wednesday 15 November 2017.

If you have any queries relating to issues featured in this case, please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

Difficulty in understanding and communication has always been an expected part of travelling overseas and for many, this poses no great threat apart from some potential frustration. For Dutch teenager Vera Mol travelling in Spain however, a misunderstanding while participating in bungee jumping resulted in her jumping before she was properly secured, and plunging to her death. Apparently Mol had interpreted “no jump” as “now jump”. Her instructors are now facing the possibility of gaol time for the offence of gross negligence manslaughter.

Manslaughter is essentially murder without any ‘malice afterthought’ (i.e. there is no mens rea). There exists two forms of manslaughter – voluntary and involuntary. Gross negligence manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter, where no intention to kill exists. It requires the existence of a duty of care and a breach in this duty, as well as gross negligence. In most jurisdictions, a very high level of negligence is required to warrant gross negligence manslaughter. In addition, an omission (or failing to do an act) can be a sufficient form of negligence.

The Spanish Court of Cantabria had ruled that the two bungee instructors and the operating company were subject to criminal liability as a result of Mol’s death however, the company appealed stating that the death was an accident caused by Mol jumping prematurely. In an unexpected turn of events, the Spanish Appeal Court has ruled the operators guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, stating that they erred in not checking her ID and in their choice of words. Mol was only 17 years old at the time of the incident and bungee jumping requires participants to be 18 years old, unless they have guardian permission. The Court also indicated that the operators should have used the phrase “don’t jump” rather than “no jump” to avoid the misunderstanding in communication. It emphasised that having known and admitted to having poor English skills, the operator should have recognised that his English was insufficient in instructing foreigners in “something as precarious as jumping into the void from an elevated point”.

Further, the operating company were at fault in not obtaining the necessary permits and installing the required security measures for such jumps. In accordance with Spain’s regulations, the bridge on which the jump had occurred was not permitted to be used for bungee jumping at all. Given these errors, the Court believed gross negligence manslaughter a suitable sentence and the two operators now face between one to four years of gaol time.

If you wish to discuss any legal queries relating to issues featured in this case, please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

Are you getting married soon? If the answer is yes, then undoubtedly you will have so much to do in the lead up to the big day. You have to choose the perfect dress, a memorable venue, delicious cake and the rings. However, many couples will not have a lawyer on their wedding to-do-list. The harsh reality is that 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce in Australia. While it may be highly unromantic or alarming otherwise to be discussing and negotiating prenuptial agreements, but the sooner you do, the better it is. It will eventually save you when the due time comes to distribute the assets.

Long gone are the days when a prenuptial agreement was a term confined to celebrities and power couples.  Nonetheless, young couples who are getting married, with a limited amount of assets and intending to start a life together, are usually exempt from a prenuptial agreement. In the event that both parties possess a significant amount of assets before entering into a marriage, a prenuptial is highly recommended in that scenario.

What is a Prenuptial Agreement?

A prenuptial agreement (‘prenup’) is a legally binding financial agreement entered between two people in a relationship who intend to wed or live in a de facto relationship. In Australia, prenuptial agreements are known as Binding Financial Agreements (BFAs). The document confirms:

• What each of the parties had before the relationship;
• Has brought into the relationship; and
• How finances will be divided and sorted between the two parties if a separation or divorce occurs in the future.

Due to the fact that prenuptial agreements are generally attached to a social stigma, many Australian couples do not consider it before they tie the knot as research indicates only 14% of Australian engaged couples have signed prenuptial agreements. Prenuptial agreements are the seatbelt to any relationship, especially when you consider the fact that every third marriage in Australia potentially ends in divorce according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

If you have any questions about an existing prenuptial agreement, or you'd like to consider entering into a prenuptial agreement, give us a call on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP!