The policy of ''leave early or stay and defend'', often shortened to the ''stay or go'' policy, has been the subject of critical review in the Royal Commission that followed the recent disastrous bushfires in Victoria, Australia. The need for people to evacuate or stay and defend their property and protect themselves is a critical life safety decision for many people on days of high bushfire activity. Some limited research has been undertaken into this individual decision making in bushfires. Other fields of emergency management also require people to make similar decisions as to whether to evacuate or stay in a ''defend in place'' situation. This paper examines research into ''stay or go'' strategies and decision making performance for high rise buildings, looking for common factors that may inform the bushfire situation and potential reforms for policy. Similarly, research into Hurricane Katrina and the failures to evacuate when mandated provide further insight into factors which can affect or postpone decision making. A number of common improvements related to emergency preparedness, situation awareness and trusted communication systems emerge in all these fields. However, this paper also suggests that this decision making in bushfires is more complex that just two simple options of ''stay or go''. A greater understanding of group behavior and socio-cultural factors and their impact on personal decision making is required if more effective emergency management is to occur in the bushfire domain.

The 2005 ‘Work Choices’ legislation builds on earlier legislative and policy measures of the Howard Coalition Government that have restricted the activities and undermined the traditional legal rights of unions. This article highlights the key aspects of the 2005 legislation affecting trade unions. The constitutional basis of the new framework for regulating registered organisations is considered, as it presents unions with the challenge to revisit the validity of their registration under Federal law or to ‘opt out’ of registration altogether. The new union ‘right of entry’ provisions provide employers with far greater scope to resist or limit unwanted union influence at the workplace. Amendments to the freedom of association ‘provisions will restrict unions’ capacity to engage in a range of tactics to support the collective representation of workers' interests, and limit their ability to block de-unionisation or individualisation strategies by employers. We conclude that the 2005 Act constitutes the most serious threat to Australian unions yet, but that the high-profile debate generated by the reforms, and the erosion of conditions which will inevitably follow for some workers, provide opportunities for unions to re-establish their relevance and reverse declining membership levels.

In March 2008, the Rudd Government started to dismantle Work Choices. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Act 2008 (Cth) reintroduced agreement-making safeguards, and removed the option of making Australian Workplace Agreements. The legislation also provided the legal framework for the creation of 'modern awards', paving the way for the more far-reaching reforms that are outlined in the Fair Work Bill 2008 (Cth). The first section of the article examines these transitional measures. The second section briefly considers the key features of the Fair Work Bill, concluding that its content and relative simplicity are broadly consistent with the promises made by the Government in its pre-election Forward with Fairness policy. Finally, the article highlights some of the legislative developments at the State level in 2008.

In 2009, two major pieces of industrial legislation were enacted to give effect to the Labor Government's commitment to replace Work Choices with laws for 'Fair Work'. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) promises to bring greater stability and simplicity to Australia's workplace relations system. However, transitional rules in the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 (Cth) mean that it will be some time before participants in the system can enjoy these benefits. This review gives a brief account of both Acts before examining in more detail the enterprise bargaining rules which commenced operating in July under the supervision of a new institution, Fair Work Australia. We then consider two aspects of the Fair Work legislation which are most likely to provoke controversy when they commence operating in 2010, the adverse action and transfer of business provisions. We also look at the steps taken by federal and state governments to move towards a national system of workplace relations.

No abstract