ANJeL member Simon Henderson, now on the executive committee for the Law Council of Australia’s International Law Section, is taking the lead to create the first-ever Tokyo Chapter to bring together Australian-qualified lawyers around Tokyo (estimated to number around 100 — working in law firms, in-house, universities and other roles). Goals range from better coordination and support for practising certification in Japan, and wider submissions to governmental inquiries in Australia, through to CLE-style updates comparing Australian law, enhanced engagement with business-focused groups like ANZCCJ and AJBC, and general networking. These are all very consistent with objectives and some activities of ANJeL, which therefore fully supports this initiative. Anyone interested in joining the ILS Tokyo Chapter is welcome to contact: Simon Henderson [email protected]
Corruption in Asia: A Fuller Account
Over 4-6 August 2026 Keio Law School A/Prof Nobumichi Teramura (co-editor of my 2024 Springer book on “Corruption and Illegality in Asian Investment Arbitration”) and I will present at the National University of Singapore the first draft of our solicited chapter on “Anti-Corruption Law in Asia” for a new book co-edited by NUS Prof Mindy Chen-Wishart, “Comparative Law of the Global Majority”.
As the introduction of our shortened version explains: “Corruption remains a large problem in almost all parts of Asia, evidenced for example by the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of Transparency International (TI). Decades of national law reform, increasingly supported by various international organisations, run up against mixed legacies from diverse customary and religious values (such as guanxi), colonial history, often authoritarian politics, and economic realities (including strong business-state links still in many countries). Some dramatic successes are mostly due to consistent and unbiased political will, and well-resourced anti-corruption agencies and other independent institutions. This chapter gives a sense of the regional diversity, focusing mainly on countries with varying scale for population, socio-cultural contexts, political regimes, economies and legal traditions: Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and India (ranked from least to most corrupt by CPI).”
Here is a longer version (and we have an even longer draft, for middle sections!) and below are related Powerpoint slides:
International Arbitration in Asia – events on 23 August 2026
My hybrid presentations at Kwansei Gakuin University (Kwangaku Kaikan) SUNDAY 23 AUGUST, hosted by its Research Center for International Negotiation, Dispute Resolution and Policy (initially the day before the Japanese-US Law conference on ESG investing there but RESCHEDULED DUE TO TYPHOON) are as follows:
- Speech 15:00~16: “Commercial Mediation, Arbitration and ISDS in Common Law versus Civil Law Asia: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back”
(Abstract) As a first regional trend, commercially-supplied mediation services have become popular only in some common law jurisdictions in Asia (Singapore and Hong Kong, influenced by England and Australia). They are not widely practiced yet in Malaysia or even India (despite delays in civil litigation), nor in civil law jurisdictions in Asia (where often a longer tradition of Court-annexed mediation). This backdrop creates problems for ratifications of the Singapore Mediation Convention. Secondly, international commercial arbitration is expanding regionally but most notably in Singapore and (less?) Hong Kong. Partly this is due to delays and especially costs in arbitration. Yet the practice of Arb-Med is diminishing. Thirdly, treaty-based Investor-State Dispute Settlement arbitration remains controversial in some parts of the Asia-Pacific region. Yet there is limited experimentation eg for Med-Arb (mandatory mediation before ISDS arbitration) or an EU-style investment court compromise. Overall, international commercial dispute resolution continues to grow but with significant intra-regional variations and other challenges. - Workshop: International Commercial Arbitration Moot 16:15~17:15
As a Presiding Arbitrator of Arbitration Moot Court, Prof. Luke Nottage will ask questions, provide feedback and guidance during pleadings of students (32nd Vis-Moot Procedural Problem).
1 Session = 10 Min/each student×2 + Feedback10 Min. =1 Round (30 Min.)
This will be followed by a discussion about mooting generally, led by Prof Susan-Gale Wintermuth (China-EU School of Law) (30 Min.). On that see also https://japaneselaw.sydney.edu.au/2024/02/the-vis-moot-in-japan-tips-and-tricks-for-participants/
Why Australia needs stronger consumer laws to stop dangerous products being sold online
[Editor’s note: A version of this posting appears on The Conversation blog.[1] 日本語版 Japanese translation appears below.]
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has sued Amazon for having kids’ backpacks sold on its online platform, containing illegal and unsafe button batteries.[2] It has also issued takedown notices to Amazon, eBay, Kogan and Fruugo over concerns some of their products may contain small, high-powered magnets banned under Australian law.[3]
This flurry of regulatory action has come just before independent consumer advocacy group Choice lodged a “super” complaint about unsafe products generally on online platforms, requiring the ACCC to investigate and respond within 90 days.[4]
Meanwhile, can we consumers be confident products we buy online are safe? Not really.
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) still lacks a General Safety Provision, as in the EU since 1992 and other Asia-Pacific states (eg Malaysia, Canada and Thailand) requiring suppliers to ensure only safe products are put on the market. A public consultation from 2019 stalled, despite e-commerce burgeoning since the pandemic.[5]
Instead the ACL (Part 3-3) allows mandatory safety standards to be set for specific products. But this takes time even after serious accidents start to be reported, and Australia has only 50 such standards.[6] Even for those products (often for babies or kids), suppliers quite often still deal with them – until caught out through occasional checks by regulators or NGOs like Choice,[7] whereupon suppliers implement voluntary recalls. Both problems are evident with button batteries, subject to a mandatory standard from 2022 after multiple deaths and injuries for babies ingesting them.[8] This ACCC lawsuit is belatedly trying to make firms take mandatory safety standards more seriously.
So what about the thousands of other consumer products? Regulators have further powers to ban or force recalls of unsafe products once already sold. But this too usually only happens after many serious accidents.
Suppliers can also be indirectly incentivised to deal in safe products out of fear of compensation claims by consumers, although again only after accidents. One avenue involves claiming breach of the mandatory consumer guarantee of acceptable quality, including safety (ACL s54), against direct sellers and/or manufacturers and some importers. The second is strict product liability (ACL Part 3-5), modelled on the 1985 EU Directive (also now adopted in many Asian economies), only imposed on manufacturers and importers.
Generally, to be impactful such claims need credible access to justice for harmed consumers. Yet individually small-scale harms are not worth consumers bringing even before tribunals. Regulators almost never use their ACL powers (ss 149, 277) to sue on their behalf. Class action lawyers only bring the biggest and easiest claims, plus then mostly settle them (leaving few precedents for other suppliers to use to up their game).
A specific limitation is that online platforms like Amazon have argued (even in the US) that they are mere intermediaries – not even sellers, let alone manufacturers.[9] The recently revised EU Directive (2024/2853) tries to fill this gap for platforms. It deems them also manufacturers if presenting products leads an average consumer to believe the platform itself or a trader under its control is the supplier.[10] But the platform might avoid such joint liability through disclaimers, which consumers might not understand even if prominently displayed.[11]
Another way to encourage firms generally to take more care regarding product safety is to argue that they are engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade (ACL s18) by continuing to offer goods that they know are subject to consumer complaints about product-related accidents. This premise was seemingly accepted in an ACCC lawsuit against Woolworths, but only to then contest the extent of the fine imposed for non-compliance with mandatory accident reporting obligations added to the ACL from 2010.[12] It is unclear if the ACCC’s current action against Amazon adds this argument, and perhaps anyway Amazon will say there were not yet reports of accidents or it didn’t know about them. But similar claims have been made in the US under broader prohibitions on unfair commercial practices (also found in the EU since 2005, and being added belatedly now to the ACL[13]).
Instead the ACCC’s lawsuit reportedly alleges that Amazon commercially “possesses or has control of” products violating the button battery standard (ACL s194(3)), through its warehousing etc. This neatly avoids having to prove that Amazon was a product “supplier” or “manufacturer”.
Hopefully therefore Amazon and other online platforms will already get the message to work harder to monitor (especially thanks to AI developments) the safety of products put onto the Australian market. It shouldn’t be too hard to ensure they comply with the 50 product-specific standards, and are not being voluntarily recalled. Amazon is already supposed to be doing this under a voluntary Safety Pledge, modelled on an EU innovation.[14]
But a revised EU Regulation (2023/988) has made mandatory a more intense version of that Pledge, and added other duties on traders (eg around recalls).[15] To make sure Australian consumers stay safe, in parallel with this lawsuit, Australia governments should review its ACL in light of both that Regulation and the EU’s revised Product Liability Directive. They should also revive a consultation on a General Safety Provision. Prevention is usually better than cure.
「なぜオーストラリアはオンラインで販売される危険な製品を阻止するために、より強力な消費者法を必要としているのか」
【編集者注:本稿は The Conversation ブログに掲載されたものの一版である。】
オーストラリア競争・消費者委員会(ACCC)は、オンラインプラットフォーム上で販売された子供用バックパックに、違法かつ安全でないボタン電池が含まれていたとして、Amazon を提訴した。また、ACCCは、Amazon、eBay、Kogan および Fruugo に対し、オーストラリア法で禁止されている小型高出力マグネットを含む製品があるとの懸念から、削除通知(テイクダウンノーティス)を発出した。
こうした一連の規制措置は、独立系消費者擁護団体 Choice がオンラインプラットフォーム上の安全でない製品全般について「スーパー」苦情(designated complaint)を申し立てる直前に行われたものであり、同苦情により ACCC は90日以内に調査・回答することが義務付けられる。
では、消費者として、オンラインで購入する製品が安全であると確信できるだろうか。残念ながら、そうとは言えない。
オーストラリア消費者法(ACL)には、EUで1992年以来存在し、アジア太平洋諸国(マレーシア、カナダ、タイなど)でも採用されている「一般安全規定」(General Safety Provision, GSP)がいまだ欠けている。GSPは、供給者が安全な製品のみを市場に流通させることを義務付けるものである。2019年に公開協議が開始されたが、パンデミック以降の電子商取引の急速な拡大にもかかわらず、その協議は頓挫した。
その代わりに、ACL(第3-3部)は、特定の製品について強制安全基準を定めることを認めている。しかし、重大な事故が報告され始めてから基準が設定されるまでには時間がかかり、オーストラリアにはそうした基準が50件しか存在しない。それらの製品(多くは乳幼児・子供向け)についてさえ、供給者は規制当局やChoice等のNGOによる不定期の検査で発覚するまで、違反品を取り扱い続けることが少なくない。発覚後に供給者が任意リコール(自主回収)を実施するのが通例である。
上記の両問題は、ボタン電池においても顕著である。ボタン電池については、乳幼児が誤飲して複数の死傷事故が発生した後、2022年に強制安全基準が導入された。今回のACCCによる訴訟は、事業者に強制安全基準をより真剣に受け止めさせることを遅ればせながら試みるものである。
では、その他何千もの消費者製品についてはどうか。規制当局は、すでに販売された安全でない製品を禁止したり、強制リコールを命じたりする権限を有する。しかし、これも通常は多数の重大事故が発生した後にようやく行使される。
供給者はまた、消費者による損害賠償請求を恐れて安全な製品を取り扱うよう間接的にインセンティブを与えられることもあるが、やはり事故発生後に限られる。第一の請求手段は、直接の販売者および/または製造者・一部の輸入者に対し、安全性を含む「許容しうる品質」の強制的消費者保証(ACL第54条)違反を主張する方法である。第二は、厳格製品責任(ACL第3-5部)であり、1985年のEU指令をモデルとして(アジア諸国でも多く採用されている)、製造者と輸入者にのみ課される。
一般に、こうした請求が実効性を持つには、被害を受けた消費者が信頼しうる司法アクセスを有することが必要である。しかし、個々の被害が小規模である場合、消費者は審判所(tribunal)にすら提訴する価値がないと考えがちである。規制当局は消費者に代わって訴訟を提起する ACL 上の権限(第149条、第277条)をほとんど行使しない。クラスアクション(集団訴訟)の弁護士は最大規模かつ容易な案件のみを引き受け、しかもその大半を和解で解決する(そのため、他の供給者が安全性向上に活用できる判例がほとんど残らない)。
特有の限界として、Amazon のようなオンラインプラットフォームは(米国においてさえ)、自らは単なる仲介者(intermediary)であり、販売者にも製造者にも当たらないと主張してきた。最近改正されたEU指令(2024/2853)は、プラットフォームについてこの法的空白を埋めようとしている。同指令は、製品を提示することが平均的消費者にプラットフォーム自体またはその管理下の取引業者が供給者であると信じさせる場合、当該プラットフォームも製造者とみなすこととしている。ただし、プラットフォームは免責条項(disclaimer)を通じてこの共同責任を回避しうる可能性があり、そうした免責条項は目立つように表示されたとしても消費者が理解できるとは限らない。
事業者に製品安全についてより注意を払わせるもう一つの方法は、当該事業者が製品関連事故に関する消費者からの苦情を知りつつ商品を提供し続けることが、取引における「誤認を招くまたは欺瞞的な行為」(ACL第18条)に該当すると主張することである。この前提は、ACCCがWoolworthsに対して提起した訴訟において事実上受け入れられたが、それは2010年にACLに追加された強制事故報告義務違反に対する制裁金の程度を争う文脈においてのみであった。ACCCの現在のAmazonに対する訴訟にこの主張が加えられているかは不明であり、おそらくAmazonは事故報告がまだなかった、または自社が事故を認知していなかったと反論するであろう。しかし、米国ではより広範な「不公正な商慣行」の禁止(EUでも2005年以来存在し、オーストラリアのACLにも遅ればせながら現在追加されつつある)のもとで、同様の主張がなされてきた。
報道によれば、ACCCの訴訟は、Amazonが倉庫保管等を通じてボタン電池基準に違反する製品を商業的に「所持または管理している」(ACL第194条(3))と主張しているとされる。これはAmazonが製品の「供給者」や「製造者」であることを立証する必要性を巧みに回避するものである。
したがって、Amazonやその他のオンラインプラットフォームは、(特にAI技術の発展のおかげで)オーストラリア市場に流通させる製品の安全性をより積極的に監視せよというメッセージをすでに受け取ることになるであろう。50件の製品別基準への適合を確保し、自主回収対象となっていないことを確認するのは、それほど困難ではないはずである。AmazonはすでにEU発のイノベーションを模範とした自主的「安全誓約」(Safety Pledge)のもとでこれを行うことが期待されている。
しかし、改正されたEU規則(2023/988)は、その誓約のより厳格なバージョンを義務化し、取引業者にリコール等に関する追加的義務を課している。オーストラリアの消費者の安全を確保するためには、今回の訴訟と並行して、オーストラリア政府は同EU規則および改正EU製品責任指令の双方に照らしてACLを見直すべきである。また、一般安全規定に関する協議も再開すべきである。予防は通常、治療に勝るのである。
訳注(法学生向け):
- ACCC(Australian Competition and Consumer Commission):オーストラリア競争・消費者委員会。連邦の消費者保護・競争法の執行機関。
- ACL(Australian Consumer Law):オーストラリア消費者法。Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) の Schedule 2 として規定される統一消費者法。
- 一般安全規定(GSP):供給者が市場に流通させるすべての製品が安全であることを義務付ける包括的な規制。EU では1992年の指令以来存在し、2023年の規則(EU 2023/988)で強化された。
- スーパー苦情(designated complaint):英国の制度を参考に2024年にオーストラリアで導入された仕組み。認定された消費者団体がACCCに対し調査・公表を義務付ける苦情を申し立てられる。
- クラスアクション:集団訴訟。オーストラリアでは Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 等に基づく。
- 厳格製品責任:製造者の過失を証明せずとも、製品の欠陥と損害の因果関係を示せば賠償を請求できる制度。1985年のEU製品責任指令がモデル。
[1] https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-nottage-3037
[2] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/amazon-in-court-over-alleged-missing-button-battery-warnings-on-children%E2%80%99s-unicorn-backpacks
[3] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-issues-takedown-requests-to-amazon-ebay-kogan-and-fruugo-for-toys-and-games-containing-potentially-deadly-small-magnets
[4] https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/stopping-the-rising-flood-of-dangerous-goods-from-shein-temu-aliexpress-and-more
[5] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3530671
[6] https://www.productsafety.gov.au/business/search-mandatory-standards?layout=grid
[7] https://www.choice.com.au/babies-and-kids/children-and-safety/avoiding-common-dangers/articles/accc-takes-amazon-to-court-for-button-battery-safety-failures
[8] https://theconversation.com/rather-than-recalling-unsafe-products-why-not-ensure-theyre-safe-in-the-first-place-146988
[9] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-product-recalls-consumer-product-safety-commission/
[10] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2853/oj/eng
[11] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/product-liability-and-online-marketplaces-comparison-and-reform/1CB76B1CD3951B6AF767A71E9BE5D032
[12] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/woolworths-misled-consumers-over-product-safety-hazards-%E2%80%93-ordered-to-pay-over-3-million-in-penalties
[13] https://consult.treasury.gov.au/c2026-739506
[14] https://www.productsafety.gov.au/about-us/online-product-safety-pledge
[15] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/988/oj/eng
Comparing (especially US) ESG Policies and Investment: 28 June symposium in Japan
As tenured Professor of Anglo-American Law at the University of Tokyo, cross-appointed with the University of Sydney Law School, I am happy to attend the 63rd annual Symposium of the Japanese-American Society for Legal Studies. This is a longstanding academic association for which my uTOkyo colleague sharing the same Chair – Prof Masayuki Tamaruya – is executive director, and led by Prof Futoshi Iwata (Kanagawa University) as the representative director. This year’s conference will be hosted on Sunday 28 June at Kwansei Gakuin University (established in 1889 with support from the South Methodist Episcopal Church in the US, plus the Canadian Methodist Church from 1910, now a highly-regarded non-denominational Christian private university). Registration and other details (in Japanese) can be found HERE, including abstracts of two presentations in English (by NYU Adjunct Prof Bruce Aronson on “ESG in the United States: A Comparative Perspective”, then UC Berkeley Prof Adam Badawi on “Incentivizing ESG Performance or Greenwashing? Rewarding ESG in Executive Compensation”), and four in Japanese that (Claude and) I have translated as below along with an overview of the conference, which is focused on “Anti-ESG Policy in the United States and the Current State of ‘ESG Investing'”.
I am very much interested in learning more about the latest ESG developments in the US, beyond the often breathless media reports, not least because my eldest daughter Moana Nottage is a senior analyst for ESG investments in an Australian fund manager. Some of my own joint research led by USyd Prof Jeanne Huang has been focused instead on how the EU has been trying (with emerging controversy) to impose its norms around ESG by mandating carbon intensity and other “responsible sourcing” data disclosures through “digital product passports” associated with (initially) EV batteries imported into the the EU. These requirements, extending up the supply chain to eg lithium mines in Australia and manufacturers and recyclers particularly in Asia, are supposed to apply from February 2027, as we critically analysed in a recent journal special issue article HERE. The requirements seem quite likely now to be delayed and/or pared back in scope due to criticisms from various stakeholders about this regime, and others that the EU has tried to impose on the corporate sector in recent years to save the planet – and its economic bloc, especially perhaps against China. Jeanne also led a UN White Paper project comparing also other ESG-related traceability regimes for critical raw materials, and more broadly still we have recently submitted a major grant application and a proposal for a pioneering book to a major legal publisher.
“Anti-ESG Policy in the United States and the Current State of ‘ESG Investing'” (Outline of the conference, led by Aoyama Gakuin University Prof Yoichiro Hamabe)
The purpose of this symposium is to examine the current situation surrounding anti-ESG policies in the United States and ESG investing, and to explore ways in which Japan and other countries can move forward in encouraging corporate behavioral change that takes ESG considerations into account.
The attacks on ESG by the second Trump administration have had a significant global impact, and scrutiny of ESG investing has grown increasingly severe. Even within the legal field, debates surrounding corporate responses to ESG issues and ESG investing have become deeply complex.
From the outset, legal discourse on ESG investing has developed primarily around disclosure regulation in securities markets; however, the merits of such regulation extend beyond policy debates at the legislative level, inevitably raising questions about consistency with the fundamental theory of corporate law. In other words, foundational questions — such as the purpose of the corporation and for whom the corporate institution exists — are once again being called into debate, prompted by the rise of ESG investing. Furthermore, against the backdrop of issues surrounding financial markets and supply chains, as well as growing geopolitical risks, the legal questions around ESG investing now extend far beyond securities law and corporate law into a wide range of policy domains.
ESG investing in the United States had already been functioning poorly since the Biden administration, beset by a range of serious problems. Underlying this are structural and social factors inherent to the United States that make it difficult to advance ESG investing within the country’s basic institutional framework.
In light of this, the symposium aims to contribute to future discussions on ESG investing by examining the key legal and policy issues surrounding ESG — including those in corporate law — with reference to the situation in the United States, where anti-ESG policy movements are particularly pronounced, and by asking each presenter to consider how companies should approach ESG-related challenges going forward.
- “Why Did ESG Investing Fail in the United States?” Yoichiro Hamabe (Professor, Faculty of Law, Aoyama Gakuin University)
Japan has looked to the ESG investment frameworks led by the EU and the United States as reference points; however, the tightening of disclosure regulation through hard law in the United States has not necessarily led to the resolution of ESG issues or to changes in corporate behavior. Indeed, it has itself become a cause of significant setbacks, and cracks are beginning to show in the EU’s own efforts as well.
This presentation examines the concept of shareholder primacy, shareholders’ participatory rights at general meetings, the structure of executive compensation regulation, the pursuit of liability for breach of duty arising from inadequate responses to ESG issues, capital market discipline, administrative regulation, and geopolitical and social factors — drawing on selected Japan-US comparisons — in order to analyze the background and causes of the failure of ESG investing in the United States. Drawing on the lessons derived from this analysis, the presentation will consider strategies for advancing ESG through measures such as revisiting approaches grounded in soft law and principles-based regulation.
- “Sustainable Investment and the Influence of Evangelicalism in the US” Hiroyuki Bandō (Professor, Faculty of Law, Nagoya Gakuin University)
ESG initiatives in the United States have undergone repeated shifts with each change of administration. Since the first Trump administration, modifications to direction and policy — driven primarily by Republican administrations — have become increasingly pronounced across three main areas: (1) Department of Labor rules on ESG investing under ERISA (the Fiduciary Rule); (2) responses to the Paris Agreement; and (3) ESG disclosure by the SEC (covering both listed companies and investment managers).
This presentation analyzes the influence of SEC disclosure rules on ESG investing, with reference to Evangelical doctrine — which has supported the Republican Party and has shaped foundational values such as the view that the purpose of the corporation lies in maximizing shareholder returns
- “The Law and Politics of ‘ESG and Corporate Governance’ in the United States” Sōichirō Kozuka (Professor, Faculty of Law, Gakushuin University)
Taking as its starting point the tendency in US corporate law to place excessive dogmatic emphasis on the principle of shareholder primacy, this presentation examines how the approach taken by pro-ESG corporate law scholars in the United States differs from debates on “ESG and corporate governance” in other regions such as Europe, and considers the characteristics of “anti-ESG” legislation that has been enacted in certain states against a backdrop of political polarization.
- The Development of Japanese and US Debates on ESG and Directors’ Duties Gen Goto (Professor, Graduate Schools for Law and Politics, University of Tokyo)
Debates surrounding ESG and directors’ duties can be divided into two categories: those concerning whether directors are permitted to take ESG factors into account in relation to the principle of shareholder primacy, and those going further, concerning whether directors bear an affirmative duty to consider ESG factors. Drawing on this distinction, and focusing in particular on the question of how to respond to ESG-related risk disclosures, this presentation analyzes the development of debates on this issue in both Japan and the United States.
My CV and recent papers/presentations
USydney has a new SYSTEM for staff profiles: mine is at https://profiles.sydney.edu.au/luke.nottage. It expects academics now to update such profiles, rather than administrative staff as previously. The assumption is that providing an ORCID ID will automatically update publications, but what about forthcoming work or publications say in Japan (eg this paper on international arbitration, also being published in Japanese translation in JCA Jyanaru) or work in-press? The new USyd staff profile webpages also have no option simply to upload a full CV. So instead you can simply FIND MY CV HERE:
For convenience I also extract from that full CV (a) my main presentations over 2026, and (b) my publications this and next year/s (where full manuscripts are in press or basically completed):
(a) Presentations over 2026:
- “The Identity of Japanese Law: A Journey with History, Orientalism and Technicalities”, Ca’ Foscari, University of Venice, 6 November.
- “Contractual Justice in Australia and Japan”, University of Turin, 4 November
- “The Impact of EU Traceability Regulations for Asia’s EV Battery Manufacturers, Australia’s Critical Raw Materials Suppliers, Global Trade and Dispute Resolution”, University of Frankfurt, 2 November
- “Evolving Antipodean, Asian and European Ambivalence Around ISDS Arbitration: A Compromise Way Forward?”, International Law Study Group 国際法研究会, University of Tokyo, 26 September
- * “Independent Directors in Malaysian Corporate Governance: Out with the Old?”, presented at National Chung Hsing University, Taichung (Taiwan), 18 September
- * “Commercial Mediation, Arbitration & ISDS in Common Law vs Civil Law Asia:
Two Steps Forward, One Step Back”, Kansai Gakuin University Law School, Japan, 23 August - * “Form and Substance in Anglo-American, Australian and (Some) Japanese Law”, Tsukuba University Law School, Japan, 22 August; also developed for National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, 17 September
- * “The Interface of Inquests with Consumer Law and Policy: The Takata Airbag Debacle in Australia and Beyond”, presented at Nihon University Institute of Comparative Law, 28 July; also Universita degli Studie, Milan, 9 November
- * “Anti-Corruption Law in Asia”, co-presented at symposium on “Comparative Law of the Global Majority”, National University of Singapore, 4-6 August
(b) Recent publications and work-in-progress
- BOOKS/chapters
Jeanne Huang and Luke Nottage, International Traceability Law (2028 forthcoming, Hart) [10 chapters]
2027:
· Luke Nottage and Vivienne Bath, “International Commercial Arbitration and Mediation in Asia” in Julien Chaisse et al (eds) Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law in Asia(OUP) forthcoming
· Giorgio Colombo and Luke Nottage, “The Identity of Japanese Law”, in Luca Siliquini Cinelli et al (eds) Research Handbook on the Philosophical Foundations of Comparative Law(Elgar) forthcoming
· Nobumichi Teramura and Luke Nottage, Japanese Courts’ Approach to Interpreting Arbitration Agreements: What Inspiration from Japanese Contract Interpretation Generally?” in Ying Khai and Kwan Ho Lau (eds) Asia-Pacific Contract Law, Vol 2: Values in Context (Hart) forthcoming
· Luke Nottage and Jeannie Paterson, “Australia” in Michele Graziedei (ed) Contractual Justice: The Rebirth of an Idea (Brill) forthcoming
· Luke Nottage and Nobumichi Teramura, “Anti-Corruption Law in Asia” in Mindy Chen-Wishart et al (eds) Comparative Law of the Global Majority (CUP) forthcoming
2026:
· Robert Stendel and Luke Nottage, “Concurrent Investor-State Claims before Domestic Courts and Investment Treaty Arbitration Tribunals” in Martin Jarrett et al (eds) The Rise of Domestic Courts in International Investment Law(OUP) forthcoming
· Luke Nottage and Nobumichi Teramura, “History of Arbitration in Japan” in John Ribeiro and Lars Markert (eds) Arbitration in Japan (Wolters Kluwer) forthcoming
2. ARTICLES (refereed):
2027:
· “’Evolving Antipodean, Asian and European Ambivalence Around ISDS Arbitration: A Compromise Way Forward?” 36 Griffith Law Review forthcoming
2026:
· Luke Nottage, “Independent Directors in Malaysian Corporate Governance: Out with the Old?”, 32 Asia-Pacific Law Review, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10192557.2026.2704558
· Nobumichi Teramura and Luke Nottage, “Heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu v Malaysia: Arbitration as Friend or Foe?” 42 Arbitration International forthcoming
· “The Interface of Inquests with Consumer Law and Policy: The Takata Airbag Debacle in Australia and Beyond” 49(3) University of New South Wales Law Journal forthcoming https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6261598
· Jeanne Huang and Luke Nottage “Addressing Conflict of Laws and Facilitating Digital Product Passports for Critical Raw Materials Value Chains: From Centralisation to Mutual Recognition” 35(1) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 53-69 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/reel.70027?af=R (Longer earlier version at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5157951)
ANJeL-in-Europe events 2-9 November 2026
Professor Luke Nottage will give a series of lectures, partly coordinated kindly by ANJeL-in-Europe convenor Prof Giorgio Colombo (Ca’ Foscari, University of Venice) as follows, before supporting Team Australia students at the INC negotiation and arbitration moot competition in Tokyo over 12-17 November:
- 2 November, University of Frankfurt (hosted by Prof Moritz Baelz): “The Impact of EU Traceability Regulations for Asia’s EV Battery Manufacturers, Australia’s Critical Raw Materials Suppliers, Global Trade and Dispute Resolution”. This is based on a forthcoming book for Hart with Prof Jeanne Huang, and our article with this Abstract:
- “The value chains for critical raw materials (CRM) used in electric vehicle (EV) batteries often involve mining in the Global South, Australia and Canada, production in Asia, and consumption in the Global North. Starting in 2027, EU law will require a ‘digital product passport’ (DPP) for market entry. These passports will provide EU consumers, investors, regulators and others with products and sustainability data throughout the entire value chain. The EU DPP aims to improve ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) compliance by ensuring high transparency and verifiable data from miners, producers and recyclers. However, legal, geopolitical, commercial and technological factors suggest that major economies in the up-and mid-stream of the value chains, such as Australia, China and Japan, may maintain or develop their own traceability laws, which might only partially overlap with the EU’s system. These laws could potentially be linked through mutual recognition agreements with the EU. Our paper explores how such a system could function, with varying degrees of decentralisation, inspired partly by private international law mechanisms that have evolved to handle cross-border traceability of documents. Examples include systems for recognising marriage and other personal or commercial certificates, arbitral awards and foreign judgments.”
- 4 November, University of Turino (hosted by Prof Michele Graziadei): “Consumer Law Redress and Administration, Product Safety Regulation and Contracts in Japan and Australia” (based on article with Prof Souichirou Kozuka and published also in Italian, updated including by reference my National Report on Australia with Prof Jeannie Paterson for the September 2026 Berlin IACL Congress session / book on “Contractual Justice”):
- “This paper explores developments in consumer law and practice in Japan, as an important area that has not seen much comparative scholarship in Western languages despite significant developments over the last 10-20 years. The paper connects developments to broader debates about the nature of contemporary Japanese law and society, and mainly compares Australia although other jurisdictions are also discussed. The comparative analysis first explains the persistent problems for consumer redress. It then focuses on issues and reforms in consumer affairs administration, including the functions of reforming and enforcing consumer laws, the relationship with competition law concepts and regulators, and the relationship between consumer affairs regulators and other government agencies or stakeholders. The paper then examines developments in consumer product safety law and contracts, including new challenges from e-commerce and digital technologies, before drawing some conclusions.”
- 6 November, University of Venice (hosted by Prof Colombo): “The Identity of Japanese Law: A Journey with History, Orientalism and Technicalities”, based on our manuscript for Luca Siliquini Cinelli et al (eds) Research Handbook on the Philosophical Foundations of Comparative Law:
- “Japanese law is one of the favourite playgrounds for comparative lawyers. This is partly due to historical reasons: the Japanese legal system is a product of the joint influence of Chinese imperial law (starting from the 7th century), continental European law (in the second half of the 19th century), and US law (after WWII). All these influences have been filtered by the local legal culture, and the resulting product is of unmistakable charm for any comparative law expert. However, the identity of Japanese law is still heatedly debated. Generations of scholars, both Japanese and foreign, have tried to demonstrate that Japanese law is completely unique or very similar to other European civil law systems; that the influence of the American system on Japan is of utmost importance or almost negligible; that laws are scrupulously observed or light-heartedly disregarded in favour of local customs and traditions. So what isthe identity of Japanese law? Building on the vast corpus of available comparative research, the authors intend to deal with the most common representations of the Japanese legal system to critically assess their merits and shortcomings.”
- 9 November, University of Milan (Statale) (hosted by Prof Diana Urania Galleta) “The Interface of Inquests with Consumer Law and Policy: The Takata Airbag Debacle in Australia and Beyond“, based on my UNSWLJ 2026 article, with this Abstract:
- “Unsafe Takata airbags remain in circulation, in Australia and worldwide, despite almost two decades of recalls and recent initiatives to improve consumer product safety regulation generally (Parts 1-3). The NSW coronial Inquest over 2019-2021 into Australia’s first known fatality in 2017 uncovered how Honda Australia and regulators were partly asleep at the wheel regarding voluntary recalls (Part 4). The fatality triggered a belated compulsory recall and legislative reform to allow the Transport Department such powers, both introduced in 2018, and by the end of the Inquest the Department was taking a clear lead role in vehicle recalls. The Inquest findings and recommendations for avoiding future harms from Takata airbag and other recalls, only released in November 2021, flew largely under the radar in the media but influenced some regulatory practices and could have had an impact on private litigation (Part 5). Such inquests and analogues overseas, little discussed in the legal literature, deserve wider scrutiny (Part 6). They can help identify serious product related risks and responses, assisting compensation claims and regulatory learning, while avoiding future harms and providing an extra resource for consumer product safety law reforms.”
Inquests and Consumer Product Safety: The Takata Airbag Recall Inquest
[Update: Presentation for Nihon University’s Institute of Comparative Law on 29 July 2026 from 4.20pm (Room 146 Auditorium).]
Below is the abstract of my forthcoming paper, based partly on participant observation of an inquest proceeding over 2019-21 in Sydney after the death of a Honda driver from an exploding Takata airbag that had not yet been replaced in a huge global recall. It will be be published in 49(3) UNSWLJ later this year. A pre-publication, author-produced version of the article, subject to editorial revision, is already freely available via SSRN.com. As noted in the Introduction, problems persist and for example hearings occurred in late 2025 in Singapore for an inquest into the death of a Honda driver from a Takata airbag, with the (with that coroner’s findings summarised by media in January 2026 – but with that report unfortunately not made public, unlike in Australia).
‘The Interface of Inquests with Consumer Law and Policy: The Takata Airbag Debacle in Australia and Beyond’#
Luke Nottage
- Introduction
- Consumer Product Safety Re-regulation in Australia
- The Takata Airbag Debacle
- The Coronial Inquest (2019-2021)
- The Aftermath of the Inquest
- Other Consumer Product-related Inquests and Analogues Abroad
- Conclusions
Abstract: Unsafe Takata airbags remain in circulation, in Australia and worldwide, despite almost two decades of recalls and recent initiatives to improve consumer product safety regulation generally (Parts 1-3). The NSW coronial Inquest over 2019-2021 into Australia’s first known fatality in 2017 uncovered how Honda Australia and regulators were partly asleep at the wheel regarding voluntary recalls (Part 4). The fatality triggered a belated compulsory recall and legislative reform to allow the Transport Department such powers, both introduced in 2018, and by the end of the Inquest the Department was taking a clear lead role in vehicle recalls. The Inquest findings and recommendations for avoiding future harms from Takata airbag and other recalls, only released in November 2021, flew largely under the radar in the media but influenced some regulatory practices and could have had an impact on private litigation (Part 5). Such inquests and analogues overseas, little discussed in the legal literature, deserve wider scrutiny (Part 6). They can help identify serious product related risks and responses, assisting compensation claims and regulatory learning, while avoiding future harms and providing an extra resource for consumer product safety law reforms.
# I thank Sean Hasegawa for research and editorial assistance. I am also grateful for helpful feedback and/or information from Simon Bronitt, Philip Dwyer, Sarouche Razi, Damian Scattini, Cameron Stewart and two anonymous reviewers. Any misconceptions and errors remain my sole responsibility.
Cross-appointment to UTokyo from April 2026
From April 2026 I begin my first semester teaching (until July) at the University of Tokyo as the senior tenured Professor of Anglo-American Law, succeeding Professor Kichimoto Asaka (whom I met first as visiting professor to VUW in the mid-1990s) and working closely with Professor Masayuki Tamaruya in the same Chair (specialising in comparative trusts law). From 2027 onwards I plan to spend the autumn/winter semester teaching at UTokyo. The rest of each year I will continue teaching at the University of Sydney as Professor of Comparative and Transnational Business Law, including its offshore joint program in Japanese law. From that base I will remain a founding co-director of the Australian Network of Japanese Law (ANJeL).
I am honoured, excited and a little nervous to be joining such fine scholars and students at a leading university for legal studies in Asia. I will initially give lectures and a related tutorial (zemi) to both LLB and postgraduate Law School (“JD”) students regarding Anglo-American law, including an introduction to the wider common law world particularly across the Asia-Pacific region. I will also offer a course on Dispute Resolution in Common Law Asia (including Australia-NZ, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, India and even the micro-state of Brunei). These will be offered in English for at least my first two years at uTokyo, but with some discussion and course materials also in Japanese.
I also look forward to continuing and expanding my comparative research in business law fields, especially international arbitration, foreign investment regulation, corporate governance, consumer and contract law. New writings over this year include (1) an article on ‘Evolving Antipodean, Asian and European Ambivalence Around ISDS Arbitration: A Compromise Way Forward?’, (2) a national report on Australia for the IACL Berlin Conference session then book on Contractual Justice (with UMelbourne’s professor Jeannie Paterson), (3) a chapter on Japanese law (with Ca’ Foscari UVenice professor Giorgio Colombo) for Elgar’s new Research Handbook on The Philosophical Foundations of Comparative Law (edited by associate professor Luca Siliquini Cinelli et al), (4) a chapter on corruption law and practice across Asia (with Keio Law School associate professor Nobumichi Teramura) in a book on World Comparative Law coordinated by Prof Mindy Chen-Wishart through NUS (where I will again be a visiting professor over January 2027, to teach Japanese Law), (5) an article with Nobu on applicable laws in international arbitration and their impact on choice of seat (including a focus on Australia), and (6) a chapter with Vivienne Bath on “International Commercial Arbitration and Mediation in Asia” in Julien Chaisse et al (eds) Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law in Asia.
| Best wishes for a Happy New Year of the Horse! |
Tribute to Richard Nottage CNZM: Guest Blog from Sir Maarten Wevers
[Editor’s note: This is a speech kindly given by my late father‘s colleague Maarten Wevers, who also later became New Zealand’s Ambassador to Japan and a senior civil servant helping to build Asia-Pacific relationships, at a public funeral held at Old St Paul’s, Mulgrave Street, Wellington, on 5 November 2025. It draws on Maarten’s personal experience working with Richard and their other close colleagues, and a printout of Richard’s oral history that is being made publically available through the National Library.]
Kia ora tatou katoa. Good morning everyone.
Thank you, Luke, Andrea and Hunter, for inviting me to speak about Richard’s professional life. I am humbled to be standing before you all today.
I am a former colleague of Richard’s. He had an enormous influence on my own career at Foreign Affairs, and therefore on my family’s life. Louise and I will always be indebted to him.
Richard studied history and economics at the University of Canterbury. This was made possible because, as the son of a returned serviceman, he applied, successfully, for a Charles Upham Scholarship. Upham himself was at the interview.
Richard’s MA thesis was on Chinese and Japanese politics and drew heavily on the unread Tokyo War Crimes archive at Canterbury. Before he finished studying, Richard was given an introduction to Frank Corner at the Department of External Affairs in Wellington, who encouraged him to keep in touch. Richard joined the Department in late 1962, aged 23.
He started in the Property Division. When he mentioned to Alister McIntosh, the departmental head, that he had been awarded a scholarship that would take him to Oxford, McIntosh told him ‘‘‘you have to take it up’ but you need to know more about the department before you go” – and promptly made Richard his executive assistant. Richard has recounted how, over the next eight months, he saw every piece of paper that went across McIntosh’s desk, and thus, ended up with an invaluable understanding of the work of the Department. He also got to know many of the senior staff.
At Oxford, Richard was tutored by a renowned expert on Japan, Prof. Richard Storry. He was quite overwhelmed at the experience, describing Oxford as stunning. In 1965, armed with a shiny new post-graduate degree, he “went down the road” to the New Zealand High Commission in London, to start work. Heather accompanied him, as they had been married in Oxford.
Richard’s first job was Commonwealth affairs. In January 1966, he joined a four-person NZ Delegation attending a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Lagos, on the Rhodesia issue. He was the “commonwealth expert”. The experience of participating in such a key international conference was unforgettable.
Two further such Commonwealth meetings followed, both in London, one later in 1966 and the other in 1969. Both delegations were led by Prime Minister Holyoake. Richard was again fully involved, at close quarters.
I mention this because Richard’s early years demonstrate how, as a very junior, new member of staff, he was closely involved with the leaders of New Zealand’s Foreign Ministry of the time. He was also exposed to senior politicians, including the PM, and the issues they were having to deal with. This all rubbed off on the young Mr Nottage.
In late 1969, Richard and Heather, and by now, Luke, as well, returned to Wellington where Richard had a stint in the former External Aid Division. The role including trying to open doors for New Zealand engineering firms, in the main, so that they could participate in large infrastructure projects in Asia that were being funded by international development agencies.
Then, in 1971, completely unexpectedly, Richard was asked to go to Korea to open New Zealand’s first resident diplomatic mission. He went as the number 2, because in those days, the Ambassador was still based in Tokyo. This was a very steep learning curve – finding office space and residential accommodation, hiring local staff, getting to understand Korea, making the necessary connections. And all without any Korean language. Not an easy time. But it was Richard’s first posting in Asia, it was new and exciting, and made a deep impression. The family, enlarged by now with the arrival of Andrea, returned home in early 1973.
In Wellington, Norman Kirk was the new Prime Minister, and his new Government, and the new Foreign Affairs Secretary, Frank Corner, wanted the Ministry to place more emphasis on national identity, and on better understanding our place in the world. Richard was working in information and cultural affairs.
Just before Christmas, Frank Corner asked Richard to join Merv Norrish as one of just two Ministry officials who would accompany the Prime Minister on a three-week visit to Asia. Travelling in an RNZAF Hercules, the first stop was Papua New Guinea where Mr Kirk met Michael Somare. The PM then undertook official visits to Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, India, and Bangladesh, meeting his counterparts in each place. This was an unprecedented programme and a game-changer in re-setting New Zealand’s understanding of, and engagement, with Southeast Asia.
In 1975, Corner said it would be good for Richard to broaden his experience, so he was sent to the New Zealand Embassy in Washington to cover the political and liaison roles. The family decamped once again, this time with Hunter in tow as well. But living in the US proved to be a short-lived exercise. Within a year, a cross-posting to Brussels as Deputy Head of Mission came up. Unexpected, to say the least.
The role in Brussels gave Richard his first real engagement in trade policy work, and trade negotiations – particularly over access for New Zealand sheepmeat and apples into the EEC market. A tough gig in those days. “Constant, effective persuasion” was what was required Richard said. Brussels also provided Richard with his first exposure to the intricacies of the GATT. He was assiduous in building up invaluable connections with the New Zealand producer Boards and trade official counterparts in Brussels and across Europe.
After four years, the family was looking forward to returning home, but there was another change of plan – his first Head of Mission posting, to Jakarta. Richard had three weeks to get there, because Prime Minister Muldoon was going to arrive on an official visit. Heather and the children joined him three months later.
Richard was delighted to be in Indonesia, where New Zealand expertise was being deployed to develop geothermal resources, and there was growing economic and political confidence in the region following the conclusion of the Viet Nam war.
In 1982, Richard left Jakarta, because he was appointed Assistant Secretary of Economic and European Affairs in Head Office – which proved to be the ideal starting point for his next posting, in 1984, as Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, and Ambassador to the GATT. This period covered the launch of the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, in 1986 – an intense period of economic diplomacy in which New Zealand was seeking major changes to the rules governing international trade. Richard was a key member of the team supporting the energetic new Trade Minister, Mike Moore.
In 1987, Richard was thrilled to be appointed as Ambassador to Japan. As he said in his oral history ‘after 25 years, the dream comes true!” Richard commented later that he had expected to be there for four years, “that it would be a marvelous place, and that the Ministry could forget about me and just let me get on with it”. Not to be. Only a year or so after presenting his credentials to the Emperor, he was encouraged by Merv Norrish, now Secretary, to apply for the role of Deputy Secretary, Economic and Trade Relations. He duly did so, taking up this critical appointment early in 1988. Returning home from Tokyo early would have meant mixed emotions I’m sure.
This was the time of the Lange government. As part of their reform programme, a new Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had just been created, bringing together parts of the former Department of Trade and Industry with Foreign Affairs. The Trade Minister, Mike Moore, was ambitious for the new agency, and drove things at a fast clip.
In 1986, New Zealand became a founding member of the Cairns Group of Agricultural Free Traders – an initiative launched by the Australians. Mike Moore and Richard participated in the first meeting. The work of the Cairns Group, and the Uruguay Round, were critical priorities in the new Ministry’s work, at home and abroad.
Then in 1989, a group of Ministers of Trade and Foreign affairs from the Asia Pacific region came together in Canberra to advance the growing economic interdependence of East Asia and the Pacific. The discussions were held against a backdrop of difficulties within the GATT negotiations. This gathering was the first meeting of APEC, which has since become the pre-eminent high-level forum of our region, meeting annually. Richard Nottage was there at the birth of APEC as well and travelled to Seattle four years later with Prime Minister Jim Bolger for the very first APEC Leaders’ Meeting.
In 1991, Richard was appointed Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He served for eight years. He succeeded to the job that McIntosh, Corner, and Norrish had held before him. Richard was the right person for the job at that time.
Richard’s term as Chief Executive was marked by close and productive working relationships with Ministers – led by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt. Hon. Sir Don McKinnon. Sir Don would very much have liked to have been here today and has asked me to pass on his condolences and respect to you, Luke and Hisae, Andrea and Roy, and Hunter and Sara, and your families.
He remembers Richard as a positive leader of the Ministry, “who had the ball at his toe” for the time he was in office, largely because of his previous service in Geneva, Tokyo and Jakarta. He understood Asia, and international trade. Both topics were critically important for New Zealand at the time. As Sir Don said, “as a country, we needed to do much better. We were very far behind where we should have been in terms of political and economic relations with Asia”. Ministers were of the view that the newish Ministry, under Richard’s leadership, had a big part to play in addressing this state of affairs. Richard understood that.
The former Minister of Trade, The Hon. Philip Burdon, recalls clearly that Richard was a strong advocate of the need for New Zealand to become more engaged in our region. “Richard was deeply conscious of the emerging authority of Asia, and its significance for us” he said. Mr Burdon observed that Richard reorganized the Ministry to give greater effect to its wider trade and economic mandate, to make it more relevant to the real needs of New Zealanders and better connected to the aspirations of the business and exporting communities. That was long overdue. Mr Burdon especially welcomed Richard’s inclusive approach to Asia, including within New Zealand.
Both Ministers said that Richard had a knack for surrounding himself with smart people, at home and in missions abroad, who he backed to do their job. He was a good delegator, a generous mentor, and managed with a light touch.
As a former colleague put it – “If he trusted you, he trusted you completely, and gave you the rope you needed”.
Others have remarked on his acute understanding of issues, his knowledge of those on the other side of the table, and their concerns, and his ability to analyse a situation and map a way forward. He was happy to receive competing advice, and be challenged, and was open to new ideas. Another colleague remembered that he always behaved as a professional public servant, with a sense of clarity and purpose. And he was empathetic.
As the leader of the Ministry, Richard was respected and liked by his fellow Chief Executives in Wellington, who viewed him as constructive and collaborative. He had a wide network of relationships with Ministers and officials, and former colleagues, overseas. He was also a strong advocate for the Ministry and its purpose, at a time of pressure on the public purse.
During Richard’s term, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade brought stronger trade and international linkages to the heart of government policy decision making. The agency also broadened its connections to domestic constituents and diversified its staff profile and recruitment processes. It strengthened links with te ao Maori, and made important steps to lift engagement with iwi organisations, as the Treaty settlement process became established.
One of Richard’s most valuable contributions was undoubtedly in support of the then Government’s efforts to lift community engagement with and understanding of Asia, within New Zealand, through the establishment of the Asia2000 Foundation, now the Asia New Zealand Foundation. It has been commented that, in both the external and internal environments, Richard spearheaded and talked up engagement with Asia.
Richard’s legacy can be seen as well in how much broader and stronger our international trading networks have become. In 1991, we had only one free trade arrangement, with Australia, the CER Agreement. Now, more than 80% of our trade is governed by such mechanisms. Although many of the more recent deals were concluded after Richard retired, he led the team when this direction of travel became embedded.
Perhaps the convening of the APEC Leaders’ Meeting in Auckland in September 1999, held just after Richard stepped down, is the best symbol of how much things had changed over his career. The Leaders of the countries that are most important for New Zealand’s future all came together, in our place, for the first time ever, and committed to work together for a better, common future. He was just thrilled.
Looking back, I can’t help but reflect that it was actually that Charles Upham scholarship, offered to a boy who didn’t see his father for the duration of the Second World War, that turned out to be the key that opened the door to Richard’s incredible successes. What an amazing gift from one of New Zealand’s greatest heroes.
I want to conclude by recording that Richard was always a grounded, relatable, and positive person. He had a wit and humour about him, was always a natty dresser, and with his beloved Heather, seemed always to be enjoying the fullness of what was a very rich life. They were an amazing couple, and it is so sad that we have had to say goodbye to both of them within this year.
It has been a hard year for everyone in the family, especially for the three children, and their partners, and the wonderful grandchildren. Richard and Heather were always so proud of you.
I hope that you are comforted by the knowledge that so many of the people who worked with or knew Richard in in those energetic, bygone years are mourning with you as well.
Thank you.
