Health complaints and regulatory reform: Implications for vulnerable populations?

Complaints and disciplinary processes play a significant role in health professional regulation. Many countries are transitioning from models of self-regulation to greater external oversight through systems including meta regulation, responsive (risk–based) regulation, and “networked governance”. Such systems harness, in differing ways, public, private, professional and non-governmental bodies to exert influence over the conduct of health professionals and services. Interesting literature is emerging regarding complainants’ motivations and experiences, the impact of complaints processes on health professionals and identification of features such as complainant and health professional profiles, types of complaints and outcomes. This paper concentrates on studies identifying vulnerable groups and their participation in health care regulatory systems.

(Failed) voluntary euthanasia law reform in Australia: Two decades of trends, models and politics

Within Australia, there have been many attempts to pass voluntary euthanasia (VE) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) legislation. From 16 June 1993 until the date of writing, 51 Bills have been introduced into Australian parliaments dealing with legalising VE or PAS. Despite these numerous attempts, the only successful Bill was the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (NT), which was enacted in the Northern Territory, but a short time later overturned by the controversial Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Cth). Yet, in stark contrast to the significant political opposition, for decades Australian public opinion has overwhelmingly supported law reform legalising VE or PAS. While there is ongoing debate in Australia, both through public discourse and scholarly publications, about the merits and dangers of reform in this field, there has been remarkably little analysis of the numerous legislative attempts to reform the law, and the context in which those reform attempts occurred. The aim of this article is to better understand the reform landscape in Australia over the past two decades. The information provided in this article will better equip Australians, both politicians and the general public, to have a more nuanced understanding of the political context in which the euthanasia debate has been and is occurring. It will also facilitate a more informed debate in the future.

What if tax reform was a fundamental human right?

As an election looms in Australia, the tax debate continues unabated. Self-interest abounds. When we remove self-interest, we are often reduced to standard design principles for a taxation system. Lost in this discussion is the fundamental purpose of tax, which is to finance government expenditure. Most would argue that tax revenue should be sufficient to meet basic economic and social needs of the community. But how does a community determine what these basic economic and social needs should be? One way is by using a human rights framework. This can provide guidance for both developing and developed countries considering tax reform.

Child sexual abuse and access to justice for civil claims: Time to reform the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

In 2015, Victoria passed laws removing the time limit in which a survivor of child sexual abuse can commence a civil claim for personal injury. The law applies also to physical abuse, and to psychological injury arising from those forms of abuse. In 2016, New South Wales made almost identical legal reforms. These reforms were partly motivated by the recommendations of inquiries into institutional child abuse. Of particular relevance is that the Australian Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended in 2015 that all States and Territories remove their time limits for civil claims. This presentation explores the problems with standard time limits when applied to child sexual abuse cases (whether occurring within or beyond institutions), the scientific, ethical and legal justifications for lifting the time limits, and solutions for future law reform.

Nonprofit Boards in Australia: A Distinctive Governance Appoach

This article reports the findings into patterns of governance on nonprofit boards in Australia. The research surveys 118 boards, upon which serve a total of 1405 directors. The findings indicate that nonprofit boards can mimic some aspects of a shareholder approach to governance. But nonprofit boards, in the main, indicate priorities and activities of a stakeholder approach to governance. The features of `isomorphism' that arise largely stem from legislative requirements in corporate governance. Generally, nonprofit directors are influenced by agenda and motivations that can be differentiated from the influences upon director activity in the corporate sector. The study indicates that nonprofit boards prize knowledge and loyalty to the sector when considering board composition. The survey suggests nonprofits ``compensate'' for the demands placed upon them about fiduciary duty and due diligence responsibilities with the diverse intellectual expertise of non-executive directors. Nonprofit boards possess greater diversity than boards in the corporate sector; they include more women as directors than corporate boards and they include a greater proportion of directors from minority groups. While strategic issues feature significantly as a task of the nonprofit board, they distinguish themselves from their corporate counterparts by engaging in operational management. The findings indicate that, in the main, directors on nonprofit boards deliberate and operate in ways distinctive from their corporate counterparts. Such findings offer a contribution to the reform of Corporations Law in other countries and the likely consequence on boards outside the corporate sector.