Does the protection of vulnerable children require a system of mandatory reporting of abuse and neglect? [An issues paper for the New Zealand Government Green Paper for vulnerable children]

In this Issues Paper, I raise some key points relevant for any government which is considering its child protection and family welfare policy. In particular, I will raise questions about whether a form of legislative reporting duty is required, and if so, what consequences this has for child protection. The context of child maltreatment - and each form of maltreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, and neglect - is extremely complex, and the overarching question of how to deal with these phenomena involve challenging normative, economic and practical questions. There are no easy or perfect solutions. Nor, often, is there the amount and quality of evidence available on which public policy approaches should be devised. However, from the best evidence about the history of this context, from research conducted in this field, and from the best evidence available about the nature, incidence and effects of different subtypes of maltreatment, some observations can be made which may help to inform deliberations. I outline 10 key issues related to mandatory reporting legislation while being mindful of the New Zealand context. My view, based on both research evidence and a concern to protect and promote children’s interests, and society’s interests, is that reporting laws in some form are necessary and can contribute substantially to child protection and enhancing family and community health and wellbeing. However, they are only one necessary part of a sound child protection system, being a method of tertiary and secondary prevention, and primary prevention efforts must also be prioritised. Moreover, it is essential that if a legislative reporting duty is enacted, it must be designed carefully and implemented soundly, and it must be integrated within a properly resourced child protection and family welfare system.

Juveniles in detention in Australia, 1981-2008

The Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC’s) national Juveniles in Detention Monitoring Program was established to contribute to the evidence base on juvenile detention in Australia, with a particular focus on Indigenous juveniles. Findings date back to 1981 and have been reported annually. This report provides an overview of the numbers and rates of juveniles in detention in Australia since 1981 and juveniles in detention for the financial year 2007–08. As with the AIC’s previous report on juveniles in detention (Taylor 2009), it also provides contextual information on young people sentenced in the children’s courts. The collation of data for these reports is supported by statutory juvenile justice agencies in each of Australia’s jurisdictions, as well as the NSW Department of Corrective Services. As described in more detail in this report, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) administers the Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set and also reports annually on juveniles in detention. Given this development, the AIC is conducting a review of the Juveniles in Detention Monitoring Report in 2010–11, to ensure that AIC’s research and monitoring does not duplicate the AIHW’s work and that it makes a useful contribution to the field and enables more in-depth analysis of key issues.

Characteristics of Chinese drivers attending a mandatory training course following license suspension

Penalties and sanctions to deter risky/illegal behaviours are important components of traffic law enforcement. Sanctions can be applied to the vehicle (e.g., impoundment), the person (e.g., remedial programs or jail), or the licence (e.g., disqualification). For licence sanctions, some offences attract automatic suspension while others attract demerit points which can indirectly lead to licence loss. In China, a licence is suspended when a driver accrues twelve demerit points within one year. When this occurs, the person must undertake a one-week retraining course at their own expense and successfully pass an examination to become relicensed. Little is known about the effectiveness of this program. A pilot study was conducted in Zhejiang Province to examine basic information about participants of a retraining course. The aim was to gather baseline data for future comparison. Participants were recruited at a driver retraining centre in a large city in Zhejiang Province. In total, 239 suspended drivers completed an anonymous questionnaire which included demographic information, driving history, and crash involvement. Overall, 87% were male with an overall mean age of 35.02 years (SD=8.77; range 21-60 years). A large proportion (83.3%) of participants owned a vehicle. Commuting to work was reported by 64% as their main reason for driving, while 16.3% reported driving for work. Only 6.4% reported holding a licence for 1 year or less (M=8.14 years, SD=6.5, range 1-31 years) and people reported driving an average of 18.06 hours/week (SD=14.4, range 1-86 hours). This represents a relatively experienced group, especially given the increase in new drivers in China. The number of infringements reportedly received in the previous year ranged from 2 to 18 (M=4.6, SD=3.18); one third of participants reported having received 5 or more infringements. Approximately one third also reported having received infringements in the previous year but not paid them. Various strategies for avoiding penalties were reported. The most commonly reported traffic violations were: drink driving (DUI; 0.02-0.08 mg/100ml) with 61.5% reporting 1 such violation; and speeding (47.7% reported 1-10 violations). Only 2.2% of participants reported the more serious drunk driving violation (DWI; above 0.08mg/100ml). Other violations included disobeying traffic rules, using inappropriate licence, and licence plate destroyed/not displayed. Two-thirds of participants reported no crash involvement in the previous year while 14.2% reported involvement in 2-5 crashes. The relationship between infringements and crashes was limited, however there was a small, positive significant correlation between crashes and speeding infringements (r=.2, p=.004). Overall, these results indicate the need for improved compliance with the law among this sample of traffic offenders. For example, lower level drink driving (DUI) and speeding were the most commonly reported violations with some drivers having committed a large number in the previous year. It is encouraging that the more serious offence of drunk driving (DWI) was rarely reported. The effectiveness of this driver retraining program and the demerit point penalty system in China is currently unclear. Future research including driver follow up via longitudinal study is recommended to determine program effectiveness to enhance road safety in China.

IMO mandatory energy efficiency measures for international shipping : the first mandatory global greenhouse gas reduction instrument for an international industry

Bunker fuels used in the aviation and maritime sectors are responsible for nearly 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.1 According to a scientific survey: ‘[s]hipping is estimated to have emitted 1,046 million tonnes of CO2 in 2007, which corresponds to 3.3% of the global emissions during 2007. International shipping is estimated to have emitted 870 million tonnes, or about 2.7% of the global emissions of CO2 in 2007’. The study also predicted that ‘by 2050, in the absence of policies, ship emissions may grow by 150% to 250% (compared to the emissions in 2007) as a result of the growth in shipping.’

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree - the profession

The Australian legal profession, as well as the content and pedagogy of legal education across Australia, are steeped in tradition and conservatism. Indeed, the legal profession and our institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence which leaves the way we teach law resistant to change. There has traditionally been pushback against the notion that dispute resolution should have a place amongst black letter law subjects in the legal curriculum. This paper argues that this position cannot be maintained in the modern legal climate. We challenge legal education orthodoxy and promote NADRAC’s position that alternative dispute resolution should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. We put forward ten simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester long course of DR instruction.

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree - the academy

The profession of law is deeply steeped in tradition and conservatism. The content and pedagogy employed in law faculties across Australia is similarly steeped in tradition and conservatism. Indeed, the practice of law and our institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence; a dénouement which preserves the best aspects of our common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice, and think about the role of law, resistant to change. In this article, we lay down a challenge to legal education orthodoxy and a call to arms for legal academic progressivists. It is our simple argument that alternative dispute resolution should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. There has been traditional pushback against the notion that alternative dispute resolution should have a place amongst black letter law subjects in the legal curriculum. This position cannot be maintained in the modern day legal climate. We put forward ten simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester long course of ADR instruction. With respect to relationships of mutual influence, whether legal education should assimilate the practise of law, or shape the practise of law makes no difference here. Both views necessitate the inclusion of ADR as a compulsory subject in the law degree.

Trends in juvenile detention in Australia

This paper provides an overview of key trends in juvenile detention in Australia, based on data contained in the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC’s) Juveniles in Detention in Australia Monitoring Program database and then provides a discussion of two key trends in juvenile detention—the national increase in the proportion of juvenile detainees that is remanded (rather than sentenced) and the increase in the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention.

Consequences of introducing mandatory reporting legislation for child sexual abuse

To improve detection of child sexual abuse, many jurisdictions have enacted mandatory reporting laws requiring selected persons to report known and suspected cases. In Ireland, the Child First approach previously incorporated only a policy-based approach to reporting. Due to a perceived lack of efficacy, the Children First Bill was drafted in 2012 to shift this policy guidance to a legislative approach. What effects will the new legislative reporting duties have on numbers of reports, and outcomes of reports, of suspected child sexual abuse? This paper will shed light on these important questions by presenting results of analyses of the introduction of legislative reporting obligations in two Australian States. Three questions will be explored: 1. Does introducing reporting legislation result in enhanced detection of child sexual abuse? 2. Do different reporter groups have different patterns of reporting? 3. What do the patterns of report numbers and outcomes indicate for child protection systems and communities?

Mandatory sentencing : a criminological perspective

This paper will give a ‘criminological perspective’ on mandatory sentencing. It will however largely avoid the issues of the effect of mandatory sentencing provisions on the judicial process and judicial independence, as this has already been covered by Sir Anthony Mason. It will also avoid the legal issues concerning the constitutional, human rights and international law aspects of mandatory sentencing which will be covered by later speakers. The aim will be to give a brief overview of research which evaluates the effects of mandatory sentencing provisions in terms of the available evidence of whether they meet their stated aims of deterrence, selective incapacitation and the reduction of crime rates. This will be done in two parts, first in relation to the more extensive experiment in mandatory sentencing in the USA which has provided some of the impetus and metaphors ("three strikes") for recent Australian developments; and second the recent mandatory sentencing provisions in Western Australia (WA) and the Northern Territory (NT). Evidence from both the US and WA (NT is hard to assess because of the lack of proper monitoring and criminal statistics) indicates that mandatory sentencing does not produce the effects of deterrence, selective incapacitation and crime reduction which are its stated justifications and does produce a range of damaging side effects in terms of distortion of the judicial process, wildly disproportionate sentencing, additional financial and social cost and deepening social exclusion of individuals and particular communities. So what is left are the less acknowledged underpinnings of mandatory sentencing in the form of the symbolic politics of law and order, the politics of social exclusion and a displacement of racial anxieties and hostilities onto the terrain of the legal. In fashioning this necessarily brief overview a number of sources have been heavily drawn upon, in particular the excellent work by Neil Morgan from UWA (Morgan, 1995;1999; 2000); Dianne Johnson and George Zdenkowski in their detailed report to the Senate Inquiry (2000); and a number of articles appearing in 1999 in an excellent special issue of the UNSW Law Journal, all of which are highly recommended for further reading.

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree : A cheat sheet for the willing and a primer for the non-believer

The profession of law is deeply steeped in tradition and conservatism, which influences the content and pedagogy employed in law faculties across Australia. Indeed, the practice of law and the institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence; a dénouement which preserves the best aspects of the common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice and think about the role of law resistant to change. In this article, the authors lay down a challenge to legal education orthodoxy and a call to arms for legal academic progressivists: that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. The authors put forward 10 simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester-long course of ADR instruction.

Mandatory offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - with interest please!

In Windon v Edwards [2005] QDC 029 Robin QC DCJ considered the cost consequence of mandatory final offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Mandatory reporting laws

As part of the effort to protect children from significant abuse and neglect, each state and territory in Australia has enacted legislation commonly known as "mandatory reporting laws". There is much confusion about the nature and effects of these laws, both generally and within each jurisdiction. Accordingly, the main aim of this chapter is to review and explain the legislative principles across Australia. In doing so, the chapter will identify differences between the state and territory laws and will situate the laws as part of a system of responses to the whole spectrum of child abuse and neglect. We will also highlight the need for effective reporter training and public awareness, especially given the tension between the widely perceived need for a community response to child abuse and neglect and the simultaneous concern to avoid unnecessary reporting of innocuous events and situations.

Mandatory Reporting Laws and Identification of Child Abuse and Neglect: Consideration of Differential Maltreatment Types, and a Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Child Sexual Abuse Reports

Mandatory reporting laws have been created in many jurisdictions as a way of identifying cases of severe child maltreatment on the basis that cases will otherwise remain hidden. These laws usually apply to all four maltreatment types. Other jurisdictions have narrower approaches supplemented by differential response systems, and others still have chosen not to enact mandatory reporting laws for any type of maltreatment. In scholarly research and normative debates about mandatory reporting laws and their effects, the four major forms of child maltreatment—physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect—are often grouped together as if they are homogenous in nature, cause, and consequence. Yet, the heterogeneity of maltreatment types, and different reporting practices regarding them, must be acknowledged and explored when considering what legal and policy frameworks are best suited to identify and respond to cases. A related question which is often conjectured upon but seldom empirically explored, is whether reporting laws make a difference in case identification. This article first considers different types of child abuse and neglect, before exploring the nature and operation of mandatory reporting laws in different contexts. It then posits a differentiation thesis, arguing that different patterns of reporting between both reporter groups and maltreatment types must be acknowledged and analysed, and should inform discussions and assessments of optimal approaches in law, policy and practice. Finally, to contribute to the evidence base required to inform discussion, this article conducts an empirical cross-jurisdictional comparison of the reporting and identification of child sexual abuse in jurisdictions with and withoutmandatory reporting, and concludes that mandatory reporting laws appear to be associated with better case identification.