Adaptive nature of coordinated road traffic injury prevention responses in some OECD countries

This study examines the context of coordinated responses, triggers for coordinated responses, and preference for or choice of coordinating strategies in road traffic injury prevention at a local level in some OECD countries. This aim is achieved through a mixed-methodology. In this respect, 22 semi-structured interviews were conducted with road traffic injury prevention experts from five OECD countries. In addition, 31 professional road traffic injury prevention stakeholders from seven OECD nations completed a self-administered, online survey. It found that there was resource limitation and inter-dependence across actors within the context of road traffic injury prevention at a local level. Furthermore, this study unveiled the realization of resource-dependency as a trigger for coordinated responses at a local level. Moreover, the present examination has revealed two coordinating strategies favored by experts in road traffic injury prevention – i.e. self-organizing community groups, which are deemed to have a platform to deliver programs within communities, and the funding of community groups to forge partnerships. However, the present study did not appear to endorse other strategies such as the formalization of coordinated responses or a legal mandate to coordinate responses. In essence, this study appears to suggest a need to manage coordinated responses from an adaptive perspective with interactions across road traffic injury prevention programs being forged on a mutual understanding of inter-dependency arising out of resource scarcity. In fact, the role of legislation and top-down national models in local level management of coordinated responses is likely to be one of identifying opportunities to interact with self-organized community groups and fund partnership-based road traffic injury prevention events.

Open access spatial data and collaboration

On 19 June 2015, representatives from over 40 Australian research institutions gathered in Canberra to launch their Open Data Collections. The one day event, hosted by the Australian National Data Service (ANDS), showcased to government and a range of national stakeholders the rich variety of data collections that have been generated through the Major Open Data Collections (MODC) project. Colin Eustace attended the showcase for QUT Library and presented a poster that reflected the work that he and Jodie Vaughan generated through the project. QUT’s Blueprint 4, the University’s five-year institutional strategic plan, outlines the key priorities of developing a commitment to working in partnership with industry, as well as combining disciplinary strengths with interdisciplinary application. The Division of Technology, Information and Learning Support (TILS) has undertaken a number of Australian National Data Service (ANDS) funded projects since 2009 with the aim of developing improved research data management services within the University to support these strategic aims. By leveraging existing tools and systems developed during these projects, the Major Open Data Collection (MODC) project delivered support to multi-disciplinary collaborative research activities through partnership building between QUT researchers and Queensland government agencies, in order to add to and promote the discovery and reuse of a collection of spatially referenced datasets. The MODC project built upon existing Research Data Finder infrastructure (which uses VIVO open source software, developed by Cornell University) to develop a separate collection, Spatial Data Finder (https://researchdatafinder.qut.edu.au/spatial) as the interface to display the spatial data collection. During the course of the project, 62 dataset descriptions were added to Spatial Data Finder, 7 added to Research Data Finder and two added to Software Finder, another separate collection. The project team met with 116 individual researchers and attended 13 school and faculty meetings to promote the MODC project and raise awareness of the Library’s services and resources for research data management.

The US’ trade secrets demands and what they mean for journos

Leaked Trans-Pacific Partnership documents show the US is pushing for unprecedented penalties for those (like journalists) who expose trade secrets. Will Australia go along with the proposal?

Blue future: Maude Barlow, water rights, investor clauses, and trade deals

Maude Barlow is the chairperson of the Council of Canadians, and the founder of the Blue Planet Project. She is a recipient of Sweden’s Right Livelihood Award, and a Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship. As well as being a noted human rights and trade activist, Barlow is the author of a number of books on water rights — including Blue Gold, Blue Covenant, and Blue Future. She has been particularly vocal on the impact of trade and investment agreements upon water rights. Barlow has been critical of the push to include investor-state dispute settlement clauses in trade agreements — such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP). She has also been concerned by the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) leaked by WikiLeaks.

Just label it: Consumer rights, GM food labelling, and international trade

In the United States, there has been fierce debate over state, federal and international efforts to engage in genetically modified food labelling (GM food labelling). A grassroots coalition of consumers, environmentalists, organic farmers, and the food movement has pushed for law reform in respect of GM food labelling. The Just Label It campaign has encouraged United States consumers to send comments to the United States Food and Drug Administration to label genetically modified foods. This Chapter explores the various justifications made in respect of genetically modified food labelling. There has been a considerable effort to portray the issue of GM food labelling as one of consumer rights as part of ‘the right to know’. There has been a significant battle amongst farmers over GM food labelling – with organic farmers and biotechnology companies, fighting for precedence. There has also been a significant discussion about the use of GM food labelling as a form of environmental legislation. The prescriptions in GM food labelling regulations may serve to promote eco-labelling, and deter greenwashing. There has been a significant debate over whether GM food labelling may serve to regulate corporations – particularly from the food, agriculture, and biotechnology industries. There are significant issues about the interaction between intellectual property laws – particularly in respect of trade mark law and consumer protection – and regulatory proposals focused upon biotechnology. There has been a lack of international harmonization in respect of GM food labelling. As such, there has been a major use of comparative arguments about regulator models in respect of food labelling. There has also been a discussion about international law, particularly with the emergence of sweeping regional trade proposals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. This Chapter considers the United States debates over genetically modified food labelling – at state, federal, and international levels. The battles often involved the use of citizen-initiated referenda. The policy conflicts have been policy-centric disputes – pitting organic farmers, consumers, and environmentalists against the food industry and biotechnology industry. Such battles have raised questions about consumer rights, public health, freedom of speech, and corporate rights. The disputes highlighted larger issues about lobbying, fund-raising, and political influence. The role of money in United States has been a prominent concern of Lawrence Lessig in his recent academic and policy work with the group, Rootstrikers. Part 1 considers the debate in California over Proposition 37. Part 2 explores other key state initiatives in respect of GM food labelling. Part 3 examines the Federal debate in the United States over GM food labelling. Part 4 explores whether regional trade agreements – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – will impact upon

Translation and psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Leeds Attitudes to Concordance II scale

Background Concordance is characterised as a negotiation-like health communication approach based on an equal and collaborative partnership between patients and health professionals. The Leeds Attitudes to Concordance II (LATCon II) scale was developed to measure the attitudes towards concordance. The purpose of this study was to translate the LATCon II into Chinese and psychometrically test the Chinese version of LATCon II (C-LATCon II). Methods The study involved three phases: i) translation and cross-cultural adaptation; ii) pilot study, and; iii) a cross-sectional survey (n = 366). Systematic random sampling was used to recruit hypertensive patients from nine communities covering around 78,000 residents in China. Tests of psychometric properties included content validity, construct validity, criteria-related validity (correlation between the C-LATCon II and the Therapeutic Adherence Scale for Hypertensive Patients (TASHP)), internal reliability, and test-retest reliability (n = 30). Results The study found that the C-LATCon II had a satisfactory content validity (item-level Content Validity Index (CVI) = 0.83-1, scale-level CVI/universal agreement = 0.89, and scale-level CVI/averaging calculation = 0.98), construct validity (four components extracted explained 56.66% of the total variance), internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of overall scale and four components was 0.78 and 0.66-0.84, respectively), and test-retest reliability (Pearson’s correlation coefficient = 0.82, p < 0.001; interclass correlation coefficient = 0.82, p < 0.001; linear weighted kappa3 statistic for each item = 0.40-0.65, p < 0.05). Criteria-related validity showed a weak association (Pearson’s correlation coefficient = 0.11, p < 0.05) between patients’ attitudes towards concordance during health communication and their health behaviours for hypertension management. Conclusions The C-LATCon II is a validated and reliable instrument which can be used to evaluate the attitudes to concordance in Chinese populations. Four components (health professionals’ attitudes, partnership between two parties, therapeutic decision making, and patients’ involvement) describe the attitudes towards concordance during health communication.

Somali perspectives on physical activity: PhotoVoice to address barriers and resources in San Diego

Although many immigrants enter the United States with a healthy body weight, this health advantage disappears the longer they reside in the United States. To better understand the complexities of obesity change within a cultural framework, a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach, PhotoVoice, was used, focusing on physical activity among Muslim Somali women. The CBPR partnership was formed to identify barriers and resources to engaging in physical activity with goals of advocacy and program development. Muslim Somali women (n = 8) were recruited to participate, trained and provided cameras, and engaged in group discussions about the scenes they photographed. Participants identified several barriers, including safety concerns, minimal culturally appropriate resources, and financial constraints. Strengths included public resources and a community support system. The CBPR process identified opportunities and challenges to collaboration and dissemination processes. The findings laid the framework for subsequent program development and community engagement.

Will the TPP destroy our healthcare system?

Could the TPP force Australia to adopt an American-style model of private health? Dr Matthew Rimmer, Professor of intellectual property and innovation law at QUT, explains. There has been much concern that Australian citizens and residents are being ripped off on the price of medicines by multinational pharmaceutical drug companies. And the problem is only likely to be exacerbated by global trade deals — like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a regional agreement under negotiation at the moment, involving a dozen countries across the Pacific Rim, including Australia and the United States. The secret trade agreement covers a score of topics — including such matters as intellectual property, investment, transparency in health procedures, and trade in services. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will have a significant impact upon the health of everyone in the Pacific Rim — particularly their ability to buy affordable medicines.

Pacific Rim treaty threatens public health: Patent law and medical procedures

Doctors, surgeons, and physicians around the Pacific Rim should be concerned by the proposals revealed by WikiLeaks in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). One of the most controversial features of the TPP is the proposal to provide for patent protection in respect of medical procedures. As Public Citizen observed, ‘Health providers, including surgeons, could be liable for the methods they use to treat patients.’ The civil society group noted: ‘Essentially, except for when a surgeon uses her bare hands, surgical methods would be patentable under the U.S. proposal.’ The TPP takes a broad approach to patents and medicine; lacks appropriate safeguards; and fails to address larger questions about equity, development, and human rights. Such a measure could result in greater litigation against medical professionals; barriers to access to medical procedures for patients; and skyrocketing health costs.

TPP draft reveals surgical strike on public health

On 13 November, WikiLeaks released a secret draft text of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The text reveals substantive proposals for expanded protection in respect of copyright, patent, trade mark and trade secrets law, and intellectual property enforcement.

Trick or treaty?: The Australian debate over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The secretive 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – known in short by the catchy acronym ACTA – is a controversial trade pact designed to provide for stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights. The preamble to the treaty reads like pulp fiction – it raises moral panics about piracy, counterfeiting, organised crime, and border security. The agreement contains provisions on civil remedies and criminal offences; copyright law and trademark law; the regulation of the digital environment; and border measures. Memorably, Susan Sell called the international treaty a TRIPS Double-Plus Agreement, because its obligations far exceed those of the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement 1994, and TRIPS-Plus Agreements, such as the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004. ACTA lacks the language of other international intellectual property agreements, which emphasise the need to balance the protection of intellectual property owners with the wider public interest in access to medicines, human development, and transfer of knowledge and technology. In Australia, there was much controversy both about the form and the substance of ACTA. While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was a partisan supporter of the agreement, a wide range of stakeholders were openly critical. After holding hearings and taking note of the position of the European Parliament and the controversy in the United States, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament recommended the deferral of ratification of ACTA. This was striking as representatives of all the main parties agreed on the recommendation. The committee was concerned about the lack of transparency, due process, public participation, and substantive analysis of the treaty. There were also reservations about the ambiguity of the treaty text, and its potential implications for the digital economy, innovation and competition, plain packaging of tobacco products, and access to essential medicines. The treaty has provoked much soul-searching as to whether the Trick or Treaty reforms on the international treaty-making process in Australia have been compromised or undermined. Although ACTA stalled in the Australian Parliament, the debate over it is yet to conclude. There have been concerns in Australia and elsewhere that ACTA will be revived as a ‘zombie agreement’. Indeed, in March 2013, the Canadian government introduced a bill to ensure compliance with ACTA. Will it be also resurrected in Australia? Has it already been revived? There are three possibilities. First, the Australian government passed enhanced remedies with respect to piracy, counterfeiting and border measures in a separate piece of legislation – the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth). Second, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade remains supportive of ACTA. It is possible, after further analysis, that the next Australian Parliament – to be elected in September 2013 – will ratify the treaty. Third, Australia is involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. The government has argued that ACTA should be a template for the Intellectual Property Chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United States Trade Representative would prefer a regime even stronger than ACTA. This chapter provides a portrait of the Australian debate over ACTA. It is the account of an interested participant in the policy proceedings. This chapter will first consider the deliberations and recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on ACTA. Second, there was a concern that ACTA had failed to provide appropriate safeguards with respect to civil liberties, human rights, consumer protection and privacy laws. Third, there was a concern about the lack of balance in the treaty’s copyright measures; the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations and remedies. Fourth, there was a worry that the provisions on trademark law, intermediary liability and counterfeiting could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy and innovation in the digital economy. Fifth, there was significant debate about the impact of ACTA on pharmaceutical drugs, access to essential medicines and health-care. Sixth, there was concern over the lobbying by tobacco industries for ACTA – particularly given Australia’s leadership on tobacco control and the plain packaging of tobacco products. Seventh, there were concerns about the operation of border measures in ACTA. Eighth, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was concerned about the jurisdiction of the ACTA Committee, and the treaty’s protean nature. Finally, the chapter raises fundamental issues about the relationship between the executive and the Australian Parliament with respect to treaty-making. There is a need to reconsider the efficacy of the Trick or Treaty reforms passed by the Australian Parliament in the 1990s.

Free trade, Gangnam Style: The Korea-Australia free trade agreement

On the 5th December 2013, Australia and Korea announced that they had finalised a new free trade agreement. Is it a fair trade fairytale? Or is it a dirty deal done dirt cheap? It is hard to tell, because the respective governments have not yet published the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA). There has been much debate in the Australian Parliament over the transparency of the trade agreement; the scope of market access provided under the deal; and the impact of the investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement clause. KAFTA foreshadows the approach of the new Conservative Government in Australia to other trade deals – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA)

Australia and South Korea have signed a new free trade agreement - the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA). Is it a fair trade fairytale? Or is it a dirty deal done dirt cheap? Or somewhere in between? It is hard to tell, given the initial secrecy of the negotiations, and the complexity of the texts of the agreement There has been much debate in Parliament over the transparency of the trade agreement; the scope of market access provided under the deal; the impact of the investment chapter, with its investor-state dispute settlement clause; the intellectual property chapter; the environment chapter; its impact upon public health; and the labor rights chapter. KAFTA provides an indication of the approach of the new Conservative Government in Australia to other trade deals – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

New TPP leak reveals how we’re trading our sovereignty for cheap tariffs

WikiLeaks has published the secret investment chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Dr Matthew Rimmer, associate professor at ANU College of Law, explains its insidious implications....

A Supplementary Submission on The Commonwealth's Treaty-Making Process

This supplementary submission highlights two new developments, which have arisen since the initial submission. First, it considers the publication of the draft Investment Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by WikiLeaks. Second, it looks at the introduction of the fast-track trade promotion authority bill, the Bipartisan Congressional Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, into the United States Congress. The two topics have been inter-linked to a certain extent.