A preliminary analysis of Australian Government’s Indigenous reform agenda ‘Closing the Gap’ and corporate accountability

This chapter provides a preliminary analysis of Australian Government’s reform agenda popularly known as ‘Closing the Gap’.” Closing the Gap” sets a commitment by all Australian governments to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, and in particular provide a better future for indigenous children. This article discusses how the coalition of Australian Governments prepared this agenda and how this program involves Australian corporations in this task. Our observations suggest that another reform is required for the government to mandate corporate involvement and contribution to this reform agenda.

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.

Trial of the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool: Building organisational performance in Australian general practice and primary health care

Objective: To nationally trial the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT), an organisational performance improvement tool previously co-created with Australian primary care practices to increase their focus on relevant quality improvement (QI) activities. Design: The study was conducted from March to December 2015 with volunteer general practices from a range of Australian primary care settings. We used a mixed-methods approach in two parts. Part 1 involved staff in Australian primary care practices assessing how they perceived their practice met (or did not meet) each of the 13 PC-PIT elements of high-performing practices, using a 1–5 Likert scale. In Part 2, two external raters conducted an independent practice visit to independently and objectively assess the subjective practice assessment from Part 1 against objective indicators for the 13 elements, using the same 1–5 Likert scale. Concordance between the raters was determined by comparing their ratings. In-depth interviews conducted during the independent practice visits explored practice managers’ experiences and perceived support and resource needs to undertake organisational improvement in practice. Results: Data were available for 34 general practices participating in Part 1. For Part 2, independent practice visits and the inter-rater comparison were conducted for a purposeful sample of 19 of the 34 practices. Overall concordance between the two raters for each of the assessed elements was excellent. Three practice types across a continuum of higher- to lower-scoring practices were identified, with each using the PC-PIT in a unique way. During the in-depth interviews, practice managers identified benefits of having additional QI tools that relate to the PC-PIT elements. Conclusions: The PC-PIT is an organisational performance tool that is acceptable, valid and relevant to our range of partners and the end users (general practices). Work is continuing with our partners and end users to embed the PC-PIT in existing organisational improvement programs.

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.