The legal framework of the Australian health system

This chapter is about the role of law in the creation and operation of Australian health systems. Accordingly, this chapter discusses how law regulates the way in which health services in Australia are funded, organised, regulated, managed, operated and governed. (The question of how health professionals are regulated is discussed in Chapter 15.) Although the focus of much of health law is on legal mechanisms for the resolution of disputes or disagreements between the state, health providers, professionals, patients and families and friends, and through dispute resolutions processes setting standards for practice, these are only some of the “jobs” that health law performs. In health systems where the state undertakes a significant role in regulating, funding, managing and providing health services, health law also performs an important constitutive function. Health law declares the values upon which the health system is based, shapes social processes to achieve public ends and provides a structure for the complex interactions that occur within a modern health system. Health law regulates decision-makers in health systems by establishing who has the power to participate in decisions and in what circumstances, establishing processes through which decisions are made and creating mechanisms for decision-makers to be held publicly accountable. It is this broader constitutive function of health law that is a primary focus of much of this chapter — how and why governments use their legislative powers to structure and shape the health system.

The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Health Strategy on Talkin with Tiga Bayles, 98.9 AM National Indigenous Radio Service (NIRS), Wednesday 21 July 2010. (9.00 - 10.00am).

Radio Program. Talkin with Tiga Bayles, 98.9 AM National Indigenous Radio Service (NIRS), 9.00-10.00am, Wednesday 21 July 2010. (1 hour program).----- Bronwyn Fredericks discssed the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Health Strategy was launched at the Australian Women’s Health Network (AWHN) National Conference in Hobart on the 19 May 2010. Within this radio interview the background of the Strategy is discussed, funding, who did the consultations and the writing. In the interview Bronwyn Fredericks outlines the process of the Strategy’s development and its uses for the future.----- It is important to note that this Strategy does not replace other national or State and Territory documents which identify priorities and needs. The aim is to supplement existing work.

Indigenous men's support groups and social and emotional wellbeing : a meta-synthesis of the evidence

Indigenous men’s support groups are designed to empower men to take greater control and responsibility for their health and wellbeing. They provide health education sessions, counselling, men’s health clinics, diversionary programs for men facing criminal charges, cultural activities, drug- and alcohol-free social events, and advocacy for resources. Despite there being ~100 such groups across Australia, there is a dearth of literature on their strategies and outcomes. This paper is based on participatory action research involving two north Queensland groups which were the subject of a series of five ‘phased’ evaluative reports between 2002 and 2007. By applying ‘meta-ethnography’ to the five studies, we identified four themes which provide new interpretations of the data. Self-reported benefits included improved social and emotional wellbeing, modest lifestyle modifications and willingness to change current notions of ‘gendered’ roles within the home, such as sharing housework. Our qualitative research to date suggests that through promoting empowerment, wellbeing and social cohesion for men and their families, men’s support groups may be saving costs through reduced expenditure on health care, welfare, and criminal justice costs, and higher earnings. Future research needs to demonstrate this empirically.

Collaborative voices: Ongoing reflections on cultural competency and the health care of Australian Indigenous people

The issue of cultural competency in health care continues to be a priority in Australia for health and human services professionals. Cultural competence in caring for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is of increasing interest, and is a priority in closing the gap in health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Through a collaborative conversation, the authors draw on a case study, personal experience and the literature to highlight some of the issues associated with employing culturally appropriate, culturally safe and culturally competent approaches when caring for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The intent of this article is to encourage discussion on the topic of cultural competency, and to challenge health professionals and academics to think and act on racism, colonialism, historical circumstances and the political, social, economic, and geographical realms in which we live and work, and which all impact on cultural competency.

Weaving yarns : the lived experience of Indigenous Australians with adult-onset disability in Brisbane

Indigenous Australians have lower levels of health than mainstream Australians and (as far as statistics are able to indicate) higher levels of disability, yet there is little information on Indigenous social and cultural constructions of disability or the Indigenous experience of disability. This research seeks to address these gaps by using an ethnographic approach, couched within a critical medical anthropology (CMA) framework and using the “three bodies” approach, to study the lived experience of urban Indigenous people with an adult-onset disability. The research approach takes account of the debate about the legitimacy of research into Indigenous Australians, Foucault‟s governmentality, and the arguments for different models of disability. The possibility of a cultural model of disability is raised. After a series of initial interviews with contacts who were primarily service providers, more detailed ethnographic research was conducted with three Indigenous women in their homes and with four groups of Indigenous women and men at an Indigenous respite centre. The research involved multiple visits over a period extending more than two years, and the establishment of relationships with all participants. An iterative inductive approach utilising constant comparison (i.e. a form of grounded theory) was adopted, enabling the generation and testing of working hypotheses. The findings point to the lack of an Indigenous construct of disability, related to the holistic construction of health among Indigenous Australians. Shame emerges as a factor which affects the way that Indigenous Australians respond to disability, and which operates in apparent contradiction to expectations of community support. Aspects of shame relate to governmentality, suggesting that self-disciplinary mechanisms have been taken up and support the more obvious exertion of government power. A key finding is the strength of Indigenous identity above and beyond other forms of identification, e.g. as a person with a disability, expressed in forms of resistance by individuals and service providers to the categories and procedures of the mainstream. The implications of a holistic construction of health are discussed in relation to the use of CMA, the interpretation of the “three bodies”, governmentality and resistance. The explanatory value of the concept of sympatricity is discussed, as is the potential value of a cultural model of disability which takes into account the cultural politics of a defiant Indigenous identity.

The constitutional power to make war: domestic legal issues raised by Australia's action in Iraq

The legal power to declare war has traditionally been a part of a prerogative to be exercised solely on advice that passed from the King to the Governor-General no later than 1942. In 2003, the Governor- General was not involved in the decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to commit Australian troops to the invasion of Iraq. The authors explore the alternative legal means by which Australia can go to war - means the government in fact used in 2003 - and the constitutional basis of those means. While the prerogative power can be regulated and/or devolved by legislation, and just possibly by practice, there does not seem to be a sound legal basis to assert that the power has been devolved to any other person. It appears that in 2003 the Defence Minister used his legal powers under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) (as amended in 1975) to give instructions to the service head(s). A powerful argument could be made that the relevant sections of the Defence Act were not intended to be used for the decision to go to war, and that such instructions are for peacetime or in bello decisions. If so, the power to make war remains within the prerogative to be exercised on advice. Interviews with the then Governor-General indicate that Prime Minister Howard had planned to take the matter to the Federal Executive Council 'for noting', but did not do so after the Governor-General sought the views of the then Attorney-General about relevant issues of international law. The exchange raises many issues, but those of interest concern the kinds of questions the Governor-General could and should ask about proposed international action and whether they in any way mirror the assurances that are uncontroversially required for domestic action. In 2003, the Governor-General's scrutiny was the only independent scrutiny available because the legality of the decision to go to war was not a matter that could be determined in the High Court, and the federal government had taken action in March 2002 that effectively prevented the matter coming before the International Court of Justice

Developing a model of care to improve the health and well-being for Indigenous people receiving renal dialysis treatment

The high levels of end-stage renal disease among Indigenous Australians, particularly in remote areas of the country, are a serious public health concern. The magnitude of the problem is reflected in figures from the Australian and New Zealand Transplant and Dialysis Registry that show that Indigenous Australians experience end-stage renal disease at a rate almost 9–10 times higher than other non-Indigenous Australians. A majority of Indigenous Australians have to relocate to receive appropriate renal dialysis treatment. In some Australian states, renal treatment is based on self-care dialysis which allows those Indigenous Australians to be treated back in their community. Evidence clearly shows that reuniting renal patients with community and family improves overall health and well-being for those Indigenous Australians. With the appropriate resources, training, and support, self-care management of renal dialysis treatment is an effective way for Indigenous people with end-stage renal failure to be treated at home. In this context, the study was used to gain insight and further understanding of the impact that end-stage renal disease and renal dialysis treatment has had on the lives of Indigenous community members. The study findings are from 14 individually interviewed people from South East Queensland. Data from the interviews were analysed using a combination of thematic and content analysis. The study methodology was based on qualitative data principles where the Indigenous community members were able to share their experiences and journeys living with end-stage renal disease. Many of the experiences and understanding closely relate to the renal disease pattern and the treatment with other outside influences, such as social, cultural, and environmental influences, all having an equal impact. Each community member’s experience with end-stage renal disease is unique; some manage with family and medical support, while others try to manage independently. From the study, community members who managed their renal dialysis treatment independently were much more aware of their renal health status. The study provides recommendations towards a model of care to improve the health and well-being is based on self-care and self-determination principles.