The need for competence tests : Queensland judicial perspectives on non-accused child witnesses in criminal proceedings : Part 1.

To examine the question of whether Queensland judicial officers endorse the need for competence tests for non-accused child witnesses in criminal proceedings, a mail survey was sent to judicial officers - questions considered the need to distinguish between children's sworn and unsworn evidence - relevance of age to competence - desirability of competence test formalities.

The content of competence tests: Queensland judicial perspectives on non-accused child witnesses in criminal proceedings: Part 2

Part 1 appeared in UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND LAW JOURNAL 22 (2) 2003 : 199-223 (AGIS 04/2890) - judicial perspectives on the content of competence tests for sworn and unsworn evidence - substantive criteria may vary according to whether a child is to testify sworn or unsworn - formal framing may vary given a judicial appraisal of a child's capacity and understanding - referability of competence tests to the Queensland legislation.

Judicial (in)activism in Australia's secular commonwealth

his article addresses two aspects of Australia's soft secular government. The first aspect explains how, and asks why, judges have been inactive in helping to draw the contours of secular government in Australia. The principal reason is that much of the social regulation that provokes the interest of faith-based groups is the constitutional concern of the States, and no State Constitution claims to coordinate relations between church and state. Moreover, the electorate has twice refused to pass referenda, in 1944 and 1988, for extending a constitutional demand of secular governance to the States. However, this is not so for the Commonwealth. It falls under the restrictions of section 116 of the federal Constitution, which states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion ('the establishment clause') or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion ('the free exercise clause'), and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. As will be explained, while methods of legal interpretation suggest that section 116's establishment clause could place mild demands of non-discrimination on the federal Parliament, judicial inactivity in policing such demands on the Commonwealth, paradoxically, has arguably been secured by judicial activism in the High Court. A second aspect of secular government addressed is the High Court's disposal of 'the separation of church and state' as a constitutional principle in Australia. The contrast, of course, is to the United States, where for sixty years 'separation' has been given uneven recognition as a rule of constitutional law, and has undoubtedly driven the development of hard forms of secular governance in that country. The centrepiece of American secular government is the 1971 decision in Lemon v Kurtzman, where the US Supreme Court held that valid legislation had to pass three tests, ie: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion .. . finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion. The third 'entanglement' prong of Lemon is the modern, less ambitious, form of the 'wall of separation', prohibiting too close an engagement between church and state. As this paper will demonstrate, 'entanglement's' destiny shows how unlikely it is that 'separation' can survive as a meaningful constitutional principle in the USA. And, it will also be argued that 'separation' has even poorer prospects for import to Australia.

Mental health nursing standards and practice indicators for Australia: a review of current literature

There are many changes and challenges facing the mental health care professional working in Australia in the 21st Century. Given the significance of their number and the considerable extent to which care is delivered by them, mental health nurses in particular must be at the forefront of the movement to enhance and improve mental health care. Mental health nurses in Australia must not only keep up with the changes, we should be setting the pace for others across the profession worldwide. The increasingly complex field of mental health nursing demands nurses who are not only equipped to face the challenges but are confident in doing so. Definitive guidelines for practice, clear expectations regarding outcomes and specific means by which to evaluate both practice and outcomes are vital. Strengthening the role and vision of mental health nursing so that there is clarity about both and highlighting core values by which to perform will enable us to become focused on our future and what we can expect to both give to and receive from our chosen profession and how we can, and do, contribute to mental health care. The role of the mental health nurse is undergoing expansion and there are new hurdles to overcome along with the new benefits this brings. To support this, nationally adopted, formalised standards of practice and means by which to measure these, i.e., practice indicators formerly known as clinical indicators, are required. It is important to have national standards and practice indicators because of the variances in the provision of mental health across Australia – different legislation regarding mental health policies and processes, different nursing registration bodies and Nursing Councils, for example – which create additional barriers to cohesion and uniformity. Improvements in the practice of mental health nursing lead to benefits for consumer outcomes as well as the overall quality of mental health care available in Australia. The emphasis on rights-based care, particularly consumer and carer rights, demands evidence-based, up-to-date mental health care delivered by competent, capable professionals. Documented expectations for performance by nurses will provide all involved with yardsticks by which to evaluate outcomes. Flowing on from these benefits are advances in mental health care generally and enhancements to Australia’s reputation and position within the health care arena throughout the world. Currently, the ‘Standards for Practice’ published by the Australian New Zealand College of Mental Health Nurses (ANZCMHN) in 1995 and the practice indicators developed by Skews et al. (2000) provide a less formal guide for mental health nurses working in Australia. While these earlier standards and practice indicators have played some role in supporting mental health nurses they have not been nationally or enthusiastically adopted and there are a multitude of reasons for this. This report reviews the current literature available on practice indicators and standards for practice and describes an evidence-based rationale as to why a review and renewal of these is required and why it is important, not just for mental health nurses but to the field of mental health in general. The term ‘practice indicator’ is used, except where a quotation utilises ‘clinical indicator’, to more accurately reflect the broad spectrum of nursing roles, i.e. not all mental health nursing work involves a clinical role.