Estimating the impact of mandatory folic acid fortification on the folic acid intake of Australian women of childbearing age

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to estimate the impact of mandatory folic acid (FA) fortification of bread-making flour on the FA intake of Australian women of childbearing age (16-44 years). The secondary objective was to investigate the relationship between estimated FA intake and socio-economic status (SES) and age.

Method: Dietary modelling was used to estimate FA intake under four mandatory fortification scenarios – no supplement use, supplement use unrelated to FA intake, supplement use only among the highest consumers of bread, and increased supplement use. Data were obtained from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey for food intake patterns, the 2007 Victorian Population Health Survey for FA supplement use, and a marketplace survey.

Results: It is estimated that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recommendation for an additional 400 mg/day FA will be achieved by a minimum of 3.9, 25.4, 21.7 and 30% of the target population under scenarios 1-4, respectively. The FA upper level of intake is exceeded by a maximum of 0.1, 1.7, 6.1 and 4.1% of the target population for scenarios 1-4, respectively.

Conclusions: Mandatory FA fortification is not sufficient for the NHMRC recommendations for minimum and maximum intakes to be met by all of the target population under a number of plausible behaviour scenarios.

Implications: Targeted nutrition education campaigns are needed for SES and age sub-groups and research of this nature should be extended to other population groups. Monitoring and evaluation of this policy will be important to ensure appropriate FA intake.

The capacity of criminal sanctions to shape the behaviour of offenders : specific deterrence doesn’t work, rehabilitation might and the implications for sentencing

There is a considerable gap between the law and knowledge regarding the efficacy of state-imposed sanctions to achieve several key sentencing objectives. Two sentencing objectives which often carry considerable weight in the sentencing calculus are rehabilitation and specific deterrence, despite the fact that neither has been proven to be attainable. This article examines the empirical data on whether specific deterrence and rehabilitation are attainable, and consequently whether they should be retained or abolished as sentencing objectives.

Tough, tougher, toughest? A new government’s approach to sentencing laws in Victoria

When in opposition, Victoria¹s Liberal/National coalition made a number of commitments to be 'tough on crime'. After winning the 2010 state election, the Government arguably reformed sentencing laws more quickly and more substantially in its first year of office than any other area of policy, with several key initiatives delivered or in train.

The Victorian experience exemplifies fast and forceful responses to perceived risks to community safety by new Australian Governments. While some political leaders have decried the 'law and order auction' approach by political parties, it remains a real tool in political discourse.

Some of these initiatives appear inconsistent with fundamental sentencing principles, and are designed more to address public perceptions which are disconnected from the realities of criminality and incidence of offending. A more appropriate basis for criminal justice policy may require Government to prioritise addressing the causes of offending behavior, rather than penalising consequences.

Profiling national mandatory folic acid fortification policy around the world

Mandatory food fortification “occurs when governments legally oblige food producers to fortify particular foods or categories of foods with specified micronutrients” [1]. Because mandatory food fortification exposes everyone in the population who consumes the fortified food(s) to raised levels of the specified micronutrient, it is one of the most powerful policy instruments available to influence dietary intake and population health outcomes. Many national food regulatory authorities have established policy guidance on mandatory food fortification. From an international perspective, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) provides principles for the addition of essential nutrients to foods [2]. According to these Codex principles, mandatory food fortification with additional vitamins and minerals is recommended where there is proven public health and nutrition need (Note: these principles are under review at the time of writing).

Costs and benefits of mandatory auditing of for-profit private and not-for-profit companies in Australia

This paper addresses the paucity of research surrounding the mandatory auditing of for-profit private and not-for-profit companies in Australia. We document the various mandatory auditing provisions under the Corporations Act and identify over 22 000 companies that lodge audited accounts with the regulator under federal law. In 2011, 6339 large proprietary companies, 186 small proprietary companies, 2797 foreign-owned companies, 3985 unlisted public companies and 8404 public companies limited by guarantee had an obligation under the Corporations Act to lodge audited accounts. While large proprietary and foreign-owned companies have an option to apply to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission for audit relief, we estimate that less than 10% are granted audit exemption. We document that since 1995 an additional 1500 large proprietary companies that should have lodged under the size provisions of the Corporations Act have been granted exemption from doing so (i.e., grandfathered), although these firms appear to be subject to an annual audit even though they do not lodge accounts. We estimate the costs and discuss the potential public interest and firm-level benefits associated with the mandatory auditing of for-profit private and not-for-profit companies in Australia.

An argument for uniform Australian sentencing law

Sentencing law and practice impacts on fundamental individual interests, both from the perspective of offenders and victims. It also affects community safety and security The scope of sentencing law and its principal objectives are broadly similar throughout Australia. However, there are many important differences, especially in relation to sentencing practice, with some jurisdictions appearing to impose considerably heavier penalties for certain offence types. This article argues that uniform sentencing law should be implemented throughout Australia. The likely benefits would extend beyond achieving greater consistency in sentencing outcomes. A move toward uniform national sentencing laws would provide the catalyst for an objective, evidence-based review of sentencing policy and practice, thereby providing a vehicle for harmonising the law with a wealth of empirical data regarding the objectives that can be achieved through a system of state-imposed sanctions. It would also present a meaningful opportunity for a normative assessment of the justifiable operation of sentencing law. The main impediment to uniform sentencing laws is likely to come from state and territory governments seeking to maintain control over this often socially controversial area as a means of securing and maintaining community support. However, this obstacle is not necessarily insurmountable. It is not clear whether sentencing policy is, in fact, a main driver of voter preferences. Some politicians may prefer to have ·national uniformity' as a buffer to counteract reflexive calls for tougher sentencing that often occur following particularly serious crimes or seemingly light sentences handed down by courts.

Injecting content into the mirage that is proportionality in sentencing

Sentencing involves the deliberate infliction of harm by society on individuals. It is the most coercive means through which the community imposes its collective (albeit civilised) displeasure at harmful conduct. It is an important and complex process, which involves balancing fundamental interests of victims and the community on the one hand and offenders on the other. The single most important determinant in setting criminal sanctions is the principle of proportionality, which provides that the harshness of the penalty should match the seriousness of the offence. The principle is intuitively appealing but in reality is an illusion, and hence the reason why penalties for criminal offences vary enormously within and across jurisdictions. The main reason is because there is no agreement regarding the considerations that inform offence severity or sanction hardship. This article injects content into the proportionality principle by suggesting that both limbs of the principle should be informed by the extent to which the crime and the sanction set back the well-being of victims and offenders, respectively. These interests are not conclusively mapped. However, a methodology is set out for establishing these interests. This will lead to greater consistency in sentencing and provide a sounder, normative foundation for the manner in which society deals with criminals.

“People’s law” and restorative justice: the success of circle sentencing in New South Wales

Informal sentencing procedures in remote Indigenous communities of Australia have been occurring for some time, but it was in the late 1990s that formalization of the practice began in urban areas with the advent of Indigenous sentencing and circle courts. These circle courts emerged primarily to address the over-representation and incarceration of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. The first Indigenous urban court was assembled in Port Adelaide, South Australia in June 1999 and was named the Nunga Court. Courts emerging since in other states are based on the Nunga Court model, although they have been adapted to suit local conditions. The practice of circle sentencing was introduced in New South Wales (NSW) in Nowra in February 2002.

Sentencing in Australia

Sentencing in Australia provides an up-to-date explanation of sentencing law and practice in all nine Australian jurisdictions.

Sentencing is the area of law which consumes most court of appeal work and this title satisfies the need for a thorough and coherent treatment of this complex subject, which involves a wide range of complex and interacting factors.

In this new work, lawyer and academic Mirko Bagaric and barrister Richard Edney consider the law across Australia. They examine existing practice and provide extensive analysis of the objectives of sentencing, in the form of incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and proportionality.

The work systematically and comprehensively covers key mitigating and aggravating factors and the considerations which strongly influence sentencing determinations.