Juvenile justice and truancy legislation : The move towards parental responsibilisation in Queensland

Much current Queensland media rhetoric, government policy and legislation on truancy and youth justice appears to be based on ideas of responsibilisation – of sheeting responsibility for children’s behaviour back onto their parents. This article examines the evidence of parental responsibility provisions in juvenile justice and truancy legislation in Queensland and the drivers behind this approach. It considers recent legislative initiatives as part of an international trend toward making parents ‘responsible’ for the wrongs of their children. It identifies the parental responsibility rhetoric appearing in recent ministerial statements and associated media reports. It then asks the questions – are these legislative provisions being enforced? And if so, are they successful? Are they simply adding to the administrative burdens placed on teachers and schools, and the socioeconomic burdens placed on already disadvantaged parents? Parental responsibility provisions have been discussed at length in the context of juvenile offending and research suggests that punishing parents for the acts of their children does not decrease delinquency. The paper asks how, as a society, we intend to evaluate these punitive measures against parents?

Obligatory dangerousness criteria in the involuntary commitment and treatment provisions of Australian mental health legislation

Abstract Objective Involuntary commitment and treatment (IC&T) of people affected by mental illness may have reference to considerations of dangerousness and/or need for care. While attempts have been made to classify mental health legislation according to whether IC&T has obligatory dangerousness criteria, there is no standardised procedure for making classification decisions. The aim of this study was to develop and trial a classification procedure and apply it to Australia's mental health legislation. Method We developed benchmarks for ‘need for care’ and ‘dangerousness’ and applied these benchmarks to classify the mental health legislation of Australia's 8 states and territories. Our focus was on civil commitment legislation rather than criminal commitment legislation. Results One state changed its legislation during the course of the study resulting in two classificatory exercises. In our initial classification, we were able to classify IC&T provisions in legislation from 6 of the 8 jurisdictions as being based on either ‘need for care’ or ‘dangerousness’. Two jurisdictions used a terminology that was outside the established benchmarks. In our second classification, we were also able to successfully classify IC&T provisions in 6 of the 8 jurisdictions. Of the 6 Acts that could be classified, all based IC&T on ‘need for care’ and none contained mandatory ‘dangerousness’ criteria. Conclusions The classification system developed for this study provided a transparent and probably reliable means of classifying 75% of Australia's mental health legislation. The inherent ambiguity of the terminology used in two jurisdictions means that further development of classification may not be possible until the meaning of the terms used has been addressed in case law. With respect to the 6 jurisdictions for which classification was possible, the findings suggest that Australia's mental health legislation relies on ‘need for care’ and not on ‘dangerousness’ as the guiding principle for IC&T. Keywords: Involuntary commitment; Mental health legislation; Dangerousness; Australia

Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld)

On 17 March 2010, the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) was assented to.

How effective is the new child restraint legislation in Queensland? A mixed methods evaluation

Research Interests: Are parents complying with the legislation? Is this the same for urban, regional and rural parents? Indigenous parents? What difficulties do parents experience in complying? Do parents understand why the legislation was put in place? Have there been negative consequences for other organisations or sectors of the community?

Evaluation of the 2010 child restraint legislation in Queensland

Occupant injury comprises the largest proportion of child road crash trauma in most highly motorised countries. In Australia, road crashes are the primary cause of death for children aged 1-14 years and are among the top three causes of serious injury to this age group. For this reason considerable research attention has been focused on understanding the contributing factors and the most effective ways of improving children’s safety as car passengers. Australia has been particularly active in this area, with well regarded work being conducted on levels of use of dedicated child restraints, restraint crash performance in laboratory conditions, examination of real world restraint crash performance (case review), and studies of psychosocial factors influencing perceptions about restraints and their use (Brown & Bilston, 2006; Brown, McCaskill, Henderson & Bilston, 2006; Edwards, Anderson & Hutchinson, 2006; Lennon, 2005, 2007). New legislation for the restraint of children as vehicle passengers was enacted in Queensland in March 2010. This new legislation recognises the importance of dedicated restraint use for children up to at least age 7 years and the protective benefits of rear seating position in the event of a crash. As part of improving children’s safety and addressing key priority areas, the Queensland Injury Prevention Council (QIPC) and Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) commissioned the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, Queensland (CARRS-Q) to evaluate the impact of the new legislation. Although at the time of commencing the research the legislation had only been in force for 14 months, it was deemed critical to review its effectiveness in guiding parental choices and compliance in order to inform the design and focus of further supporting initiatives and interventions. Specifically, the research sought clear evidence of exactly what impact, if any, the legislation has had on compliance levels and what difficulties (if any) parents/carers experience in relation to interpreting as well as complying with the requirements of the new law. Knowledge about these barriers or difficulties will allow any future changes or improvements to the legislation to address such barriers and thus improve its effectiveness. Moreover, better information about how the legislation has affected parents will provide a basis to plan non-legislative comprehensive multi-strategy interventions such as community, educational or behavioural interventions with parents/carers and other stakeholder groups. In addition, it will allow identification of the most effective aspects of the legislation and those areas in need of extra attention to improve effectiveness/compliance and thus better protect children travelling in cars and improve their health and safety. This report presents the findings from the four components of the research: the literature review; observational study; intercept interviews and focus group with parents; and the interviews with key stakeholders.

Art unions legislation in Queensland

In Queensland, the legislation governing the conduct of art unions such as bingo, raffles and lucky envelopes is the Art Unions Act 1992 (ΑAct≅). The Act is administered by the Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation (ΑQOGR≅) which is part of the Queensland Treasury portfolio. The Act and other legislation such as the Criminal Code, Vagrants Gaming and Other Offences Act, generally makes it unlawful for a person to conduct art unions unless they are authorised to do so. The Art Unions Act allows Αeligible≅ nonprofit associations such as charities, schools, sporting and community groups to raise funds for their stated objects. Art unions were legalised in the early part of this century primarily to assist charities and other approved associations to raise funds for worthwhile causes. This principle is continued in the 1992 Act. The Queensland art union industry had a turnover of over$190M in 1996/97 and our Queensland art unions continue to attract not just sales from Queensland residents but also interstate and overseas buyers. Art unions continue to be an attractive form of fundraising for many nonprofit associations.

Comments on the Australian Accounting Research Foundation's Legislation Policy Discussion Paper NO.4 (A framework for financial reporting by incorporated associations)

The Australian Accounting Research Foundation (AARF) recently issued Legislative Policy Discussion Paper No.4 which proposes a framework for financial reporting by Australian incorporated associations.This paper comments on both the merits and deficiencies of the proposal. In particular it notes that the proposal simply advocates that the application of differential reporting, accounting standards, and the conceptual framework be imposed on incorporated associations by amended statutes. It is noted that in light of long experience in the corporate sector, he espoused benefits of such a move may not eventuate. Further, concern is expressed that the proposal is a blank cheque one because of the inadequacy of existing relevant accounting standards and the proposal to introduce new relevant standards. Another major defect in the proposal is that it emanates from accountants who acknowledge in their conceptual framework, the need for external reports to report on performance through both financial and non-financial reporting methods. Despite that acknowledgment, the standard set of external reports prepared by accountants do not measure performance as defined in their own conceptual framework (SAC 2) and in their auditing pronouncements (AUP 33), and they have restricted their domain to financial reporting (SAC 2). Accordingly the proposal appears to be seriously deficient and it is suggested that it be rejected and a new proposal be prepared by a multi-party group free from vested interests.

New Commonwealth and Queensland workplace relations legislation : an overview

I seem to have heard a lot about thresholds lately. In fact, I sometimes feel as though I am standing at the edge of an abyss. Certainly the industrial relations systems we have come to know and love are in the process of metamorphosis but that process began a decade ago. So what is all the fuss about...

A cross sectional observational study of child restraint use in Queensland following changes in legislation

As part of an evaluation of the 2010 legislation for child vehicle occupants in Queensland, road-side observations of private passenger vehicles were used to estimate the proportions of children 0-under 7 years travelling in each of the 5 different restraint types (eg. forward facing child restraint). Data was collected in 4 major population centres: Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Mackay and Townsville. Almost all children were restrained (95.1%, 95% CI 94.3-95.9%), with only 3.3% (95% CI 2.6-4.0%) clearly unrestrained and 44 (1.6%, 95% CI 1.1-2.1%) for whom restraint status could not be determined (‘unknown’). However, around 24.0% (95 CI 21.8-26.2%) of the target-aged children were deemed inappropriately restrained, primarily comprised of 3-6 year olds in seatbelts (18.7% of the 0-6 year olds, 95% CI 16.3-21.1%) or unrestrained (3.7% of the 0-6 year olds, 95% CI 2.5-4.9%) instead of booster seats. In addition, compliance appeared significantly lower for some regional locations where the proportion of children observed as completely unrestrained was relatively high and of concern

How research findings can inform legislation and school policy on cyberbullying.

Recent empirical research has found that the psychological consequences for young people involved in cyberbullying are more severe than in the case of traditional bullying (Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012; Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010). Cybervictimisation has been found to be a significant predictor of depressive symptoms over and above that of being victimised by traditional bullying (Perren et al., 2010). Cybervictims also have reported higher anxiety scores and social difficulties than traditional victims, with those students who had been bullied by both forms showing similar anxiety and depression scores to cyberbullying victims (Campbell et al., 2012). This is supported by the subjective views of many young people, not involved in bullying, who believed that cyberbullying is far more harmful than traditional bullying (Cross et al., 2009). However, students who were traditionally bullied thought the consequences of traditional bullying were harsher than did those students who were cyberbullied (Campbell, et al., 2012). In Slonje and Smith’s study (2008), students reported that text messaging and email bullying had less of an impact than traditional bullying, but that bullying by pictures or video clips had more negative impact than traditional bullying.

Submission to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee - Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012

This submission addresses the Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 which has as its objectives (1) the introduction of a Boot Camp Order as an option instead of detention for young offenders and (2) the removal of the option of court referred youth justice conferencing for young offenders. As members of the QUT Faculty of Law Centre for Crime and Justice we welcome the invitation to participate in the discussion of these issues which are critically important to the Queensland community at large but especially to our young people.

Disciplinary unfairness in Queensland public service legislation

A just system of discipline within an organisation requires four characteristics: a clear set of offences, proportionate punishments clearly linked to the offences, oversight and appeals from disciplinary decisions and independence from political masters. This paper examines Queensland public sector legislation and policy from 1863 to the present to demonstrate how well these four criteria are addressed. An analysis of the presence of these four characteristics in the Queensland context finds that the public sector legislation in Queensland is in breach of the guidelines that define a just and fair system in which disciplinary action is dispensed. We argue that creation of arbitrary powers to punish or dismiss staff is unjust if the legislation does not fully inform staff of what constitutes a breach of discipline, does not guarantee proportionate punishments to offences, and/or it allows the disciplinary process to be used as a tool to coerce staff to perform in a politicised or otherwise unethical manner. We conclude by making recommendations as to how this situation may be rectified.