Juvenile justice in Queensland and Canada : new legislation reflecting new directions

Due to their similar colonial histories and common law heritage, Australia and Canada provide an ideal comparative context for examining legislation reflecting new directions in the field of juvenile justice. Toward this end, this article compares the revised juvenile justice legislation which came into force in Queensland and Canada in 2003 (Canada, Youth Criminal Justice Act, enacted on 19 February 2002 and proclaimed in force 1 April 2003; Queensland, Juvenile Justice Act, amended 2003). There are a series of questions that could be addressed including: How similar and how sweeping have been the legislative changes introduced in each jurisdiction?; What are likely to be some of the effects of the implementation of these new legislative regimes?; and, how well does the legislation enacted in either jurisdiction address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children who have been caught up in juvenile justice systems? This article addresses mainly the first of these questions, offering a systematic comparison of recent Queensland and Canadian legislative changes. Although, due to the recentness of these changes, there is no data available to assess long-term effects, anecdotal evidence and preliminary research findings from our comparative study are offered to provide a start at answering the second question. We also offer critical yet sympathetic comments on the ability of legislation to address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children caught up in juvenile justice systems. Specifically, we conclude that while more than simple legislative responses are required to address the difficulties faced by youth offenders, and especially overrepresented Indigenous young offenders, the amended Queensland and new Canadian legislation appear to provide some needed reforms that can be used to help address some of these fundamental difficulties.

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?

Hormones down under: Hormone therapy use after the Women's Health Initiative

Aims:  The primary objective was to describe the usage pattern of hormone therapy (HT) in a sample of urban Australian women in 2001 and to assess the characteristics of users vs. non-users. The second objective was to determine whether there had been any change in usage since the publication of the results of the combined oestrogen plus progestagen arm of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002. Methods:  A cohort of 374 postmenopausal women aged 50–80 years participated in this substudy of the LAW (Longitudinal Assessment of Ageing in Women) project: a 5-year multidisciplinary, observational study. Participants completed an annual medical assessment including details of the use of HT and the reasons for use, as well as demographic and psychosocial data. Results:  In December 2001, 30.8% of the participants were using HT, whereas 55.4% were ever users. The management of vasomotor symptoms and mood disturbance were the primary reasons for use. Of those who had been using HT in December 2001 (24.4%) women ceased using HT in the 3 months following publication of the WHI results. The percentage of women using HT in December 2003 (13.9%) was less than half of that of December 2001. Conclusion:  The rate of HT use and the reasons for use, in 2001 in Brisbane was similar to that of other Australian regions. Usage of HT decreased since the publication of the WHI results in 2002 which may reflect changing attitudes by patients and practitioners regarding HT.