Australian Indigenous Income Management

Australian Indigenous income management

Part 1: The Case

Introduction

As the indigenous population in Australia reaches almost 700,000 (2011 census) (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011) The Australian welfare programs for the Indigenous have seen some changes in recent years.  While many Australians enjoy world class health and education systems, many indigenous particularly those living in remote areas live in improvised conditions. There is substandard housing, problems with alcohol, domestic violence, high crime rates and low school attendance. During the 2007 Howard government intervention income management was brought into the Northern territory as a way of helping Indigenous manage their incomes. Using social justice and human rights frameworks this case study examines the current income management programs in the Northern Territory

                                                                                                                                            

Case overview

Australia has a significant history when it comes to the indigenous population – one of

abuse, genocide, stolen generation and lack of human rights.  In 1883 the board for protection of aborigines was established, they later changed their name to the aborigine welfare board (The State Records Authority of New South Wales, 1995).

 

The duties of the new Board were to: apportion, distribute and apply moneys for the relief or benefit of Aboriginal people; or to assist them in obtaining employment; maintain them whilst employed or otherwise to assist them to become assimilated into the general life of the community; distribute blankets, clothing, and relief to Aboriginal people; provide for the custody and maintenance of Aboriginal children; manage and regulate the use of reserves; exercise a general supervision and care over all Aboriginal people and over all matters affecting their interests and welfare, and to protect them against injustice, imposition and fraud; arrange for the inspection at regular intervals of each station and training school under the control of the Board.( The State Records Authority of New South Wales,1995)

 

While there has been some changes to the Aboriginal welfare board, and Aboriginal policies including name changes, The Howard Governments 2007 intervention – close the gap strategies remain similar to the duties carried out in 1883  (Cox, 2015; Buckmaster & Ey, 2012). 

 

According to Altman and Sanders (1995) after the 1967 referendum Australian aborigines subsequently became very dependent on welfare.  Some Authors including famous Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson describe the past aboriginal welfare system as the downfall of aboriginal society and what has led to a cycle of dependence on welfare, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, unemployment, vulnerable children and irresponsibility (Davidoff & Duas, 2008). Income management came about after the report on allegations of serious sexual abuse of children in Aboriginal communities, the report is called “The little children are scared” (Korff, 2015; Gibson, 2012).  The Howard Government introduced Income Management into the Northern Territory as a way of assisting welfare recipients (Gibson, 2015).  In order for the Howard Government to do this the Anti-Discrimination Act had to be suspended in order to pass policy on income management (ACOSS, 2009).

 

Income management was automatically applied to all indigenous persons on Centrelink benefits living in the Northern territory – everyone received a Basics card, where a percentage of their center link benefits were put on the card.  (Korff, 2015). The card requires a pin number and at first could only be used at some shops, now there is a greater range of shops the Basics card can be used at. The Basics card cannot be used to buy alcohol, tobacco, pornography or some takeaway foods. (Korff, 2015).

Some authors suggest that Income management was brought into control what Aborigines in the Northern Territory could spend their money on, (Gibson, 2012; Korff, 2015; Bielefeld, 2012).  These authors suggest that Income Management has a negative and discriminatory impact on Aboriginal peoples in the Northern Territory (Gibson, 2012; Korff, 2015; Bielefeld, 2012).

 

A second type of income management is used and is popular in some parts of the Northern Territory, the individual arranges a certain amount of their money to go to a particular shop each pay week, including to rental agencies or other bills such as electricity, where they can either save it up for larger items, such as white goods or furniture or to shops including butchers, grocery shops or other retail outlets where they can get food and other essential items (Gibson, 2012).  This negates the need of having a pin based card (Korff, 2015).

 

The objective of income management set by the Howard Government in 2007 has been to reduce immediate hardships by directing welfare payments to those who need them, help people on welfare payments obtain essential items and reduce the amount of money spent on alcohol tobacco pornography and gambling ( Buckmaster & Ey, 2012; Korff, 2015; Dvidoff & Duas, 2008) . Income management is also used to help people with budgeting and reduce vulnerable people on welfare from being harassed and abused for their payments (Korff, 2015).  Income management is also used to encourage socially responsible behavior (Buckmaster & Ey, 2012; Korff, 2015; Dvidoff & Duas, 2008).

 

There are Advantages and disadvantages to these two types of income management.  Firstly it allows vulnerable people access to money in order to buy food or other essential items when needed. (Korff, 2015) Studies have found that there have been benefits to children women and the elderly on income management as they have been able to access food clothing and other essential items. The individual can control the pin number, if they have a basics card or go to a shop their money is at, to get purchase essential items (ACOSS, 2009)

Income management is designed to help recipients budget and reduce the amount of cash funds for alcohol, tobacco and gambling (Buckmster & Ey, 2012)

Disadvantages include – there was no or limited consultation with Aboriginal people regarding this program , and income management was initially limited to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory with a trial program in Cape York Queensland (QLD).  Recently the government has expanded income management to other areas in QLD and to people of all ethnic backgrounds. Income management and basics cards, or the shops that allow Basic Card use for welfare recipients is not yet Australia wide (Bielefield, 2013; social policy research, ACOSS, 2009; Cox, 2015).

         People only have access to a certain amount of ‘cash’ money to purchase other items individuals on income management have reported not changing what they spend their money on and feeling more shamed and embarrassed because they are on income management. (Korff, 2015).

 

          Key stakeholders are the Indigenous people of the northern territory, Centrelink – which is managed under the department of human services to deliver a wide range of services to Who provide the basics cards an income management

The government who implemented this policy and the shop keepers that provide facilities to have the basics card or those that sell items that cannot be accessed by basic card holders such as tobacco and alcohol outlets. The stakeholder are all effected in different ways by income management

 

 

Summary of issues

 

Income management was introduced in the Northern Territory by the Howard government in 2007 it includes allocating a certain percentage of money onto the basics card, which restricts what people can use the money for Income management can also be allocating a certain amount of money to various shops.

The government had to suspend the anti- discrimination act to pass the policy on income management

           The objectives of income management include:

Reduce immediate hardships

Help recipients obtain essential items

Reduce the amount of money spent on alcohol, tobacco and pornography

There is some evidence that income management has aided vulnerable people

However income management policy was not done in consultation with the indigenous and there is evidence to suggest income management has not met all its objectives (ACOSS, 2009)

 

Part 2: Analysis and possible recommendation

 

Welfare and social justice considerations;

Social justice can be described as the fair distribution of resources among the population.  In Australia social justice is about making sure all peoples have the right to choose how they live and the ability in which to make those choices (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014) Social Justice is grounded in everyday life and according to the social justice commissioner (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014) Social justice is about housing with running water and sanitation, the right to education, employment and good health.  For the indigenous peoples of Australia it is also about recognising them as the original owners of the land with a right to a distinct culture and status, the right to land and the right to self – determination. Social justice is up held when the rights of indigenous peoples are promoted. (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014; Social Justice Report 2007; Social policy research Centre (SPRC), 2015).

            People on welfare often face more discrimination find it harder to gain education, seek employment (Murphy, Murray, Chalmers, Martin & Marston 2011).  The shame people feel while on welfare and the social injustice they experience is high.  Income management takes people’s ability away to manage their income and therefore resources as they see fit.

Making income management less obvious for those that choose to be on it

Reducing the stigma of welfare in Australia would be beneficial to recipients

There is no doubt that there are vulnerable people that could benefit from income management.  The anti-discrimination act that had to be suspended in order for the Howard government to put income management into place should be reinstated

 

Human rights considerations

Human rights are rights that are inherent to all human beings regardless of culture, sex, place of residence or any other status.  Human beings all over the world are entitled to human rights which are inherent, invisible and interrelated without discrimination. (Almond, 1993)

In order for the government to roll out the income management scheme in 2007 the racial discrimination act had to be suspended (Gibson, P, 2012). In Australian law the right to nondiscrimination is excluded on the basis of a person’s status such as homeless, on welfare or unemployed. The United Nations states that all human beings have the right to nondiscrimination regardless of social status (Human Rights Commission, 2014)

By implementing income management several human rights were breached these include the right to self-determination – the choice of how income is managed has been taking away from people. The income management policy interferes with the right to use personal income.  Freedom of movement – when the basics card was implemented not all stores accepted the card, and the system is not set up in other states and territory’s making it difficult for people to move around Australia freely (Bielefeld, 2013; Bielefeld, 2012; ACOSS, 2009).

Indigenous land rights were disregarded and 5 year leases of indigenous lands were obtained without consultation with indigenous people.

The government when implementing income management did so after the report – ‘The Little Children are Scared’ was released that showed children in Aboriginal communities to be vulnerable. The objective of income management was to reduce immediate hardships

Help recipients obtain essential items, Reduce the amount of money spent on alcohol, tobacco and pornography

 

There are reports that many people forced to go on income management feel as if they have no control over their lives and that having a basics card has not improved the ability to buy or have access to essential items (Korff, 2015)

Low income earners are more likely to experience a breach in their civil and political rights

From a human rights perspective mandatory income management that has been introduced into the Northern territory has breached human rights by not consulting with the people it applies to, by not allowing freedom of movement and self- determination in management of funds (Korff, 2015).

The government has advocated that income management policies need to be evidence based, to ensure they are meeting the objectives.

There are cases being made by indigenous peoples and organisations for voluntary income management –Income management and the use of basics cards needs to be in consultation with Indigenous peoples (Gibson, 2012).  Other changes that can lessen the impact income management has on people include - restrictions from basics cards removed, giving people the right to manage their resources and the availability of shops allowing the use of basics cards Australia Wide

 

Summary of recommendations

 

From a welfare and social justice perspective

•   Income management should not be discriminatory 

•   The anti-racial discrimination act should be reinstated

•   Either all welfare recipients should be subject to compulsory income management or no welfare recipients should be subject to it.  Income management could be valuable to certain people and be available as a voluntary option.

•   Public policy change to make welfare recipients less recognizable

 

From a human rights perspective

•   Income management including basics cards should be voluntary

•   Income management policies should be done in consultation with aboriginal peoples

•   Income management is beneficial to vulnerable people, so should be available to those who require / wish to have it

•   Basics cards should be less restrictive on what is able to purchase with them

•   Basics cards should be available to use at all stores Australia wide

                                                                                         

 

Part 3: Final recommendation

Income management should remain an option for people on welfare as there is no doubt that vulnerable people are taken advantage of and results show that some people find using the basics card to access essential items beneficial, there is also evidence that supports the view of many people finding income management discriminatory and shameful (Buckmaster & Ey, 2012; Korff, 2015; Dvidoff & Duas, 2008). Compulsory income management has breached human rights, Income management should be voluntary and in consultation with the people receiving it.

 

 The negative views around income management and basics card need to be removed, through de stigmatization allowing people receiving welfare payments to have the same rights afforded to all Australians  and making recipients more anonymous (Gibson, 2015).  The stigma of welfare and income management in Australia needs to be reduced this will improve human rights for people receiving welfare, by taking a way the shame they feel, and allowing people to access education and employment

The anti-discrimination act should be reinstated and any income management programs in line with the criteria outlined in the act.  The removal of the Anti-Discrimination act breached human rights and is quite damaging to the Aboriginal peoples (Buckmaster & Ey, 2012; Korff, 2015; Dvidoff & Duas, 2008).

 

 

Total word count: 2667

Word count without quotes and references: 2280

 

 

Reference list

 

Almond, B 1993, 'Rights', in P Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 259-69.

Altman & Sanders, 1995, discussion paper 193 center for aboriginal economic policy. Centre for Aboriginal economic policy research

 

Australian Human Rights Commission 2014,://www.humanrights.gov.au/ Viewed 02/06/2014.

 

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, Australian Capital Territory in focus 2002, cat. no. 1307.8, ABS, Canberra.

 

Bielefeld, S 2012, Compulsory Income Management and Indigenous Australians: Delivering Social Justice or Furthering Colonial Domination?, Sydney law Journal Vol 35 (2) p301 -315.

 

Bielefeld, S, 2013, Compulsory Income Management and Indigenous Peoples- Exploring Counter Narratives Amidst Colonial Constructions of Vulnerability, Sydney Law Journal Vol 36 : 695 p 21-45

 

 

Buckmaster & Ey, 2012, is income management working? Social policy section: Parliament of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services.

 

Cox, 2015, Income Management, University of Technology, Sydney.

 

Davidoff & Duas, 2008, income management

 

Gibson, P, 2012, Income management in the Northern Territory, racism is still the issue. Jumbunna Indigeous House of Learning  

 

 

Korff,J, 2015, Northern territory, Emergency Response (NTER)- “ the intervention” www.creativespirits.info . Viewed 26/5/15

 

Murphy, J, Murray, S, Chalmers, J, Martin, S & Marston, G 2011, Half a citizen: life on welfare in Australia, in Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 1-21.

 

 

Social Justice Report 2007 - Chapter 3: The Northern Territory 'Emergency Response' intervention

 

Social policy research Centre (SPRC), 2015,university of new south wales and Australian Institute of family studies, evaluation framework for new income management (NIM), prepared for the Department of family’s, housing, Community Services and in diagnosis SPRC,

 

Submission to the National Human Rights Consultation. ACOSS, June 2009, Australian Council of Social Service

 

 

The States records Authority of New South Wales, 2015 Copyright the States Record Authority of New South Wales www.records.nsw.gov.au/ Viewed 01/06/2015

 

 

 

WAR - what is it good for !!

According to the jus ad bellum tradition established by Augustine and Aquinas, the third requirement for a just war is “rightful intention”, which is either “the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil”. Olen et al (2005, p. 305) ask, “How should we determine what a rightful intention is? By whose standards should we judge the advancement of ‘good’?”

 

For a just war these things should be considered

·                  The war must be for a just cause.

·                  The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.

·                  The intention behind the war must be good.

·                  All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.

·                  There must be a reasonable chance of success.

·                  The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.

                           

One of the criteria for a just war is the intention behind the war must be good or  ‘rightful’ To determine rightful intention these things must be in place

·                  Creating, restoring or keeping a just peace

·                  Righting a wrong

·                  Assisting the innocent.

These can be seen as rightful intention, which according to St. Aquinas (Aquinas was a 13^th century priest and friar) is the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil.

 

It is also the responsibility of the governments and the people to ensure rightful intention is maintained.

Standards used to judge the advancement of good should be those used by all of mankind

In the current international system it is the responsibility of the United Nations (UN), and in particular the UN Security Council, to assess the causes of war and decide whether or not a particular war is legitimate or justified. In addition, individual states retain the sovereign right to self-defence: ‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations’.

Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 1, Article 51, located at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ 27/05/15

The UN Security Council was formed before the cold war, now it is evident that each country is more independent of each other and the differences in which each country might think is just or unjust s probably evident over the last 30 years with various civil wars, Afganhastan, Iraq and now the war on terrorism. In the end it is up to humanity to judge the advancement of good and avoid evil, the outcome of how well humanity will do will be no doubt judged by future generations.

346 words without references

318 without quote          

 

 

Luban, D 1980, 'Just War and Human Rights', Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 160-81.

With consideration of the issues and concepts discussed in this module, what, in your view, is the moral relationship between humans and the environment?

 

Human kind has an obligation both a moral and an ethical one, to look after and protect the environment not only for now but for future generations.  If Human kind is to survive long enough to evolve and go on then the world we live in needs to be cared for and respected.

A second opinion held by some environmental philosophers is that we have no moral obligation to future generations as they cannot reciprocate.  This actually seems quite harsh, without moral obligation to the environment then there would unlikely be a planet for our descendants to inhabit

Anthropocentrism literally means “human-centeredness “. An anthropocentric ethic claims that only human beings are morally considerable in their own right, meaning that all the direct moral obligations we possess, including those we have with regard to the environment, are owed to our fellow human beings. The moral obligation between humans and the environment exists now, because it is our environment, our home that is being effected by damaged being caused to the environment.

A third view is Early Christian views which show that humans have no responsibility towards the environment as humans are given a dominion over it. This means that God has given humans authority over the earth, animals and plants

The granting of moral standing to future generations - Human beings who do not yet exist, is considered necessary because of the fact that many environmental problems, such as climate change and resource depletion, will affect future humans much more than they affect present ones.

Although having said this the question remains who are the future human beings.

The relationship between the environment and humans can be complicated, as human morals are individualized and humans place values on things that are important to them so a farmer may have a stronger moral view on the environment than say an oil or office worker.

In the end my view is that humans individually and collectively have a moral relationship to the environment in order to protect ourselves and future generations of all living forms from harm.

 

345 words

 

Brennan, A & Lo, YS 2010, Understanding environmental philosophy, Acumen, Durham UK, pp. 18-37.

Carson, R 2000, Silent Spring, Penguin, London, pp. 21-30.

Hardin, G 2005, 'Who Cares for Posterity?', in LP Pojman (ed.), Environmental ethics: readings in theory and application, 4th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont CA, pp. 324-30.

Westra, L & ECI 2005, 'The Earth Charter: From Global Ethics to International Law Instrument', in LP Pojman (ed.), Environmental ethics: readings in theory and application, 4th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont CA, pp. 590-6.

 

Hair clips and fascinators for sale

Visiting the gulf in QLD

our dog was killed

Hi everyone

we had a terrible week
on the way to school last thursday we saw our dog a pure bred blue heeler who would have been 2 in september dead at our front gate and his collar was cut off and thrown a couple of meters from his body
of course we were in total shock
my 5 year old did not want to go to school
i didnt know what to do, i just stood there hoping some one would come along and stop to tell me what to do

Nursing and mandatory reportin in the Northern Territory

This report will look at mandatory reporting in cases of child abuse and neglect.  See Appendix one for the full report on Sarah a six month old baby who was abandoned by her family.  This report will look at the legislation involved, any legal breeches or offenses and protection afforded to those who report.  This report will identify the branch of law involved and any major ethical issues involved in mandatory reporting.  Lastly this report will suggest a risk management strategy to help eliminate or reduce any risks identified by this report.   In this paper a child is defined as a person less than 18 years of age.

 “There is no universal definition of child abuse but it is generally considered to be any sign of abusive act that causes physical or emotional harm to a child, or if a child is harmed because of an adults failure to provide adequate care (SA government, 2006, cited in Piltz & Wachtel, 2009).

In Australia the changes in reporting of child abuse has resulted in an increase in the number of cases reported (Hunter, 2008).   Mandatory reporting is a legal requirement to report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect (Department of Health and Families, 2010). Notification has been made mandatory for a couple of reasons.  By introducing mandatory reporting there is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of child abuse, a moral responsibility and legal obligation to protect children from harm and to prevent further abuse (Higgins, Bromfield, Richardson, Holzer & Berlyn, 2009; Northern Territory Government, 2010).  There is no national child protection legislation in Australia, each state and territory has different laws and requirements, mandatory reporting legislation is in place in all states and territories except Western Australia.  The legislation requires that nurses either as health professional or as adults report suspicions of child abuse (Piltz & Wachtel, 2009; Northern Territory of Australia Child and Protection of Children Act, 2009). Northern Territory of Australia Child and Protection of Children Act, 2009; section 20 (p19), states that

                When child is in need of care and protection

                A child is in need of care and protection (child is in need of protection) if:

a)      The child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation because of an act or omission of a parent of the child; or

b)      The child is abandoned and no family members of the child are willing and able to care for the child

In the Northern Territory any person can report suspected physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological abuse as well as neglect and exposure to physical violence such as domestic violence between other family members on the grounds that they believe a child has or is likely to suffer harm (Higgons et al, 2009; Department of Health and Families, 2010; Northern Territory of Australia Child and Protection of Children Act, 2009).

 Northern Territory of Australia Child and Protection of Children Act, 2009 Division 3 General obligations about reporting, section 26 Reporting obligations states

1)      A person is guilty of an offence if the person :

a)      Is a health practitioner or someone who performs work of a kind that is prescribed by regulation; and

b)      Believes, on reasonable grounds, any of the following:

(i)                  A child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation;

(ii)                A child aged less than 14 years has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence

(iii)               A child has been or is likely to be a victim of an offense against section 128 of the criminal code; and

c)       Does not, as soon as possible after forming that belief, report (orally or in writing) to the CEO or a police officer:

(i)                  That belief; and

(ii)                Any knowledge of the person forming the grounds for that belief; and

(iii)               Any factual circumstances on which that knowledge is based.

Maximum penalty:     200 penalty points

In the case of Sarah it is neglect which occurs “when a parent is unable or unwilling to provide for a child so that the child can develop normally” (Department of Health and Families, 2010).  Neglect can occur in the following ways – failure to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical and other health care, education, attention, appropriate supervision and at its worse abandonment of a child (Department of Health and Families, 2010).  In the Northern Territory it is a legal requirement that the staff report this incident, the staff involved can seek advice from senior staff members but they cannot delegate this responsibility, it is the staff on duty and that have had contact with the child that must report the incident (Department of Health and Families, 2010).    If Registered Nurse’s Ben and Julie fail to report this instance of serious neglect they can be held liable and legal action can be brought against them (Department of Health and Community Services, 2010).  Failure to report child abuse is a crime under the Northern Territory of Australia Child and Protection of Children Act, 2009. An offence against this act is an offence to which part 11AA of the criminal code applies (Department of Health and Families, 2010).  There are penalty points (monetary fine) or jail time, depending on the offence (Department of Health and Families, 2010).   There is a maximum penalty of 200 penalty points for failure to report child abuse (Northern Territory of Australia Child and Protection of Children Act, 2009.)   Criminal law is the body of rules with the potential for severe penalties as punishments for failure to comply; this will depend on the offense and can include jail, probation, parole or fines (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009).  Criminal law is typically enforced by the government where as civil law is usually enforced by private parties (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009).  A criminal act is an act which is committed by a person that violates a law which is punishable by the government, civil law on the other hand has nothing to do with punishments and the police force but exists to enable us to resolve disputes and differences of a personal and property nature that arise between members of a community that they cannot resolve themselves (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009; Staunton & Chiarella, 2008).   The Australian Federal Parliament and the Parliament of the Northern Territory are two of the bodies that set out legislation documents which are obligations, rights, penalties and procedures that bind citizens or a particular group of citizens (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009).  These bodies pass law in the form of statues or acts of parliament, such as the Nurse and Midwifery Act and the Northern Territory of Australia Child and Protection of Children Act (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009).  It is an offence to breech these acts and the penalty will be set out in the act, these offences are often triable in a magistrate’s court that is without a jury, and are considered minor criminal offences (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009).  Major criminal offences would include murder, rape, serious assault, armed robbery and would be tried in a supreme court usually with a jury (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009). 

Normally disclosure of a patient’s information would result in a breach of confidentiality.  This is taught to all nursing students and often reinforced in the workplace.  The Professional Code of Conduct for Nurses 2010 recognises, that nurses have a “legal and ethical obligation to protect the privacy of people requiring and receiving care” (p4).  This is in conjunction with the Guidelines to the National Privacy Principles 2001, however it is recognised that nurses may be required by law to disclose certain information (Code of Professional Conduct for Nurse in Australia, 2010).  However as Julie and Ben did report  as set out in the Community Welfare Act, s14(2); “ a health professional making a report in good faith or with the reasonable belief that a child has been abused will not be in breach of confidentiality”  (Department of Health and Community Services, 2010).  See also section 26 of the Northern Territory of Australia Child and Protection of Children Act, 2009

Protection of person making report

1)      A person acting in good faith in making a report under section 26 is not civilly or criminally liable, or in breach of any professional code of conduct:

a)      For making the report; or

b)      For disclosing any information in the report.

 

Grounds for suspension or cancellation of nursing registration includes the conviction of a criminal offence and professional misconduct (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009). McIlwraith and Madden, 2009 list the following   case - Failure to properly assess and treat injuries to child medical board of South Australia v Christpoulos (2000) SADC 47 (Australian Health and Medical Law Report), p416, it was determined that the Doctor was guilty of unprofessional conduct for failing to report suspected child abuse, failure to report can also leave a health professional open to civil action based on breach of statutory duty and negligence (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009).   A criminal conviction does not necessarily lead to disqualification; the registration bored will carry out an enquiry.  Under section 22 of the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Act 2008 – Entitlement to Registration or Enrolment - an applicant is entitled to be registered or enrolled in a category of registration or enrolment to which the application relates if the relevant board is satisfied that the applicant  ....

                “(f) is of good character”

B. Harper (2010, pers. comm., 10^th may) a registered Nurse with the Northern Territory Nursing and Midwifery Board states that each individual case is reviewed separately and that the Board will decide if that nurses good character has been called into question, and if yes what will the penalties be in terms of registration.  Professional misconduct means an unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify the removal of the nurse from the register, such conduct includes failure to comply with any professions set out in the nurse and midwifery act or if knowledge, skill or judgement possessed falls below the reasonable standard expected of a nurse with an equivalent level of training or experience (Nurse and Midwifery Act, 1992).  Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care it can consist of action or inaction i.e.: failure to report child abuse.  A person is negligent if they fail to act as a ordinary prudent person would act in the same circumstances, criminal negligence requires a greater degree of culpability than civil negligence (Staunton & Chiraella, 2008).

Sarah was treated and admitted to hospital.  Under the Northern Territory of Australia Community Welfare Act , 2007,section 15a), a person in charge of a hospital can detain a child in hospital for up to 48 hours for the purpose of examination and treatment.  Under this act Family and Child Services (FACS) must be notified of the child and examination and treatment as soon as practical.  Once FACS has been notified they then become responsible for further protection and maintenance of the child as well as notifying the family members (Department of Health and community services, 2010).

Nurses should “promote, protect & uphold the fundamental rights of people who are both the recipients and providers of health care” as per the Code of Ethics Australia (p1) (www.anmc.com.au).  Failure to report child abuse would be unethical.  In Sarah’s case if this neglect were to continue for the long term it could result in failure to thrive (with no organic cause), Sarah could engage in criminal acts and risk taking behaviours such as drug and alcohol abuse as she got older, and poor school attendance (Northern Territory Government, 2010).  In Sarah’s case the neglect is glaringly obvious in some cases child abuse and neglect particularly that which does not show physically is not always easy to identify (Northern Territory Government, 2010). Penalties imposed on nurses force mandatory reporting which can overburden the system with notifications that may not prove to be substantial but cost substantially and be time consuming for services that are targeted at the most at risk families and children (Piltz & Wachtel. 2009; Freed & Drake, 1999).   The nurse must take into account the fact that reporting does not necessarily make the child safe and in actual fact can cause further harm to that child (Piltz & Wachtel. 2009; Freed & Drake, 1999).  Nurses find there are some barriers to reporting child abuse, in small communities nurses can be worried about community and family members finding out who made the report and this can potentially impact on their personal lives especially if the family in question reacts or retaliates in an aggressive manner (Piltz & Wachtel, 2009).  Reporting could also alienate the family/community members from attending the health service (Piltz & Wachtel, 2009).  Also there is the ethical responsibility to protect a patient’s confidentiality (Piltz & Wachtel, 2009).

  In order to help nurses make a decision they can turn to ethical theory.   Beneficence – health care should benefit the patient and on the other side of the coin – non maleficence which is to do no harm (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009).  In terms of mandatory reporting there are also two sides to the coin.  Reporting abuse can benefit by potentially keeping the child safe, allowing the offender to get treatment or punishment and by decreasing the incidence of abuse, allowing the reporter the satisfaction that they may have prevented further abuse (Freed & Drake, 1999).  However reporting can also violate the principle of non-maleficence by causing retribution of the victim or others , reporting may cause the victim future discrimination and legal, financial and emotional abuse (Freed & Drake, 1999).  Nurses should promote patient self determination the ethical principle of autonomy (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009). Mandatory reporting takes this away as the nurse is legally obligated to report (Freed &Drake, 1999).  Justice refers to equal access to health care and benefits available (McIlwraith & Madden, 2009).  In terms of mandatory reporting – what gets reported who will receive services and what services will be available, is still being worked out, if the system becomes overburdened those at serious risk may not receive the services they need (Freed & Drake, 1999; Piltz & Wachtel, 2009; Ainsworth, 2002).

Mandatory reporting has been introduced into the Northern Territory with little education for nurses on child abuse, the signs and risk factors, the legislation regarding reporting and the nurses requirements in regards to reporting  (Piltz & Wachtel, 2009; Ainsworth, 2002).  Further education is needed to help reduce confusion and unease about reporting (Piltz & Wachtel, 2009).  It has been suggested that there is over reporting due to the mandatory reporting legislation which has overburdened the system (Piltz & Wachtel, 2009; Ainsworth 2002),   further education will give the nursing staff confidence in recognising child abuse and reporting it, some child services are regarded with unease, and subsequently there is a poor working relationship between these services an health professionals (Piltz & Wachtel, 2009; Ainsworth 2002).  Education about the services need to be provided and an understanding of how they work and what happens once child services becomes involved may ease nursing staffs view of child services and help them to see the help the children will be receiving.  A regular in-service or meeting between the nursing staff and child services staff to help ease relations is needed. Education can be provided through university, in services, staff meetings, included in mandatory training and folders in the workplace.  More research is needed to evaluate the level of nurses understanding and develop essential training services and reporting guidelines.

In conclusion mandatory reporting of child abuse is a legal and ethical issue for nursing staff.  Improved education and a good working relationship with child services will go a long way toward helping nurses understand and cope with the legal and ethical consequences of reporting child abuse.

 

reflective blog on what you beleive and what you know

Reflective blog – Ethical issues and Human rights week 1

What do you believe and what do you know?

There are things I believe are real or not real, but I don’t know if this is case.  I believe fairies don’t exist but I don’t know it, there is no evidence to suggest they do but then there is no evidence to suggest they don’t exist either. Things I know to be real I can’t believe they are not, as by knowing it there is irrefutable evidence in my world – for example I know my name it is on my birth certificate I can’t not believe it.

In other words what I believe in I don’t necessary know however it doesn’t work the other way around, what I know I have to believe – I cant no believe it and I don’t think it would make sense to know something but no believe it I don’t think any logical person could do that – I know the walls in my house a painted a off white colour I simply cannot believe they are any other colour

This was an interesting question because I had never thought of it before; I have learned that knowing and believing are different concepts.

How do I know what I know?

I’m constantly learning – reading, studying attending courses, but the foundation of my knowledge and beliefs came from my parents, and extended family.  My early school years contributed greatly then my later school years and friends. As I got older what I could see on TV and read for myself increased my knowledge.  For me what my parents taught me matched in with school and my friends were all like minded in their views of the world.  Teachers challenged me to think and research to expand my knowledge during my tertiary education.

I’m studying Anthropology because I want to know why people do what they do, having thought about this exercise I can see people do what they do because of what they know and what they believe.  How they come to this knowledge depends on whether they experienced it or were told it by others.  These concepts are all linked.