Health Families, Localities and Societies Essay

Health Families, Localities and Societies - Essay Example Localities differ in living, economic and cultural standards that inhibit some individuals to truly adopt precise measures for maintaining their health. However, this is the part where schools need to step in, because these are schools that may provide children with the better knowledge of health issues and the most relevant ways of addressing them (Finlay, Pearson & Ram, 2009). Beginning with the actual implementation of an environment that endorses better health, schools can introduce an offering of a nutritionally balanced diet through the cafeteria and canteen foods. By having salad bars, whole-wheat products, fruits etc at cafeteria counters for students in place of sugary or fried contents can build the air of awareness to an extent. Students, especially children, are prone to learn more quickly when they are subjected to an environment that promotes that learning. In these ways, schools can provide children with practical experience in nutrition – skills widely regarded as essential for healthy living (Finlay, Pearson & Ram, 2009). Considering the example of Kate from chapter five who experienced a change in her lifestyle and her behavior as her school introduced better food for meals. The facilities and services that Kate’s school offered her resulted in the betterment of her health and life. Offering a balanced diet to students as in the case of Kate’s school can progressively enhance the student’s health (Finlay, Pearson & Ram, 2009). Additional efforts from schools are required in the form of fitness awareness. The past years in British schools have been marked with the growing health awareness and the implementation of a greater variety of sports options than in the past (Finlay, Pearson & Ram, 2009). Sports facilities have not only proven to be a great way of enhancing individual health and fitness, it has also been of a greater attraction

Emotional Intelligence and Global Leadership Essay - 1

Emotional Intelligence and Global Leadership - Essay Example Leaders now have to deal with different cultures in achieving business strategies and goals. Emotional intelligence is a concept developed by Peter Salovey and John Mayer. They talked about a politician who is both smart and dumb (Goleman, 1998 cited in Robertson, 2007, p.15). They argued that IQ is not enough to make a person truly â€Å"smart,† and they coined emotional intelligence or EQ (Robertson, 2007, p.15). For the next fifteen years, from being a virtually non-studied concept, EQ has received significant academic attention and applications in the development of numerous fields, such as leadership, communication, self-improvement, child raising, education, health care, and corporate development (e.g., Caruso & Salovey, 2004 cited in Robertson, 2007, p.15). EQ has become critical to developing effective leaders. Even with development in literature, there is no single definition of EQ, particularly since it is still a budding concept with different measures and with dive rse validity test results (Pat & Groves, 2006; Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004). Many scholars agree that EQ pertains to the ability to distinguish, understand, and control one’s emotions and the emotions of others, and to use these emotions in successfully managing interpersonal relationships (Salovey & Sluyter, 1990, cited in Robertson, 2007, p.15). Emotional intelligence is also emphasized as vital in understanding the tacit messages that are decisive to interpreting the entire message of the speaker and will also advance how the listener will react to the communication process. Emotional intelligence affects global leadership  through enhancing soft skills in strategic management (Marques et al., 2008). In the article â€Å"Linking quality management and emotional intelligence to workplace spirituality,† Marques et al. (2008) linked the concepts of quality management, emotional intelligence, and workplace spirituality.  

Equality and Diversity Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Equality and Diversity - Essay Example On the other hand diversity is used as a contrast to equality or an addition. It brings out the fact that individuals are recognized, besides group differences, directing positive value on the existing diversity in the community, and treating people as individuals. Therefore, diversity depicts an array of characteristics and conditions. In terms of children set up, it involves identifying and valuing the benefits of all individuals enabling them to fulfill their potential irrespective of their backgrounds. This is because diversity incorporates both the non-visible and the visible differences. Diversity encompasses the idea of respecting other individual’s differences basing on race, culture, national origin, region, ethnicity, socio-economic differences, family structure, and health values. Inclusion on the other hand is all about fellow children staff, visitors and administration. It actually involves the removal of barriers to learning and participation. Inclusion therefore promotes equality and eliminates discrimination. Embracing of diversity, equality, and inclusivity brings forth the proper upbringing of children with varied ideas, experience, and creativity whilst giving every child the opportunity to develop individually. ... se equality and diversity is vital as we are living in an increasingly diverse society thus the need to respond sensitively and appropriately to the issue of diversity. Each school is to set out a frame work of policies which stipulates the procedures and guidelines for ensuring equality. Therefore, before exploring the policies in a school gaining understanding of the relevant legislation and their purpose is important. The rights of all children are enshrined in the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). In addition other legislations that affect children include; Children Act (1989); Children Act (2004); Education Act (1996); Sex Discrimination Act (1975); Race Relations Act (1976) Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000) and Amendment Regulations (2003); Disability Discrimination Act (1995); and finally The Equality Act (2010)(Casey, 2005:45-59). Discussion Bradford Play Strategy Group was a voluntary group tasked with working with over 600 children age d 5 years and above to 22 years. This is because the above age bracket is highly vulnerable to injustices of equality, diversity and inclusion. The organization had 80 play practitioners and various agencies that took part in the communities’ goal of alleviating discrimination to disabled children, ethnicity and sampling different playing facilities and commenting on their experiences. The staff was recruited from diverse cultural backgrounds. Was ensured that the staff had adequate training on equality legislation and inclusion for play or childcare and had the challenge of putting this training in practice. This ensures that the staffing is composed of a multi disciplinary team. To ensure inclusion and equality it is very important to parents and also it builds links with the community

Canadian defence at the onset of the Battle of Hong Kong, 1941 Essay

Canadian defence at the onset of the Battle of Hong Kong, 1941 - Essay Example Having gained much of China the Japanese next targeted HongKong. The war between China and Japan was, therefore, a cause for the attack of HongKong since Japan was stretching its rule further from its boundaries. The HongKonginvasions took the world by storm and the speedy retaliation of the allies to support HongKong was marshalled. The Japanese invasion of Hong Kong finally happened in December 1941 (Tsang, 119). It was of the wars that led to World War II. The Japanese army invaded Hong Kong, which was under the British. The Japanese had not stated clearly, why they would to attack HongKong and had not notified the British. TheBritishwere not prepared for the war since it was a surprise attack. The forces in Hong Kong were the Indians, Canadians and British forces. The main resistance to the Japanese forces was the local troops in Hong Kong, and they were no march for the invaders. The invasion overwhelmed the Indian, British and Canadian forces, who were part of the Commonwealth forces. They were outnumbered, and therefore they would not have defended the island under the British protectorate. The leader of the troops was Sir Robert Brooke. He had under his command few British troops. He thought that the troops on the ground would reduce the time that the Japanese would take to complete take over HongKong. Since HongKong was under the British protectorate there,a decision to change adds reinforcement to the forces at HongKong. Winston Churchill was the premier of Britain at the time of the attack on Hong Kong. He decided to add more troops, which had not been the case since initially they had recommended few troops. He had envisioned an imminent defeat should the Japanese attack the island(Barman, C. & Barman, R., 94). The then British premier, WinstonChurchill, decided to send a contingent of the British Army to ensure that reinforcements would be available should there be an attack. The Chinese had control of

Bbc story Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Bbc story - Essay Example However, due to the advancement in technology, there are many options for people to select from the sources of news. Besides TV, radio, and newspapers, there is now internet which provides the latest news at any given time of the day free of cost. This increasing trend has forced the companies to focus just as much on their online presence. The newspaper industry is losing audience to the internet as people are no longer willing to pay for news that they can easily access online for free. Thus, in order to survive, the news companies are not spending big amount to maintain audience both online and offline. A different strategy was adopted by all three of the news companies to compete with each other. BBC was quick in coming up with an online strategy given its vast audience. The company soon announced its decision to go â€Å"digital† under the leadership of Entwistle. The introduction of iPlayer proved to be quite successful both, for the network as well as the VOD market (Andrews, 2012). The main strategy of the company was to focus on vision, audio and music, and digital future media division (Andrews, 2012). The global audience for BBC online is estimated to be 30 million (Horrocks, 2012). Guardian, on the other hand, completely embraced the online media and decided to become â€Å"a digital-first organization† in 2011 (The Guardian, 2011). The company announced that it will be posting complete material online and increase its investment in maintaining audience online as it is the future’s demand. The company is now focusing on reaching out to more people through internet and mobile phones and make efforts to improve its digital services since the entire newspaper industry has been suffering due to this major shift in use preferences (The Guardian, 2011). The guardian is presently the fifth most visited news site in the world with over 30 million online

Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Essay Example for Free

Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Essay Introduction During the 2010 Federal election, both major political parties campaigned on indigenous affairs. Following the ALP’s victory, Prime Minister Gillard established an independent Expert Panel to â€Å"to investigate how to give effect to constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. † Two schools of thought have dominated the national conversation of how this should be achieved. One view is that an amendment to the preamble of the constitution will provide safe and symbolic recognition. The alternative view is that more substantive reform is required to secure equality before the law. On January 16 2012, the Panel presented the Prime Minister their report and proposed five amendments to the Commonwealth Constitution. This paper will evaluate the five proposals and the reasons offered by the Panel. Each amendment will be analysed on its symbolic significance and potential legal ramifications. Finally this paper will conclude on how to best give Indigenous Australians recognition within the constitution. Constitutional Recognition For the panel, constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians means removing provisions in the Constitution that contemplate racial discrimination. Whether intended or not, the five proposals address the broader issues of racial discrimination and equality before the law within the Commonwealth Constitution. Repealing section 25 In its report, the Panel indicates that 97. 5% of all submissions approve of repealing section 25. Section 25 reads: For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. On face value, section 25 appears racist as it contemplates States excluding voters on the grounds of race. This interpretation has been affirmed by Chief Justice Gibbs in McKinlayss case (1975). Section 25 must be read with section 24 to ascertain the real intention of the framers. Section 24 specifies that the number of lower house representatives is determined by dividing the total number of people of the Commonwealth by twice the number of senators and then dividing the population of each state by that quota. Therefore, by racially excluding voters the numerical input of the State’s population is reduced; the State’s federal representation decreases and discriminatory states forgo greater federal representation. Although section 25 was intended to penalise racially discriminatory states, a State was able to enact discriminatory legislation by drafting laws that did not disenfranchise all members of a racial group. For instance, New South Wales denied certain classes of indigenous people the right to vote. The panel states that this proposal is technically and legally sound. Many constitutional commentators agree but there is a small minority who have identified possible legal consequences. In 1980, Justice Dean included section 25 as a provision guaranteeing the right to vote. The right to vote is not constitutionally entrenched. Parliament has authority to determine the electoral process pursuant to section 30. It is unclear whether the High Court would find legislation that disqualified people of certain races from voting invalid because of the section 7 words directly chosen by the people and section 24. Theoretically, it may be argued that section 25 should not be removed until the right to vote is constitutionally entrenched. However, this view is highly unorthodox and section 25 should be repealed. Repealing section 51 (XXIV) Section 51(xxvi) authorises the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to â€Å"the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws†. The Panel recommends removing section 51(xxvi) as it contemplates discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission was denied purchasing Pastoral property from the Crown. The Queensland Minister for Lands reasoned that the government did not view favourable proposals to acquire large areas of land for development by Aborigines in isolation. Koowarta argued that the Minister was in breach of sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Joh Bjelke-Petersen challenged the constitutional validity of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The Premier argued that s51(xxvi) does not confer power to make laws which apply to all races. A majority of the High Court found that sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 were invalid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). The Hindmarsh Island Bridge case illustrates parliament’s ability to enact adversely discriminatory laws in relation to race. The case concerned whether the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) could remove rights which the plaintiffs enjoyed under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth). The Ngarrindjeri women argued that the races power only allowed parliament to pass laws that are for the benefit of a particular race. The Commonwealth argued that there were no limits to the power. The High Court found that as the Heritage Protection Act was validly enacted under s 51(xxvi), the same head of power could support a whole or partial repeal. The High Court was divided on whether S 51(xxvi) could only be used for the advancement or benefit of a racial group. In his judgement, Justice Kirby found that section 51 (xxvi) does not extend to the enactment of laws detrimental to or discriminatory against, the people of any race (including the Aboriginal race) by reference to their race. Justices Gummow and Hayne said that there was no basis for reading s51(xxvi) as not permitting adverse discrimination. In summary, Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth did not confirm that laws enacted under section 51 (xxvi) must be beneficial. Since then, it has generally been accepted that s 51 (xxvi) gives the Commonwealth power to discriminate either in favour or against members of a particular race. The removal of S51 (xxvi) would be a significant symbolic gesture to Indigenous Australians as they are the only group to whom section 51(xxvi) laws have been enacted. Not all laws passed under s 51 (xxvi) have been adversely discriminatory. In Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case), sections 8 and 11 of The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) were held to be constitutionally valid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). As a result, the Franklin River Hydroelectric Dam could not be constructed in a place considered spiritually significant by Aboriginal people. A repeal of section 51 (xxvi) might not invalidate the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. Other powers, specifically the external affairs power in s51 (xxix), would support this legislation under the principle of dual characterisation. Other beneficial legislation may not be supported under the same principle. In Western Australia v The Commonwealth, the court found The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) constitutionally valid pursuant to section 51 (xxvi). The court did not find it necessary to consider any other heads of power. Australias endorsement of the UN Deceleration on the Rights of Indigenous People may provide scope to support the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) under the external affairs power. However, it seems reckless to gamble with legislation that establishes a framework for the protection and recognition of native title. Repealing section 51 (xxvi) will also limit the Commonwealths ability to pass new laws for the advancement of Indigenous Australians. For these reasons, the Panel proposes that the repeal of section 51 (xxvi) must be accompanied by a new head of power with respect to Indigenous Australians. Inserting section 51A The preamble to S51A is the first recommendation which actually addresses the important contributions of Indigenous Australians. Section 51A also allows the Commonwealth to makes laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Similar to section 51(xxvi), the power contained within section 51A is not subject to any conditions. This is somewhat of a double edged sword. All laws currently passed under section 51 (xxvi) have only been enacted with respect to Indigenous Australians. As the power is not subject to any restriction, all legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) would most likely be supported by section 51A. Alternatively, section 51A could be used to enact legislation that is adversely discriminatory. The Panel states that the preamble which acknowledges ‘the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will mitigate this risk. However, a preamble is only used to resolve an ambiguity within a text. The power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is not particularly ambiguous. The Panels predicts laws passed pursuant to s 51A would be assessed on whether they broadly benefit the group concerned. The actual word used is advancement which would be interpreted differently to benefit. Furthermore, the High Court is not always ready to embrace a value judgement such as one based benefit’. Credit should be given to the Panel for this proposal. The preamble to Section 51A constitutionally recognises the history, culture and contributions of Indigenous Australians. The new head of power will likely ensure that current legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) will continue to operate. Section 51A also removes parliament’s power to enact laws with regards to a person’s race. This proposal addresses the apartheid nature of our constitution. However, Section 51A is not the white knight which was hoped for. It will be the courts who decide whether this new power is ambiguous. If Section 51A is found to be ambiguous, the courts will have significant discretion in interpreting the meaning of â€Å"advancement†. To overcome these issues, the panel has recommended that a racial non-discrimination provision (S116A) be added to the constitution. Inserting section 116A There are both policy and legal issues concerning section 116A. Firstly, Australia has a history of avoiding constitutional entrenchments of rights. The proposed anti-discrimination provision only protects racial groups. Section 116A may be viewed as privileging anti-racial discrimination over anti-sex discrimination or anti-homophobic discrimination. The first legal consideration is which groups will be protected by section 116A. Jewish people are recognized as an ethnic group but Muslims are not. It is uncertain whether Muslims would receive the same protection as Jews. Furthermore, would a person who converted to Judaism receive identical protection as a person who was born Jewish? The second legal issue is how Section 116A will affect existing state and commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. For example, Anti-discrimination state law authorise discrimination in the employment of actors for reasons of authenticity. In addition, sections 12 and 15 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) permits people to discriminate when they are searching for someone to share or work with in their home. Once again, it will be for the court to decide if these provisions are constitutionally invalid. The panel has affirmed that S116A (2) will support laws enacted under s 51 (xxvi) and section 51A. Like section 51A, section 116A could be interpreted by the courts in ways that were not intended. The courts will have significant discretion in determining what â€Å"is for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage†. An important issue for the Indigenous community is the Northern Territory Intervention. In Wurridjal v Commonwealth, the high court upheld the government’s partial repeal of the Racial Discrimination Act under the race powers. The court also upheld the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act pursuant to section 51 (xxix). Due to the principle of dual characterisation, it is unlikely that S116A will provide an avenue for Indigenous people to contest the intervention. S116A is probably the most controversial recommendation as it concerns equality before the law. This issue is probably better dealt with by an expert panel assessing a Bill of Rights. To achieve a similar result, the panel could propose that section 51A has an accompanying provision similar to 116A(2). Insert section 127A. Section 127A is a provision which recognises Indigenous languages as the original language of Australia. A separate language provision is necessary to capture the importance of traditional languages within Indigenous culture. Section 127A also acknowledges that English is the national language of Australia. The Panel rejected a submission suggesting all Australian citizens shall have the freedom to speak, maintain and transmit the language of their choice’. The Panel did not want to give rise to legal challenges regarding the right to deal with government in languages other than English. It is unclear what practical consequence would flow from s127A. Section 127A could be used to secure funding for Indigenous languages on the grounds of national heritage’. Nonetheless, the Panel does not intend for this provision to give rise to new legal rights. S127A is symbolically important and is an appropriate way of constitutionally recognising Indigenous Australians. Summary of analysis This analysis concludes that the five proposals put forward by the panel appropriately balance substantive reform and symbolic significance. As a result, the Panel should be congratulated. If the Panel’s goal was to remove overtly racist tones within the Australian Constitution then they have succeeded. If the panels objective was to definitively correct the wrongs of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Intervention then they have failed. The amendments proposed do not sufficiently address racial discriminatory acts passed under other heads of power. Section 116A(2) has been perceived as a tasteful reformulation of the races power. Furthermore, the proposals provides the courts substantial discretion in interpreting terms such as â€Å"overcoming disadvantage†, â€Å"advancement† and â€Å"group†. In essence, the most important issue does not concern symbolic change or substantive reform. It is simply a question of which proposals will gain bipartisan support. Conclusion The panels proposals could succeed at referendum. Firstly, Australians are more likely to support something substantive than purely symbolic. Secondly, this is not an issue which would be perceived as a politicians proposal. Australians are hesitant to support proposals perceived as self-serving. Thirdly, the Panel indicates that its proposals are capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians. Nonetheless, to succeed at referendum, the support from the Federal opposition government and all State governments is essential. It is very easy, and sometimes attractive, for the federal Opposition to oppose a referendum. It can be a useful way of generating a negative public reaction to the government and its agenda. Since 2010, the Coalition has fought the government on nearly every political issue. Even when the parties agree in principle, they have different ways of solving the issue. For example, both parties are for off-shore processing of illegal immigrants but disagree on where and how it should be done. Both parties are committed to recognising Indigenous Australians within the constitution. So far, the LNP has said it will consider substantive reform but has only committed to preambular recognition. The Panel not only recommends substantive reform but also addresses racial equality before the law. It is very uncertain whether the LNP will support a policy so different to their 2010 election promise. The next federal election is only 18 months away. If the referendum and election are held concurrently, there is more incentive for the Coalition to oppose the Panels recommendation. It would be disastrous for the nation if the referendum fails. The ‘gap’ will swell and the international community will view Australia as a nation of racists. It could be argued that the Government should have appointed a bipartisan panel rather than an independent panel. A bipartisan panel may not have produced ‘better’ recommendations to those of the Panel. They would, however, have generated proposals that both parties would stand behind. Bibliography * ABC Television, ‘Asylum seeker stand-off intensifies’, The Midday Report, 20 December 2011. http://www.abc. net. au/news/2011-12-20/bowen-seeks-bipartisan-meeting-on-offshore-processing/3739984 at 29 April 2012. * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Australian Human Rights Commission’, http://www. hreoc. gov. au/social_justice/international_docs/2011_EMRIP * Agreement between the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party, 1 September 2010. * Attwood, Bain and Markus, Andrew, The 1967 Referendum: Race, Power and the Australian Constitution, (Aboriginal Studies Press, 2007). * Behrendt, Larissa, ‘Mind, body and spirit: pathways forward for reconciliation’ (2001) 5 Newcastle Law Review 1. * Brennan, Sean, ‘Constitutional reform and its relationship to land justice’ (2011) 5 Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title 2. * Castan, Melissa, Submission to Panel on Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (Monash University Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, September 2011). * Castan, Melissa, ‘Constitutional deficiencies in the protection of Indigenous rights: reforming the ‘races power’. ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 25. * Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, pages 665-714. * Costar, Brian, ‘Odious and outmoded? ’ Race and Section 25 of the Constitution, in John Chesterman and David Philips (eds), Selective Democracy: Race, Gender and the Australian Vote (Melbourne Publishing Group, 2003). * Davis, Megan, ‘A culture of disrespect: Indigenous peoples and Australian public institutions’ (2006) UTS Law Review 8. * Davis, Megan, ‘Constitutional Reform and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders People: Why do we want it now? ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 25. * Davis, Megan and Lino, Dylan, ‘Constitutional Reform and Indigenous Peoples’ (2010) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 19. * D’Cruz,Raylen, ‘ Assessing the Need for a Constitutionally Entrenched Bill of Rights in Australia’ (2007) Student Law Review, Bond University http://epublications. bond. edu. au/cgi/viewcontent. cgi? article=1002context=buslr page 2 at 27 April 2012. * Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution, (January, 2012): http://www. youmeunity. org. au/finalreport. * Griffith, Gareth, ‘The Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal People’ (2010) 12 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 4. * Jonas, William, ‘’Unfinished business’: the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights’ (2001) 5 Newcastle Law Review 1. * Karvelas,Patricia, ‘Referendum’s timing fluid’, The Australian, 18 April 2012 http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/indigenous/referendums-timing-fluid/story-fn9hm1pm-1226330762268. * Kerr, Christian, ‘Libs baulk on referendum support’, The Australian, 30 January 2012 http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/indigenous/libs-baulk-on-referendum-support/story-fn9hm1pm-1226256684571. * Keyzer, Patrick, Principles of Australian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia: 3rd ed, 2010). * Kildea, Paul, ‘More than mere symbolism’, Australian Financial Review, 10 February 2012. * Kirby, Michael, Constitutional Law and Indigenous Australians: Challenge for a Parched Continent, Law Council of Australia, Old Parliament House, Canberra, Friday 22 July 2011 Discussion Forum ‘Constitutional Change: Recognition or Substantive Rights? ’. * Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Discussion Paper, 19 March 2011. * LexisNexis AU, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’90 Constitutional Law’ [90. 1620]. * McHugh, Michael, Australian Constitutional Landmarks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). * McQuire, Amy, ‘Constitutional reform report sparks mixed reviews’, Tracker, 19 January 2012. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Agreement-making: the need for democratic principles, individual rights and equal opportunities in Indigenous Australia’ (2011) 36 Alternative Law Journal 3. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Indigenous constitutional recognition, non-discrimination and equality before the law: why reform is necessary’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 26. * Morse, Bradford, â€Å"Indigenous Provisions in Constitutions Around the World† 2011 Paper located at http://www. youmeunity. org. * Pengelley, Nicholas, ‘Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act – Must Laws Based on the Race Power be for the Benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders- and What has Bridge Building got to do with the Race Power Anyway’ (1998) 20 Sydney Law Review 144. * Prior, Flip, ‘Recognition poll unlikely, days Dodson’, The West Australian, 11 April 2012. * Rintoul, Stuart, ‘Race power opens Pandora’s box’, The Australian, 22 December 2011 * Rowse, Tim, ‘The practice and symbolism of the ‘race power’: rethinking the 1967 referendum’ (2008) 19 Australian Journal of Anthropology 1. * Sawer, G, ‘The Australian Constitution and the Australian Aborigine’ (1966) 2 FL Rev 17. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 280]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 300]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 430]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 450]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 460]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 480]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 190]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 240]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 7 International Law’ [1. 7. 180]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19. 1 Constitutional Law’ [19. 1. 230]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19. 5 Federal constitutional system’ [19. 5. 157. 1]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the Rule of Law’ [21. 10. 160] * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the Rule of Law’ [21. 10. 350]. * Twomey, Ann, Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Explained (University of Sydney Law School Constitutional Reform Unit, 26 January 2012). * Ward, Alexander, ‘At the Risk of Rights: Does true recognition require substantive reform? ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Review 25. * Watson, Nicole, ‘The Northern Territory Emergency Response – Has It Really Improved the Lives of Aboriginal Women and Children? ’ (2011) 35 Australian Feminist Law Journal 147. * Williams, George, ‘Recognising Indigenous peoples in the Australian Constitution: what the Constitution should say and how the referendum can be won’ (2011) 5 Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title 1. * Winckel, Anne, ‘Recognising Indigenous Peoples in the Preamble: Implications, Issues and Interpretation’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 22. Case List * Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1 * Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1 * Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150 [69]. * Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1988) 195 CLR 337 * Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168 * Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 * Leak v Commonwealth (1997) 187 CLR 579. * Miller v Wertheim [2002] FCAFC 156 [14]; * Western Australia v Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case) (1995) 183 CLR 373 * Wurridjal v The Cth (2009) 237 CLR 309 Legislation List. * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth) * Australian Constitution Act 1975 (Cth) * Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) * Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) * Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) * Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) * Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld) * Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) * Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) * Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (Nsw) [ 1 ]. Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians: Discussion Paper March 2011 part 1. 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 2 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 3 ]. Alexander Ward, At the Risk of Rights: Does True Recognition Require Substantive Reform (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 3, 3. [ 4 ]. Ibid. [ 5 ]. Ibid. [ 6 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 7 ]. Ibid [4]. [ 8 ]. Ibid [5. 3]. [ 9 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 25. [ 10 ]. B Costa, Odious and Outmoded? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 11 ]. Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1, [36], [44]. [ 12 ]. B Costa, Odious and Outmoded? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 13 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 24. [ 14 ]. Ibid. [ 15 ]. Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, pages 665-714. [ 16 ]. B Costa, Odious and Outmoded? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 4 at 25 April 2012. [ 17 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 3 at 23 April 2012. [ 18 ]. B Costa, Odious and Outmoded? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 6 at 25 April 2012. [ 19 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 20 ]. Ibid [6]. [ 21 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 22 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 51 (xxvi). [ 23 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 4 at 23 April 2012. [ 24 ]. Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168. [ 25 ]. Ibid [169-170]. [ 26 ]. Ibid. [ 27 ]. Ibid. [ 28 ]. Ibid [174]. [ 29 ]. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case) (1998) 195 CLR 337. [ 30 ]. Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth). [ 31 ]. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth). [ 32 ]. Ibid. [ 33 ]. Ibid [416-7]. [ 34 ]. Ibid [379-381]. [ 35 ]. Thomson Reuters Legal Online, Halsburys Laws of Australia (at 15 January 1998) 19 Government, 19. 5 Federal Constitutional System [19. 5 – 157. 1] [ 36 ]. Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth). [ 37 ]. (1983) 158 CLR 1. [ 38 ]. Ibid. [ 39 ]. Ibid [5 – 8]. [ 40 ]. Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) [ 41 ]. Western Australia v The Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373. [ 42 ]. Ibid.

Critical incidents and our behaviours.

Critical incidents and our behaviours. What is critical incident? Critical incident has been defined in different ways depending on the nature of the incident and the environment or setting where it took place. Tripp (1993) defines critical incidents as a commonplace events that occur in routine professional practice Incidents may relate to range of issues amongst which issues of communication, relationships, moral beliefs and ethical values, knowledge, culture or emotions. The definition I like best is that a critical incident need not be a dramatic event, but it is an incident which has significance for us. It is often an event which made us stop and think, or one that raised questions for us. One that may have made us question an aspect of our beliefs, values, attitude or behaviour. It is an incident which in some way has had a significant impact on our personal and professional experience and learning (MU). Curiosity is a basic human emotion. The psychologist William McDougall states that The instinct of curiosity is at the base of many of mans most splendid achievements . As humans we all have the drive to find rational explanation of lived events and our surrounding. We do that though trying to examine or reflect on our experiences. According David A. Kolb (1984) reflection is an inseparable part of the learning process. This is the part during which by analysing given event we enhance our knowledge, enrich our practical experience and prepare for new and challenging situations. Different frameworks have been developed to aid the development of critical reflection. Most prominent are the models of Kolb (1984), Gibbs (1988), Atkins and Murphy (1994), Johns (2000), Rolfe et al (2001) and Lister and Crisp (2007). Lister and Crisp explain that critical incident analysis has developed as a tool to aid critical reflection in practice, in health and social work. It has been used to enable students to describe and explore issues from their practice (Nygren and Blom 2001), (Montalvo 1999). PoDAIT describes that Critical Incident Analysis is an approach to dealing with challenges in everyday practice. and that As reflective practitioners we need to pose problems about our practice, refusing to accept what is. We need to explore incidents which occur in day-to-day work in order to understand them better and find alternative ways of reacting and responding to them. Therefore it is safe to conclude that critical incident analysis can enable professionals to reflect on their practice and to explain and justify it. Account: During my placement at a south London CMHT I had short period of working with the duty team. This was when I and the MH nurses Q met Miss X for an initial assessment. Several days following Miss Xs assessment her case was discussed at a clinical review with one of the team consultants DR G and it was decided that the dosage of her medications is to be altered. When I informed her GP of the above I was told that her medications have already been adjusted and that the dosage is different from the one given on her referral. This created the need for reviewing Miss Xs case second time. In the meanwhile Dr G left the team and was replaced by Dr V. By that time I had finished my period of duty work and despite the fact that I had recorded all information on the internal database and that Miss X was still a duty client I was asked to present her case at Dr Vs next clinical review. I had no objections as I had knowledge of the client, and especially as Q was not present. At the review was decided that Dr. V will offer Miss X another appointment. I recorded the outcome on the internal database and also reported to Q who happened to be on duty shift. I also informed him of the need for Miss X to be notified of her appointment. On the agreed appointment date Miss X did not attend and when contacted by phone she stated that she was not notified of it. Dr V asked me to offer her a new appointment for the following week. I had no obligation to liaise with the Miss X or do any work on the case as she was a duty client and I no longer had formal involvement with her. Nevertheless, I notified her of the new appointment did both over the phone and in writing. When the second appointment came Dr. V asked me to attend the assessment with her. I was not required to, however I accepted. I decided that while Miss X would be more comfortable with a familiar person during the meeting, I would have good learning opportunity attending an assessment conducted by one of the team consultants. When Miss X arrived I introduced Dr V to her. During the assessment Miss X said that her medications have not helped and that she cannot cope. During the assessment she was wringing her hands and became tearful. Dr. V identified that Miss X had not been taking her medications at the appropriate time and that sleeping in the afternoons could be contributing to Miss Xs difficult night sleep. During the assessment Dr. V suggested that she can prescribe Miss X a number of different sleeping aid medications. However, at the end Miss Xs medications were not changed and she was told to continue with her current ones, but to take them at the prescribed times. Dr V informed Miss X that she will offer her a follow up appointment in two weeks time, in order to assess her progress and to change her medications as and if necessary. Following the assessment I went to the duty workers and asked them to come for an update from Dr. V. Two of them were busy and the third one Z who is a MH nurse was dismissive. As I could not get anyone from the duty team to come I went to the doctors office for final discussion and planned to record the outcome of the assessment and any decisions on the internal database. While we were discussing Miss Xs action plan Z entered the office. It was jointly agreed that Miss X will be offered follow up appointment in two weeks time. Later in the day Z came to me and asked me whether I have recorded the appointment in the duty diary. I informed her that I have not as my understanding was that this is consultants appointment rather than a duty one, which is normally not recorded in the duty diary. Nevertheless, she insisted that I do so. As I recorded the appointment in the diary, which I found on Zs desk, Z came and asked me not to make the appointment for the agreed date but for the day after. She explained that the appointment fell on a day which should be free of duty appointments. I was obviously confused as the date was chosen by Dr V and the other 2 previous appointments were both booked for the same day of the week without that being a problem. Z said that she has spoken to Dr. V regarding the appointment already. While trying to be helpful, having been given ambiguous information and the fact that Miss X was not my client to start with, I decided to step back and asked Z to clear any confusion with Dr. V. On the following day during Dr. Vs clinical review meeting Z presented Miss Xs case with suggestion for her to be discharged back to GP. To my big surprise Dr. V agreed with the suggestion. The rest of the team approved her decision silently. As the team had moved onto discussing other client I did not want to interrupt and did not speak out until the end. Having considered the distressed and tearful state in which Miss X presented, during the two assessments, her reports of feeling hopeless and without support, and her previous suicidal ideation, I asked if we could have another look at her case and perhaps offer her one more appointment before discharging her from the team. Dr. V said that she had reconsidered her yesterdays decision and assert that Miss X presented low risk; therefore she did not require further input from a consultant. In principle I agreed that Miss X may not have to be seen by a consultant. Nonetheless, I still felt that it would have been appropriate and an example of good practice for a member of the team to see Miss X before discharging her, especially after she was told to expect further support. Z suggested that I should take the case on. I explained that without my placement tutors permission I am unable to accept any new clients. Z suggested that keeping her as a client for an extra week or two puts strain on the duty team and suggested that as alternative to face to face appointment I can call the client. I agreed to that, but highlighted that due to my student capacity I would still have to be supervised by a team member. One of the senior social workers commented that I will be given credit towards my competencies, for adv ocating for the client. My request was left unanswered and Z said that she would deal with the case. Following the meeting another member of the team also a MH nurse spoke to me and said that I should not have brought up this question and contested the decision made by the consultant. I provided my practice assessor with a report of the situation however, it never went any further. I tried to look at the whole process and the outcome from Miss Xs perspective and tried to explore her feelings. Removal of formal and informal power barriers between the su and s providers Did not feel like I could change the decision and speaking to the cons. Would not have been benefitial. I was surprised if not even shocked by the consultants decision. Earlier I had observed (noticed) a certain level of indecisiveness as whether to prescribe different medication s or not have offered a range of different meds however did not stick to any of her own suggestions. Reflecting on that I tried to justify her behaviour accepting the fact that along the assessment different new information came to light. (reflected on her actions and decisions made) Power dynamics, my student and consultant Being familiar with the details ot the case I felt it was morally and ethically unjust to remain silent and not bring the matter up Being assertive but not argumentative (being diplomatic) in this situation my believes and values clashed with the decision taken What was the right thing to do. Keeping in mind my status in the team as student on placement, without extensive social work experience and not familiar with the power dynamics within the team I was double minded as to whether to Express my disagreement by suggesting an alternative approach to the situation and in this way challenge the decision taken by the consultant or to remain silent. In this situation the final decision about the care of the patient was being made. I (felt) was aware that once the decision was made speaking in private with any of the participants would not be constructive or bring positive results. Learning No one likes being challenged and when this happen some people may become self-protective and resistant to accept others views which may also impair future joint working. It is important to highlight that by challenging certain decision it is only the decision being challenged and not the person. After all the joint goal is the wellbeing of the client and not proving who is right or wrong. Be aware of office power dynamics and be mindful that some professionals may be strongly opinionated and confronting their views on a particular matter has to be made with care and in non confrontational approach. Sensitively approach and challenge others opinions try to (prevent from happening) diffuse charged emotionaly situations (to be diplomatic) When analysing a critical incident, it is useful to ask yourself questions such as: Why do I view the situation like that? What assumptions have I made about the client or problem or situation? How else could I interpret the situation? What other action could I have taken that might have been more helpful? What will I do if I am faced with a similar situation in the future? Refs: Atkins, S Murphy, K (1994) Reflective Practice Nursing Standard 8 (39) pp49-54 Evans, D. (1999) Practice Learning in the Caring Professions, Aldershot, Ashgate. Gibbs G (1988) Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Further Education Unit, Oxford. Johns C. (1995)Framing learning through reflection within Carpers fundamental ways of knowing in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 22 p. 226-234 McDougall W. (2003), An Introduction to Social Psychology, Courier Dover Publications Rolfe G., Freshwater D., Jasper M. (2001), Critical Reflection in Nursing and the Helping Professions: a Users Guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (M.U.)(http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/writing/medicine/reflective/2.xml) KOLB D A (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development New Jersey: Prentice-Hall ProDAIT http://www.prodait.org/approaches/cia/ [accesedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.]