The Lockhart Committee: developing policy through commitment to moral values, community and democratic processes

The Lockhart Committee was appointed by the federal government in 2005 to review the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth) and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth). The issues in the review are ones on which community views differ widely and many people hold strong and diverging opinions. Yet all members of the committee were able to agree on their recommendations when the committee reported to Parliament in December 2005 and since that time, most of its recommendations have been implemented in amendments to federal and State legislation. This article describes the committee's process in considering the issues in the review, in consulting stakeholders and the broader community and in formulating its recommendations.     

Productivist Welfare Capitalism: Social Policy in East Asia

The article engages with the literature on the 'East Asian welfare model' by using Esping-Andersen's 'worlds of welfare capitalism' approach to analyze social policy in the region. It describes the main features of a productivist world of welfare capitalism that stands alongside Esping-Andersen's conservative, liberal and social democratic worlds. It then shows that Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan are all part of this world, though they divide into sub-groups within it. To account for productivist welfare capitalism in East Asia, the article focuses particularly on bureaucratic politics at the unit level, and on a range of key shaping factors at the system level. It closes by considering the implications of East Asian experience for comparative social policy analysis.     

One Nation's Electoral Support: Economic Insecurity versus Attitudes to Immigration

Goot and Watson's article on One Nation 1 represents a considerable advance on other studies of One Nation, its electoral support and its social foundations. They correctly identify the importance of conservative social attitudes amongst One Nation supporters. However, we take issue with the strong conclusion reached by the authors, which more or less rejects the argument that One Nation has emerged out of the growing economic insecurity of its supporters.2 We do not agree that this conclusion is either the unambiguous finding of their own analysis or a conclusion that can be reached without considering a wider range of factors. Our criticisms fall into four areas:     

Legitimacy through Partnership? EU Policy Diffusion in Britain and Sweden

Partnership has become a central principle of European Union (EU) policies, particularly in relation to the structural funds. This article considers the diffusion of the partnership principle in the EU, focusing on Britain and Sweden. It is concerned with two questions. First, has the partnership principle led to a process of harmonisation across states or to national resistance? Second, to what extent has the partnership principle enhanced the legitimacy of EU decision making? The evidence presented here suggests that though there has not been significant resistance to the partnership principle within Britain and Sweden, the EU’s requirements have been interpreted and implemented differently in the two states. Thus it is more appropriate to speak of ‘adaptation’ to partnership rather than ‘adoption’. This is explained by what we summarise as ‘national democratic traditions’. In terms of democratic legitimacy, the Swedish adaptation to partnership was nominally more democratic in that local politicians were readily involved from the outset, whereas in Britain they were not. However, the importance of this inclusion should not be overstated in relation to substantive democratic legitimacy. The Swedish model was not supported by well‐articulated democratic strategies or principles. Despite the limitations of the Swedish model, recent developments suggest that Britain is following a similar path.     

Raising local authority district revenues through direct taxation in a low-income developing country: evaluating Uganda's GPT

Uganda's graduated personal tax represents a rather unusual attempt at applying a local income tax as a means of financing local authority operations in a predominantly informal, rural economy. Statistical and other analysis and comment reveal it to have serious deficiencies in terms of standard tax criteria and as a result of associated social costs, despite which local authorities have been led to increase rather than to decrease their reliance on it. Some alternative revenue-raising instruments which could serve to reduce this reliance are indicated. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

高才生带来的挑战

大学教育面临着高才生带来的挑战。所谓高才生,通常是指那些有超常能力的学生。目前,大学或多或少地为高才生提供了四种特殊教育:一是为高中的学生们提供融入大学教育和大学校园见习的机会;二是提前录取;三是提供特殊的强化教育和特殊教育;四是提供针对个人设计的学习项目。这种把高才生当作特殊学生加以对待的方法是不合适的。高才生聚集的大学同只有少数高才生的大学所面临着的挑战是不一样的。在给聚集到一起的高才生们设计教学项目时,尤其需要我们认识到个人能力和兴趣的区别。作为研究型大学之一,澳大利亚国立大学在高才生培养方面进行了有益探索。     

Centralisation versus regionalisation: Designing the Sixth National Mental Health Plan

In response to the recent Productivity Commission report into mental health, the previous Federal Government announced its intention to produce a new national agreement that lays the platform for Australia's sixth national mental health plan. It has been recommended mental health move to a more regional model of governance and planning, away from a centralised, top-down approach, partly in response to broader reforms affecting health care, and partly in direct response to consistent inquiry evidence that the mental health system remains in crisis. The past 30 years of mental health planning have been centralised. Successive national plans set a broad framework, with real decisions about mental health funding and service allocation made in the health departments of our capital cities. Will the next plan sponsor or inhibit regionality in mental health planning? This paper assesses Australia's historical approach to health planning particularly as it affected mental health and the costs arising. In learning these lessons, we propose the necessary ingredients to facilitate a regional, innovative, and effective approach to decentralised planning, for better mental health outcomes. We cannot afford to replicate the failed planning approaches of the past.