Jack Balkin's constitutionalism and the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians

This article assesses the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians\u27 Report and proposals from the perspective of constitutional theory. Introduction In January 2012, the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians (‘Expert Panel’) delivered its report to the then Prime Minister making a number of recommendations to amend the Australian Constitution to ‘recognise’ Indigenous Australians. Rather than engage in a legal critique of the substance of the Expert Panel’s various proposals, this article approaches the Expert Panel’s Report and proposals as a whole from the perspective of constitutional theory. It argues that the Expert Panel’s Report and proposals strongly reflect the constitutional theory of the American constitutional theorist Jack Balkin. In his book Living Originalism, Balkin conceives of the United States Constitution functioning not only as ‘basic law’, distributing powers and setting up institutions of government, but also as ‘higher law’, embodying values and aspirations for the nation, and as ‘our law’, helping to constitute the people of the nation as a people. The first claim made in this article is that the Expert Panel conceives of the functions of the Australian Constitution in much the same way as Balkin conceives of the functions of the United States Constitution. The article makes a second claim. For Balkin, a constitution successfully functioning as basic law gives it procedural legitimacy whilst its success in functioning as higher law and our law gives it moral and sociological legitimacy respectively. Whilst the Australian Constitution does not really function as higher law or our law in Balkin’s sense, the Expert Panel’s adoption of that kind of thinking can be seen as a critique of the legitimacy of the Australian Constitution. The Expert Panel implicitly suggests that the Australian Constitution can be made more legitimate. The article also makes a third claim building upon the first two. It is argued that the Expert Panel is engaged in a project of constitutional redemption, a concept that features heavily in Living Originalism and which is the principal subject of its companion work Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World. This article begins by setting out the background to the Expert Panel’s Report and notes its various proposals for amendments to the Australian Constitution. The article then turns to the first main claim. It explains Balkin’s tripartite view of constitutional functions and explores how the Expert Panel’s report and recommendations appear to be based on a view of the Australian Constitution as higher law and as our law. The article then turns to the second main claim, explaining how it is difficult to accept that the Australian Constitution functions as higher law and our law in Balkin’s sense and showing how the Expert Panel’s adoption of that thinking offers a critique of the legitimacy of the Australian Constitution. The article then turns to the third main claim and explores how the Expert Panel appears to be engaged in a project of constitutional redemption. The article concludes with a reference to The Castle and ‘the vibe’ and suggests that it is possible that the Australian people may one day look to the Australian Constitution as higher law and our law

Independent Expert Scientific Panel – Report on Unconventional Oil and Gas

No abstract available

An expert system development methodology which supports verification and validation

Expert systems have demonstrated commercial viability in a wide range of applications, but still face some obstacles to widespread use. A major stumbling block is the lack of well defined verification and validation (V and V) techniques. The primary difficulty with expert system V and V is the use of development methodologies which do not support V and V. As with conventional code, the key to effective V and V is the development methodology. An expert system development methodology is described which is based upon a panel review approach, that allows input from all parties concerned with the expert system

Panel discussion: Proposals for improving OCL

During the panel session at the OCL workshop, the OCL community discussed, stimulated by short presentations by OCL experts, potential future extensions and improvements of the OCL. As such, this panel discussion continued the discussion that started at the OCL meeting in Aachen in 2013 and on which we reported in the proceedings of the last year's OCL workshop. This collaborative paper, to which each OCL expert contributed one section, summarises the panel discussion as well as describes the suggestions for further improvements in more detail.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

The Parliament of the Experts

In the administrative state, how should expert opinions be aggregated and used? If a panel of experts is unanimous on a question of fact, causation, or prediction, can an administrative agency rationally disagree, and on what grounds? If experts are split into a majority view and a minority view, must the agency follow the majority? Should reviewing courts limit agency discretion to select among the conflicting views of experts, or to depart from expert consensus? I argue that voting by expert panels is likely, on average, to be epistemically superior to the substantive judgment of agency heads, in determining questions of fact, causation, or prediction. Nose counting of expert panels should generally be an acceptable basis for decision under the arbitrary and capricious or substantial evidence tests. Moreover, agencies should be obliged to follow the (super)majority view of an expert panel, even if the agency\u27s own judgment is to the contrary, unless the agency can give an epistemically valid second-order reason for rejecting the panel majority\u27s view

From e-Bikes to e-Scooters; a matter of Safety

Part of expert panel discussionBrief keypoint slides to support expert panel discussionVisit Funded by Mayor's Office of Taipe

Brief of Evidence Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner Paul L. Behrens’ Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

The panel here held that the government’s expert in a criminal trial can present hearsay for its truth without satisfying the requirements of Rule 703 or the prerequisites to admissibility under any hearsay exception. Amici believe that misreads the Federal Rules of Evidence, undermines the general prohibition on hearsay, and circumvents defendants’ cross-examination rights

Devising a consensus definition and framework for non-technical skills in healthcare to support educational design: A modified Delphi study

Background Non-technical skills are a subset of human factors that focus on the individual and promote safety through teamwork and awareness. There is no widely adopted competency or outcome based framework for non-technical skills training in healthcare outside the surgical environment. The authors set out to devise such a framework and reach a consensus on a definition using a modified Delphi approach. Methods An exhaustive list of published and team suggested items was presented to the expert panel for ranking and to propose a definition. In the second round, a focused list was presented, as well as the proposed definition elements. The finalised framework was sent to the panel for review. Summary of results 16 experts participated (58% response rate). A total of 36 items of 105 ranked highly enough to present in round two. The final framework consists of 16 competencies for all and 8 specific competencies for team leaders. The consensus definition describes non-technical skills as ‘a set of social (communication and team work) and cognitive (analytical and personal behaviour) skills that support high quality, safe, effective and efficient inter-professional care within the complex healthcare system’. Conclusions The authors have produced a new competency framework, through the works of an international expert panel, which is not discipline specific. This consensus competency framework can be used by curriculum developers, educational innovators and clinical teachers to support developments in the field

Review of the Renewable Energy Target: expert panel call for submissions

This paper introduces a review examining the operation, costs and benefits of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme including the economic, environmental and social impacts, and invites the public to make submissions. Summary On 17 February 2014, the review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme was jointly announced by the Hon Ian Macfarlane MP, the Minister for Industry, and the Hon Greg Hunt MP, the Minister for the Environment. The Terms of Reference state that the review is to examine the operation, costs and benefits of the RET scheme including the economic, environmental and social impacts, the extent to which the objectives of the scheme are being met and the interaction of the RET with other Commonwealth and State/Territory Government policies. The review is to provide advice on whether the objectives of the RET scheme are still appropriate and the range of options available for reducing its impact on electricity prices. An Expert Panel has been appointed to undertake the review, comprising : Mr Dick Warburton AO LVO (chair ), Dr Brian Fisher AO PSM, Ms Shirley In’t Veld and Mr Matt Zema. The Panel is supported by a secretariat in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This paper will assist individuals and organisations to prepare submissions on the review . It identifies matters that the Panel considers most relevant , but comments on other issues are welcome. The Panel is particularly interested in any evidence to support findings and conclusions made in submissions.   This call for submissions closes on 16 May 2014. Find out more about making a submission here

Expert consensus for respiratory physiotherapy management of mechanically ventilated adults with community-acquired pneumonia: A Delphi study

Rationale and aims: Patients with community‐acquired pneumonia (CAP) are frequently admitted to an intensive care unit. Physiotherapy may be provided to optimize respiratory function; however, there is significant variability in clinical practice and limited research directing best practice for this cohort. This study aimed to determine expert consensus for best physiotherapy practice for invasively ventilated adults with CAP. Method: A modified Delphi technique involved an international expert panel completing three rounds of an online questionnaire. The initial 35‐statement questionnaire, based on a systematic literature review and survey of current clinical practice, covered physiotherapy assessment and treatment of intubated patients with CAP. Quantitative data using Likert scales determined level of agreement, with qualitative data collected through open‐ended responses. Consensus threshold was set a priori at 70%. Items not achieving consensus were modified and new items added based on themes from qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, with thematic analysis used on qualitative data. Results: The panel comprised 29 international clinical and academic experts in critical care physiotherapy. Response rate was more than 95% for each round. Outcome achieved was 38 consensus statements covering assessment and treatment, with 28 statements (74%) providing consensus on recommended clinical practice, two consensus disagreement statements (7%) for what practice is not recommended, and eight statements (21%) indicating which treatments may be beneficial. Conclusion: Expert consensus regarding physiotherapy for intubated adults with CAP patients provides an evidence‐based approach to guide clinical practice. The consensus statements can also be used to guide research evaluating physiotherapy interventions for patients with CAP