No One Left Behind: Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in Australia

Australia was one of 193 countries that came together at the high-level United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Summit in New York in September 2015 to commit to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs are a universal agenda, and their implementation is the shared responsibility of all countries at all stages of development, including OECD nations like Australia. Following a 2018 parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s SDG implementation, the Morrison Government and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMAC) will require up-to-date knowledge on international best practice in governance, policy and planning for SDG implementation to inform its response to the 18 recommendations issued by the Australian Senate’s Foreign Affairs and Trade References Committee in February 2019. It is critical that the Australian government takes leadership in the implementation of the SDGs in part because of the political and constitutional peculiarities of Australia’s federal system of government. Only the Commonwealth has the capacity and authority to coordinate the various State and Territory jurisdictions and Local Government bodies. To date implementation of the SDG agenda has lacked leadership, prioritisation and coordination in Australia. Despite submitting its first Voluntary National Report under the SDGs in 2019, the Australian Government is yet to release a national SDG plan of action. The lack of planning and accountability mechanisms and lack of linked financing in the national budget are symptomatic of a deeper problem. In short an apparent lack of political will has meant that the SMART goal logic that many government agencies use for operationalising policy in an array of contexts is simply not present when it comes to the advancement of SDG implementation in Australia

Indigenous Australians, intellectual disability and incarceration: a confluence of rights violations

Abstract: This article reviews the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians with intellectual disability in the Australian prison system through a human rights lens. There is an information gap on this group of Australian prisoners in the health and disability literature and the multi-disciplinary criminal law and human rights law literature. This article will consider the context of Indigenous imprisonment in Australia and examine the status of prisoner health in that country, as well as the status of the health and wellbeing of prisoners with intellectual disability. It will then specifically explore the health, wellbeing and impact of imprisonment on Indigenous Australians with intellectual disability, and highlight how intersectional rights deficits (including health and human rights deficits) causally impact the ability of Indigenous Australians with intellectual disability to access due process, equal recognition and justice in the criminal justice and prison system. A central barrier to improving intersectional and discriminatory landscapes relating to health, human rights and justice for Indigenous Australian inmates with intellectual disability, and prisoners with intellectual disability more broadly in the Australian context, is the lack of sufficient governance and accountability mechanisms (including Indigenous-led mechanisms) to enforce the operationalisation of consistent, transparent, culturally responsive, rights-based remedies

What Do Core Obligations under the Right to Health Bring to Universal Health Coverage?

Can the right to health, and particularly the core obligations of states specified under this right, assist in formulating and implementing universal health coverage (UHC), now included in the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals? In this paper, we examine how core obligations under the right to health could lead to a version of UHC that is likely to advance equity and rights. We first address the affinity between the right to health and UHC as evinced through changing definitions of UHC and the health domains that UHC explicitly covers. We then engage with relevant interpretations of the right to health, including core obligations. We turn to analyze what core obligations might bring to UHC, particularly in defining what and who is covered. Finally, we acknowledge some of the risks associated with both UHC and core obligations and consider potential avenues for mitigating these risks

Rights Language in the Sustainable Development Agenda: Has Right to Health Discourse and Norms Shaped Health Goals?

While the right to health is increasingly referenced in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) discussions, its contribution to global health and development remains subject to considerable debate. This hypothesis explores the potential influence of the right to health on the formulation of health goals in 4 major SDG reports. We analyse these reports through a social constructivist lens which views the use of rights rhetoric as an important indicator of the extent to which a norm is being adopted and/or internalized. Our analysis seeks to assess the influence of this language on goals chosen, and to consider accordingly the potential for rights discourse to promote more equitable global health policy in the future

The right to health of non-nationals and displaced persons in the sustainable development goals era: challenges for equity in universal health care

Introduction: Under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), United Nations (UN) Member States reported progress on the targets toward their general citizenry. This focus repeatedly excluded marginalized ethnic and linguistic minorities, including people of refugee backgrounds and other vulnerable non-nationals that resided within a States’ borders. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to be truly transformative by being made operational in all countries, and applied to all, nationals and non-nationals alike. Global migration and its diffuse impact has intensified due to escalating conflicts and the growing violence in war-torn Syria, as well as in many countries in Africa and in Central America. This massive migration and the thousands of refugees crossing borders in search for safety led to the creation of two-tiered, ad hoc, refugee health care systems that have added to the sidelining of non-nationals in MDG-reporting frameworks. Conclusion: We have identified four ways to promote the protection of vulnerable non-nationals’ health and well being in States’ application of the post-2015 SDG framework: In setting their own post-2015 indicators the UN Member States should explicitly identify vulnerable migrants, refugees, displaced persons and other marginalized groups in the content of such indicators. Our second recommendation is that statisticians from different agencies, including the World Health Organization’s Gender, Equity and Human Rights programme should be actively involved in the formulation of SDG indicators at both the global and country level. In addition, communities, civil society and health justice advocates should also vigorously engage in country’s formulation of post-2015 indicators. Finally, we advocate that the inclusion of non-nationals be anchored in the international human right to health, which in turn requires appropriate financing allocations as well as robust monitoring and evaluation processes that can hold technocratic decision-makers accountable for progress.publishedVersio

Community participation in formulating the post-2015 health and development goal agenda: reflections of a multi-country research collaboration

Global discussion on the post-2015 development goals, to replace the Millennium Development Goals when they expire on 31 December 2015, is well underway. While the Millennium Development Goals focused on redressing extreme poverty and its antecedents for people living in developing countries, the post-2015 agenda seeks to redress inequity worldwide, regardless of a country’s development status. Furthermore, to rectify the UN’s top-down approach toward the Millennium Development Goals’ formulation, widespread negotiations are underway that seek to include the voices of people and communities from around the globe to ground each post-2015 development goal. This reflexive commentary, therefore, reports on the early methodological challenges the Go4Health research project experienced in its engagement with communities in nine countries in 2013. Led by four research hubs in Uganda, Bangladesh, Australia and Guatemala, the purpose of this engagement has been to ascertain a ‘snapshot’ of the health needs and priorities of socially excluded populations particularly from the Global South. This is to inform Go4Health’s advice to the European Commission on the post-2015 global goals for health and new governance frameworks. Five methodological challenges were subsequently identified from reflecting on the multidisciplinary, multiregional team’s research practices so far: meanings and parameters around qualitative participatory research; representation of marginalization; generalizability of research findings; ethical research in project time frames; and issues related to informed consent. Strategies to overcome these methodological hurdles are also examined. The findings from the consultations represent the extraordinary diversity of marginal human experience requiring contextual analysis for universal framing of the post-2015 agenda. Unsurprisingly, methodological challenges will, and did, arise. We conclude by advocating for a discourse to emerge not only critically examining how and whose voices are being obtained at the community-level to inform the post-2015 health and development goal agenda, but also how these voices are being translated and integrated into post-2015 decision-making at national and global levels