Risk Management In Australia Research Articles

Transformer-Based Named Entity Recognition in Construction Supply Chain Risk Management in Australia

Transformer-Based Named Entity Recognition in Construction Supply Chain Risk Management in Australia

How Credit Risk Management in Australia Can Affect Financial Institutions Growth: A Study

Ineffective credit risk management methods were largely responsible for the collapse, as well as financial problems, of many financial institutions. This particular research is designed to evaluate how insufficient credit risk management brought about the banking crisis of Australia in 2003/2004 determine other contributing factors. It found that inability to effectively manage credit risk was the most important element in the crisis, leading to ineffective management, insufficient risk control, poorly designed strategies for business expanding, persistent liquidity issues, external currency deficiency, as well as diversion from core banking pursuits to speculative non-banking activities. It suggests banks develop and implement credit scoring and assessment methods, update insider lending practices, and adopt prudential business governance methods.

An argument for pandemic risk management using a multidisciplinary One Health approach to governance: an Australian case study

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the subsequent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant global impact. However, COVID-19 is just one of several high-impact infectious diseases that emerged from wildlife and are linked to the human relationship with nature. The rate of emergence of new zoonoses (diseases of animal origin) is increasing, driven by human-induced environmental changes that threaten biodiversity on a global scale. This increase is directly linked to environmental drivers including biodiversity loss, climate change and unsustainable resource extraction. Australia is a biodiversity hotspot and is subject to sustained and significant environmental change, increasing the risk of it being a location for pandemic origin. Moreover, the global integration of markets means that consumption trends in Australia contributes to the risk of disease spill-over in our regional neighbours in Asia-Pacific, and beyond. Despite the clear causal link between anthropogenic pressures on the environment and increasing pandemic risks, Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, like most of the world, has centred largely on public health strategies, with a clear focus on reactive management. Yet, the span of expertise and evidence relevant to the governance of pandemic risk management is much wider than public health and epidemiology. It involves animal/wildlife health, biosecurity, conservation sciences, social sciences, behavioural psychology, law, policy and economic analyses to name just a few.The authors are a team of multidisciplinary practitioners and researchers who have worked together to analyse, synthesise, and harmonise the links between pandemic risk management approaches and issues in different disciplines to provide a holistic overview of current practice, and conclude the need for reform in Australia. We discuss the adoption of a comprehensive and interdisciplinary ‘One Health’ approach to pandemic risk management in Australia. A key goal of the One Health approach is to be proactive in countering threats of emerging infectious diseases and zoonoses through a recognition of the interdependence between human, animal, and environmental health. Developing ways to implement a One Health approach to pandemic prevention would not only reduce the risk of future pandemics emerging in or entering Australia, but also provide a model for prevention strategies around the world.

The promises and perils of developing a national sex offender recidivism database in Australia

ABSTRACT Much of what we know about sexual offenders and risk management is derived from empirical studies on sex offender populations in North America. In comparison to Canada and the United States, the evidence base in Australia on sexual offender risk management is under-developed. In this paper, we describe a current research project tasked with developing a national sex offender recidivism database to advance the evidence base in Australia. It is argued that a national database would advance knowledge and practice in the field of sex offender risk management in Australia in a multitude of ways. Yet there are many obstacles and difficulties in developing such a database. After putting forward a case for the need for such a database, we outline the issues we have encountered and the approaches we have adopted to develop this database. It is intended that this contemporary comment may not only alert readers to this emerging data resource in Australia but also function as a road map to guide future empirical research on offender population databases in Australia.

Legal Aspects of Risk Management in Australia

This paper questions whether disaster risk management is moving from reducing the risk to communities to reducing the risk to governments and emergency managers, that is, the risk to professional standing and reputation that often comes with a catastrophic disaster. It is argued that the modern rhetoric around ‘shared responsibility’ may be a way to shift ownership of residual risk in order to avoid blame rather than to protect vulnerable communities. Suggestions are made for reforms that could remove the need to find blame post disaster.

Flood Risk in Australia: Whose Responsibility Is It, Anyway?

This paper presents research into four key stakeholders in flood risk management in Australia: local councils, the insurance industry, the State Emergency Service (SES), and local residents; examining the perception of their own roles and responsibilities, and those of the other stakeholders. Key informant interviews were conducted in four locations—Brisbane and Emerald, in Queensland, Dora Creek, in New South Wales, and Benalla, in Victoria. We find that understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder varied considerably between research participants. Insurance representatives felt their concerns about increasing flood risk costs were unheeded until the 2010–2011 floods made them the “canary in the coal mine”. Councils felt they had limited options for reducing flood risk. SES representatives felt they were too relied upon for event response, with requests for assistance outstripping their capacity to assist, and many residents were uncertain how to prepare for flood, relying on emergency agencies and the local council to protect them. Key lessons for flood risk management in Australia are (a) an urgent need for all stakeholders to better understand each others’ roles and responsibilities; and (b) residents must take greater responsibility for their own personal protection. Only then can the vision of shared responsibility presented by the 2009 National Strategy for Disaster Resilience be achieved.

Mainstreaming climate change adaptation: An incremental approach to disaster risk management in Australia

• We argue that ‘predict then act’ approaches to disaster risk management (DRM) policy undermines effectiveness of DRM. • Problems include unrealistic expectations of DRM provisions and a reactive approach to DRM overall. • We propose an incrementalist policy approach that manages uncertainties and focuses on building resilience. In this paper we argue that rationalist ‘predict then act’ approaches to disaster risk management (DRM) policy promote unrealistic public expectations of DRM provisions, the avoidance of decision making by political elites, an over-reliance on technical expertise and engineering solutions to reducing exposure to natural events, and a reactive approach to DRM overall. We propose an alternative incrementalist approach that focuses on managing uncertainties rather than reducing them and building resilience not simply through the reduction of hazard exposure, but also through the ongoing reduction of community vulnerability, the explicit consideration of normative priorities, and more effective community engagement in climate risk debates.

Reframing responsibility-sharing for bushfire risk management in Australia after Black Saturday

In the context of risk, the concept of responsibility incorporates the notion that certain parties have a prospective obligation to undertake actions to manage risk. However, differences in judgements about which parties are responsible for which aspects of risk management often lead to social conflict. This paper uses the heuristic of a ‘responsibility continuum for risk management’ to highlight how judgements of the obligations of different parties to manage risk are underpinned by particular ways of framing responsibility-sharing. It then uses the heuristic to examine the case of a Royal Commission enquiry into Australia's deadliest bushfire (wildfire) event, known as Black Saturday. It argues that the Royal Commission reframed responsibility-sharing away from an emphasis on the self-reliance of at-risk communities towards a greater degree of responsibility for government emergency management agencies. This is particularly the case when fire conditions are extreme and where vulnerable people are at risk. This position runs counter to an international trend in policy towards placing greater responsibility for risk management on at-risk communities. However, the Commission's analysis is strong for the distribution of responsibility across government and between government and communities, but is weaker across the government–private sector interface and where the factors underlying vulnerability are concerned.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy risk management in Australia and New Zealand

Between 1962 and 1966, Australia and New Zealand ceased importing rendered animal protein from any country other than each other; as a result, both were protected against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) contaminated meat and bone meal (MBM), which was being exported from the UK during the 1980s. More recently, global trade considerations have encouraged these countries to relax their import restrictions to some extent, while at the same time requiring convincing evidence that appropriate steps are being taken domestically to control mad cow disease. Both countries have successfully maintained their 'BSE-free' status. However, whereas Australia has retained more stringent policies with respect to BSE risk, New Zealand has adopted policies compatible with trade liberalisation.

Risk Management in Australia: Historical trends, current challenges and future directions

Risk Management in Australia: Historical trends, current challenges and future directions

Sociological Factors Affecting Agricultural Price Risk Management in Australia*

Abstract The highly volatile auction system in Australia accounts for 85 percent of ex‐farm wool sales, with the remainder sold by forward contract, futures, and other hedging methods. In this article, against the background of an extensive literature on price risk strategies, we investigate title behavioral factors associated with producers' adoption of price risk‐management strategies (specifically futures and forward contracts) for selling wool. This research presents a behavioral model based on Diffusion of Innovations, the Theory of Reasoned Action, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. We found that the auction system is used as a price risk‐management tool because other selling methods are considered more risky. We also report on a curious relationship between risk and complexity in terms of wool producers' intentions to use forward contracts. We explored sociological factors in conjunction with focus‐group data in an attempt to understand this relationship. This exercise yielded some interesting findings on the impact that trust, habit, social cohesion, and networks have on decision making in the rural community. The significance of this article lies in its application of core sociological theory in a new research context: the Australian wool industry.

Sociological Factors Affecting Agricultural Price Risk Management in Australia

Sociological Factors Affecting Agricultural Price Risk Management in Australia

Managing toxic chemicals in Australia: a regional analysis of the risk society

The paper takes examples from two decades of toxic risk management in Australia in order to examine the challenges that the conditions of the ‘risk society’ pose for the chemicals industry in this country. These issues for corporate governance are set against a shift in political discourse in the direction of the limiting of the state, co‐governance between state and industry, and new community involvements and responsibilities. The paper describes new social movements and alliances influencing corporate structures and processes for decision making in Australia. The case examples lead to conclusions concerning the fundamental innovations in the organizational design of regulatory bodies and corporations that are required if progress is to be made towards sustainability and the re‐establishment of public trust. The findings of this paper are symptomatic of the more general challenges that the ‘risk society’ poses for the mainstream political programmes and their frameworks for regulation, for corporate architecture and for the relationships between governments, corporations and the community.

The regulation of herbal medicines in Australia

Complementary medicines, including herbal medicines in Australia are regulated under therapeutics goods legislation. Based on risk, Australia has developed a two tiered approach to the regulation of therapeutic goods. Listed medicines are considered to be of lower risk than Registered medicines. Most, but not all, complementary medicines are Listed medicines. Managing the risk associated with therapeutic goods, including complementary medicines, is exerted through the processes of licensing of manufacturers; pre-market assessment of products; and post-market regulatory activity. Herbal medicines may be associated with low or high risk depending on the toxicity of ingredients, proposed dosage, appropriateness of the indications and claims for self-diagnosis and management and the potential for adverse reactions. Registered medicines are individually evaluated for safety, quality and efficacy before they are released onto the market. Listed medicines are individually assessed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for compliance with legislation, they are not evaluated before release. They may only be formulated from ingredients that have undergone pre-market evaluation for safety and quality and are considered low risk. Listed complementary medicines may only carry indications and claims for the symptomatic relief of non-serious conditions, health maintenance, health enhancement and risk reduction. An important feature of risk management in Australia is that early market access for low risk complementary medicines is supported by appropriate post-market regulatory activity.