Complementary Medicine in Australia and New Zealand : Its popularisation, legitimation and dilemmas

In the late nineteenth century on the eve of the formation of Australia as a nation-state in 1902, the Australian medical system could be best described as a pluralistic one in the sense that while regular medicine constituted the predominant medical system, it was not clearly the dominant one in that regular physicians faced competition from a wide array of alternative practitioners. As regular medicine increasingly assumed the guise of being scientific, it evolved into biomedicine and developed a link with corporate and state interests in the early twentieth century in Australia, as in other capitalist developed societies.Relying upon state support, Australian biomedicine has achieved dominance over alternative medical system, such as homeopathy, herbal medicine, osteopathy, chiropractic, and naturopathy. Various social forces, particularly the development of the holistic health movement, have served to challenge biomedical dominance in Australia, like elsewhere.What started out as a popular health movement in the early 1970s has evolved into the professionalized entity that is generally referred to as ''complementary medicine'' in Australia (as opposed to ''complementary and alternative medicine'' in the US and UK). Complementary medicine in Australia encompasses many medical systems and therapies.Since the 1980s certain heterodox medical systems, particularly chiropractic, osteopathy, acupuncture and Chinese medicine, naturopathy, Western herbalism, and homeopathy, have achieved considerable recognition from the Australian state, either at the federal level or at the state and territorial levels. Indeed, the Australian state appears to have gone further than any other Anglophone country in terms of providing public funding for complementary medicine education. Conversely, it has committed a limited amount of funding for complementary medicine research compared to the United States.

The historic growth in world trade, large container ships and information technology have triggered profound changes in international trade. A few years ago, customs officers at the border were meticulously checking goods and documents before releasing a shipment to the trader. A business could be confident that a shipment that had cleared customs complied with all applicable regulations. Today, to reduce congestion and give the trade quick access to their goods, customs have introduced risk management principles and a large number of shipments clear customs automatically. Controls have moved from the border to the trader‘s premises and it is during site visits that customs officers check the business compliance records. Moving from frontier checks to audit based controls has transferred a high level of responsibility and risk to the trader. It is now the duty of the trader to identify and report any error or irregularity and to keep an impeccable audit trail from initial quotation to receipt of payment. For the business, failing to provide satisfactory compliance records will result in delayed shipments and serious disruption in the supply chain. This will in turn impact on financial performance indicators such as Days in Inventory, Days Sales Outstanding and of course Cash Flow. The business will also have to endure in depth customs audits during which customs officers will inspect each step of the audit trail disrupting day-to-day business operation. Errors uncovered during these audits will yield heavy financial penalties and a customs debt. Ultimately, customs risk will impact on shareholders value. Customs and finance reporting should receive the same level of attention. However, if all companies check carefully their tax returns, only a few check their import or export declarations with the same scrutiny. Managing customs risk is often seen as a cost centre but it is also a source of competitive advantage. A sound customs management can reduce or remov