title: Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Policy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper compares the approaches implemented to facilitate such engagement in two Australian jurisdictions. These are Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in New South Wales (NSW) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia (SA).
  
  
  METHODS
  The comparisons presented in this paper emerged through collaborative activities between stakeholders in both jurisdictions, including critical reflection on HIA and HiAP practice, joint participation in a workshop, and the preparation of a discussion paper written to inform a conference plenary session. The plenary provided an opportunity for the incorporation of additional insights from policy practitioners and academics.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Comparison of the approaches indicates that their overall intent is similar. Differences exist, however, in the underpinning principles, technical processes and tactical strategies applied. These differences appear to stem mainly from the organisational positioning of the work in each state and the extent to which each approach is linked to government systems.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The alignment of the HiAP approach with the systems of the SA Government increases the likelihood of influence within the policy cycle. However, the political priorities and sensitivities of the SA Government limit the scope of HiAP work. The implementation of the HIA approach from outside government in NSW means greater freedom to collaborate with a range of partners and to assess policy issues in any area, regardless of government priorities. However, the comparative distance of HIA from NSW Government systems may reduce the potential for impact on government policy. The diversity in the technical and tactical strategies that are applied within each approach provides insight into how the approaches have been tailored to suit the particular contexts in which they have been implemented.
authors.affiliation: Southgate Institute for Health Society and Equity, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. toni.delany@flinders.edu.au.
authors.forename: Toni
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Delany
authors.forename: Patrick
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Harris
authors.forename: Carmel
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Williams
authors.forename: Elizabeth
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Harris
authors.forename: Fran
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Baum
authors.forename: Angela
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lawless
authors.forename: Deborah
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Wildgoose
authors.forename: Fiona
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Haigh
authors.forename: Colin
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: MacDougall
authors.forename: Danny
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Broderick
authors.forename: Ilona
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Kickbusch
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D006076:Government; D062489:Health Impact Assessment; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D009517:New South Wales; D011050:Policy Making; D013021:South Australia