After a century of Monday to Friday, could the 4-day week finally be coming to Australia?

John L. Hopkins, Swinburne University of Technology

The reality of shorter working hours could be one step closer for many Australians, pending the outcome of the federal election.

The Greens, who could control crucial cross bench votes in a hung parliament, have announced plans for a four-day working week, with no loss of pay. They say the policy would alleviate stress and burn out, and increase women’s participation in the workforce.

Earning the same money for fewer hours would appeal to most workers. But is it too good to be true? Could it really be rolled out cost free to all workplaces, especially to “client facing” companies and service providers?

Or does research suggest the Greens could be onto something?

The Greens’ plan

The Greens’ policy would involve a new National Institute for the Four Day Work Week and a test case through the Fair Work Commission.

A series of national trials would be set up in a number of different industries, whereby workers would work 80% of their normal hours, while maintaining 100% of their pay.

According to Greens Senator Barbara Pocock, it’s a win-win for everyone:

It can increase productivity, reduce absenteeism, improve recruitment and retention and give employees more time to manage their home life. This change will allow workers to create a working week that works for them.

The 100:80:100 model

The four-day work week being proposed in this instance is commonly regarded as the 100:80:100 model.

It delivers 100% of the pay, for 80% of the hours, in return for maintaining 100% of productivity.

This is unlike other forms of shorter working weeks, which compress five days’ worth of work into four longer days. This obviously disadvantages some employees.

Recent research conducted by Swinburne University of Technology involved interviews with ten Australian firms that have already adopted the 100:80:100 model.

They were a mixture of small and medium sized private sector businesses, including management consulting firms, a shipping and logistics company, and recruitment and marketing agencies.

The research underlined the potential for a range of positive outcomes for both employers and employees.

Workers reported having better work-life balance, more time to complete “life administration” tasks, and more time to invest in hobbies, exercise, wellness and self-care. Bosses cited productivity gains, reduced sick days, and significant improvements in recruitment and retention rates.

However, the 100:80:100 model is viewed with scepticism in some quarters. There is still doubt that productivity and output would be maintained, or in some cases improved, when workers are working one day fewer per week.

Also, there could be costs associated with the implementation of this work model for front-line roles, such as retail, schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Additional workers may need to be hired, at extra expense, to cover the hours dropped by the existing workforce.

100 years of working 5 days a week

The year 2026 will mark the 100th anniversary of the five-day work week.

It was car maker Henry Ford who reduced the working week in the United States from six days to five. Other sectors and countries followed suit. This was at a time when the average life expectancy of Australian workers was just 55 and households typically only had one bread-winner.

Despite the time saved by the many technological breakthroughs in the past 100 years – from the photocopier, desktop computer and fax machine, to the internet, mobile phones and AI – the average Australian is now working longer hours in paid and unpaid labour than ever before.

The Greens point out Australian society is changing. More women and carers are either in the workforce or would be encouraged into the workforce by more flexible arrangements:

yet we are constrained by archaic labour laws that see the fruits of our efforts swallowed up in profits for bosses and shareholders.

The role of generative AI technologies in the workplace may also deliver benefits to workers. Separate Swinburne research has revealed an increasing expectation among workers that they will receive a share in the time saved by future technologies in the form of improved work-life balance and wellbeing gains.

Time to enter the 21st century

Earlier this year, 200 UK companies signed up to the 100:80:100 model, as part of a campaign to “reinvent Britain’s working week”. Large scale trials are also underway in Canada and several European countries.

The global interest in a shorter working week is not surprising, and has likely been fuelled by the COVID pandemic, which has caused workers and employers to re-imagine their working lives.

If the Greens are in a position to leverage any balance of power after the coming election, it could be Australia’s turn to recognise the conventional five-day working week is no longer fit for purpose.

John L. Hopkins, Associate Professor of Management, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Back To Top

Tell-Us

A brief look at the long history of First Nations fashion design in Australia

Aboriginal Display at the Brisbane Exhibition, 1914. State Library of Queensland Treena Clark, University of Technology Sydney

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names and images of deceased people, and links to old newspaper stories and research papers using outdated and potentially offensive terminology.

---

The ABC’s series The Way We Wore takes a look at stories of Australian fashion design and style.

First Nations people participated in the series and spoke about various periods and tales, looking at forced clothing policies during the Stolen Generation period, the contribution of Flinders Ranges/Adnyamathanha knowledge to the creation of the RM Williams iconic boot, and the emergence of First Nations fashion design from the 1970s and at Parisian fashion shows in the 1980s.

Yet, left out from the show was the rich backstory of our First Nations fashion design industry.

Prior to Parisian fashion shows, First Nations people showcased handmade clothing and accessories at 1800s international and national exhibitions, often as unpaid labour.

Earlier still, the making and crafting of animal and plant cloaks, skirts, belts, shoes and accessories were the original fashion designs.

Traditional clothing and adornment

Climates, materials and stories guided traditional fashion design.

Items were crafted from natural materials that eventually returned to the environment.

Footwear was made from animal skins, furs, and feathers, human hair and bark.

Group outside a bark shelter with possum skin cloaks in Victoria, photographed between 1860-1909. State Library of New South Wales

Cloaks were made from animal skin and plants, often inscribed with designs that reflected a person’s identity.

Intricate jewellery and accessories included head ornaments, necklaces, mourning caps, belts and bags, some made from highly traded pearl shells and rare seashells.

Today, we are seeing a resurgence around the country of these adornments and the role they play in healing, wellbeing and cultural practice.

Showcasing at trades and exhibitions

First Nations women and girls who lived on reserves, missions and schools were forced to learn sewing and many produced goods including hats, bags, baskets, jewellery and rugs.

These items were crafted from cultural or Western methods, using both traditional or introduced materials.

From the mid-1800s, their work was often produced for various tourist trades and national and international exhibitions.

The Aboriginal Court at the Brisbane Exhibition, 1914. State Library of Queensland

One Melbourne CBD shop stocked woven baskets and bags from Victoria’s Coranderrk Reserve.

Sydney’s La Perouse Mission sold shell baskets in the city and later exhibited them at the Sydney Royal Easter Show and in London.

At the 1888 Melbourne Exhibition, the Queensland section presented pearl jewellery from Thursday Island and the Torres Strait.

While some of the women and girls from these institutions received pay for their work, many did not.

Emergence of fashion within the craft industry

From the 1930s, non-Indigenous textile artists and fashion designers started producing First Nations-inspired designs using motifs such as boomerangs, shields and “hunting stick figures”, without the permission or input from First Nations artists.

Partly in response to this popularity, craft centres within the missions and reserves established their own industry and several hired First Nations people to design cultural textiles and fashions.

Some of this early work in the 1940s included bags with traditional weaving styles, practical linens with cultural designs and unique Ernabella scarves.

As the newspaper The Sun reported from the Mount Margaret Mission in 1941:

One of the most interesting exhibits in the exhibition of Aboriginal handicrafts and school children’s work at the Y.W.C.A. to-day is a bag woven from wool in a native stitch. It has been adapted from old aboriginal work which is usually seen only in tribal grass weaving.

Children’s work from these institutions were often exhibited in Australia and internationally. There was particular overseas interest in turning art from the Carrolup Native settlement onto textiles for fashion garments.

The business of First Nations textiles and fashion

Economic and cultural autonomy became more attainable for First Nations people from the 1950s.

Bill Onus produced cultural furnishing fabrics with non-Indigenous artist Paula Kerry for his Melbourne Aboriginal Enterprises store.

First Nations women from the Coffs Harbour area started mass-producing fashions for the tourist trade using non-Indigenous designs in the mid-1960s.

By the late 1960s, First Nations designed textiles became a fully-fledged fashion industry.

In 1969, Tiwi Island clothing production and textiles had launched through Bima Wear and Tiwi Designs.

A few years later, other arts centres started crafting textiles for fashion designs.

Tiwi (Aboriginal) fashion designs, 1979. © Commonwealth of Australia (National Archives of Australia) 2023., CC BY

Throughout the 1970s, fashion shows paraded these textiles and some First Nations people wore the designs at formal events.

Bronwyn Bancroft, the owner of the Sydney store Designer Aboriginals, and Euphemia Bostock and Mini Heath presented their garments at the Parisian Au Printemps Department Store in 1987.

The 21st Century and beyond

By the start of the new millennium, Robyn Caughlan, in collaboration with Benjamin Mach, was the first Indigenous designer to contribute to a fashion collection at Australian Fashion Week.

Two decades later at Australian Fashion Week 2023, Denni Francisco’s brand Ngali was the first Indigenous label to present a standalone collection.

Today, many First Nations labels promote their designs internationally in Paris, Milan, London, and New York. There are now several First Nations fashion bodies to support them in the industry.

These bodies connect with national and international fashion weeks and art fairs, and have insight into cultural appropriation and Intellectual Property Rights.

For First Nations people, fashion and style are significant channels through which culture, identity, healing and social change can be communicated and practised.

Learning about the foundation of First Nations fashion design is vital to understanding Australian history and advocating connection, wellbeing, expression and sustainability.

Treena Clark, Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Indigenous Research Fellow, Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Back To Top

Tell-Us

Vaccination rates among Australian teens are dropping. Here’s how we can get back on track

Prostock-studio/Shutterstock Archana Koirala, University of Sydney; Bianca Middleton, Menzies School of Health Research; Fiona Russell, The University of Melbourne; Katrina Clark, Indigenous Knowledge, and Sophie Wen, The University of Queensland

Australia has a successful adolescent immunisation program, routinely achieving high vaccine coverage for teenagers.

However, recent data shows the number of Australian teens receiving the recommended vaccines for their age group has fallen over three years during the COVID pandemic.

So how much have adolescent vaccination rates dropped, and why might this be? And how can we get back on track?

The vaccines teens need – and why they need them

The National Immunisation Program provides a series of free vaccinations for Australian teenagers. These are:

• a booster vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (dTpa), usually offered in year 7
• the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, also usually offered in year 7
• a meningococcal ACWY vaccine, offered in year 10.

These vaccines are primarily delivered through school-based immunisation programs and health services such as general practices.

They protect teenagers themselves from diseases, but also help reduce the spread of these diseases in the community.

For example, 2024 has seen a surge in whooping cough (pertussis) cases nationally. Although adolescents won’t necessarily get very sick with whooping cough, they can spread the disease. So the dTpa vaccine helps to protect vulnerable populations, including young babies.

HPV is a leading cause of genital warts and cervical cancer. Giving the HPV shot to young teenagers, before they might be exposed to the virus through sexual activity, provides the best protection against cervical cancer.

And older teenagers and young adults are among those at highest risk of meningococcal disease, which can be fatal. They’re also most likely to carry meningococcal bacteria in their nose and throat, and to spread it to others.

A modest but concerning decline

The most recent Annual Immunisation Coverage Report from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) shows a drop in vaccination coverage among teenagers between 2022 and 2023, while the previous report shows a drop from 2021 to 2022.

For example, the proportion of teens who had received their adolescent dose of dTpa in the year they turned 15 decreased from 87.3% in 2021, to 86.9% in 2022, to 85.5% in 2023.

Meanwhile, the proportion who had received one dose of meningococcal ACWY vaccine by age 17 fell from 76.1% in 2021, to 75.9% in 2022, to 72.8% in 2023.

Vaccination coverage among Indigenous teenagers dropped by similar amounts. For example, the proportion of Indigenous teens who had received one dose of meningococcal ACWY vaccine by age 17 fell from 66.7% in 2021 to 65.6% in 2022 to 62.3% in 2023.

Overall, in 2023, around one in four 18-year-olds hadn’t received all three of the nationally recommended adolescent vaccines.

Adolescent vaccinations are primarily delivered through school-based programs. VH-studio/Shutterstock

These figures show a decline in vaccination coverage among teenagers over three years. This comes after several years of generally increasing coverage before the COVID pandemic.

While the decline has been modest, the downward trend is concerning. It leaves more teenagers – and members of the wider community – vulnerable to serious infectious diseases.

Why is vaccination coverage decreasing among teenagers?

There are likely to be many contributing factors.

Although extended school closures and consequent disruption to school vaccination programs at the height of the pandemic likely played a role, these occurred almost exclusively in Victoria and New South Wales. So they can’t fully explain the ongoing drop in adolescent vaccination coverage across the country.

We don’t have good published data on what influences vaccine acceptance among teenagers. But given parents or guardians need to complete a consent form for their child to get vaccinated at school, we may be able to extrapolate from some of the challenges relating to childhood vaccination uptake.

The trends among teenagers have been consistent with a fall in the rates of younger children who are fully vaccinated. In 2023, 92.8% of one-year-olds were fully vaccinated, down from 94.8% in 2020. At five years old, the coverage rate in 2023 was 93.3%, down also from 94.8% in 2020.

A recent survey into barriers to childhood vaccination in Australia indicates a high proportion of parents who choose not to vaccinate young children have concerns about vaccine safety (48%) and effectiveness (40%). It’s possible the COVID pandemic has hindered vaccine acceptance.

Practical access barriers may also be hampering adolescent immunisation coverage. These might include lack of knowledge among parents about vaccines or immunisation schedules, complicated parental consent processes, school absenteeism, and lack of awareness of immunisation services outside school-based programs.

The NCIRS report for 2023 showed low HPV coverage for adolescents living in socioeconomically disadvantaged and remote locations. This suggests logistics such as transport may also play a role, especially for teens who miss vaccination during the school-based program.

How can we improve things? And what can parents do?

We need research to better understand the factors influencing vaccine uptake among adolescents. This can help us design and implement strategies to improve vaccination coverage in this age group.

For example, understanding the factors influencing HPV vaccination uptake among Indigenous adolescents and ensuring equitable access to targeted and culturally appropriate HPV vaccine education strategies has significantly improved vaccination coverage for this group. HPV vaccine coverage for Indigenous women aged 17 to 25 is now higher than for the general population.

We need to better understand the barriers to vaccination among adolescents. SeventyFour/Shutterstock

Parents can support their teenagers by talking to them about the importance of immunisation, listening to their concerns and answering any questions they may have. Consent forms will generally include information about the vaccine and the disease it protects against.

If your child misses out on receiving their vaccinations at school or doesn’t attend school, families can access free National Immunisation Program vaccines from their GP, pharmacy, local council or other health services.

Specialist immunisation services are also available in most states and territories. These services are for children and adolescents who are in high-risk groups or for families who are concerned about vaccinating their children.

Teenagers are the next generation of parents, and their attitudes towards immunisation will influence coverage rates of their children in the future. This is yet another reason we need to successfully address any concerns or barriers for this group around vaccination.

Archana Koirala, Paediatrician and Infectious Diseases Specialist, University of Sydney; Bianca Middleton, Senior Research Fellow, Menzies School of Health Research; Fiona Russell, Senior Principal Research Fellow; paediatrician; infectious diseases epidemiologist; vaccinologist, The University of Melbourne; Katrina Clark, Aboriginal Immunisation Manager at Hunter New England Population Health, Indigenous Knowledge, and Sophie Wen, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Back To Top

Tell-Us

Australia has a remarkable history of outdoor cinema. Here’s why Netflix will never beat it

Dendy Powerhouse Outdoor Cinema Ruari Elkington, Queensland University of Technology

In December 1916, as war raged in Europe, an entrepreneurial pearl diver took a chance on some bleeding-edge technology and installed an outdoor cinema in one of the country’s most isolated towns – Broome, Western Australia.

Ted Hunter didn’t know much about cinemas. Not many people did at the turn of the 20th century. But that didn’t stop him beginning what has become a long history of outdoor cinema exhibition in Australia.

Sun Pictures in Broome opened with Jack Hulcup’s 1913 silent film Kissing Cup, in which a “squire’s jockey” escapes kidnappers and gallops across the Isle of Wight in time to win the race. Huzzah.

More than a century later, Sun Pictures still stands – the world’s oldest operating open-air cinema.

Sun Pictures was often subject to tidal flooding prior to a levee built in 1974. Locals have shared stories of watching films with fish swimming around their feet. Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

While the Guinness World Record is a nice-to-have, Sun Pictures’ survival has been ensured not by the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but by what the cinema offers locals and visitors each night: a moviegoing experience that is at once unique and familiar.

Segregation at the movies

Before opening Sun Pictures, Hunter made his money as a master pearler. Pearl shells, which were turned into mother-of-pearl buttons, transformed the economic life of Broome in the late 1800s. Despite being so isolated, the pearling industry brought great riches to the town, while also entrenching workers along racial lines.

Racial segregation was firmly present in Broome’s “picture garden” for the first half of the 20th century. White Australians and their kids were seated in the middle, with Chinese and Japanese patrons behind them. Malays, Filipinos and First Nations people entered separately and were seated at the sides, or remained standing.

Aboriginal rights activist Charles Perkins would later directly challenge the segregation of Australian cinemas in his 1965 “Freedom Ride” throughout rural New South Wales.

Outdoors, from the comfort of your car

My colleague Tess Van Hemert and I have spent the past three years researching the cultures and practices of cinemagoing and how cinema sites shape this experience.

Outdoor cinemas – whether they be the picture gardens of Broome or the Yatala Drive-In – function as special sites of culture, connection and community.

During COVID lockdowns, social distancing measures particularly invigorated drive-in cinema attendance. But even after lockdowns ended, David Kilderry, the long-time operator of Melbourne’s Lunar Drive-in, remains clear on the appeal:

You could open up the car or even sit outside it and if cool, hop back inside and snuggle up in private. […] You can talk about the film as it runs. Kids can ask questions and parents can explain. Patrons can use phones during the film without interrupting others, and babies and infants won’t annoy other customers […] The drive-in has always been more than just a movie experience. It’s where the two icons of the 20th century come together: the motion picture and the automobile.

While the Lunar was shuttered in 2023, Kilderry said this decision was less about the 400,000 annual patrons and more about the land tax implications of keeping a site of that size viable.

But it’s not all doom and gloom for drive-ins. Kilderry notes many operators now own their land, rather than trying to constantly negotiate leases.

There are currently about 12 drive-ins running regularly across Australia, with a few more opening for the occasional screening. New drive-in developments are also planned for Perth, pending local consultations.

Connecting with others and the environement

Beyond drive-ins, Sun Pictures is in good company with a range of locations around the world that actively celebrate outdoor cinema.

During the European summer, open-air cinemas are popular in countries such as Germany and Italy. In Bologna, three large piazzas – Piazza Maggiore, Arena Puccini and Piazzetta Pasolini – are set up as cinemas for the annual Cinema Ritrovato festival.

Closer to home, the University of Western Australia’s Somerville Auditorium, framed by a “tree cathedral” of mature Norfolk pines, has long been a place of unique outdoor cinema experiences.

Perth Festival film programmer Tom Vincent understands the distinct pleasures of outdoor cinemagoing:

The m ost memorable cinemagoing anywhere will always engage the audience’s sense of place, usually through architecture and experience design. […] It includes a natural sensory mix that includes river breezes, ambient sounds and wildlife, alongside a sense of grandeur and good programming. Good outdoor cinema says ‘look, we are here, engage all your senses’.

But while seasonal outdoor cinemas such as the Moonlight Cinemas continue to operate around Australia – alongside local council park screenings – openings of new permanent outdoor cinemas are rare.

Phoebe Condon, manager of the new permanent Dendy Powerhouse Outdoor Cinema in Brisbane, explained how the site positions itself as a high-value leisure experience:

It’s more than just a night at the movies – it’s a destination […] What truly sets us apart from other outdoor cinemas is our focus on creating an elevated, year-round experience.

This framing of outdoor cinema as an “elevated experience” is vital. While the cost of cinemagoing has come up as a key consideration in our research (especially in the current economic context) the industry is quick to remind consumers it remains affordable compared with other out-of-home arts and leisure experiences such as live sports, music, comedy and theatre.

Despite legitimate cost-of-living concerns, census data continues to show cinemagoing as the nation’s most popular cultural activity.

Why Neflix can’t replace cinemas

Our research on Australian cinemagoing supports broader arguments for a more holistic understanding of cinema’s value in society. Cinemagoing shouldn’t be compared to your Netflix subscription, but to other leisure activities people get up and leave the house for.

As the International Union of Cinemas notes, “films reflect national culture or subcultures and the wider world to the audience; they frame moral and political discussions; and they entertain and educate”.

We also know cinemagoing has never stood still. Ever since Hunter took a chance on outdoor cinema in 1916, these spaces have evolved constantly to respond to new challenges and shifting appetites.

But one aspect remains the same: whether sat under the stars, or parked in a lot, Australians continue to see the value in leaving their homes to connect and share in new stories on the big screen.

Ruari Elkington, Senior Lecturer in Creative Industries & Chief Investigator at QUT Digital Media Research Centre (DMRC), Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Back To Top

Tell-Us

Drug companies pay doctors over A$11 million a year for travel and education. Here’s which specialties received the most

Monster Ztudio/Shutterstock Barbara Mintzes, University of Sydney and Malcolm Forbes, Deakin University

Drug companies are paying Australian doctors millions of dollars a year to fly to overseas conferences and meetings, give talks to other doctors, and to serve on advisory boards, our research shows.

Our team analysed reports from major drug companies, in the first comprehensive analysis of its kind. We found drug companies paid more than A$33 million to doctors in the three years from late 2019 to late 2022 for these consultancies and expenses.

We know this underestimates how much drug companies pay doctors as it leaves out the most common gift – food and drink – which drug companies in Australia do not declare.

Due to COVID restrictions, the timescale we looked at included periods where doctors were likely to be travelling less and attending fewer in-person medical conferences. So we suspect current levels of drug company funding to be even higher, especially for travel.

What we did and what we found

Since 2019, Medicines Australia, the trade association of the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, has published a centralised database of payments made to individual health professionals. This is the first comprehensive analysis of this database.

We downloaded the data and matched doctors’ names with listings with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra). We then looked at how many doctors per medical specialty received industry payments and how much companies paid to each specialty.

We found more than two-thirds of rheumatologists received industry payments. Rheumatologists often prescribe expensive new biologic drugs that suppress the immune system. These drugs are responsible for a substantial proportion of drug costs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

The specialists who received the most funding as a group were cancer doctors (oncology/haematology specialists). They received over $6 million in payments.

This is unsurprising given recently approved, expensive new cancer drugs. Some of these drugs are wonderful treatment advances; others offer minimal improvement in survival or quality of life.

A 2023 study found doctors receiving industry payments were more likely to prescribe cancer treatments of low clinical value.

Our analysis found some doctors with many small payments of a few hundred dollars. There were also instances of large individual payments.

Why does all this matter?

Doctors usually believe drug company promotion does not affect them. But research tells a different story. Industry payments can affect both doctors’ own prescribing decisions and those of their colleagues.

A US study of meals provided to doctors – on average costing less than US$20 – found the more meals a doctor received, the more of the promoted drug they prescribed.

Pizza anyone? Even providing a cheap meal can influence prescribing. El Nariz/Shutterstock

Another study found the more meals a doctor received from manufacturers of opioids (a class of strong painkillers), the more opioids they prescribed. Overprescribing played a key role in the opioid crisis in North America.

Overall, a substantial body of research shows industry funding affects prescribing, including for drugs that are not a first choice because of poor effectiveness, safety or cost-effectiveness.

Then there are doctors who act as “key opinion leaders” for companies. These include paid consultants who give talks to other doctors. An ex-industry employee who recruited doctors for such roles said:

Key opinion leaders were salespeople for us, and we would routinely measure the return on our investment, by tracking prescriptions before and after their presentations […] If that speaker didn’t make the impact the company was looking for, then you wouldn’t invite them back.

We know about payments to US doctors

The best available evidence on the effects of pharmaceutical industry funding on prescribing comes from the US government-run program called Open Payments.

Since 2013, all drug and device companies must report all payments over US$10 in value in any single year. Payment reports are linked to the promoted products, which allows researchers to compare doctors’ payments with their prescribing patterns.

Analysis of this data, which involves hundreds of thousands of doctors, has indisputably shown promotional payments affect prescribing.

Medical students need to know about this. LightField Studios/Shutterstock

US research also shows that doctors who had studied at medical schools that banned students receiving payments and gifts from drug companies were less likely to prescribe newer and more expensive drugs with limited evidence of benefit over existing drugs.

In general, Australian medical faculties have weak or no restrictions on medical students seeing pharmaceutical sales representatives, receiving gifts, or attending industry-sponsored events during their clinical training. They also have no restrictions on academic staff holding consultancies with manufacturers whose products they feature in their teaching.

So a first step to prevent undue pharmaceutical industry influence on prescribing decisions is to shelter medical students from this influence by having stronger conflict-of-interest policies, such as those mentioned above.

A second is better guidance for individual doctors from professional organisations and regulators on the types of funding that is and is not acceptable. We believe no doctor actively involved in patient care should accept payments from a drug company for talks, international travel or consultancies.

Third, if Medicines Australia is serious about transparency, it should require companies to list all payments – including those for food and drink – and to link health professionals’ names to their Ahpra registration numbers. This is similar to the reporting standard pharmaceutical companies follow in the US and would allow a more complete and clearer picture of what’s happening in Australia.

Patients trust doctors to choose the best available treatments to meet their health needs, based on scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness. They don’t expect marketing to influence that choice.

Barbara Mintzes, Professor, School of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney and Malcolm Forbes, Consultant psychiatrist and PhD candidate, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Back To Top

Tell-Us

Sydney becomes seventh world marathon major

SYDNEY - Sydney was elevated on Monday to the World Marathon Majors, joining the likes of London, New York and Boston at the pinnacle of global distance racing.

Its confirmation as the seventh member of the series, which also includes Tokyo, Berlin and Chicago, culminated a three-year programme to better the event.

World Marathon Majors chief Dawna Stone said the improvement in the Sydney race's operations and event experience had been "deeply impressive".

"We cannot wait to see our community embrace this race as a Major and start planning their visits to run the streets of one of the finest cities in the world," she added in a statement.

"Runners, your Sydney star awaits."

Athletics Australia president Jane Flemming called it a "transformative moment" for the increasingly popular sport in Australia.

"It is an achievement that will inspire countless Australians to take up running," she said.

"We're incredibly proud of the journey this race has been on and we are beyond excited for what this means for the future of the sport in Australia."

The Sydney Marathon is a legacy of the 2000 Olympics held in the city.

It first took place as a test event five months before the Games, with just 1,200 finishers.Since then the race has boomed, attracting 25,000 participants in 2024. Sydney becomes seventh world marathon major

Back To Top

Tell-Us

If Australia wants to fast-track 100% renewables, it must learn from Europe’s risky path

 

reisezielinfo/Shutterstock

Anne Kallies, RMIT University

Even after decades encouraging the growth of renewables, we’re still too reliant on coal and gas power stations.

The problem isn’t in our ability to generate clean power. It’s what happens after that. Major roadblocks include the need for 10,000 kilometres of new transmission lines to connect rural renewable farms with city consumers. Another oft-cited reason is the need to store power from renewables so it can be drawn on as needed. This is why the Australian Energy Market Operator sees such a big role for large-scale storage coupled with some flexible gas as a backup.

Last year, renewable investment actually shrank in Australia. Reasons for the slowdown are wide-ranging. Some are local, such as rural communities lobbying against new transmission lines, the need for planning and environmental approvals and the slow pace of creating new regulations. Others are global, such as increased competition for engineers and electricians, clean tech and raw materials.

As climate change worsens, frustration about the slow pace of change will intensify. But when we look around the world, we see similar challenges cropping up in many countries.

What’s in it for locals? Securing a social license for transmission lines is shaping up as a major source of delay in Australia’s energy transition. David L Young/Shutterstock

European Union

Transmission line hold-ups are by no means a delay unique to Australia. Data from the International Energy Agency shows building new electricity grid assets takes ten years on average in both Europe and the United States.

In 2022, the European Union introduced laws expressly aimed at speeding up the clean energy transition by fast-tracking permits for renewables, grid investment and storage assets. These investments, the laws state, are:

presumed as being in the overriding public interest […] when balancing legal interests in the individual case.

That is, when the interests of other stakeholders – including local communities and the environment – clash with clean energy plans, clean energy has priority.

Germany has gone further still with domestic laws designed to further streamline planning and approvals and favour energy transition projects over competing interests. These changes were sweetened with financial incentives for communities participating in clean energy projects.

This is a risky path. European leaders have chosen to go faster in weaning off fossil fuels at the risk of inflaming local communities. The size of the backlash became clear in the EU’s elections in June, where populists gained seats and environmental parties lost.

United States

In 2022, the US government passed a huge piece of green legislation known as the Inflation Reduction Act. Rather than introducing further regulations, the US has gone for a green stimulus, offering A$600 billion in grants and tax credits for companies investing in green manufacturing, electric vehicles, storage and so on. To date, this approach has been very effective. But money isn’t everything – new transmission lines will be essential, which means approvals, planning, securing the land corridor and so on.

This year, the US Energy Department released new rules bundling all federal approvals into one program in a bid to accelerate the building of transmission lines across state borders.

Australia could borrow from this. The government’s Future Made in Australia policy package takes its cues from US green stimulus, but at smaller scale. What America’s example shows us is these incentives work – especially when big.

US-style streamlining and bundling of approvals could address delays from overlapping state and federal approvals. Supporting local green manufacturing can create jobs, which in turn encourages community buy-in.

China

Even as Australia’s clean energy push hit the doldrums and emission levels stagnated, China’s staggering clean energy push began bearing fruit. Emissions in the world’s largest emitter began to fall, five years ahead of the government’s own target.

They did this by covering deserts with solar panels, building enormous offshore wind farms, rolling out fast rail, building hydroelectricity, and taking up electric vehicles very rapidly. In 2012, China had 3.4 gigawatts of solar and 61 GW of wind capacity. In 2023, it had 610 GW of solar and 441 GW of wind. It’s also cornered the market in renewable technologies and moving strongly into electric vehicles.

Of course, China’s government has far fewer checks and balances and exerts tight control over communities and media. We don’t often see what costs are paid by communities.

China has also used industrial policy cleverly, with government and industries acting in partnership. In fact, the green push in the US, EU, Australia and other Western jurisdictions takes cues from China’s approach.

There’s still a long road ahead for China. But given its reliance on energy-intensive manufacturing, it’s remarkable China’s leaders have managed to halt the constant increase in emissions.

China has rolled out renewables at a staggering rate – enough to stop emissions increasing. Jenson/Shutterstock

Acceleration has a cost

These examples show how it is possible to accelerate the energy transition. But often, it comes at a cost.

Costs can be monetary, such as when governments direct funding to green stimulus over other areas. But it can also be social, if the transition comes at the cost of community support or the health of the local environment.

This comes with the territory. Big infrastructure projects benefit many but disadvantage some.

While Australian governments could place climate action above all else as the EU is doing, they would risk community and political blowback. Long-term progress means doing the work to secure local support.

For instance, Victoria’s new Transmission Investment Framework brings communities to the fore, focusing on their role and what they will stand to gain early on.

Yes, this approach may slow the rate at which wind turbines go up and solar is laid down. But it may ensure public support over the long term.

No one said the shift to green energy would be easy. Only that it is necessary, worthwhile – and possible.

Anne Kallies, Senior Lecturer in Energy Law, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Back To Top

Tell-Us

Australia approves world's 'largest' solar hub

MELBOURNE - Australia on Wednesday approved plans for a massive solar and battery farm that would export energy to Singapore, a project dubbed the "largest solar precinct in the world".

Authorities announced environmental approvals for the US$24-billion SunCable project in Australia's remote north that is slated to power three million homes.

The project, which will include an array of panels, batteries and, eventually, a cable linking Australia with Singapore, is backed by tech billionaire and green activist Mike Cannon-Brookes.

"It will be the largest solar precinct in the world –- and heralds Australia as the world leader in green energy," said Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek.

It is hoped that energy production will begin in 2030.

The 12,000-hectare project will provide four gigawatts of energy per hour for domestic use. Two more gigawatts sent to Singapore via undersea cable will supply about 15 percent of the city-state's needs.

Batteries would be able to store about 40 gigawatts

SunCable Australia's managing director Cameron Garnsworthy said the approval was "a landmark moment in the project's journey".

Despite Wednesday's green light, numerous approval processes remain -- including working with Singapore's energy market authority, Indonesia's government and Australian Indigenous communities.

"SunCable will now focus its efforts on the next stage of planning to advance the project towards a final investment decision targeted by 2027," said Cannon-Brookes.

- 'Clean energy powerhouse' -

Australia is currently one of the world's leading exporters of coal and gas, but has also been ravaged by the effects of climate change -- from intense heat to floods and bushfires.

Although Australians are among the world's most enthusiastic adopters of household solar panels, a string of governments have been slow to fully embrace renewables.

In 2022, renewables made up 32 percent of Australia's total electricity generation -- compared to coal, which contributed 47 percent, according to the latest government data.

Climate Council chief executive officer Amanda McKenzie said the new solar hub was a bold step in making Australia a "clean energy powerhouse" and that such projects were essential in "delivering affordable energy and slashing climate pollution".

"With the closure of coal-fired power stations on the horizon, Australia needs to accelerate the roll-out of solar and storage at every level—rooftops, large-scale projects, and everything in between," she said.

The project would also be a significant step for Cannon-Brookes', who has expanded his portfolio from software company Atlassian -- which he co-founded -- to the renewable energy space, including being the latest shareholder in AGL Energy. Source: https://www.enca.com/opinion/australia-approves-worlds-largest-solar-hub

Back To Top

Tell-Us

Only 15 known underwater internet cables connect Australia to the world – and they’re under threat from fishing boats, spies and natural disasters

Undersea Internet cable in Atlantic shore. Laiotz/shutterstock

Cynthia Mehboob, Australian National University

The Australian government this week announced it would spend A$18 million over four years on a new centre aimed at keeping safe the undersea cables that power the nation’s internet.

The Cable Connectivity and Resilience Centre is tasked with protecting the critical undersea telecommunications cables throughout the Indo-Pacific region from deliberate interference from malicious actors, or accidental damage.

This is a crucial undertaking. The internet directly contributes $167 billion or more a year to the Australian economy. These cables enable everything from mundane social media updates to the colossal transactions that drive the global economy.

But what is driving Australia’s urgency to better protect these crucial cables now?

The backbone of the internet

Undersea telecommunications cables are laid on the ocean floor at depths down to 8,000 metres. They trace their origins back to the mid-19th century, driven by business interests and the need for imperial control.

The British Empire invested in these cables to connect and control its distant territories. In fact, they were referred to as the “nervous system of the British Empire”.

The first transatlantic cable in 1858 demonstrated the potential for rapid communication between continents. This revolutionised business and governance.

Map of the first Transatlantic submarine cable. Howe's Adventures & Achievements of Americans/Wikimedia Commons

These cables are typically no wider than a garden hose. They contain optical fibres wrapped in a thick layer of plastic for protection. They can transmit data from one end of the cable to the other at speeds of up to 300 terabits per second.

For context, 20 terabits per second can stream approximately 793,000 ultra-high-definition movies at the same time. With a capacity of 300 terabits per second, the possibilities for handling digital data are virtually limitless.

There are currently around 1.4 million kilometres of submarine cables in service globally. Only 15 known international cables manage 99% of Australia’s data traffic.

What will the new centre do?

The new centre will provide technical assistance and training across the Indo-Pacific. It will also support other governments in the region to develop better policy regarding undersea cables.

This continues Australia’s longstanding commitment to protecting undersea cables from threats such as accidental damage by fishing activities or attacks by malicious actors, including both state and non-state entities.

International submarine cables connecting Australia. ACMA

In 2011, Australia was the first country to join the International Cable Protection Committee (which works to improve the security of undersea cables).

Australia has designated protection zones and stringent regulations for undersea cables. Other countries and industry bodies see this as the gold standard.

Australia has established the new Cable Connectivity and Resilience Centre to address vulnerabilities posed by its growing dependency on the internet.

But global techno-political developments have also played a significant part.

New threats

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become the defining feature of the United States-China competition for technological dominance. And we have access to internet based AI tools because of undersea cables.

Breakthroughs in AI also could revolutionise productivity, industry and innovation. AI is already being used in medical research, diagnosis, banking and to streamline workflows. And the defence sector is growing increasingly reliant on AI for data analysis and advanced weaponry.

This further underscores the urgent need for robust data protection – which includes keeping undersea cables safe.

So the new Cable Connectivity and Resilience Centre is not merely an economic necessity. It is also crucial to national security. It allows Australia to position itself as a key digital security provider in the region.

Nuance is needed

But the specialised nature of undersea cable technology requires a nuanced approach.

Though staffed by Australian public servants, the new centre’s success hinges on close collaboration with private sector experts experienced in manufacturing, laying and monitoring cables.

This partnership is crucial for addressing physical and digital vulnerabilities, while navigating complex industry and geopolitical dynamics.

The dominance of tech giants such as Google and Amazon is another complicating factor. They control more than 20% of new subsea cable installations in the cable industry.

The government’s new centre must balance national interest with industry control to avoid power concentration. This is particularly crucial as big tech grows more influential.

The government has said the new centre is an important contribution to Quad– a diplomatic partnership between Australia, India, Japan and the US. But the centre will need to engage with other international partners, too.

For example, Australia can learn from countries such as Singapore, which has ambitious cable management strategies. These include plans to double Singapore’s cable network by 2033.

Engaging with countries beyond Quad will also bolster Australia’s digital infrastructure resilience.

A new way forward

The newly announced Cable Connectivity and Resilience Centre heralds a shift in Australia’s approach to digital infrastructure security.

Historically, Australia has taken a confrontational stance towards containing Chinese tech. This is exemplified by its 2016 rejection of Huawei’s bid to build the Coral Sea Cable, citing national security concerns.

However, the fact the new centre sits within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade signifies a transition towards a more diplomatic approach.

It reflects Australia’s intent to mitigate China’s influence over subsea infrastructure, AI and technology standards while balancing national security with diplomatic engagement.

Will it work? Only time will tell. But the shift from confrontation to diplomacy is a welcome development. It will likely help Australia navigate an increasingly complex global technological landscape.

Cynthia Mehboob, PhD Scholar in Department of International Relations, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Back To Top

Tell-Us

Too many Australians are waiting for a home care package. Here’s how to fix the delays

Davor Geber/Shutterstock Hal Swerissen, La Trobe University

Waiting lists for older people who need home care have blown out again. Twice as many people are now waiting for a Commonwealth Home Care Package as last year.

Home care packages help older people with more significant needs to live independently at home and in the community.

Four levels of care are available. Level 1 provides up $10,000 per year for services such as allied health, social support and transport with limited assistance for housework and meals. Level 4 provides up to $60,000 per year for personal and social support and a range of health services for older people with complex health, personal and social needs living at home.

An aged care assessment is required to get a package. Packages are means tested and users are expected to contribute a daily fee, income tested fees and additional fees for services not covered by their package.

But the federal government caps the number of home care packages it provides. When demand exceeds supply, waiting times blow out.

Too few packages are available

In December 2023, 270,000 older people had a home care package – an increase of 14% since December 2022.

But demand for home care packages continued to grow much faster than the increase in the number of packages. The number of people on the waiting list increased from 30,000 to 51,000.

That would not be a problem if waiting times were acceptable. But they aren’t.

Once older people are assessed as eligible, it takes around one to three months to get a level 1 or 2 package, but more like 12 months to get a more intensive level 3 or 4 package. This doesn’t include the two to six weeks it takes to get an aged care assessment.

The problem continues to grow. The most recent estimate is that almost 70,000 older people are now waiting for a home care package.

What do older people do while they wait?

Often, people who need a package muddle along for long periods with help from family, friends and local community services.

Because of the shortage in home care packages, people are offered lower package levels or basic services provided by the Commonwealth Home Support Program while they wait for their approved package.

This has serious consequences. Long waiting periods for home care packages can lead to deterioration in health, increased pressure on families, hospital admissions, unnecessary entry to residential care and reduced quality of life.

Around 8,000 people died while waiting for a package in 2020-21 and a further 11,000 entered residential care instead.

Why is demand increasing?

The increase in demand for home and community care is partly due to demographic ageing. Australia is rapidly becoming older. In the 1970s around 8% of the population was aged over 65.

By 2026 it will be more than 22%. This will see a rapid increase in the number of people aged 80 and over (the highest users of home care) in the next ten years.

But other factors including increased living costs, reductions in the availability of informal care and older people’s preference for care at home rather than in an institution are also important.

 

Demand for home care services grows as the proportion of Australians aged over 80 increases. Daisy Daisy/Shutterstock

Serious problems with home care packages are not new. In addition to problems with long waiting times, getting access remains complex and cumbersome.

There has been a proliferation of home care providers without the development of a local or regional management structure to safeguard older people’s interests.

There are also concerns about value for money and low levels of training for home care staff.

Most of these issues were identified in the Royal Commission on Aged Care Quality and Safety, which concluded in 2021.

What did the commission recommend?

Most importantly, the commission recommended a timely, universal entitlement to aged care to guarantee access to the level of care and support each older person needs.

For home care, the commission recommended a streamlined assessment process to improve access via:

• a single home care program that combined the current support and package programs to be introduced by this year
• a new funding model consistent with the funding that would be available if the person entered residential care
• a number of additional service improvements, including access to allied health.

The federal government has failed to meet the commission’s basic recommendation that older people get access to the level of care they need within one month.

The proposed new home care program has not been implemented, streamlined assessment is not in place, waiting lists and times continue to blow out and the new system design has not been settled.

Add to that the proliferation of home care providers, difficulties in attracting and retaining staff and little progress on requirements for training, supervision and staff development.

Overwhelmingly, older people want to live independently at home for as long as possible. In the short term, the federal government should match demand and supply for home care packages.

In the medium term, it needs to get on with implementing the recommendations of the royal commission with much greater urgency.

Hal Swerissen, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, La Trobe University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Back To Top

Tell-Us