Search

Advocates slam "ageist" call for older drivers to undergo mandatory testing

A fresh push to make older drivers undergo mandatory health checks every year has been labelled ageist by advocates. General Practitioners have reignited the debate to introduce annual assessments for drivers in Victoria aged 75 and over, to bring the state in line with standards in other states including NSW, Queensland, WA and the Australian Capital Territory. “This is not about discriminating against older people, but a recognition that the skills that are required to drive safely can be lost as we get older,” the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Victoria chair Dr Anita Muñoz told The Age. "We do feel that having an annual assessment done for elderly drivers is a good thing," the college's Victoria co-deputy chair Dr Bindiya Sethi added. Victoria Police data obtained by The Age also showed that 145 people have died and 7080 have been injured in road incidents caused by people aged over 65. 20 per cent of licence holders in Victoria are over 65, which has gone up from 16 per cent a decade ago. In the last financial year, there were 247 deaths and 16,265 injuries caused by crashes on Victorian roads, with drivers aged 65 and over responsible for around 10 per cent of these incidences. However, Chris Potaris, chief executive of the Council on the Ageing Victoria and Seniors Rights Victoria, has called the move "ageist". “We continue to support Victoria’s approach, which emphasises a driver’s behaviour and medical fitness to operate a motor vehicle,” he told the publication. “Driving should be based on ability, not on age.” Seniors Rights Victoria policy and advocacy manager Ben Rogers has also slammed the move. "We find it ageist and arbitrary ... It's targeting people that don't need to be targeted," Rogers said. MP Steve Dimopolous added that there was no evidence that an aged-based assessment model was any better than the existing rules. VicRoads also claimed that there is a lot of misinformation about older drivers, who are "usually more cautious, more experienced and more responsible" than younger drivers. "They are more likely to obey the law and are less likely to drink drive or speed," VicRoads said. However, a few others believe that mandatory assessments are a good move. "I think it's fair enough. Over a certain age, maybe 70 or so," local man Pat said. "I think the younger drivers are worse than the older drivers," another added. Image: Getty

Legal

Dad awarded compensation after developing heart issue from mandatory vaccine

An Adelaide father is set to receive hefty compensation after a mandatory Covid jab left him with a debilitating health condition. In 2021 at the height of the Covid pandemic in Australia, 44-year-old Daniel Shepherd was required to receive tow Covid vaccinations, due to his hands on role at an aged care facility. After having two Pfizer vaccines, he suffered some adverse effects, but dismissed his symptoms as nothing serious. In the months after, Shepherd was required to have a booster shot when he began a new job with the Department of Child Protection in October of the same year. In January 2022, the father was told if we wanted to keep his job as a health and childcare worker, he needed to have the jab. After eventually agreeing to the booster, Shepherd has his third dose of Pfizer in late February 2022, but began suffering from chest pains just hours later. "It felt like someone had their knee right on my chest," he told <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/adelaide-news-covid-vaccine-man-to-get-government-compensation-after-developing-heart-condition/55cc0fbf-4631-4cf0-b395-8c8b6c71a43f" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">9News.</a> The pain kept getting worse until he was rushed to hospital a few weeks later when he thought he was having a heart attack. There he was diagnosed with post-vaccine pericarditis: an inflammation of the membrane around the heart. His illness meant he was unable to work full time, and also meant he was unable to keep up with his young son. "Even today with just mild exertion [I get] chest pains and then it's followed by fatigue, like severe fatigue," Shepard said. "It's heartbreaking to have to say 'sorry buddy, daddy's tired'." Mr Shepherd decided to take legal action after he was unable to work, launching a workers compensation claim against the government. In a landmark ruling in mid-January, the South Australian Employment Tribunal agreed to pay weekly compensation and medical bills to Shepherd. Doctors were unanimous in his case that the vaccine was the cause of his inability to work, but the government argued emergency directions that were in place at the time trumped the laws around workplace injury. Pericarditis is meant to clear within a few months, but Shepherd's symptoms have plagued him for almost two years. Image credits: 9News

Legal

Mandatory sensitivity training for Kyle Sandilands

KIIS FM have been led to employ a second censor to monitor the talkshow and will provide sensitivity training to Kyle Sandilands after a breach in decency standards during a segment about the Paralympics. The ruling was given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) regarding two episodes of the breakfast talkshow in September 2021. In one of the segments, the radio giant referred to the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics as “horrific” as well as dubbing it the “Special Olympics”. “Have you been watching the Special Olympics [sic], it is horrific some of the things,” Sandilands told his co-host Jackie ‘O’ Henderson. “Some poor bloke ran for the high jump and then veered right ’cause he was blind and landed on his a**e on the ground,” he continued. Sandilands claimed to respect “the spirit of the contest” on-air but added, “Listen, you can be nice to the handicapped, but you don’t have to compare them to the non-handicapped.” In its defence, KIIS FM highlighted that its audience was used to Kyle’s “low-level coarse language that is ordinarily reserved for private conversation”. “Mr Sandilands is well-known for his turn of phrase, colourful vernacular and blunt manner,” stated the defence. “The audience somewhat ‘self-selects’ so that those that choose to listen are not offended by this manner. Our expectation is that regular Kyle & Jackie listeners would not have been offended by the Paralympics segment.” ACMA, however, found in its report that the segment would have been offensive to more than just the athletes but the broader community as well. “Mr Sandilands’ comments were insensitive and hurtful toward the athletes as well as being offensive to the average moderate person in the broader community, including the regular audience of the program, who would have been aware of the potential impact of these comments, not only on the Paralympians that were being described in this manner, but on the wider group of people in Australia with disabilities,” ACMA said. It also saw another breach when Sandilands threatened a news.com.au journalist over an article that criticised him, which led to him saying on air that said reporter should “expect a visit from me”. According to ACMA, the remarks “offended against generally accepted standards of decency”. KIIS FM will now be required to maintain two censors and sensitivity training will be provided to both hosts, producers and other relevant staff. It has also agreed to review its controls to prevent further breaches. Image credit: Getty

Legal

Tempers flare on The Project over mandatory vaccinations

Tuesday night’s episode of The Project saw two hosts clash over mandatory vaccinations. A disagreement between Kate Langbroek and Hamish McDonald played out on live television following a news segment about mandatory jabs for employees in some workplaces. Langbroek shared that the pair had disagreed on the issue in an earlier off-air briefing. “You weren’t calling me a gentleman at that point,” MacDonald said. “Nearly everyone was (pro) mandatory vaccine, but I’m not mandatory vaccine for work,” Langbroek explained. “I’m not anti-vax,” she admitted, “but I’m very uncomfortable prescribing mandatorily to people what they have to put in their bodies to work or participate in - I’m just not.” She argued that her aversion may be due to her upbringing as a Jehovah’s Witness. “They had the concept of disfellowshipping, which I find so repugnant. I hate the thought that people will be disfellowshipped from their lives because they have hesitation or doubts about the vaccination,” she said. But, MacDonald countered that her doubts could be impacting others. “So as an employer, you’re responsible not just to Kate, who might be cautious, you’re responsible to all your employees, right?” he said. “If you let Kate continue to come into work, you can transmit it to us and then we can transmit it to our families. If you want to visit…” “That’s when your vaccine has to do its work, mate!” Langbroek interrupted. “And my vaccine.” “But the vaccine doesn’t prevent you from contracting the virus or transmitting it, it just reduces the likelihood that you will end up in hospital or that you will die,” MacDonald explained. “The reality is, if someone comes to our workplace, gives it to me, I can take it to a residential aged care facility, where my father might be, and then spread it through there. I don’t want to do that,” he said. “People bringing Covid into the workplace is not safe.” Though Langbroek agreed with his point, she pressed that it shouldn’t be mandatory to get the jab. “If you had the right to go into your workplace and feel protected, does someone else also not have the right to decide what they put in their body?” The fiery conversation came to an end with Langbroek pointing out that she has had one dose of the vaccine and one of her children was vaccinated earlier that day. Image: The Project / Channel 10

Dr Kerry Chant and Brad Hazzard sued over mandatory jabs

A lawsuit has been filed in the NSW Supreme Court in response to mandatory COVID-19 vaccine requirements for some NSW professions. Sydney solicitor Tony Nikolic - who previously represented the protestor accused with punching a horse at Sydney’s anti-lockdown march - has filed the suit against Health Minister Brad Hazzard and Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant, with the matter expected to be heard on Friday, August 3. Law firm Ashley, Francina, Leonard and Associates argues that the public health orders requiring “a broad class of workers” to be vaccinated is illegal and unconstitutional. The firm also argues that the additional powers granted to police to enforce public health orders during the most recent lockdown are illegal. “We have received thousands of inquiries from front-line workers - police, paramedics, nurses, aged care [staff], doctors, firefighters - construction workers, teachers, airline staff, miners, truck drivers, university students, mums and dads and, importantly, employers,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “It is our view that vaccine compulsion strips citizens of their basic human rights, including their right to work, their right to bodily integrity and their right to informed consent to medical treatment without coercion.” The suit seeks a declaration that the NSW public health orders are invalid, as well as a ban on any further orders made by Mr Hazzard and Dr Chant. “No-one is above the law, including ministers and public health officers.” Mr Nikolic has advertised for plaintiffs to join the suit via the firm’s website and the social media platform Telegram, which has also been used to organise and incite anti-lockdown protests across Australia. Nikolic posted to Telegram on Saturday, praising politicians such as Craig Kelly, Reverend Fred Nile, and Pauline Hanson for their opposition to lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations. “You are born free, free to choose, freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of bodily integrity - don’t give it away for free,” he said. “Don’t be bullied.” Is it illegal? According to an <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2021/215/1/medico-legal-considerations-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination-high-risk-workers" target="_blank">article</a> published in The Medical Journal of Australia by Dr Dev Kevat and colleagues from several Melbourne health institutions, Australian employers could mandate vaccination of high-risk workers. “Such a direction may well be lawful and reasonable, excepting for those with relevant medical exemptions, for whom low risk roles must be sought if possible,” Kevat and his colleagues wrote. However, this would vary state to state, based on their legislation. Image: Getty Images

Legal

One major factor that could throw Sydney into snap lockdown

New South Wales premier Gladys Berejiklian has announced that Sydney will not be going into lockdown, despite strong suggestions that COVID-19 cases may surge. NSW recorded a worrying rise, with officials confirming 10 new infections on Tuesday. Five locally acquired cases have been recorded in the 24 hours to 8 pm last night. Two of those cases were announced yesterday morning, but seven other infections were recorded after the official reporting period and will be included in Wednesday’s numbers. This means 21 infections are officially linked to the Bondi outbreak. Ms Berejiklian said that she may consider a lockdown if unlinked cases began to rise. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7841949/gladys.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/6ba41cc181f54e239f3c067ddd13eff3" /> “At this stage we follow Dr Chant and the health advice,” she said. “Because all but one case is linked to an existing case and that case was only discovered a few hours ago … that gives us a degree of confidence that what we have asked people to do matches the risk that is there at the moment. “If that changes, if we suddenly have a number of unlinked cases and if we suddenly have them outside the geographic region they are concentrated in that we will obviously adjust the health advice and we will respond to that (idea of a lockdown).” Ms Berejiklian did however announce a week-long extension of mask restrictions to all of greater Sydney. Blue Mountains and the Illawarra regions are also included in having to wear face masks, however the Central Coast is not. Masks are compulsory on public transport and indoor venues until midnight on Wednesday, June 30. “We will extend it to all of Greater Sydney. That means excluding the Central Coast and excluding the Hunter, but also they will be required to adhere to that compulsory mask wearing indoors for hospitality workers when we are going shopping, going grocery shopping, going to events inside,” she told reporters. “It is only when you are eating or drinking indoors at a venue that you can’t or shouldn’t wear a mask. In every other circumstance, if you live or are in Sydney, you must wear a mask for another week beyond Wednesday midnight.” Images: Getty Images

News

”No jab, no pay”: Senator slams mandatory vaccines in workplace

Queensland Senator Matt Canavan says employers should not make coronavirus vaccines mandatory in the workplace, and instead respect people’s medical requirements. The comments come after reports Queensland workers could face a “no-jab-no-pay” policy from major employers. Mr Canavan said mandatory medical procedures should come from health professionals, not bosses. "I think we should give peace a chance first — I don't see the need to jump to compulsion at this stage," he told Today. "We have to be careful putting employers in a position where they judge people's medical requirements. "There are some people, like pregnant women or women who may want to get pregnant who may not be in the right category to get the vaccine. "I don't think we want to put bosses in charge of that. I prefer a health authority to be taking those decisions." The UK and US have both began their vaccination programs, after the approval of the Pfizer-BioTech’s COVID-19 jab.

Legal

Anti-vaxxer Isabel Lucas opts out of mandatory COVID test in Byron

Isabel Lucas recently revealed she “opted out” of coronavirus testing while on the set of her recent film with Luke Hemsworth in Byron Bay. However, her confession has surprised producers of the Mose Bosch & Rockit, with testing being mandatory for all those working on the production. "Every cast and crew member was required to sign an acknowledgement that they would adhere to the COVID-Safe guidelines adopted by the production, which included an acknowledgement that they had been COVID-tested prior to principal photography," Black Pearl Productions said in a statement, seen by <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theage.com.au/culture/movies/isabel-lucas-opted-out-of-covid-testing-on-byron-bay-film-20201010-p563vt.html?fbclid=IwAR1Qq7wEqgwh9LA8kAZo6ja1JXXxZWyer2NkR4YPEU8oXO3Z3ir0FKXfYzU" target="_blank">The Age</a>. "Isabel's recent statement that she was not tested is inconsistent with the producers' understanding that she had complied with the COVID-Safe guidelines adopted by the production." The 35-year-old, who has openly spoken about her anti-vax beliefs in the past, made the admission on an American wellbeing podcast, Alfa Vedic, on September 25. "I gave my duty of care of what I could offer to respect everyone's health and maintain my own health, and I shared that, and I opted out of doing the COVID test," she said. "Everyone was really respectful and really honouring of, like, how to maintain health while this very tricky time is underway. But I needed to do that. I felt like it was quite an understanding, relaxed group of people." While it’s understood no one working on the production was infected with the virus, the move has concerned industry insiders as due to privacy restrictions around medical records, it’s on the actor to prove they’ve been tested.

Beauty & Style

“No jab, no pay”: Morrison clarifies “mandatory” COVID vaccine statement

Australia’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer Nick Coatsworth has raised the possibility of restrictions for people who refuse to get the COVID-19 vaccine when it is available. Dr Coatsworth said rules like “No jab no pay”, which would stop welfare payments, could be put in place to make sure more Australians are immunised against the virus. He also mentioned regulations surrounding international and interstate travel would need to be reviewed. It comes after Scott Morrison said the coronavirus vaccine will be as “mandatory as you can possibly make it” - a comment which he has now backtracked from. But Morrison did say he was “open to all options” to get as many Australians as possible vaccinated. Appearing on 3AW’s Neil Mitchell on Wednesday morning, the Prime Minister was asked whether the vaccine would be compulsory. To which he responded: “I would expect it to be as mandatory as you can possibly make it.” But later that afternoon, he told 2GB’s Jim Wilson that the vaccine wouldn’t be compulsory. “There’s been a bit of an over-reaction to any suggestion of this, there will be no compulsory vaccine,” he said. “What we want to achieve is as much vaccination as we possibly can.” Dr Coatsworth said the first step was to assure Australians that the vaccine that is brought in is safe and effective. “It’s that confidence that’s going to get the bulk of Australians getting vaccinated. I have absolutely no doubt about that,” Dr Coatsworth said. “I suspect the majority of Australians will get vaccinated and there will be a strong public view that those who choose not to get vaccinated there needs to be some sort of incentive, perhaps through current objectives (like) no jab, no pay. “I know that’s a very reasonable interpretation of the what the PM had to say today.” Dr Coatsworth said other possible measures will need to be discussed with the government, but suggested these: • Not being able to go into restaurants • Not being able to travel internationally • Not being able to catch public transport Dr Coatsworth also flagged the idea of “a yellow fever vaccination certificate” he described like what they had in the “olden days”. “These are clearly policy decisions that need, will be discussed, but there’s no current mechanism to enforce that sort of thing at the moment,” he said.

News

NSW urged to make face masks mandatory

A health expert has called on the New South Wales government to follow Melbourne’s lead in making face masks mandatory. Residents of Melbourne and the Mitchell Shire are required to wear face coverings starting Thursday. Those failing to comply risk a $200 fine. Mary-Louise McLaws, an epidemiologist and World Health Organization (WHO) adviser, said a similar order should be applied across Sydney “within days” to contain the coronavirus outbreak in NSW. “I know this will be criticised because it’s across a wide geographical area, but that’s the point,” Professor McLaws told the <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/leading-coronavirus-expert-says-face-masks-should-be-made-compulsory-in-sydney-within-days/ar-BB16YIAw?li=AAgfYrC">ABC</a>. She said new evidence showed wearing “any sort of cloth is better than a bare face” to contain the virus spread. “Some of the new studies show that some three-layered fabrics give you up to 70 per cent protection,” she said. “So if everybody is wearing them, that’s doubling your effectiveness really.” On <a href="https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-crisis-nsw-told-to-follow-melbournes-lead-and-consider-face-masks-ng-b881614742z">Monday</a>, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian urged the people of the state to wear a mask “if you cannot guarantee people around you will respect that social distancing”. Federal Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth said mask use is encouraged for residents in hotspot areas. “What we hope and are confident of is that these outbreaks in NSW will be brought under control and we won’t have to move to a policy of mandatory mask usage anytime soon,” Dr Coatsworth told <a href="https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/coronavirus-surge-in-new-south-wales-reason-enough-for-mask-use-epidemiologists-say-c-1178696">Sunrise</a>. He also told the <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/leading-coronavirus-expert-says-face-masks-should-be-made-compulsory-in-sydney-within-days/ar-BB16YIAw?li=AAgfYrC">ABC</a>: “Mandating mask use … sounds like a very easy and straightforward policy to implement, but if you mandate something, you have to enforce it, you have to give people fines, you have to ensure that the supply of masks is adequate. “We want Australians to be absolutely clear that their primary mechanism of defence against COVID-19 is distance – physical distance, getting themselves tested when they’re unwell and supporting our contact tracers.”

News

Government orders mandatory code of conduct for Google and Facebook

The government has told the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to develop a mandatory code of conduct to address bargaining power imbalances between media companies and digital platforms such as Facebook and Google - and the question of payment for content. Earlier the ACCC was directed by the government to facilitate a voluntary code. But slow progress and the impact on the media of the coronavirus have convinced the government of the need for more urgent and compulsory action. In its Digital Platforms Inquiry report of last year, the ACCC identified a bargaining power imbalance between news media organisations and these large digital platforms, and recommended codes of conduct to govern commercial relationships. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Communications Minister Paul Fletcher have said in a statement the timeframe needs to be accelerated. “The Australian media sector was already under significant pressure - that has now been exacerbated by a sharp decline in advertising revenue driven by coronavirus,” the ministers say. “At the same time, while discussions between the parties have been taking place, progress on a voluntary code has been limited, according to recent advice provided by the ACCC”. The ministers say the ACCC considers it unlikely any voluntary agreement would be reached on the key issue of payment for content. The code will cover data sharing, ranking and display of news content, and the monetisation and the sharing of revenue generated from news. It will also include enforcement, penalty and binding dispute resolution mechanisms. The ACCC will release a draft before the end of July, and the government wants the code finalised soon after that. The University of Canberra’s 2019 Digital News Report said the majority of surveyed consumers who access news online get this news via indirect methods, such as social media, news aggregators, email newsletters and mobile alerts. According to Nielsen Panel Data for February 2019, Google search had a unique audience of 19.7 million in Australia, and Facebook had a unique audience of 17.6 million. Written by Michelle Grattan. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-orders-mandatory-code-of-conduct-for-google-facebook-136694">The Conversation.</a>

Art

Why mandatory retirement ages should be a thing of the past

Alysia Blackham, Senior Lecturer in Law and ARC Discovery Early Career Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, explains why mandatory retirement ages should be a thing of the past. Mandatory retirement ages are – rightly – mostly a thing of the past in Australia. But they still linger both formally and informally in some sectors and roles. This is of major concern for a country with an ageing population, such as Australia. Compulsory retirement ages have been <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ElderLawRw/2004/10.html" target="_blank">progressively</a> <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ada2004174/s18.html" target="_blank">prohibited</a> in Australia since the 1990s. There are good reasons for this: reliance on irrational stereotypes about older workers can prevent businesses from finding <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/hansard/reps/dailys/dr260603.pdf" target="_blank">the best person for the job</a>. Allowing workers to choose when they retire can improve staff retention, increase workforce morale, and help employers retain vital skills and experience. At a national level, prohibiting mandatory retirement can help relieve the burden of an ageing workforce on pension systems. It also promotes labour market supply and removes <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/hansard/reps/dailys/dr260603.pdf" target="_blank">barriers to older people participating in society</a>. Abolishing mandatory retirement can reduce welfare expenditure and increase <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/willing-work-national-inquiry-employment-discrimination" target="_blank">self-reliance</a>. Importantly, it recognises the inherent worth and dignity of workers of all ages, and sends a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/hansard/reps/dailys/dr260603.pdf" target="_blank">strong national message about the importance of ending age discrimination</a>. Where mandatory retirement remains Federal Australian judges must retire at the age of 70, as outlined in section 72 of the Australian Constitution. While section 72 does not generally apply to state or territory courts, all states and territories also impose a retirement age for their judges. These range between ages 65 and 72. The Australian Defence Force has also maintained a mandatory retirement age of <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/2-recruitment-and-employment-law/compulsory-retirement" target="_blank">60 for personnel and 65 for reservists</a>, though this can be extended on a case-by-case basis. Overseas, some countries still allow mandatory retirement. The UK, for example, allows employers to justify a mandatory retirement age for their workforce. The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2010-0201.html" target="_blank">UK Supreme Court</a> has identified two broad categories of legitimate justification: intergenerational fairness and dignity. Retirement provisions have been retained by some UK universities, including <a href="https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/personnel/end/retirement/acrelretire/" target="_blank">Oxford</a> and <a href="https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/policies-procedures/1-retirement-policy" target="_blank">Cambridge</a>. These organisations have claimed that retirement ages are justified by very low turnover, which may limit progression for other staff. They also cite the need to increase staff diversity, refresh the workforce, and facilitate succession planning. <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3157431" target="_blank">My research on how Australian universities</a> are operating without mandatory retirement shows that there has been an increase in the number of academics working longer. The percentage of total academic staff at Australian universities aged over 64 increased from 0.96% in 1997 to 4.66% in 2012. Extending academics’ working lives may be affecting the employment prospects of younger academics, particularly in relation to the availability of permanent academic posts at junior levels. Overall, though, there have been few negative impacts from the removal of mandatory retirement ages in universities. I found Australian universities value the experience and skills of their older academic workforce, and explicitly reject any link between age and declining performance. Judicial retirement ages Even for the judiciary, mandatory retirement ages are outdated and inefficient. When they were introduced at the federal level in 1977, retirement ages were intended to “contemporise” the courts by introducing new people and ideas. They were designed to prevent declining performance on the bench and provide opportunities for younger judges. But the workforce and our attitudes to older workers have changed since 1977. <a href="http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/2061019/02-Blackham.pdf" target="_blank">My research found that</a> mandatory retirement ages for judges are inconsistent with modern workplace practices and are contrary to the desire for age equality. There is no evidence that older judges are “out of touch”, and age is a bad predictor of individual capacity. Instead, judicial retirement ages may deprive the courts of expertise and experience. Retirement ages also appear to be contrary to the wishes of judges themselves. Justice Graham Bell, who retired from the Family Court of Australia on 20 February 2015, was <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/judges-put-to-pasture-too-early-says-bell/news-story/39a2a9f640fd24495a200a0947c2129a" target="_blank">quoted as saying</a>: These days 70 is equal to 60 or 55. … Judges should be able to go on till 80 provided they pass a medical inspection. After all, the pension makes judges pretty expensive creatures in retirement. They are sent out to pasture too early. What’s more, judicial retirement ages are largely unnecessary in practice. Judges are entitled to generous pensions and often retire of their own accord. New judges will still be given opportunities even if we remove mandatory retirement ages. Informal retirement pressures Where mandatory retirement has been officially removed, there can still be pressure to retire at a certain age. <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3157431" target="_blank">My research</a> found that some Australian universities may be using potentially discriminatory methods (such as redundancy) to manage an ageing workforce. A significant proportion of older Australian workers report experiencing age discrimination. In 2014, over a quarter (27%) of Australians aged 50 years and over <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/age-discrimination/publications/national-prevalence-survey-age-discrimination-workplace" target="_blank">reported</a> experiencing age discrimination in employment in the last two years. Given these findings, in 2016 the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) conducted <a href="http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/willing-work-national-inquiry-employment-discrimination" target="_blank">a national inquiry</a> into discrimination against older workers. It recommended a suite of changes including discrimination law reforms and appointing a cabinet minister for longevity. <a href="https://search-informit-com-au.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=177621836027451;res=IELAPA" target="_blank">Previous studies</a> have suggested that declining numbers of older men in the workforce are mostly due to employer constraints, not constraints on the part of older workers. This suggests the need for a shift in employers’ attitudes towards older workers, to encourage continued participation. Why mandatory retirement ages are inefficient With an ageing population, Australia cannot afford to lose skilled workers prematurely. In 2013, the <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/ageing-australia" target="_blank">Productivity Commission</a> estimated that overall labour supply per capita will fall by nearly 5% by 2059–60 due to demographic ageing. The commission concluded that: A period of truly diminished outcomes is likely to be at hand, unless luck or appropriate policy initiatives intervene. One of the key policy measures available to address this looming issue is to increase workforce participation rates for older workers. Eliminating the last vestiges of mandatory retirement is an obvious first step. What are your thoughts? Do you agree with this opinion? Written by Alysia Blackham. Republished with permission of <a href="http://www.theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.<img width="1" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94484/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation"/>

Retirement Income

Switzerland makes dog training mandatory

Switzerland recently passed an innovative mandate ordering new dog owners to have dog training, leading some to suggest that the law be introduced to Australia as well. “Dog listener” Tony Knight told ABC, "I often say that having a dog is like getting a car – you have to learn how to drive." "Ideally people should have some sort of compulsory learning but when they are forced to do it, they may not want to do it." The dog trainer suggests that the problem lies not in our dogs, but in the owners: "We forget that dogs are dogs, because we have humanised them," he said, suggesting that learning how to currently train a dog isn’t at all time consuming: "You don't have to spend hours, but just learn to communicate the way the dog understands. It's easy to learn and makes a lot of sense, provided it is done correctly.” Knight even went so far as to suggest dog bites are primarily a fault of humans, "Over 95 per cent of dog bites happen because people invade dogs ' personal space," he said. "All dogs should be treated with respect because if you do that, you are less likely to get into bother." "There are some dog owners out there that just let their dogs run riot and understandably some non-dog owners who think it's not fair," Mr Knight said. Related links: <a href="/news/news/2015/08/parents-choose-gender-of-babies/">Parents are choosing baby’s gender with controversial new method</a> <a href="/news/news/2015/08/whiter-teeth-coffee-tea/">For whiter teeth, add this to your morning cuppa</a> <a href="/news/news/2015/08/tourists-stunning-photos-of-australia/">Stunning photos of Australia as you’ve never seen it before</a>

News

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Advocates slam "ageist" call for older drivers to undergo mandatory testing

Dad awarded compensation after developing heart issue from mandatory vaccine

Mandatory sensitivity training for Kyle Sandilands

Tempers flare on The Project over mandatory vaccinations

Dr Kerry Chant and Brad Hazzard sued over mandatory jabs

One major factor that could throw Sydney into snap lockdown

”No jab, no pay”: Senator slams mandatory vaccines in workplace

Anti-vaxxer Isabel Lucas opts out of mandatory COVID test in Byron

“No jab, no pay”: Morrison clarifies “mandatory” COVID vaccine statement

NSW urged to make face masks mandatory

Government orders mandatory code of conduct for Google and Facebook

Why mandatory retirement ages should be a thing of the past

Switzerland makes dog training mandatory

Our Partners