1,721,008 research outputs found
The broader economic impact of mental illness on the community
No full textMental illness carries enormous emotional and social costs for individuals and communities. But what about its broader impact on the economy?
According to the OECD, as many as one in two people will experience mental illness at some point in their lives. It can affect their job prospects, their earning capacity and overall workplace productivity.
Today at the National Press Club, the Chair of the National Mental Health Commission Professor Allan Fels, will plead the case for mental health to be included in the nation\u27s economic reform agenda.
Professor Fels joins Fran Kelly on RN Breakfast from Canberra.
Guests
Professor Allan Fels: Chair of the National Mental Health Commission
Credits
Producer: Jane Shield
Choice free zone
No full textShoppers are paying far too much for their groceries because of restrictive out-of-date planning laws, according to this report. Former ACCC head Allan Fels argues that an overhaul of the NSW government\u27s Centres Policy would allow greater competition, leading to consumers paying up to 18 per cent less for food staples and up to 28 per cent less for other household products.
Other key points of report include:
• Reform of the system could amount to 296 billion Australia-wide.
• It would also be a boom for employment, delivering 147,000 jobs nationally and 47,000 jobs in NSW.
• The report argues against present planning laws which effectively restrict supermarkets to established centres, resulting in traffic congestion and restrictive trade.
• Major retail landlords in existing shopping centres were taking between 17 and 21 per cent of retail turnover as rent. This compares with 9 to 12 per cent in other countries
Competition and Consumers in Telecommunications: Industry-Specific Competition
No full text With the introduction of telecommunications-specific competition regulation in July 1997, the Australian telecommunications industry began a transition which is transforming its structure and operations. Under amendments to the Trade Practices Act, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was given responsibility for applying the regulation, which established an access regime and special powers in relation to anti-competitive conduct. In this article, the Commission's chairman, Professor Allan Fels, summarises the operation of the regime over the last three years and outlines the Commission's major decisions and approaches. In a year when the regulation is subject to review, he also expresses some views on the issues which will influence future regulatory directions in telecommunications. </jats:p
The Australian : competition and consumer commission. by Allan Fels
No full texttag=1 data=The Australian : competition and consumer commission. by Allan Fels
tag=2 data=Fels, Allan
tag=3 data=Sydney Papers,
tag=4 data=7
tag=5 data=4
tag=6 data=Spring 1995
tag=7 data=60-69.
tag=8 data=ECONOMIC CONDITIONS%FEDERAL-STATE & TERRITORY RELATIONS
tag=10 data=The general topic of competition policy is well worthy of consideration.
tag=11 data=1996/2/1
tag=12 data=96/0044
tag=13 data=CABThe general topic of competition policy is well worthy of consideration
Mental health in Australia
No full textThe first National Report Card on mental health and suicide prevention is due to be released at the end of 2012. What will it say about Australia\u27s mental health services now - and what more needs to be done?
Addressing the topic of mental health in Australia (and its treatment) are: Professor Allan Fels, head of the newly established National Mental Health Commission; former Australian of the Year Professor Patrick McGorry, head of Orygen Youth Health and one of the National Mental Health Commissioners, and Barbara Hocking, Executive Director of SANE Australia.
They are joined by Professor Simon Crowe, Professor of Neuroscience and Clinical Neuropsychology at La Trobe University and President of the Australian Psychological Society, who chairs the event.
Presented by La Trobe University Ideas and Society program, April 2012.
Duration: 1:00:4
How to bring knowledge to the entire planet
No full textThe problem of poorer countries not having access to knowledge can be remedied, writes Allan Fels The problem of poorer countries not having access to knowledge can be remedied, writes Allan Fels THE promise of the internet as an easy-to-search, open-access archive holding all humanity’s accumulated research and information is not being realised. According to a new report from the British Parliament, much of the best scientific and medical research is being locked away in for-profit journals whose rising costs are increasingly putting them out of public reach. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report confirms what many Australian universities have been saying for a while. It found that prices of major scientific and medical journals rose an average of 58 per cent between 1998 and 2003. Most library budgets have been held steady or been reduced during this time, so subscriptions are being cancelled and book purchases cut back. Journal publishing is a very profitable business. As an example, stockmarket analysts frequently describe the academic journal division of the publicly listed publishing group Reed Elsevier as its cash cow. Much of the research appearing in journals is taxpayer-funded. Journal publishers claim their charges are justified because of the costs associated with distribution and with the peer review process. However, in most cases the academics who referee articles before publication do so for the prestige associated with the role and are paid small amounts, if at all. As for distribution costs, if the journals were made available via the internet these would be minimal. It is time that the Australian government changed its funding criteria and approach, to encourage researchers to publish their work in ways that ensure it is accessible to all. There are a number of models emerging for what has become known as open-access publishing that would allow this to happen. All share the objective of making access to research articles free for the reader. There are a range of approaches to funding, including an author-pays system whereby the article’s author or his or her sponsoring organisation pays a fee to deposit the research into the archive. A fascinating demonstration of how an open-access research distribution universe would look is the Los Alamos E-Print Archive (arxiv.org). This website has revolutionised physics research by serving as an open and respected resource for serious scientists. There are 280,000 papers in the archive, divided into sub-fields including quantum physics, nuclear theory and astrophysics. The site is funded largely by the United States National Science Foundation, but about two-thirds of visitors are from other countries. The calibre of participating scientists is extremely high, and for many scholars checking the site is a daily routine. Researchers typically post successive drafts of articles on which they are working, incorporating comments from readers to the site. Such open-access structures lower the barriers to entry to science, bring more brains into the innovation process, and increase the potential for breakthroughs. There are a number of active contributors of research to the Los Alamos archive from countries in Africa and Eastern Europe whose institutions are too poor to subscribe to traditional journals. In Australia, a group of academics known as the National Scholarly Communications Forum has been pushing for a structure whereby government funding of scientific and medical research would include a provision for an open-access publishing fee. This would ensure the financial viability of a free online journal of articles in each discipline. If the government takes the lead here, it will also provide the endorsement necessary to overcome the understandable reluctance of researchers to give up the prestige of publishing in well-known subscription-based journals. Having a single, standardised system for open-access archiving will also ensure that what is archived is able to be searched efficiently. Colin Steele, one of the conveners of the NSCF, makes the insightful argument that prosperity in a knowledge economy depends as much, if not more, on knowledge distribution power than it does on knowledge production power. One could not make a stronger case for the end of the era of high-priced academic journals and the beginning of an era of open-access publishing. Professor Allan Fels, the former chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, is dean of the Australia and New Zealand School of Government. This article first appeared in the Age Photo: iStockphoto.co
Guarding the Oeufs. "Allan Fels: A Portrait of Power" by Fred Brenchley. [review]
No full textAssuming the chair of a business regulatory authority might not be thought of as an ideal path to media stardom, but Allan Fels showed otherwise. Fels is easily Australia’s best-known cartel buster and the scourge of price-fixing business and anti-competitive behaviour generally.
Brenchley clearly admires Fels and what he has achieved. The book demonstrates that there is much to admire. It is an admirable chapter in the history of Australia’s economic life.Australia Council, La Trobe University, National Library of Australia, Holding Redlich, Arts Victori
Should we shoot the messenger?
No full textMedia professionals are their own worst enemies, argues ALLAN FELS
THE media like to portray themselves as just the messenger in the political debate. But if Australians went to the polls with rifles rather than ballot papers, there is no question whom they would prefer to shoot ? the messenger.
Although the media are happy to run opinion polls on the popularity of politicians they never commission polls on how the media are faring in the public eye. The result would be very disturbing for both media proprietors and journalists, as a recent Morgan Poll disclosed. Of 676 Australians polled, 61 per cent said media companies and owners had too much influence, while 20 per cent said the level of influence was about right, and only 11 per cent thought the media not particularly influential.
Similarly, 57 per cent believed the media had too much influence in determining how Australians voted, with 23 per cent saying the level of influence was about right and only 13 per cent seeing the media as not particularly influential.
These findings send stark messages not only to the media but also to politicians, who play a game with the media for public attention. There is widespread public disillusionment with both political evasion and media abuse, but it appears the balance of that ire is increasingly falling on the media.
The rise of the commentariat, some with high profiles across several media outlets, rudeness in interviewing techniques, a ?scalp? mentality when chasing political crises, a superior attitude that journalism is now the real opposition to government and a lack of accountability all contribute to the defrayed coinage of modern media in the democratic debate.
In my view, such developments are actually damaging the political process. The result is that the public is deprived of information they need to act as responsible citizens.
Many Australian consumers these days, particularly younger ones, have reacted to this trend by going direct to internet sources to avoid the filter of media editing. The problem here, of course, is that many of the internet sources are owned by the same media proprietors. Political reporting thrives more on scandals, splits and gaffes than on rational coverage of the issues.
Blame should not fall only on the media. Government has an obligation to the community to explain what it is doing. Often it falls short, even using restrictions on freedom of information laws to stop exposure. But politicians also try to control the media using regulations and ownership rules.
The political struggle with proprietors doesn\u27t stop with commercial media. Governments of both hues regularly try to stack the ABC with political sympathisers to influence the national media.
The Howard government has rewarded television owners with a free transition to digital, mandating high-definition television that blocks out potential spectrum for competitors, restricting datacasting and banning any new free-to-air television entrants.
While the government might portray its proposed lifting of cross and foreign ownership restrictions as deregulating to enable ?new media?, the public is under no such illusion. A majority of people surveyed in the Morgan Poll disagreed with both ideas, with 35 per cent believing the changes would reduce media diversity. More tellingly, only 14 per cent believed the changes would enhance the integrity of the media, with 36 per cent saying it would actually have a negative effect.
Media and Government, a conference organised by the Australia New Zealand School of Government, explored many of the themes in the media-political struggle, including the commercial dynamic of new media and how this affects government, as well as the accountability of media. It opened a rich field for new study, a job left vacant by media shy of self-analysis. ?
Allan Fels is dean of the Australia New Zealand School of Government. This article first appeared in the Age.
Photo: Tina Rencelj/iStockphoto.co
Time to smoke out media Santas
No full textThe ACCC must take a tough line on recent moves by Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Stokes, write Allan Fels and Fred Brenchley
JUDGING by Graeme Samuel’s remarks to a Senate committee, Rupert Murdoch’s 7.5 per cent share raid on competitor John Fairfax Holdings is exercising the mind of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman.
So it should. Indeed, there is a strong case for the ACCC to take court action forcing News Corp to divest. The ACCC should also be taking a very long spoon to Kerry Stokes’s Seven Network’s 14.9 per cent stake in the West Australian.
Of the four “positioning” moves so far as players stake claims in the new media landscape expected after parliament passed the Howard government’s new media laws abolishing foreign and cross-ownership restrictions, only James Packer’s 50 per cent sale to foreign equity and Tony O’Reilly’s proposal to buy out minorities in APN pose few competition issues.
The Murdoch and Stokes moves raise serious competition concerns.
News’s 7.5 per cent in Fairfax is widely seen as positioning Murdoch at the table as Fairfax is either sold or its valuable mastheads, including the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review, are carved up among players. News has become one of the largest Fairfax shareholders, ensuring Murdoch a strong say in the future ownership and perhaps running of the company.
That is an extraordinary prospect. Between the Age, SMH and AFR, Fairfax is News’s sole competitor in the big Sydney, Melbourne and national newspaper markets.
The possibility of Murdoch influencing the future ownership of a competitor has obvious trade practices concerns. Section 50 of the Trade Practices Act recognised future events when it empowered the ACCC to police share acquisitions that “have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market.”
“Likely” is the operative word here. A substantial lessening of competition does not have to be something that has already occurred. The ACCC opposed Tabcorp’s proposed acquisition of Unitab partially on the grounds that it would lessen competition in wagering markets.
Sleight of hand has featured in the media asset game in the past. News Corp has form when it comes to directing future control and ownership of competitors. In 1989, it provided Kerry Stokes with a loan to buy the Canberra Times from Kerry Packer - with an option to later buy the newspaper itself.
There is also an element of gamesmanship in News’s carefully selected 7.5 per cent figure. It is low enough to be flagged through, as it is less than formal views of control. Yet if the ACCC doesn’t move for divestment, it is then likely to face creeping increases that take News over 10 per cent to give it greater blocking power in Fairfax. Murdoch has already hinted the holding may increase.
Kerry Stokes’s 14.9 per cent of WA Newspapers raises different competition issues. It appears to be an initial step to ownership once the cross-media restrictions are formally abolished. While the ACCC has traditionally taken the view that newspapers and television are in different markets - meaning that in theory it had no competition issues on joint ownership - Stokes’s move is new territory for the regulator.
Seven is the top-rating Perth network. The West Australian is the only daily newspaper. As well, Samuel has been foreshadowing a new slant on media markets involving control of content, not just advertising. Combined, Seven and the West Australian would exercise considerable sway on Perth content, and possibly advertising.
Stokes’s move also sets a tricky precedent. Any ACCC tick means it is blessing similar strong television-newspaper content and advertising tie-ups in the three single-newspaper markets of Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane under the new media rules. That means creeping media concentration in major capitals.
Samuel rightly points out that despite all the fanfare about media mergers - two-out-of-three ownership of TV, radio and newspapers is allowed but there is a five “voices” test in metro markets - it is still the section 50 guard on any likely substantial lessening of competition that will be the ultimate determinant. He has also joked that when it comes to a company taking a claimed “friendly” position in a rival, he is no believer in Santa Claus either.
It’s time for him to smoke out those media Santas coming down the chimneys of their rivals. •
Allan Fels is dean of the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and a former chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Fred Brenchley is a former editor of the Australian Financial Review, where this article first appeared.
Photo: EPA/Everett Kennedy Brow
- …
