Jeremy Irvine, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Dental Prosthetists Association talks with Victor Perton about Australian Leadership: Australians demand to know 'why' from their leaders and then decide for themselves. 

Jeremy Irvine: “Leading people is a responsibility, not a right. You have to want to lead, and want to challenged – and it must come from within.”

Victor Perton: Jeremy, what are your favourite stories of contemporary Australian leadership?

Jeremy Irvine: I’ve been fortunate to have worked with and for some great leaders in my time in politics, and in industry and professional associations.

One of my favourite examples of leadership was a principal at an independent school in Canberra I knew, Paul Browning. Paul used to talk about the drop-off line in the morning being a time when he would not do any meetings – it was a time for him to stand at school, greet his students, and acknowledge or talk with parents. That’s stuck with me - he had choices with his time and he prioritised making time for his students and their parents – ultimately both of whom, in a way, were his employers. That time before school each day was important to Paul, because he was being available, he was being seen to be available, and he was genuine in committing each day to be available to the community which he led and served. Paul talks of and writes about ‘servant leadership’ and of trust. You need to drive yourself to earn it from those you seek to lead, have a vision and then be able to contextualise and communicate what you’re doing and why.

Another leader I admired tremendously when I worked in federal Parliament was a gentleman called Michael Manthorpe, who at the time was a branch head in the department my minister was responsible for. Michael was a classic case in all that is good about the public service, because he was committed to the service of the public for good. His branch admired him, the ministers’ offices he worked with respected him, and he was devoid of arrogance. There was a steely resolve tempered with incredible decency. Here was someone who led by example, quietly, and was achieving. He’s since gone to be a very high-ranked public servant who has been recognised with a Public Service Medal and was recently appointed as Commonwealth Ombudsman. I have reflected at times over the years as I’ve seen Michael on Estimates (once a staffer, always a staffer!) if much of his career success has been in no small part due to his lack of arrogance and his commitment to his people and craft. The boy from Kingaroy, as I recall he was from, has led by example and it’s fantastic to see Michael’s career turn out the way it has – fantastic and totally unsurprising.

The third and probably most profound leader I have seen in action was Julie Bishop, now our Minister for Foreign Affairs – back then she was aged care minister and I was humbled to be offered a role as one of her advisers. Julie personified everything good about action leadership – she had exceptionally high expectations of herself and of her team and demanded only the best. “I don’t know” was not a term to be uttered in Question Time briefing and you had to be across your portfolio area and ready to deliver. She actively sought advisers’ views, listened, made good decisions and ran a high-tempo, backbench-friendly and professional office and it engendered total loyalty by her staff which was reciprocated by her. Julie knew herself extremely well and coming into the ministry she was already a successful and experienced parliamentarian, civic leader and lawyer who knew what needed to be done and she had a vision of how she – and her staff and department – were going to get there. Critically, Julie was compassionate, and the only reason I left the office was because I got quite ill. Among all her competing priorities, she made significant time to ask what I needed from her and she did so because she genuinely cared.

What do Paul, Michael and Julie have in common in their leadership?

Firstly, they knew themselves and how they ticked and were internally constantly reflecting on how to improve. They were self-driven, highly-motivated. They all had good judgement – the ‘x factor’ of making a call based on gut instinct and experience. They had a vision of what needed to be done, how it needed to happen and actively encouraged and supported their people, all of which generated loyalty. Finally, they did not suffer fools, they drove excellence and were all exceptional communicators in explaining the why.

And the proof is there to see – Paul is a leading independent school principal and leadership thinker, Michael led the response to the ABC child care issues and was awarded a PSM for it, and Julie is Deputy Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party.

Victor Perton: Jeremy, what are the qualities that Australians seek from their leaders?

Jeremy Irvine: Head – being able to create a vision that has meaning, explaining the why and making it real

My four-year-old son Gus’s favourite phrase is “why Dad?” – from bath time to explaining the difference between red and green trams (!) – but even at his age, he wants context.

In a leadership sense, from the goldfields, through past Federation and the wars, Australians have demanded to know ‘why’ from their leaders – and then decide for themselves.

‘Yeah Nah’ is not a line from Kath and Kim, it’s a good way of understanding the Banjo Paterson ideal of the Australian ‘no-one is my master’ egalitarian ‘I’ll follow my equal’ spirit.

Australians expect to know what it is they’re being told to do, why, what meaning it has, and for the direction to have been considered and thought-out. Hand – getting stuck in, making decisions and being proactive. Nothing smacks more of poor leadership I think to Australians than passivity.

People respect leaders who actively seek out the B*S and remove it from their organisations (also known as – which I love – the ‘no d*ckheads policy’). That brings with its challenges, but as someone who’s had their share of appalling leaders, I believe that if you want the coin, you need to earn it.

A title is useless without meaning and actively focusing on the people you lead and serve (including your team) and getting on and doing is what people not only seek, but what they deserve to get from you as a leader as a minimum. You need to be active, open, making decisions.

Steve Smith, for example, won’t win a test by standing in the slips, letting the game go and not hatching a plan to have England 5-52 at lunch on day one of a Boxing Day Test. It’s about action, planning, nimbleness. You need to be thinking, taking counsel, leading by example, and encouraging your team. Do.

Heart – genuinely caring about people and not being ‘full of it’ People are too busy, too intelligent to be spun platitudes.

“Leading by example” by its very nature means striving as a leader in your own right to be an exemplar of the behaviours you wish to exhibit and be judged for. With tongue somewhat in cheek (again political observation with relevance to reality): Some day, somewhere, you’ll don a fluoro vest and hard hat and stand behind someone more important than you, smiling, on national TV, while having tie askew and the remnants of lunch in your teeth – and no-one will know who you are, or care. This is the quality of not believing your own B*S – and it’s a must. No-one will remember the media gaggle or you, but they’ll thank you for helping get the local hospital funding.

Why? Because it’s not about you. Really. And the good leaders know it.

Leading people is a responsibility, not a right.

Victor Perton: Jeremy, what are the unique qualities of leadership in Australia and by Australians?

Jeremy Irvine: This is a tough one for me as I’ve worked only in Australia and then for a few years in New Zealand, so my view is framed on my experience.

Top three: You can come from anywhere and be anyone and be the person you want to be. John Curtin, arguably one of our greatest prime ministers, left school at 13, was a reformed alcoholic, went to jail for his beliefs. Curtin had a profound impact as leader during World War 2 and beyond. I’ve stood in the old House of Reps chamber and wondered what it would’ve been like in late 1941, early 1942 as the war in the Pacific directly threatened Australia and what type of person would’ve been needed to have led the country through such incredible national stress and unimaginable real fear. Curtin was it.

John Monash, another example, rose through the ranks from being a reservist officer in World War 1 to command the Australian troops in France. A first-generation Jewish German-Australian too – it’s almost hard to imagine in those times. After the war, he was a civic leader and according to his biographer, “in the 1920s Monash was broadly accepted, not just in Victoria, as the greatest living Australian". The Shrine of Remembrance is a notable example of his energy and drive and it’s fitting that so much of Melbourne (uni, hospital, freeway, school, city) is named in Monash’s honour. His pre-and post-war achievements alone are staggering, let alone the critical role he played in the war itself.

Good Australian leadership is consultative, egalitarian leadership. Former Australian cricket captain Mark Taylor highlights listening as a key leadership trait, acknowledging mistakes and learning from them, but not being bogged down by errors. Taylor was a consultative, considered leader on the field who as an opening batsman literally led the team from the front. In any team, sport, corporate setting or whatever, there are going to be people cleverer than you. Shut up and listen to them and decide and then act. No-one knows everything.

Positivity: Australians have, at their best, an incredible positivity and good Australian leadership empowers it. Acknowledging the real challenges and ordeals of the past that continue today in many parts of our community, we are a nation of rolling our sleeves up and getting on and doing the doing. Good Australian leadership sees each day as an opportunity and to have a go. It confounds me that often we can be so negative, when the opportunity to be positive and look at what could be is self-evident.

Good Australian leadership harnesses the genuine goodwill of people, it’s positive, it puts people first, and it gets on and does.

This article was originally sourced from the Australian Leadership.

Dr Deen Sanders, Chief Executive Officer, of the Professional Standards Council was awarded an Order of Australia Medal 2017 for services to public administration and to professional standards. 

Service includes:

• Chief Executive Officer, Professional Standards Councils, since 2012.
• Chief Professional Officer, Financial Planning Association of Australia, 2006-2012.
• Director, The Why Corporation - Strategic Consulting, 2011-2012; Managing Director, 1994-2000.
• General Manager, Financial Services Education Agency Australia, 2003-2006.
• Executive Director, Global Learning Advisory Services, 2003-2006.
• National Project Director, Financial Services, National Finance Industry Training Advisory
• Board, 2000-2003.
• Doctoral Researcher, Central Queensland (CQ) University, 2006-2010

For more information on Dr Deen Sanders, click here.

Applications are now open for Tata Consultancy Services Collaborate Innovate Pro Bono Program

Jump to registration

Tata Consultancy Services is excited to announce that the Pro Bono technology program Collaborate Innovate is continuing in 2017/2018. Applications are now open for technology projects that will transform your organisation and the Australian or New Zealand communities.

At Tata we believe that technology has the potential to change the way the not-for-profit sector delivers services to the community and advocates for change. By empowering the not-for-profit sector and social enterprises with world leading technology solutions we believe Tata can assist to build the sector’s organisational capability and capacity to create greater social and environmental impact.

We would like to extend the invitation to apply to your organisation. The program partners Tata Consultancy Services’ world leading technology services with selected organisations on a pro bono basis. To find out more about the types of technology services we offer visit our website www.tcs.com

Whether your technology vision and needs are small or large, innovative or general enhancements to existing systems, we would be delighted to hear from you.

Selection criteria

We are committed to responding to needs of organisations and as such have kept our selection criteria minimal. We are looking to partner with organisations who:

Australian or New Zealand not-for-profit organisations or social enterprises

• Articulate the impact that the project will have on your organisation and/or the benefits for the Australian or New Zealand community
• Alignment of your organisation’s objectives to one or more of Tata’s Corporate Social Responsibility focus areas - health, education, environment, and Australia/NZ-India relations
• A commitment to delivering the technology project in partnership and to examine areas of collaboration beyond this project

Key dates:

Applications open - 13 June 2017
Information session (Register here) - 22 June 2017
Applications close - 14 July 2017
Announcement of 2017/2018 partnerships - 14-18 August 2017
Projects completed - 1 March 2018

You are welcome to send any additional documentation you feel will benefit your application to anz.csr@tcs.com with the subject: Pro Bono Program Supporting Documentation.

Should you need further information and assistance with the process, please write to our Corporate Social Responsibility team at anz.csr@tcs.com.

Inaugural partners

In 2015/16 we formed partnerships with six not-for-profit organisations to deliver technology expertise. Here’s a few examples of what we’ve partnered on:

Cystic Fibrosis New South Wales – Design and development of a mobile app to empower young people with Cystic Fibrosis to manage their own health – intended to improve health outcomes and life expectancy.

Heartkids Australia – Design and development of a medical registry for childhood congenital heart disease. This will enable medical practitioners to better gather and analyse data on the disease, intervene more effectively in patient care. Furthermore it will inform the design and management of medical research, treatment, workforce planning and allied health support services.

Hunter Medical Research Institute – Design and development of a new website to link the medical research community with the general public – empowering members of the public to participate in world leading research.

This article was originally sourced from Tata Consultancy Services.

The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) has urged the Government to consider the high levels of involuntary retirement before raising the Age Pension eligibility age to 70 years old.

AIST CEO Eva Scheerlinck said that it isn’t just people with health issues who are struggling to work until age 70.

“Many older Australians do not get to choose when they retire,” said Ms Scheerlinck. “We know that while health plays a role, other factors such as age discrimination, job type and caring demands all have a significant impact on when a person retires from paid work.”

Research conducted by the Australian Centre for Financial Studies and AIST found that up to 40 per cent of older Australians do not get to choose when they retire due to a range of factors.

Those working in community and personal services, in clerical and administrative roles, sales workers and labourers are between 35 and 50 per cent more likely to retire before the age of 60 than professional workers.

“Ensuring long-term sustainability of the system is important but we need to make sure there are appropriate mechanisms in place to protect older Australians who are unable to work longer,” said Ms Scheerlinck.

Ms Scheerlinck said that any increase would also add to workers’ concerns of not having enough money in retirement.

“Any changes that affect access to the Age Pension need to be part of a broader community conversation on retirement objectives,” said Ms Scheerlinck. “We do need to look at ways to keep Australians in the workforce longer but simply raising the pension age is not the answer.”

This media release was sourced directly from AIST and written by Janet de Silva.

The big five banks' threat to pass on the federal government's bank levy to consumers would cost customers less than $10 a year, a new report has found, as the Coalition's battle with the banks moves through its third week.

The report from the progressive think tank The Australia Institute is likely to be seized on by the Turnbull government a day after it wrote the $6.2 billion levy into law.

The institute found that if the banks followed through on the threat to pass the cost of the levy to shareholders via reduced dividends then it would cost the average superannuation balance $7 a year.

The majority of Australians who have a super account are shareholders in banks through their superannuation investment fund. According to the institute, the average superannuation balance holds $3141 of shares in the five major banks, with $166 in dividends paid in 2015-16.

A hit of 4.5 per cent from the tax-deductible bank levy to those dividends would equal about 60 cents a month, or $7 per year.

The figure follows weeks of calls from Treasurer Scott Morrison for customers to ditch their institutions if they attempted to pass the cost of the levy onto consumers.

The report found that if customers took up Mr Morrison on his advice to shop around at smaller banks not affected by the levy they could save up to $6000 a year on home loan repayments.

"Ironically, if the banks choosing to pass on the levy to customers led to people shopping around, mortgage holders could be big winners," the institute's senior economist Matt Grudnoff said.

Ubank had the lowest standard variable mortgage rate, 3.74 per cent, according the institute, compared to the top rate of the Commonwealth Bank at 5.39 per cent.

"The banks gain a big benefit from the implied government guarantee that they would be bailed out if they got into financial difficulties," Mr Grudnoff said. "It is only fair that the banks pay for this insurance."

A spokeswoman for the Australian Bankers' Association questioned the methodology of the Australia Institute in comparing like for like interest rates and said that it was not only big banks who were insured by government, but the whole system.

"In terms of the implicit guarantee, during the depths of the global financial crisis there was a three-and-a-half week period when the Australian government guaranteed all liabilities of all banks for no fee," she said. "This means the whole system was supported, not just the major banks."

Mr Grudnoff, who has historically been critical of Coalition policies, praised the bank levy as a reasonable substitute for a super profits tax.

Mr Morrison agreed with Mr Grudnoff's sentiment, calling on banks to accept the levy as necessary to support schools, hospitals and pension payments.

"Many other Australians have had to deal with some hard decisions we have had to make over the last four years," he said. "It's a fair levy, it's a reasonable levy, it's in place in other countries around the world and its also a levy that banks are in a position to support."

Foreshadowing the passage of the legislation through the Senate, the Bankers' Association ramped up its attacks this week, accusing the government of wiping off $39 billion in market value of the big five since the budget.

The association now has its target set at getting the levy removed from 2020-21, when the budget is set to return to surplus.

"If this is a tax for budget repair, then it is only fair that it be removed when the budget is repaired," the association's chief executive Anna Bligh said on Tuesday.

Mr Morrison has pegged the levy rate at 0.015 a quarter on banks that hold more than $100 billion in liabilities, making it difficult for future governments to raise the rate without new legislation.

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said Labor's in-principle support for the government's bank tax "was not a blank cheque".

"We will continue to explore these issues through a Senate inquiry into the legislation," he said.

This article was originally sourced from the Sydney Morning Herald.

The wave of public discontent that’s changed how corporate Australia reports and discloses executive pay, is now moving to other types of organisations. The most recent example is professional accounting body Certified Practising Accountants of Australia (CPA), which has been subject to heated member debate about the remuneration of its CEO and management team.

CPA Australia ultimately disclosed the individual remuneration of its executive and board after extended lobbying by members.

Public disclosure of executive remuneration has not always been a feature of the Australian corporate landscape. Events over time have amplified public concerns about executive pay, cementing reporting and disclosure into law. Ultimately this may lead to a trend of voluntary disclosure among professional organisations.

Poor pay practice is associated with large unexpected corporate collapses and is a red flag for ineffective corporate governance. At the same time, the gap between executive salaries and the average Australian wage has widened. The Productivity Commission reports that the average remuneration of ASX100 company executives grew from 17 times average earnings in 1993 to 42 times in 2009.

In the past, member organisations like CPA Australia have only had to prove their value to members through their services but now members are calling for the disclosure of executive remuneration as a way to enhance corporate transparency and accountability. This is in the same way that public disclosures have allowed listed companies’ shareholders to better monitor the performance of their executive team.

Until 1998, disclosure of the remuneration paid to individual company executives was not required from Australian listed companies. Instead, a banded disclosure showing the number of executives in each relevant salary band was required.

The push to disclose executive pay started in 1998, when the Company Law Review Act (1998) introduced the requirement for listed companies to disclose the details of the nature and amount of the salaries of each director and the five officers of the firm receiving the highest salary.

Listed corporations responded slowly to this requirement. One problem was the confusion over whether the term used in the legislation - “emoluments” - covered equity-based remuneration like options. To assist companies in interpreting the new requirements, in November 1998 the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) issued a Practice Note with the intent of clarifying some of the accounting-related requirements introduced by legislation.

Generally, corporate disclosures about executive remuneration were of pretty low quality after the legislation was introduced, especially disclosures about the value of equity-based remuneration. However, the unexpected collapse of telecommunications company One.Tel and insurance company HIH Insurance in 2001, amid concerns that poor remuneration practice was partly to blame, brought the issue of executive pay clearly into public focus.

In June 2003, ASIC issued a media release to provide unequivocal guidance about remuneration disclosures. ASIC’s chief accountant, Greg Pound, stated:

ASIC expects all listed companies to comply with their legal obligations, and will consider action against directors if full remuneration, including option values, is not disclosed.

Around the same time, the Australian accounting regulator, the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB), began to draft an accounting standard on remuneration disclosures. This was ultimately released in January 2004. In addition to clarifying many definitional issues, the standard set out explicit and detailed remuneration reporting and disclosure guidelines, including rules for the valuation and disclosure of equity-based compensation.

Also in 2004, the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act introduced expanded remuneration disclosures as well as a non-binding shareholder vote on remuneration.

The need for all these regulations became even clearer as poorly designed remuneration played a role in the 2008 global financial crisis. The remuneration practices of overseas financial institutions was heavily criticised for encouraging excessive risk taking in the lead up to the crisis.

Concerns over executive remuneration ultimately led to a Productivity Commission inquiry into executive pay in Australia. Published in 2009, the commission’s report recommends (among other things) the implementation of the current “two-strikes rule” for shareholder voting on remuneration. The two-strikes rule was introduced as law in 2011.

This historical path to the current rules on remuneration demonstrates that regulating in this area is fraught with difficulties.

What this means for professional bodies

Organisations like CPA Australia are not required to prepare a detailed remuneration report or to disclose the remuneration of individual directors or executives. Likewise the individual pay of key executives of government supported organisations such as Australia Post or the Australian universities is not a compulsory disclosure.

Along with CPA Australia, the professional accounting body Chartered Accountants Australia New Zealand (CAANZ) disclosed CEO Lee White’s 2017 remuneration in response to inquiries from the Australian Financial Review. Similarly, the Tax Institute revealed the remuneration of its CEO Noel Rowland. However, a third Australian accounting body, the Institute of Public Accountants (IPA), has not disclosed individual executive remuneration.

When it comes to how these professional bodies usually report remuneration, a total remuneration figure for the executive team or providing a banded remuneration disclosure (which shows the number of individuals within each relevant salary band above a specified minimum salary) is usually common practice. For example, the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) revealed the collective remuneration of its 12 person executive team but not individual pay. Australian universities generally provide a banded remuneration disclosure but also reveal individual vice chancellor pay levels in response to media inquiries.

There is murkiness around the clear disclosure of executive pay outside of the public company sector. Individual remuneration is generally not disclosed to members or to the public but can be revealed at the discretion of the organisation concerned if inquiries are made.

It’s clear from the scenario unfolding around CPA Australia that members expect disclosure of individual executive and director pay as part of the transparency and accountability owed to them by their professional body. There’s also an argument for a similar duty to disclose to stakeholders for government owned or funded organisations.

Further regulation may not be needed to extend remuneration reporting requirements outside of the corporate sector. However, this may be the start of a trend in voluntary remuneration disclosure, as an act of accountability to stakeholders. After all, sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.

This article was sourced from The Conversation. 

You would think most sports would jump at the chance to be included in the Olympic Games, but parkour is a little more complicated.

The sport, which involves jumping, climbing and running through urban environments, is being courted by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG), which wants to establish a new parkour-inspired discipline.

But the move has provoked a strong backlash from the parkour community.

"The big bullies are coming in and just trying to muscle in and take it away from everyone," said Matthew Campbell of Melbourne, who has been practising parkour for 13 years.

"It is just people with more power and money looking to stomp on everyone else".

So why are they so upset? Describing parkour as a sport can be contentious. For many practitioners it is as much a philosophical exercise as a physical one.

For most of them it's not about competition.

"Parkour by nature is non-competitive, so as soon as you make it a competition, to me, it is not parkour anymore, it is just the moves," vice president of the Australian Parkour Association Amy Han said.

"We are a sporting nation and I get that, and a lot of people understand sport and exercise and competition through having levels and awards and that's how you know you are progressing, and that's how you know that you're good at something, but that is not the parkour mentality."

In May, FIG ran its first parkour-based test event, an Obstacle Course Cup in Montpelier, France, which was attended by officials from the International Olympic Committee.

Significantly, the event was supported by two of the founders of parkour, David Belle and Charles Perriere.

In an open letter to the parkour community, Belle and Perriere said the time had come "to put a foot across the line that separate[s] us from competition."

Australian Parkour Association Amy Han balances on one hand in Melbourne.

But many long-time enthusiasts are dismayed by this new turn.

Parkour associations in Australia, the UK, France, New Zealand, Argentina and Singapore are refusing to work with FIG and have protested against the "encroachment and misappropriation of our practice."

What does Gymnastics Australia have to say?

Gymnastics Australia (GA) is supportive of FIG's push to incorporate parkour. Last year, it launched a parkour-inspired Free-G program in 65 gyms across the country.

The chief executive of GA, Mark Rendell said there has been some "mixed messages" from the parkour community, but he was confident an agreement could be reached.

A man lunges for a retaining wall as he executes the Parkour move the "Tic-Tac" in inner Melbourne.

"I think gymnastics is the foundation of all sports and parkour is an outcome of learning those fundamentals - we think it is a great opportunity to bring more disciplines that are closely aligned, closer together and work collaboratively for the growth of the sport," he said.

"I think the president of the international gymnastics federation has made it clear that he wants to respect the traditions and values of parkour."

There are currently 560 gymnastics clubs across Australian with more than 200,000 active participants.

The majority of these participants are female and under 12, and the sport is keen to broaden its base.

"We see parkour as an opportunity to keep kids in the gym longer and give them an opportunity to achieve their sporting goals," said Rendell.

What happens now?

FIG is now planning to establish a Parkour Committee, which will be chaired by David Belle and will hold its first meeting at the end of July.

The organisation is aiming to hold sprint and freestyle obstacle course world cups in 2018 and 2019, and a world championships in 2020.

Meanwhile, parkour associations are planning to continue their resistance.

"We are fighting against a lot of money and a lot of power, so it's going to be difficult," Campbell said.

"But it's not in the nature of parkour people to give up."

This article was originally sourced from the ABC.

Five Sydney breweries have joined forces to launch The Inner West Brewery Association (IWBA), which aims to cement Sydney’s Inner West as the Craft Beer Capital of Australia.

The founding members are Batch Brewing Company, Wayward Brewing Company, Young Henrys, Willie the Boatman and Grifter Brewing Company.

“We’ve felt for some time that the inner west is really developing as one of the most important beer areas in Sydney and also Australia,” IWBA president and Wayward founder Peter Philip told Brews News.

“We wanted to get together to achieve a few things, one was working with local government to streamline some of the planning regulations.”

Separately, Philip was recently nominated to the board of the Craft Beer Industry Association – soon to be rebirthed as Independent Brewers Australia – but says IWBA is best placed to achieve its members’ local objectives.

“My view is that IBA is a national body and should be representing national interests. Whilst we definitely have a desire to push excise reform, we really think that that’s the job of CBIA or IBA now,” he said.

Philip said there are 14 production breweries in the inner west and all will be invited to join, including Lion-owned Malt Shovel Brewery, Wayward’s nearest neighbour.

“This is really about being in the inner west, we are great friends with the guys at Malt Shovel and we will be encouraging them to join,” he said.

“Having five founders was really about trying to streamline the process so that we could get something done quickly.”

The association was foreshadowed at a recent forum for the brewers organised by Federal Labor MP Anthony Albanese, the MP for local electorate Grayndler, who was present at this morning’s launch hosted by Batch Brewing.

14 and counting

Philip’s tally of 14 breweries in the area includes one that is yet to start production, Sauce Brewing in Marrickville.

“I know of four more that are planning on setting up but I haven’t included them. They’re in the early stages of planning,” he said.

Philip said the inner west actually has a higher density of breweries than Portland or San Diego, if you take into account the limited take-up of craft beer in Australia.

“Really, we should have one brewery in the inner west to be on the same density as Portland. It’s getting pretty crowded and pretty dense,” he said.

He said this is why it is crucial for the inner west brewers to collaborate on initiatives that will increase demand for their beers, particularly considering recent sobering news about the financial hardship suffered by some brewers.

“You’ve got to run your business very carefully. You look at Brewcult and Hendo – here you’ve got a great guy who makes fantastic beer and he couldn’t be successful,” he said.

“It is a very competitive market. I know from our standpoint, we haven’t paid back the money we put into the business.”

The IWBA also announced that the first Inner West Beer Fest will be held in early 2018.

This article was sourced from the Australian Brews News.

Fitness Australia has brought a diverse array of members of the fitness industry together last week in an extraordinary meeting to discuss a range of issues facing fitness in the country.

In an inspiring show of unity, a combination of both Fitness Australia registered and non-registered fitness businesses and powerbrokers, representing a range of modalities, exchanged views in an attempt to take stock of the direction of the industry and pressing issues within it such as:

• The National Training Package review;
• The Fair Work Ombudsman’s interest in ‘sham contracting’;
• Changes to the 457 Visa arrangement;
• Fringe benefits tax exemption campaign;
• Fair Work Commission ruling on ‘all up casual rates’; and
• Increased tariffs resulting from the amalgamation of APRA and PPCA tariff collecting functions. 

The afternoon was an opportunity for all corners of the Australian fitness industry to voice concerns, share ideas and project into the future, but also a chance for Fitness Australia to better understand those concerns and how best to move forward in terms of addressing them at the appropriate level.

“This was a truly rare opportunity to bring such a diversity of people and businesses together, and our industry is better for it,” said Fitness Australia CEO, Bill Moore.

“As a peak body, we’re all about taking the leadership role in the industry and achieving positive outcomes for all.

“At its core, Fitness Australia represents the interests of the fitness industry as a whole, whether that be to Government or otherwise, and part of doing that effectively is understanding the real concerns, challenges – as well as positives – that are happening out there on the ground.

“That’s what this meeting was all about, and those outcomes will shape how we approach representing the industry moving forward.”

This article was originally sourced from Fitness Australia. 

As your member association, one of the things the ADA is always striving to ensure that your membership provides you with as much value and opportunity as possible.

That’s why we’re thrilled to announce our new initiative with Macquarie, which gives you access to a range of products and services including:

• exclusive offers on home loans, bank accounts, vehicle loans, and other banking products;
• dedicated team of banking specialists;
• financial insights for different life stages;
• smarter banking tools to help you manage your money.

Whether you’re buying a practice or fitting it out, or buying a new home or car, you’ll be able to take advantage of products and business insights that are matched uniquely to your personal and professional requirements.

Macquarie has a successful history of working with professionals in healthcare, a relationship built on supporting and understanding the needs of individuals and businesses, and providing them with tailored products and services.

To access this range of exciting new benefits, head to Macquarie Bank.

This article was originally sourced from the Australian Dental Association.