Academic literature on the topic 'Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services'

The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) carried out a review of the roles of anaesthetists in providing acute care services in both public and private hospitals in Europe, North America and South-East Asia. As a result, ANZCA revised its education and training program and its processes relating to overseastrained specialists. The new training program, introduced in 2004, formed the basis for submissions to the Australian Medical Council, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission/ Australian Health Workforce Officials? Committee review of medical colleges. A revised continuing professional development program will be in place in 2007. Anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand play a pivotal role in providing services in both public and private hospitals, as well as supporting intensive care medicine, pain medicine and hyperbaric medicine. Anaesthesia allows surgery, obstetrics, procedural medicine and interventional medical imaging to function optimally, by ensuring that the patient journey is safe and has high quality care. Specialist anaesthetists in Australia now exceed Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee recommendations

There have been a number of important developments in Australia in the area of telemedicine. At the national level, the House of Representatives' Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs has been conducting the Inquiry into Health Information Management and Telemedicine. The Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council has supported the establishment of a working party convened by the South Australian Health Commission to prepare a detailed report on issues relating to telemedicine. State governments have begun a number of telemedicine projects, including major initiatives in New South Wales and Victoria and the extensive development of telepsychiatry services in Queensland. Research activities in high-speed image transmission have been undertaken by the Australian Computing and Communications Institute and Telstra, and by the Australian Navy. The matter of the funding of both capital and recurrent costs of telemedicine services has not been resolved, and issues of security and privacy of medical information are subject to discussion. The use of the Internet as a universal communications medium may provide opportunities for the expansion of telemedicine services, particularly in the area of continuing medical education. A need has been recognized for the coordinated evaluation of telemedicine services as cost-benefit considerations are seen to be very important.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) has recently released a report on the educational outcomes for children and young people on guardianship or custody orders. This report, four years in the making, represents one of the first comprehensive Australian assessments based on educational performance data from multiple jurisdictions for children on guardianship or custody orders. Developed for the National Child Protection and Support Services data group, the study was funded by the Community and Disability Services Ministers’ Advisory Council (AIHW 2007).This pilot study examines how children on guardianship/custody orders are performing compared with all Australian children in education department-based testing for reading and numeracy in years 3, 5 and 7. Mean test scores were examined in addition to the achievement of national benchmarks for reading and numeracy. These nationally agreed benchmarks are designed to assess whether children have achieved the minimum standards for years 3, 5 and 7 (AIHW 2007). Data on 895 children on guardianship or custody orders were collected from five jurisdictions - Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - for August 2003 (AIHW 2007). The data were linked through collaborative efforts by state and territory education and community services departments.

John Hartwell is Head of the Resources Division in the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Canberra Australia. The Resources Division provides advice to the Australian Government on policy issues, legislative changes and administrative matters related to the petroleum industry, upstream and downstream and the coal and minerals industries. In addition to his divisional responsibilities, he is the Australian Commissioner for the Australia/East Timor Joint Petroleum Development Area and Chairman of the National Oil and Gas Safety Advisory Committee. He also chairs two of the taskforces, Clean Fossil Energy and Aluminium, under the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate (AP6). He serves on two industry and government leadership groups delivering reports to the Australian Government, strategies for the oil and gas industry and framework for the uranium industry. More recently he led a team charged with responsibility for taking forward the Australian Government’s proposal to establish a global carbon capture and storage institute. He is involved in the implementation of a range of resource related initiatives under the Government’s Industry Action Agenda process, including mining and technology services, minerals exploration and light metals. Previously he served as Deputy Chairman of the Snowy Mountains Council and the Commonwealth representative to the Natural Gas Pipelines Advisory Committee. He has occupied a wide range of positions in the Australian Government dealing with trade, commodity, and energy and resource issues. He has worked in Treasury, the Department of Trade, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy before the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. From 1992–96 he was a Minister Counsellor in the Australian Embassy, Washington, with responsibility for agriculture and resource issues and also served in the Australian High Commission, London (1981–84) as the Counsellor/senior trade relations officer. He holds a MComm in economics, and Honours in economics from the University of New South Wales, Australia. Prior to joining the Australian Government, worked as a bank economist. He was awarded a public service medal in 2005 for his work on resources issues for the Australian Government.

Objectives: The specific objectives of the study were to (a) identify current best practice in pathology specimen collection and assess the extent to which Australian pathology services currently satisfy best practice standards; and (b) identify training and other strategies that would mitigate any gaps between current and best practice. Methods: A total of 22 case studies were undertaken with pathology collector employers from public, not for profit and private pathology organisations andacross urban and rural locations and eight focus groups with pathology collection services consumers were conducted in December 2012 in four different cities. Results: The preferred minimum qualification of the majority of case study employers for pathology collectors is the nationally recognised Certificate III in Pathology. This qualification maps well to an accepted international best practice guideline for pathology collection competency standards but has some noted deficiencies identified which need to be rectified. These particularly include competencies related to communicating with consumers. The preferred way of training for this qualification is largely through structured and supervised on the job learning experiences supported by theoretical classroom instruction delivered in-house or in off the job settings. The study found a need to ensure a greater proportion of the pathology collection workforce is appropriately qualified. Conclusion: The most effective pathway to best practice pathology collection requires strong policies that define how pathology samples are to be collected, stored and transported and a pathology collection workforce that is competent and presents to consumers with a credible qualification and in a professional manner. Abbreviations: CHF – Consumer Health Forum of Australia; KIMMS – Key Incident Monitoring and Management Systems; NAACLS – National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences; NACCHO – National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation; NPAAC – National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council; RCPA – Royal College of Pathology Australasia; RTO – Registered Training Organisation.

IntroductionIndigenous women have the highest smoking prevalence during pregnancy (47%) in Australia. Health professionals report lack of knowledge, skills and confidence to effectively manage smoking among pregnant women in general. We developed a behaviour change intervention aimed to improve health professionals’ management of smoking in Indigenous pregnant women—the Indigenous Counselling And Nicotine (ICAN) QUIT in Pregnancy. This intervention includes webinar training for health professionals, an educational resources package for health professionals and pregnant women, free oral nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for pregnant women, and audit and feedback on health professionals' performance.The aim of this study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of the ICAN QUIT in Pregnancy intervention to improve health professionals' provision of evidence-based culturally responsive smoking cessation care to Australian Indigenous pregnant smokers.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes the design of a step-wedge cluster randomised pilot study. Six Aboriginal Medical Services (AMSs) are randomised into three clusters. Clusters receive the intervention staggered by 1 month. Health professionals report on their knowledge and skills pretraining and post-training and at the end of the study. Pregnant women are recruited and followed up for 3 months. The primary outcome is the recruitment rate of pregnant women. Secondary outcomes include feasibility of recruitment and follow-up of participating women, and webinar training of health professionals, measured using a designated log; and measures of effectiveness outcomes, including quit rates and NRT prescription rates.Ethics and disseminationIn accordance with the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council guidelines, this study has been developed in collaboration with a Stakeholder and Consumer Aboriginal Advisory Panel (SCAAP). The SCAAP provides cultural consultation, advice and direction to ensure that implementation is acceptable and respectful to the Aboriginal communities involved. Results will be disseminated to AMSs, Aboriginal communities and national Aboriginal bodies.Registration detailsThis protocol (version 4, 14 October 2016) is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (Ref #: ACTRN 12616001603404).

INTRODUCTION:In 2015, 18.3 percent of the Austrian population were at risk of poverty and social exclusion - about 211,000 (20 percent) women aged 20–39 years were affected. International studies report that poverty may lead to an increased risk of complications and pathologies during pregnancy. Further, children who grow up in poverty often have poorer long-term health outcomes.METHODS:In order to identify recent guidelines (2011-2016) a comprehensive handsearch was conducted in the guideline databases National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and Guidelines International Network (GIN). Moreover, a handsearch for systematic reviews and primary studies was conducted in PubMed.RESULTS:Two guidelines, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guideline “Pregnancy and Complex Social Factors”, as well as the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council (AHMAC) Guideline “Antenatal Care”, address socioeconomic disadvantages of women during antenatal care. The recommendation of the AHMAC is that pregnancy care should be offered to all pregnant women. In addition, an individual approach will help to pay particular attention to socioeconomic factors and to incorporate them in routine examinations. NICE recommends in its guideline, affected women should be supported in order to ensure adequate prenatal care. NICE also defines criteria which are used to identify pregnant women who are in greater need of support. The only identified study developed and tested a tool for the identification of patients affected by poverty. The authors of this Canadian pilot study concluded that the defined questions helped to identify socioeconomically disadvantaged persons during anamnesis without stigmatizing.CONCLUSIONS:Due to the proven link between poverty and health risks, special attention must be paid to socioeconomically disadvantaged pregnant women. Research on non-stigmatizing instruments, which can identify vulnerable women, is of great importance. In addition to social policy measures, it is necessary to ensure that low-threshold services are available for socioeconomic disadvantaged women and their children.

This medal is awarded by the New Zealand Plant Protection Society to honour those who have made exceptional contributions to plantprotection in New Zealand in the widest sense. The medal is awarded for outstanding services to plant protection, whether through research,education, implementation or leadership. In 2016, the New Zealand Plant Protection Medal was awarded to Dr Rob Beresford who is one of New Zealand’s most experienced and versatile plant pathologists. Rob started his career in science with an MSc Hons, 1st class, in Auckland in 1978 and was appointed to DSIR Plant Diseases Division at Lincoln in 1979. He was awarded a National Research Advisory Council Postgraduate Research Fellowship to undertake PhD studies at Long Ashton Research Station in the UK from1982 to 1985, returning to Lincoln in 1986. Those studies kicked off a long career in epidemiology and today Rob is New Zealand’s pre-eminent plant disease epidemiologist. For 30 years, Rob has been New Zealand’s strongest advocate for the use of weather-based disease prediction for developing practicaldisease control strategies, particularly to reduce the economic, environmental and market residue impacts of fungicide use. By understanding and modelling relationships between pathogen biology and ecology and weather, Rob has translated complex correlations between biological and physical factorsinto simple practical tools for growers to use for disease control. To date, these have included decision support tools for apple scab, downy mildew in onions, botrytis in grapes and more recently Psa in kiwifruit. He has also developed prediction models for climatic risk of invasive pathogens (potato wart disease and myrtle rust) and for the impacts of climate change on crop diseases. Recognising the importance of climate and weather in affecting plant diseases, Rob has, for many years, championed a network of weather stations in the key horticultural districts throughout New Zealand to generate data for the decision-support tools. It has been a struggle to keep the network running against shortages of funding and the frequent need to re-assert the value of the network to New Zealand horticulture. Rob has built a team of equally committed colleagues who share this understanding and, through tenacity and persistence, have recently achieved an upgrade of the entire network to internet-based communication systems. It is through his close collaborations over many years with the software company HortPlus that his decision support tools have been delivered to the commercial arena. Rob was a member of the New Zealand team that argued the case at the World Trade Organisation for the easing of restrictions on New Zealand apples entering Australia. Rob’s superior skills in interpreting climate data, in this case Australian data, in terms of pathogen survival, establishment and spread, and his clarity in presenting the results were instrumental in the success of that case in 2010. In parallel with Rob’s epidemiological strategy to reduce fungicide use is his interest in the threat of pathogens developing resistance to fungicides. Rob leads research to identify resistance threats to fungicides and also provides liaison between grower associations and agrochemical companies to design and implement robust resistance-management strategies. His focus on resistance started in 2005 when he published updated management strategies for all nine of the then available fungicide groups for the New Zealand Plant Protection Society (NZPPS). In 2007, he re-established the New Zealand Committee on Pesticide Resistance (NZCPR) (which had been in abeyance for 10 years) and chaired the committee’s work on fungicides, insecticides and herbicides from 2007 to 2012. He stepped aside to become NZCPR Science Advisor in 2012 so he could focus on resistance research. Following devastating disease outbreaks of apple scab (Venturia ineaqualis) in the pipfruit industry in 2009, Rob initiated a research programme with Pipfruit New Zealand that showed the cause of the outbreaks to be resistance to two groups of fungicides in use at the time. He has recently coordinated resistance strategy updates for botrytis affecting the wine industry, for summer fruit diseases and is currently leading a programme to monitor resistance of grape powdery mildew to key groups of fungicides. Rob was awarded the 2014 Plant & Food Research Chairman’s Award for his work on fungicide resistance. Rob is an effective communicator at all levels from heavy science to grower forums and is always willing to share his time, skills and knowledge. He has been involved with undergraduate lecturing for many years and has successfully supervised several PhDs. NZPP Medal recipients for the previous five years:2015: Gary Barker2014: -2013: Andrew Hodson2012: Margaret Dick2011: Jim Walker

IntroductionIn Australia, the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments are each responsible for specific aspects of health care. Historically, cross-jurisdictional health data have not been linked routinely, resulting in significant blind spots in our understanding of the interplay between hospital and primary care, a major impediment to evidence-informed health policy. Objectives and ApproachIn December 2016, the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council approved the NDLDP, to establish the value of national linked data to inform health planning and policy. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) linked five years of hospital, emergency department, pharmaceutical dispensing, medical services claims and mortality data for Australia’s two most populous states (New South Wales and Victoria). The Victorian Agency for Health Innovation (VAHI) is leading the ‘Delivering better cardiac outcomes: Primary, specialist and hospital care’ project to demonstrate the value of the collection in identifying evidence-practice gaps and driving change in cardiac care. ResultsThe NDLDP combined data for over 10 million individuals with over 7 billion records of health transactions, utilising a new strategy for confidentialising dates to protect patient privacy. The NDLDP is governed by a Steering Committee; the AIHW is the data custodian approving outputs from analyses within a secure host environment. VAHI established a Project Steering Committee to oversee roll-out, governance and capacity building of the approved cardiac project. The VAHI project was instigated by evidence that best-practice pharmacological treatments for cardiac care are underutilised in Australia, but with no quantification of the population-level extent of this gap. The project quantified significant variations and underuse of post-discharge pharmacological care for patients admitted to hospital with key cardiac conditions, including atrial fibrillation and acute myocardial infarction. Conclusion/ImplicationsThis collaboration between government, clinical networks and academic researchers demonstrated this novel data linkage can enable evaluation of patient care pathways across both hospital and community-based services. These linked data resources provide essential information to investigate variation in care in Australia and improve care integration in cardiac care and beyond.

It is now almost 15 years since the world witnessed one of modern history’s most devastating terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001. Despite all its promises, the so called ‘War on Terror’ failed to combat a growing tide of violent extremism. 11 years after the US led offensive on Iraq in 2003, the rise of terrorism by non-state actors in the Arab world presents a significant concern to international security and world peace. Since 2001 Australian Muslims have consistently been called upon to openly reject terrorism committed by a minority of Muslims who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Islamic doctrine that justifies attacks on civilians both in the Arab world and abroad.The responsibility placed on Australian Muslims to actively reject terrorism comes from both official channels through government funded programs under the banner of counter terrorism and countering violent extremism and the public through the popular media. Yet, Muslims in Australia who do speak out against religiously motivated non-state terrorism find themselves in an impossible bind. They are expected to speak out as representatives of a fragmented, heterogeneous and diverse mix of communities and ideologies. Often, when they do speak out, they are viewed with suspicion and presumed to be ‘apologists for Islam’ whose claim to tolerance and the peaceful nature of Islamic doctrine purposefully ignores its true nature. Such responses render these spokespersons illegitimate- both as representatives of Muslim communities and as Australian citizens. The question “Why don’t moderate Muslims speak out against terrorism?” is often raised in the popular media in response to attacks against Western interests by jihadi groups. On 15 August 2014 an article in the Daily Telegraph by well-known conservative journalist Piers Akerman raised the question in relation to the Australian government’s announcement of increased powers for law enforcement agencies to deal with the issue of returned foreign fighters who had joined the Islamic State’s conflict in Iraq and Syria. The article, titled “It’s Time for Muslim Leaders to Speak Up” reiterated much of the construction of the silent Muslim majority that has pervaded the Australian popular media since 2001. Akerman states: “They [the Australian government] should be making it clear to Australian Muslims that they expect their leaders to speak out more vehemently against those who groom terrorists from the among the young and stupidly impressionable in their communities”. While he continues by acknowledging that Muslims in Australia are diverse in ethnicity and religious views and that the vast majority of Muslims do not support terrorism, he concludes by stating that “the few are costing the majority of Australians millions in security and those who enjoy leadership titles must accept that some responsibility attaches to their position or they should abdicate in favour of individuals who are prepared to consent to the obligations inherent in their station” (Piers Akerman). The same sentiments were expressed by Pia Ackerman in the Australian who wrote that “AUSTRALIA’S Muslim leaders need to speak out against Islamic State terrorists or risk losing their credibility and ability to reach young men attracted to the extremists’ cause” (Pia Akerman).Other responses in the popular media present a different argument. In an article titled “The Moderate Muslims Are Talking If Only You Will Listen”, David Penberthy of the Herald Sun cites examples of Muslim Australians who are speaking out including the case of prominent Sydney GP Jamal Rifi whose condemnation of terrorist activities in the Arab world has earned him death threats from members of the Islamic State (Penberthy). Yet, as Penberthy rightly acknowledges the questions “where are the moderates? Where are the decent Muslims? Are there any? Why aren’t they speaking out?” are still the most salient questions being asked of Muslims in the public sphere. For Australian Muslims at least, they are questions that pervade their everyday lives. It is these questions for example that leads Muslim women who wear the tradition head covering or hijab to challenge media representations of themselves as complicit actors in terrorism by acting as alternative sources of truth for curious co-workers and members of the broader community (see Aly, A Study).Muslim women who do not wear the hijab can face even more barriers to speaking out because they do not pass the test of ‘legitimate’ Muslims: those who fit the stereotype of the angry bearded male and the oppressed female shrouded in black. This author, who has in the past written about extremist interpretations of Islam, has faced condemnation from anti- Islamic groups who questioned her authenticity as a Muslim. By speaking out as a Muslim against the violent actions of some Muslims in other parts of the world, I was being accused of misinformed. Ironically, those who are vehemently anti- Islamic espouse the very same ideological world view and interpretations of Islamic doctrine as those Muslims they claim to oppose. Both groups rely on an extreme and minority version of Islam that de-legitimises more mainstream, nuanced interpretations and both groups claim legitimacy to the truth that Islam can only ever be violent, aggressive and oppositional.It is not just in the public and media discourses that Muslims who speak out against terrorism face being branded illegitimate. The policy response to home-grown terrorism — acts of violence carried out by Australian citizens within Australia — has, albeit inadvertently, created the conditions through which Muslims must verify their legitimate claims to being Australian by participating in the governments’ program of counter terrorism.In the wake of the 2005 London bombings, the Prime Minister met with selected representatives from Muslim communities to discuss the development of a Muslim Community Reference Group. The Group was charged with assisting the Australian Government by acting as an advisory group and by working with Muslim communities “promote harmony, mutual understanding and Australian values and to challenge violence, ignorance and rigid thinking”. This was iterated through a Statement of Principles that committed members of Muslim communities to pursue “moderate’ Islam (Prime Minister, “Meeting”). The very need for a Muslim summit and for the development of a Statement of Principles (later endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments, COAG), sends a lucid message to the Australian public that not only are Australian Muslims responsible for terrorism but that they also have the capacity to prevent or minimise the threat of an attack in Australia.In 2005, the policy response to terrorism took its first step towards linking the social harmony agenda to the securitisation of the state in the form of the National Action Plan to Build Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security. The stated purpose of the National Action Plan (NAP) notably conflated national security with social cohesion and harmony and clearly indicated an understanding that violent extremism could be addressed through programs designed to reinforce Australian values, social harmony, interfaith understanding and tolerance: “The purpose of this National Action Plan (NAP) is to reinforce social cohesion, harmony and support the national security imperative in Australia by addressing extremism, the promotion of violence and intolerance…”(Commonwealth of Australia, National Action Plan).Between 2005 and 2010, the National Action Plan provided funding for 83 community based projects deemed to meet the Plan’s criteria of addressing extremism and the promotion of violence. Of the 83 projects funded, 33 were undertaken by associations that identified as Muslim or Islamic (some applicants received funding for more than one project or in more than one round). The remaining 50 organisations funded included universities and vocational training organisations (4), multicultural social services or migrant resource centres (14), interfaith groups (3), local councils (4), ethnic organisations (specifically African, East African, Afghan, Hazara, Arabic and Pakistani), sporting clubs (4) and miscellaneous social clubs and service providers. The kinds of projects that were funded were predominantly aimed at Muslim communities, most notably youth and women, and the provision of services, programs, education, information and dialogue. Sixty five of the projects funded were explicitly aimed at Muslim communities and identified their target groups variously as: ‘African Muslim’; ‘Muslim youth’; ‘Muslim women’; ‘at risk Muslims’; ‘young Muslims’; ‘Iraqi Muslims’; ‘Lebanese Muslims’ and ‘young Muslim men from Arabic speaking backgrounds’. Seven projects were described as involving ‘interfaith’ elements, though a further 13 projects described some form of interaction between Muslim and non-Muslim communities and groups through activities such as sport, dialogue, fashion parades, workshops, art and craft programs, music workshops. 29 projects involved some form of leadership training for Muslims: youth, women and young men. Overall, the range of projects funded under the National Action Plan in the five years of its operation reflect a policy approach that specifically identifies Muslim communities (including ethno specific and new and emerging Muslim communities) as the primary target of Australia’s broader security strategy.The National Action Plan was succeeded by the Building Community Resilience (BCR) Program. Despite the positive steps taken in attempting to move the BCR program away from the social harmony policy agenda, it continued to reflect an underlying preoccupation with the assumptions of its predecessor. Between 2011- 2013 it funded 51 community based projects. Of these, 7 projects were undertaken by Islamic or Muslim associations. Ten of the projects specifically target Muslims or Muslim communities, with 6 of these being Muslim youth leadership and/or mentoring programs. The remaining 4 Muslim focussed projects include a project designed to encourage Muslim youth to build positive connections with the broader community, the development of a Common Curriculum Framework for teaching Islamic Studies in Australian Islamic primary and secondary schools, a project to address misconceptions about Islam and promote cultural understanding and the production of a DVD for schools to address misperceptions about Muslims. Notably, only one project specifically targets white supremacist violent extremism. The Australian governments’ progressive policy approach to countering violent extremism at home has disproportionately focussed on the Australian Muslim communities. In an environment where Muslims are viewed with suspicion and as having the primary responsibility as both perpetrators and gatekeepers of terroristic ideologies, Muslims in diaspora communities have been forced to make legitimate claims to their innocence. In order to do this they are required to reaffirm their commitment to Australian values, not just by speaking out against terrorism but also by participating in programs that are based on false assumptions about the nature of Muslim citizenship in Australia and the premise that Muslim Australians are, both individually and collectively, opposed to such values by virtue of their religious affiliation. In 2014 and in response to growing concerns about the number of Australians travelling to Iraq and Syria to fight alongside the Islamic State, the government made a bold move by declaring its intention to overhaul existing terror laws. The new laws would reverse the onus of proof on those who travelled to certain countries deemed to be terrorist hotspots to prove that they were not partaking in armed conflict or terrorist training. They would also give more powers to law enforcement and surveillance agencies by lowering the threshold of arrest without a warrant. The announcement of the new laws by the Prime Minister coincided with the news that the Government would abandon its controversial plans to drop section 18c from the Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" because of their race or ethnicity" (Aston). The announcement was made under the guise of a press conference on terror laws and inferred that the back down on the Racial Discrimination Act reforms were a measure to win over the Muslim communities cooperation on the new terror laws. Referring to a somewhat curious notion of “team Australia”, the Prime Minister stated “I want to work with the communities of our country as team Australia here” (Aston). “Team Australia” has since become the Government’s narrative frame for garnering public support for its proposed new terrorism laws. Echoing his predecessor John Howard, whose narrative of Australian values pervaded much of the political discourse during his term in office, Prime Minister Abbott stated in a radio interview that "everyone has got to put this country, its interests, its values and its people first, and you don't migrate to this country unless you want to join our team". He followed this statement by emphasising that "What we need to do is to encourage the moderate mainstream to speak out" (Cox).Shortly after the release of a horrific image on social media showing Australian jihadists proudly flaunting the severed heads of their victims, the Australian government reacted with an even bolder move to introduce legislation that would see the government cancelling the welfare payments of persons “identified by national security agencies as being involved in extremist conduct.” According to the Government the reforms would “enable the Department of Human Services to cancel a person’s welfare payment if it receives advice that a person has been assessed as a serious threat to Australia’s national security.”(Prime Minister of Australia) The move was criticised by several groups including academics who argued that it would not only alienate the already disenfranchised Muslim communities, but could also result in greater radicalisation (Ireland). In response to the raft of new measures perceived to be targeting Muslim communities, Australian Muslims took measured steps to voice their opposition through written statements and media releases stating that, among other things: These proposals come in the same style as those which have preceded [sic] since the Howard era. An alleged threat is blown out of all proportion as the pretext, further "tightening" of the laws is claimed necessary and rushed through, without proper national debate or community consultation. The reality of the alleged threat is also exposed by the lack of correspondence between the official 'terror threat' level, which has remained the same since 2001, and the hysterical rhetoric from government ministers. (ABC News, "Australian Muslims")Australian Muslim leaders also boycotted government meetings including a planned meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the new laws. The Prime Minister promptly branded the boycott “foolish” (ABC News, "Tony Abbott") yet refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the claims made in the media statements and messages by Muslim organisations that prompted the boycotts. As Australian Muslims continue to grapple with ways to legitimize their claims to citizenship, the developing discourse on national security and terrorism continues to define them as the objects of terror. Notably, the media discourse is showing some signs of accommodating the views of Muslim Australians who have found some space in the public sphere. Recent media reporting on terror activities in the Middle East has given some consideration to the voices of Muslim leaders who openly oppose violent extremism. Yet Muslims in Australia are still battling for legitimacy. Those who speak out against the hijacking of their religion by a minority who espouse a rigid and uncompromising ideology in order to justify violence often find themselves the subjects of intense scrutiny. From within their communities they are seen to be mouth pieces for an unfair and unjust government agenda that targets Muslims as objects of fear. From outside their communities they are seen to be apologists for Islam whose authenticity should be questioned if not denied. Attempts by Muslim Australians to have their voices heard through political practices that define the very nature of democracy including peaceful demonstrations, boycotts and written statements have not been taken seriously. As a result, Muslim voices in Australia are deemed illegitimate regardless of the forms or platforms through which they seek to be heard. ReferencesABC News. “Australian Muslims Denounce Proposed 'Anti-Terror' Laws”. ABC Religion and Ethics, 21 Aug. 2014. 23 Aug. 2014 .ABC News. “Tony Abbott Says Muslim Leaders 'Foolishly Boycotted' Counterterrorism Law Meeting.” 22 Aug. 2014. 24 Aug. 2014 .Akerman, Pia. “Muslim Leaders Must Speak Out against Extremists, Academic Warns.” The Australian 13 Aug. 13 2014. 20 Aug. 2014 . Akerman, Piers. “It's Time for Muslim Leaders to Speak Up.” Daily Telegraph 15 Aug. 2014. 20 Aug. 2014 .Alynne, A. A Study of Audience Responses to the Media Discourse about the ‘Other’: The Fear of Terrorism between Australian Muslims and the Broader Community. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen, 2010.Aly, Anne. “Media Hegemony, Activism and Identity: Muslim Women Re-Presenting Muslim Women.” Beyond the Hijab Debates: New Conversations on Gender, Race and Religion, eds. T. Dreher and C. Ho. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars, 2009.Aly, Anne, and Mark Balnaves. “The Atmosfear of Terror: Affective Modulation and the War on Terror.” M/C Journal 8.6 (2005).Aly, Anne, and Lelia Green. “‘Moderate Islam’: Defining the Good Citizen.” M/C Journal 10.6/11.1 (2008). 13 April 2008 ‹http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0804/08aly-green.php›.Aston, H. “Tony Abbott Dumps Controversial Changes to 18C Racial Discrimination Laws.” Sydney Morning Herald 5 Aug. 2014. 24 Aug. 2014 .Australian Government, Attorney General's Department. Building Community Resilience Grants Program. n.d. 24 July 2014 . Commonwealth of Australia. Transnational Terrorism White Paper: The Threat to Australia. Canberra: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2004. . Commonwealth of Australia. National Action Plan to Build Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2006. .Commonwealth of Australia. Counter Terrorism White Paper: Securing Australia, Protecting our Community. Canberra: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2010. 19 Nov. 2011 .Cox, L. “'You Don't Migrate to This Country unless You Want to Join Our Team': Tony Abbott Renews Push on National Security Laws.” Sydney Morning Herald 18 Aug. 2014. 24 Aug. 2014 . Ireland, J. “Extremism Warning on Coalition's Move to Cut Welfare Payments.” Sydney Morning Herald 19 Aug. 2014. 24 Aug. 2014 .Penberthy, D. “The Moderate Muslims Are Talking If Only You Will Listen. Herald Sun 17 Aug. 2014 .Prime Minister of Australia. “New Counter-Terrorism Measures for a Safer Australia - Cancelling Welfare Payments to Extremists”. 16 Aug. 2014. 23 Aug. 2014 .Prime Minister of Australia. “Meeting with Islamic Community Leaders, Statement of Principles.” 23 Aug. 2005. July 2008 .

This thesis examines the history of Commonwealth Government higher education policy in Australia between 1958 and 1997 and its impact on the development of two groups of academic librarians: the Association of Librarians in Colleges in Advanced Education (ALCAE) and the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL). Although university librarians had met occasionally since the late 1920s, it was only in 1965 that a more formal organisation, known as CAUL, was established to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information. ALCAE was set up in 1969 and played an important role helping develop a special concept of library service peculiar to the newly formed College of Advanced Education (CAE) sector. As well as examining the impact of Commonwealth Government higher education policy on ALCAE and CAUL, the thesis also explores the influence of other factors on these two groups, including the range of personalities that comprised them, and their relationship with their parent institutions and with other professional groups and organisations. The study focuses on how higher education policy and these other external and internal factors shaped the functions, aspirations, and internal dynamics of these two groups and how this resulted in each group evolving differently. The author argues that, because of the greater attention given to the special educational role of libraries in the CAE curriculum, the group of college librarians had the opportunity to participate in, and have some influence on, Commonwealth Government statutory bodies responsible for the coordination of policy and the distribution of funding for the CAE sector. The link between ALCAE and formal policy-making processes resulted in a more dynamic group than CAUL, with the university librarians being discouraged by their Vice-Chancellors from having contact with university funding bodies because of the desire of the universities to maintain a greater level of control over their affairs and resist interference from government. The circumstances of each group underwent a reversal over time as ALCAE's effectiveness began to diminish as a result of changes to the CAE sector and as member interest was transferred to other groups and organisations. Conversely, CAUL gradually became a more active group during the 1980s and early 1990s as a result of changes to higher education, the efforts of some university librarians, and changes in membership. This study is based principally on primary source material, with the story of ALCAE and CAUL being told through the use of a combination of original documentation (including minutes of meetings and correspondence) and interviews with members of each group and other key figures.

Overview Skin cancer prevention is a component of the new Cancer Plan 2022–27, which guides the work of the Cancer Institute NSW. To lessen the impact of skin cancer on the community, the Cancer Institute NSW works closely with the NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Advisory Committee, comprising governmental and non-governmental organisation representatives, to develop and implement the NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Strategy. Primary Health Networks and primary care providers are seen as important stakeholders in this work. To guide improvements in skin cancer prevention and inform the development of the next NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Strategy, an up-to-date review of the evidence on the effectiveness and feasibility of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care is required. A research team led by the Daffodil Centre, a joint venture between the University of Sydney and Cancer Council NSW, was contracted to undertake an Evidence Check review to address the questions below. Evidence Check questions This Evidence Check aimed to address the following questions: Question 1: What skin cancer primary prevention activities can be effectively administered in primary care settings? As part of this, identify the key components of such messages, strategies, programs or initiatives that have been effectively implemented and their feasibility in the NSW/Australian context. Question 2: What are the main barriers and enablers for primary care providers in delivering skin cancer primary prevention activities within their setting? Summary of methods The research team conducted a detailed analysis of the published and grey literature, based on a comprehensive search. We developed the search strategy in consultation with a medical librarian at the University of Sydney and the Cancer Institute NSW team, and implemented it across the databases Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Central and CINAHL. Results were exported and uploaded to Covidence for screening and further selection. The search strategy was designed according to the SPIDER tool for Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Evidence Synthesis, which is a systematic strategy for searching qualitative and mixed-methods research studies. The SPIDER tool facilitates rigour in research by defining key elements of non-quantitative research questions. We included peer-reviewed and grey literature that included skin cancer primary prevention strategies/ interventions/ techniques/ programs within primary care settings, e.g. involving general practitioners and primary care nurses. The literature was limited to publications since 2014, and for studies or programs conducted in Australia, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Western Europe and Scandinavia. We also included relevant systematic reviews and evidence syntheses based on a range of international evidence where also relevant to the Australian context. To address Question 1, about the effectiveness of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings, we summarised findings from the Evidence Check according to different skin cancer prevention activities. To address Question 2, about the barriers and enablers of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings, we summarised findings according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR is a framework for identifying important implementation considerations for novel interventions in healthcare settings and provides a practical guide for systematically assessing potential barriers and facilitators in preparation for implementing a new activity or program. We assessed study quality using the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) levels of evidence. Key findings We identified 25 peer-reviewed journal articles that met the eligibility criteria and we included these in the Evidence Check. Eight of the studies were conducted in Australia, six in the UK, and the others elsewhere (mainly other European countries). In addition, the grey literature search identified four relevant guidelines, 12 education/training resources, two Cancer Care pathways, two position statements, three reports and five other resources that we included in the Evidence Check. Question 1 (related to effectiveness) We categorised the studies into different types of skin cancer prevention activities: behavioural counselling (n=3); risk assessment and delivering risk-tailored information (n=10); new technologies for early detection and accompanying prevention advice (n=4); and education and training programs for general practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses regarding skin cancer prevention (n=3). There was good evidence that behavioural counselling interventions can result in a small improvement in sun protection behaviours among adults with fair skin types (defined as ivory or pale skin, light hair and eye colour, freckles, or those who sunburn easily), which would include the majority of Australians. It was found that clinicians play an important role in counselling patients about sun-protective behaviours, and recommended tailoring messages to the age and demographics of target groups (e.g. high-risk groups) to have maximal influence on behaviours. Several web-based melanoma risk prediction tools are now available in Australia, mainly designed for health professionals to identify patients’ risk of a new or subsequent primary melanoma and guide discussions with patients about primary prevention and early detection. Intervention studies have demonstrated that use of these melanoma risk prediction tools is feasible and acceptable to participants in primary care settings, and there is some evidence, including from Australian studies, that using these risk prediction tools to tailor primary prevention and early detection messages can improve sun-related behaviours. Some studies examined novel technologies, such as apps, to support early detection through skin examinations, including a very limited focus on the provision of preventive advice. These novel technologies are still largely in the research domain rather than recommended for routine use but provide a potential future opportunity to incorporate more primary prevention tailored advice. There are a number of online short courses available for primary healthcare professionals specifically focusing on skin cancer prevention. Most education and training programs for GPs and primary care nurses in the field of skin cancer focus on treatment and early detection, though some programs have specifically incorporated primary prevention education and training. A notable example is the Dermoscopy for Victorian General Practice Program, in which 93% of participating GPs reported that they had increased preventive information provided to high-risk patients and during skin examinations. Question 2 (related to barriers and enablers) Key enablers of performing skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings included: • Easy access and availability of guidelines and point-of-care tools and resources • A fit with existing workflows and systems, so there is minimal disruption to flow of care • Easy-to-understand patient information • Using the waiting room for collection of risk assessment information on an electronic device such as an iPad/tablet where possible • Pairing with early detection activities • Sharing of successful programs across jurisdictions. Key barriers to performing skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings included: • Unclear requirements and lack of confidence (self-efficacy) about prevention counselling • Limited availability of GP services especially in regional and remote areas • Competing demands, low priority, lack of time • Lack of incentives.