On the other hand, the expense of engaging additional staff to cover the remaining hours not worked by those working a six-hour day, was seen as unsustainable. Others have argued that had the trial continued for a longer period the cost of engaging additional staff may have been balanced by savings in the costs related to sick leave. The international experiences may inform options that could be considered in Australia.

Would working less make us more productive? Credit: Josh Robenstone

The court of 1947 could not have imagined the world of 2018, of net-banking reducing the need for bank tellers, of self-serve supermarkets reducing the need for cashiers. Nonetheless it correctly read the potential for technology to create vast changes. The court reduced weekly working hours even though many goods were in high demand and short supply in the years following the conclusion of World War II and even though the economy was in a state of disorganisation due to the transition from war to peace.

In 2018 and with the Senate last October establishing a Select Committee to inquire into and report by June 21, 2018 on the future of work and workers in Australia and the impact of technological and other changes, it may be time again to adopt some of the courage shown by that long ago court of 1947 in reviewing the average weekly hours of workers. Relevant to any review of workers’ hours should be a reimagining of the worker as much more than his or her economic output.

How do we create a working life model that is fully productive, promotes health, reduces obesity and encourages activity? How do we reduce the pressures on parents running from work to pick up their children from school and aftercare? Child expert Steve Biddulph has written recently that the way we live in the new century is harming our basic humanity with adults stretched beyond belief, working long hours “without respite for parenthood” and setting us at odds with those we love the most, and who need our time, security and affection.