Two events in Afghanistan yesterday did enormous damage to the plan to create both a civilian government and an effective army to allow this little country to stand on it's own two feet once allied forces withdraw.
A soldier in the Afghan National Army ( ANA ) which Australian troops are training suddenly snapped and used his weapon to fire on those mentoring, killing three Australians and severely wounding seven. Returned fire killed him instantly.
A car bomber drove his vehicle into the middle of an army convoy and detonated a bomb which killed seventeen people. Thirteen of these were American soldiers and the others were police and Afghan civilians. It was the worst level of casualties in the entire Afghan war so far.
The job of training other soldiers requires a high degree of trust. When it comes to field operations - and these follow the end of the training regime - the lives of both are in each others hands. The thought that there may be an enemy infiltrator aiming a rifle at your back would be an unnerving thought.
It is inevitable that each ANA recruit will be carefully watched - and body language carefully evaluated. Unfortunately, such doubts can never result in an integration force with the fighting spirit we admire in our own army.
The divisive force - is religion ! While ever people believe that throwing away their lives as warriors in a holy war will result in instant entry to Paradise, this reward will seem paramount to those who live depressed lives in a poor country with little to offer in the way of future advancement.
It doesn't help that what is being offered - a democratic right to choose the government - the right of women to get an education - decent roads and communications - is something beyond both their knowledge and experience. It is also anathema to the leaders of the Taliban - who claim their allegiance.
There have been many errors in both the planning and the conduct of this war and soon the forces that entered the country with high hope will return home. What then emerges as the new Afghanistan is anybody's guess. The most likely scenario is civil war.
The main hope for an Afghan future comes from the children who have had an education and will now grow up with more enlightened minds. If nothing else, that has been a benefit for this benighted country !
Monday 31 October 2011
Sunday 30 October 2011
Gunfight at the Qantas corral !
The dramatic decision by Qantas to ground both it's international and domestic fleets of aircraft until a dispute with the unions is resolved will have implications for the national economy. It also signals that our national carrier believes that major change is necessary if the airline is to survive in a rapidly changing marketplace.
Qantas - as a stock exchange listed company owned by it's shareholders - is now competing with several new national airlines which are fully owned by their governments. While Qantas aims to make a profit, these competitors do not have the same profit necessity. Their purpose is to achieve national pride - and to enhance the tourist industry in their home country.
Qantas runs a three class airline both domestically and internationally. Seats are available first class, business class - and what are often termed " Coach ", " Tourist " or " Economy ". Our national airline spun off a one class tourist airline - Jetstar - and this is not affected by the grounding.
Qantas has made it clear that to survive in the near future some of it's operations will need to be based in an Asian hub and that will involve the loss of at least a thousand Australian jobs. It intends to start two new airline companies - and these will not necessarily bear the Qantas name and logo. The purpose of this move is to compete on equal terms with others who have lower costs because of lower crew and servicing wages than those prevailing in Australia.
The various unions servicing airline personnel are determined to force Qantas to remain based in Australia and have launched a very effective guerrilla campaign to bleed the airline financially. One of the tactics has been to announce strikes - and then at the last minute - when Qantas has cancelled some services and used bigger planes on others to move a greater number of passengers - cancel the strike. As a result, their members retain full pay, passengers are inconvenienced, the Qantas brand is trashed and this is costing the airline fifteen million dollars a week.
Qantas counters that the unions are demanding an unreasonable log of claims, including retaining work practices that no longer apply to the most recent designs of aircraft, and most importantly - insist on job security provisions being included in awards that can not be guaranteed, given the uncertainty of the recession engulfing both the US and Europe.
The Qantas grounding is designed to bring this whole matter to a head - one way or another. The grounding only applies to Qantas brand aircraft and Jetstar, Qantaslink and the two freight arms will continue to fly. Qantas will pay hotel costs for stranded passengers, and assist them to complete their journeys on other airlines - but the shutdown will cost the company twenty million dollars a week while it continues.
This action has forced the hand of the Federal government, which until now has stood aloof. It will try to involve Fair Work Australia as the entity to negotiate resolution, but that will be suspect by many people because of the close links between the Labor government and it's union allies - and Fair Work Australia is the creation of a socialist government.
This is a high risk situation and the bargaining chips are huge. There is no guarantee that any order from Fair Work Australia would be obeyed by either side and it is quite possible that Qantas could simply quit this country for a new life in a new city hub.
Hopefully, negotiations between Qantas, the unions and Fair Work Australia will be conducted with honesty and the intention of keeping Qantas Australian. If it degenerates into a pure political fight - there will be no winners !
Qantas - as a stock exchange listed company owned by it's shareholders - is now competing with several new national airlines which are fully owned by their governments. While Qantas aims to make a profit, these competitors do not have the same profit necessity. Their purpose is to achieve national pride - and to enhance the tourist industry in their home country.
Qantas runs a three class airline both domestically and internationally. Seats are available first class, business class - and what are often termed " Coach ", " Tourist " or " Economy ". Our national airline spun off a one class tourist airline - Jetstar - and this is not affected by the grounding.
Qantas has made it clear that to survive in the near future some of it's operations will need to be based in an Asian hub and that will involve the loss of at least a thousand Australian jobs. It intends to start two new airline companies - and these will not necessarily bear the Qantas name and logo. The purpose of this move is to compete on equal terms with others who have lower costs because of lower crew and servicing wages than those prevailing in Australia.
The various unions servicing airline personnel are determined to force Qantas to remain based in Australia and have launched a very effective guerrilla campaign to bleed the airline financially. One of the tactics has been to announce strikes - and then at the last minute - when Qantas has cancelled some services and used bigger planes on others to move a greater number of passengers - cancel the strike. As a result, their members retain full pay, passengers are inconvenienced, the Qantas brand is trashed and this is costing the airline fifteen million dollars a week.
Qantas counters that the unions are demanding an unreasonable log of claims, including retaining work practices that no longer apply to the most recent designs of aircraft, and most importantly - insist on job security provisions being included in awards that can not be guaranteed, given the uncertainty of the recession engulfing both the US and Europe.
The Qantas grounding is designed to bring this whole matter to a head - one way or another. The grounding only applies to Qantas brand aircraft and Jetstar, Qantaslink and the two freight arms will continue to fly. Qantas will pay hotel costs for stranded passengers, and assist them to complete their journeys on other airlines - but the shutdown will cost the company twenty million dollars a week while it continues.
This action has forced the hand of the Federal government, which until now has stood aloof. It will try to involve Fair Work Australia as the entity to negotiate resolution, but that will be suspect by many people because of the close links between the Labor government and it's union allies - and Fair Work Australia is the creation of a socialist government.
This is a high risk situation and the bargaining chips are huge. There is no guarantee that any order from Fair Work Australia would be obeyed by either side and it is quite possible that Qantas could simply quit this country for a new life in a new city hub.
Hopefully, negotiations between Qantas, the unions and Fair Work Australia will be conducted with honesty and the intention of keeping Qantas Australian. If it degenerates into a pure political fight - there will be no winners !
Saturday 29 October 2011
An end to free education ?
One of the things that makes Australians proud is the right of every Australian child to receive a free education in a government school. Of course this is not strictly true. Our schools are grossly underfunded and parents are constantly putting their hand in their pocket to supplement essentials - and to cover the needs for excursions and sport.
But basically, if your child attends a state primary or high school you are not presented with a bill for school fees - but it seems that is now about to change.
From next year, children attending pre-schools attached to state public primary schools will be required to pay a fee of up to $ 40 per day - and this will be tailored to the socio-economic status of the place where the school is located. For instance, that full $ 40 a day will apply to schools in Sydney's more affluent suburbs, but schools in Wilcannia will be free - and here in the Illawarra the charge will be somewhere in the $ 10 to $ 30 a day bracket.
For some people, this new fee will be the dividing line between survival and financial disaster. In many households now the option of both partners working is no longer a matter of choice. We have savage cost rises creeping through the electricity/gas/water essentials - and food prices have been rising at a much higher rate than inflation. At the same time, salaries are not moving in tandem.
It seems that the state government is applying a fee to public pre-schools for the first time on the notion that they are merely " child minding centres " - and as such are removed from the mainstream " learning " of the public school system.
The fact that fees will vary according to the socio-economic status of each district is an ominous warning that means testing may one day apply to education. If " ability to pay " becomes the criteria for accepting children into schools without presenting a bill, then the days of free education for all are over !
It seems that both ends of the education spectrum are under pressure. Many people contend that university education should be free, but we are seeing a never ending battle of higher fees, crippling HECS and course cut backs to make education money go the distance - and now the pre-schools at the other end are getting hit with fees for the first time.
The main casualty here will be working women. For those with more than one child this imposition could be a sheer financial disaster. Surely this is an issue on which the public should make it's position clear to the state government well before the start of term in 2012.
But basically, if your child attends a state primary or high school you are not presented with a bill for school fees - but it seems that is now about to change.
From next year, children attending pre-schools attached to state public primary schools will be required to pay a fee of up to $ 40 per day - and this will be tailored to the socio-economic status of the place where the school is located. For instance, that full $ 40 a day will apply to schools in Sydney's more affluent suburbs, but schools in Wilcannia will be free - and here in the Illawarra the charge will be somewhere in the $ 10 to $ 30 a day bracket.
For some people, this new fee will be the dividing line between survival and financial disaster. In many households now the option of both partners working is no longer a matter of choice. We have savage cost rises creeping through the electricity/gas/water essentials - and food prices have been rising at a much higher rate than inflation. At the same time, salaries are not moving in tandem.
It seems that the state government is applying a fee to public pre-schools for the first time on the notion that they are merely " child minding centres " - and as such are removed from the mainstream " learning " of the public school system.
The fact that fees will vary according to the socio-economic status of each district is an ominous warning that means testing may one day apply to education. If " ability to pay " becomes the criteria for accepting children into schools without presenting a bill, then the days of free education for all are over !
It seems that both ends of the education spectrum are under pressure. Many people contend that university education should be free, but we are seeing a never ending battle of higher fees, crippling HECS and course cut backs to make education money go the distance - and now the pre-schools at the other end are getting hit with fees for the first time.
The main casualty here will be working women. For those with more than one child this imposition could be a sheer financial disaster. Surely this is an issue on which the public should make it's position clear to the state government well before the start of term in 2012.
Friday 28 October 2011
A selective target !
The plan to curb excess gambling on poker machines ebbs and flows, and the main casualty seems to be the clubs who gain much of their income from their popularity. They are spending big money to at least water down the harsher aspects of the legislation.
There have always been an anti-gambling lobby, mainly churches and welfare groups - but this demand for legislative action only arises from unusual circumstances. We had an election that nearly delivered a hung parliament - and a small group of independents found themselves with the balance of power. Each presented their demands to provide parliamentary support - and one of them was an anti-poker machine fanatic !
We now have a situation where to remain in office the Federal government must pass legislation to reduce the amount a gambler can lose on a poker machine - and do it within a given time frame.
Surely this must skirt dangerously close to the law that covers " making demands with menaces " ?
The curious thing is that all the other forms of gambling are left untouched. It is only poker machines that are the target of this legislation - and yet we read of punters losing their homes and businesses from gambling addiction in casinos and there are those who become totally addicted to horse racing - and the lure of bookmaker's odds.
Without the power transferred to several individuals by the vagaries of the electoral system this attack on poker machines would not be happening. Neither of the major political parties has any real interest and gambling legislation is the prerogative of state governments anyway.
The pressure is on to rush this new law through within a strict time frame because it seems certain that when the next Federal election occurs somewhere in 2013 this balance of power situation will have evaporated.
Just another of those curious twists and turns delivered by a democratic voting system !
There have always been an anti-gambling lobby, mainly churches and welfare groups - but this demand for legislative action only arises from unusual circumstances. We had an election that nearly delivered a hung parliament - and a small group of independents found themselves with the balance of power. Each presented their demands to provide parliamentary support - and one of them was an anti-poker machine fanatic !
We now have a situation where to remain in office the Federal government must pass legislation to reduce the amount a gambler can lose on a poker machine - and do it within a given time frame.
Surely this must skirt dangerously close to the law that covers " making demands with menaces " ?
The curious thing is that all the other forms of gambling are left untouched. It is only poker machines that are the target of this legislation - and yet we read of punters losing their homes and businesses from gambling addiction in casinos and there are those who become totally addicted to horse racing - and the lure of bookmaker's odds.
Without the power transferred to several individuals by the vagaries of the electoral system this attack on poker machines would not be happening. Neither of the major political parties has any real interest and gambling legislation is the prerogative of state governments anyway.
The pressure is on to rush this new law through within a strict time frame because it seems certain that when the next Federal election occurs somewhere in 2013 this balance of power situation will have evaporated.
Just another of those curious twists and turns delivered by a democratic voting system !
Thursday 27 October 2011
Last day Friday !
Tomorrow will be a sad day at the Wollongong steelworks ! The number six blast furnace is empty and is now cold and silent. Number four coke battery is also shut down, and at the end of shift many of those who worked there producing steel will walk out the gate for the last time.
It is the end of an era for three hundred steelmakers, a similar number of contractors - and four hundred and thirty others who served in associated jobs. Many are in a difficult age group when it comes to attracting other job offers.
One thing is certain. Those walking out the gate will be cashed-up after years - and sometimes decades - of service. They will have received two and a half weeks pay for every year of service, plus a lump sum of fourteen weeks pay - and other special payments ranging from $ 7,500 to $ 12,500.
It will be an emotional time - and that brings with it danger. " Wakes " are planned and those attending are advised to leave the car at home - and to remember that those redundancy payments will have to last a very long time.
We can expect tension in many households. Heart wrenching decisions will have to be made that will affect every member of each family. For some the options will be to sell the family home and move to where jobs are going begging in the mining boom. For others, there will be the temptation to start their own business.
It doesn't help that world finance is in serious disarray - and the way ahead is uncertain. These job losses will be a blow to the economic health of Wollongong - and will probably take a long time to dissipate.
It is encouraging to remember that we faced a similar downturn many years ago - when this steel plant had a work force of over twenty thousand people - and we survived and finally prospered.
We are a city of survivors !
It is the end of an era for three hundred steelmakers, a similar number of contractors - and four hundred and thirty others who served in associated jobs. Many are in a difficult age group when it comes to attracting other job offers.
One thing is certain. Those walking out the gate will be cashed-up after years - and sometimes decades - of service. They will have received two and a half weeks pay for every year of service, plus a lump sum of fourteen weeks pay - and other special payments ranging from $ 7,500 to $ 12,500.
It will be an emotional time - and that brings with it danger. " Wakes " are planned and those attending are advised to leave the car at home - and to remember that those redundancy payments will have to last a very long time.
We can expect tension in many households. Heart wrenching decisions will have to be made that will affect every member of each family. For some the options will be to sell the family home and move to where jobs are going begging in the mining boom. For others, there will be the temptation to start their own business.
It doesn't help that world finance is in serious disarray - and the way ahead is uncertain. These job losses will be a blow to the economic health of Wollongong - and will probably take a long time to dissipate.
It is encouraging to remember that we faced a similar downturn many years ago - when this steel plant had a work force of over twenty thousand people - and we survived and finally prospered.
We are a city of survivors !
Wednesday 26 October 2011
A Bonus ? For What ?
One of the reasons for the "Occupy Wall Street " crowds is disgust that failed financial institutions which were bailed out with public money have started to again lavish obscenely rich bonuses on their executive staff. Wall street is a long way away - and in another country - but this bonus enigma is now rearing it's ugly head right here in Wollongong.
Next month BlueScope Steel will hold it's AGM and on the agenda is a proposal to bestow $ 3 million in executive bonuses.
This at a time when the company has announced a one billion dollar loss, a retreat from the export business - the retrenchment of a thousand production jobs - and the cancellation of any shareholder dividends.
The question could be asked : " a bonus - for what ? "
The company will probably claim that the heroic efforts of it's executives saved it from an even greater disaster. The money is needed to prevent these valuable people being poached by other companies, leaving BlueScope bereft of the brains it needs to climb out of this financial hole.
That seems to suggest that these executives are seriously underpaid - and that is a scenario that few would believe. We seem to be going through a period where executive salaries are widening disproportionally in relation to average earnings - and that is what is causing social unrest across world markets.
We are not seeing disgruntled people occupying public space in Wollongong but these movements have a habit of growing - and getting out of hand - and the sort of madness that is proposed for BlueScope's AGM can be the trigger.
It's time to get back to reality - and remember the original reason for giving a bonus. That was a reward for a person whose singular effort resulted in market expansion and profit - delivering company advancement that benefited both staff and shareholders.
A criteria that does not apply to the present circumstances !
Next month BlueScope Steel will hold it's AGM and on the agenda is a proposal to bestow $ 3 million in executive bonuses.
This at a time when the company has announced a one billion dollar loss, a retreat from the export business - the retrenchment of a thousand production jobs - and the cancellation of any shareholder dividends.
The question could be asked : " a bonus - for what ? "
The company will probably claim that the heroic efforts of it's executives saved it from an even greater disaster. The money is needed to prevent these valuable people being poached by other companies, leaving BlueScope bereft of the brains it needs to climb out of this financial hole.
That seems to suggest that these executives are seriously underpaid - and that is a scenario that few would believe. We seem to be going through a period where executive salaries are widening disproportionally in relation to average earnings - and that is what is causing social unrest across world markets.
We are not seeing disgruntled people occupying public space in Wollongong but these movements have a habit of growing - and getting out of hand - and the sort of madness that is proposed for BlueScope's AGM can be the trigger.
It's time to get back to reality - and remember the original reason for giving a bonus. That was a reward for a person whose singular effort resulted in market expansion and profit - delivering company advancement that benefited both staff and shareholders.
A criteria that does not apply to the present circumstances !
Tuesday 25 October 2011
Bandit tactics !
Councils - the third tier of government - are between a rock and a hard place. Federal and State governments control the money flow, but at the same time shift responsibility for services onto this lower level, adding to their cost structure.
Councils find themselves in a finance straitjacket. Rate rises are pegged below the rate of inflation, and grants from both the Federal and State level are usually way short of the actual costs involved. Councils are making up the shortfall by bandit tactics.
They are pushing their input from fees and charges to the limit. While State governments get political kudos from pegging rate rises, they turn a blind eye to exorbitant service fees. Everything from registering a dog to putting in a development application is edging ever upwards - and in some cases moving out of reach for many people.
Sport is the latest to be hit with the " user pays " principle. The fee for the use of a council sporting oval is pushing some forms of junior sport to extinction. We deplore child obesity but unrealistic ground fees are moving sport beyond parent's ability to pay.
Then there is " enforcement fees ". Reduced to it's basic form, this is the tactic of expanding every possible offence on the council books that can attract an infringement fine - and employing an ever expanding force of Rangers to issue fines without mercy.
In most cases it is a money trap. This city's main stadium and all of it's performing arts centres are in a parking desert. Any popular event leaves patrons no option than to park on nature strips or otherwise break laws - and the council reaps a huge bonanza by way of fines.
Federal and State governments reluctantly agree that local councils are underfunded, but both levels of government have their own finance problems, and it is not likely that either will open their coffers to give relief.
This is adding to the groundswell of public anger that is giving rise to the " occupancy " movement against the balance between rich and poor. We have seen struggles between protestors and police in both Melbourne amd Sydney, and there have been complaints of excessive force.
This movement is a warning sign that all forms of government need to take seriously. The cost balance against the average person has tilted in the wrong direction. If it is ignored, events that we see on television news happening overseas may become reality on our own streets !
Councils find themselves in a finance straitjacket. Rate rises are pegged below the rate of inflation, and grants from both the Federal and State level are usually way short of the actual costs involved. Councils are making up the shortfall by bandit tactics.
They are pushing their input from fees and charges to the limit. While State governments get political kudos from pegging rate rises, they turn a blind eye to exorbitant service fees. Everything from registering a dog to putting in a development application is edging ever upwards - and in some cases moving out of reach for many people.
Sport is the latest to be hit with the " user pays " principle. The fee for the use of a council sporting oval is pushing some forms of junior sport to extinction. We deplore child obesity but unrealistic ground fees are moving sport beyond parent's ability to pay.
Then there is " enforcement fees ". Reduced to it's basic form, this is the tactic of expanding every possible offence on the council books that can attract an infringement fine - and employing an ever expanding force of Rangers to issue fines without mercy.
In most cases it is a money trap. This city's main stadium and all of it's performing arts centres are in a parking desert. Any popular event leaves patrons no option than to park on nature strips or otherwise break laws - and the council reaps a huge bonanza by way of fines.
Federal and State governments reluctantly agree that local councils are underfunded, but both levels of government have their own finance problems, and it is not likely that either will open their coffers to give relief.
This is adding to the groundswell of public anger that is giving rise to the " occupancy " movement against the balance between rich and poor. We have seen struggles between protestors and police in both Melbourne amd Sydney, and there have been complaints of excessive force.
This movement is a warning sign that all forms of government need to take seriously. The cost balance against the average person has tilted in the wrong direction. If it is ignored, events that we see on television news happening overseas may become reality on our own streets !
Monday 24 October 2011
Gaddafi !
It seems ludicrous that western countries are calling for an enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the capture and death of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi and his son Muatassim. Surely they don't expect the people who executed them to be arrested - and put on trial for murder ?
Some will draw comparisons with the treatment accorded Saddam Hussein of Iraq. He was dragged out of a hiding place by a professional army, given a bath and medical treatment - and then put before a properly constituted court and tried for his crimes. Found guilty - he was executed by hanging.
There was no professional army fighting in Libya - except the military backing Gaddafi - and that was why the insurrection teetered indecisively for months. Ordinary people found the courage to take up arms and fight to remove a dictator who used terror as a weapon - in his own country and abroad. Their lack of discipline and military training resulted in a heavy death toll, and when they finally reduced the Gaddafi forces to two enclaves the bitter resistance led to even more deaths. Can they be blamed for extracting revenge ?
It may seem repugnant that the rotting bodies of these two Gaddafi's are on display and being viewed by Libyan citizens taking photographs as mementos. For some, it will be reassurance that the monster who controlled their lives is really dead.
There seems little doubt that revenge killings have been widespread. Given the intensity of the fight from those who supported Gaddafi it would be hard for them to fit peacefully into the new Libya. The west would be well advised to simply let Arab custom run it's course. Libya is a nation of tribes and the establishment of a new order will produce winners and losers. In that part of the world, being a loser usually delivers a death sentence.
The big mistake would be for the west to interfere - and try and impose western values. Now is the time for the west to walk away and let the Libyan people sort things out - and create the sort of society that suits them best. They did their part providing crucial air support. Now it is up to the Libyans to find their own salvation.
As for Gaddafi. He lived by the sword - and he certainly died by the sword. It will be a chilling lesson for others like Bashar Assad to reflect on when trying to get a good night's sleep !
Some will draw comparisons with the treatment accorded Saddam Hussein of Iraq. He was dragged out of a hiding place by a professional army, given a bath and medical treatment - and then put before a properly constituted court and tried for his crimes. Found guilty - he was executed by hanging.
There was no professional army fighting in Libya - except the military backing Gaddafi - and that was why the insurrection teetered indecisively for months. Ordinary people found the courage to take up arms and fight to remove a dictator who used terror as a weapon - in his own country and abroad. Their lack of discipline and military training resulted in a heavy death toll, and when they finally reduced the Gaddafi forces to two enclaves the bitter resistance led to even more deaths. Can they be blamed for extracting revenge ?
It may seem repugnant that the rotting bodies of these two Gaddafi's are on display and being viewed by Libyan citizens taking photographs as mementos. For some, it will be reassurance that the monster who controlled their lives is really dead.
There seems little doubt that revenge killings have been widespread. Given the intensity of the fight from those who supported Gaddafi it would be hard for them to fit peacefully into the new Libya. The west would be well advised to simply let Arab custom run it's course. Libya is a nation of tribes and the establishment of a new order will produce winners and losers. In that part of the world, being a loser usually delivers a death sentence.
The big mistake would be for the west to interfere - and try and impose western values. Now is the time for the west to walk away and let the Libyan people sort things out - and create the sort of society that suits them best. They did their part providing crucial air support. Now it is up to the Libyans to find their own salvation.
As for Gaddafi. He lived by the sword - and he certainly died by the sword. It will be a chilling lesson for others like Bashar Assad to reflect on when trying to get a good night's sleep !
Sunday 23 October 2011
Increasing Shark attacks !
We have always known that swimming in the ocean invited a possible shark attack, but the risk was said to be so remote that it was compared with being struck by lightning. How then to explain three shark deaths in the waters of Western Australia in the past two months ?
A surfer was killed at Bunker Bay in the south-west last month, and in the past two weeks swimmers died in the jaws of sharks near Rottnest Island and at Cottesloe beach. In each instance, experts attest that the most likely attacker was a Great White shark.
In all fairness, there are a lot more of us now. The Australian population has topped twenty-two million people and we enjoy a beach culture. More people in the water probably increases the odds of being an attack victim, but could other features be playing a part in this phenomenon ?
Global warming is delivering more days of beach weather, and it is said that there has been a small rise in water temperatures. Perhaps this has an effect on fish movements, resulting in sharks becoming more aggressive in their hunt for food.
Then there is the change from passive to active in our search for adventure. It has become the custom to invite people to enter a shark proof cage and observe sharks up close and personal in their own domain. As part of the routine to ensure that there are sharks to be seen, what is called " Chum " is spread in the water nearby to attract the sharks - and this is a mixture of animal blood and offal. Could this be responsible for sharks thinking that humans are now part of their menu ?
Another factor could be the move by conservation people to discourage fishing for sharks. Once the main ingredient of " fish and chips " was shark - referred to as " Flake ". Asian fishermen hunted shark for their fins as this is the base for the revered "Shark Fin soup ", but now sharks are claimed to be an endangered species and shark fishing is discouraged.
There could be another explanation. Great White sharks are top of the shark totem pole - and as predators they dine on lesser sharks. If numbers are decreasing in the general shark population, perhaps humans have moved up a notch or two as possible alternatives.
Hopefully, the boffins will eventually come up with answers and we may have to adjust our attitude to using the oceans accordingly. One thing seems abundantly clear. The greatest number of attack victims are those swimming alone. Perhaps people in greater numbers intimidate sharks - but it should certainly be a factor in deciding where and when we will go for a swim - and choosing to do so with numerous companions.
These days - getting struck by lightning seems to be a less remote option !
A surfer was killed at Bunker Bay in the south-west last month, and in the past two weeks swimmers died in the jaws of sharks near Rottnest Island and at Cottesloe beach. In each instance, experts attest that the most likely attacker was a Great White shark.
In all fairness, there are a lot more of us now. The Australian population has topped twenty-two million people and we enjoy a beach culture. More people in the water probably increases the odds of being an attack victim, but could other features be playing a part in this phenomenon ?
Global warming is delivering more days of beach weather, and it is said that there has been a small rise in water temperatures. Perhaps this has an effect on fish movements, resulting in sharks becoming more aggressive in their hunt for food.
Then there is the change from passive to active in our search for adventure. It has become the custom to invite people to enter a shark proof cage and observe sharks up close and personal in their own domain. As part of the routine to ensure that there are sharks to be seen, what is called " Chum " is spread in the water nearby to attract the sharks - and this is a mixture of animal blood and offal. Could this be responsible for sharks thinking that humans are now part of their menu ?
Another factor could be the move by conservation people to discourage fishing for sharks. Once the main ingredient of " fish and chips " was shark - referred to as " Flake ". Asian fishermen hunted shark for their fins as this is the base for the revered "Shark Fin soup ", but now sharks are claimed to be an endangered species and shark fishing is discouraged.
There could be another explanation. Great White sharks are top of the shark totem pole - and as predators they dine on lesser sharks. If numbers are decreasing in the general shark population, perhaps humans have moved up a notch or two as possible alternatives.
Hopefully, the boffins will eventually come up with answers and we may have to adjust our attitude to using the oceans accordingly. One thing seems abundantly clear. The greatest number of attack victims are those swimming alone. Perhaps people in greater numbers intimidate sharks - but it should certainly be a factor in deciding where and when we will go for a swim - and choosing to do so with numerous companions.
These days - getting struck by lightning seems to be a less remote option !
Saturday 22 October 2011
Politically correct madness !
We use the terms " BC " to define ancient times, and the term " AD " to define the present age, but it seems that there is pressure to dump these definitions - because they are not considered " politically correct ".
In their place, it is suggested that we adopt " BCE " and " CE ". These are abbreviations of " Before Common Era " and " Common Era ".
Presumably the sticking point is that our calendar is based on Christianity, and that this might be offensive to those of other religions. Of course we are not about to dump the actual starting point of the Gregorian calendar - just deleting any reference to Jesus Christ.
This seems to be the edict of a body with the unlikely name of the " Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority ". Probably the same mob that is trying to outlaw Christmas - and replace it with a new name.
Instead of trying to tinker with a perfectly good system that is not a problem with other religions, their time would be better spent working on real problems that affect flesh and blood people.
One that comes to mind is the incompatibility of student concessions when they cross state lines.
We have a lot of " border towns " in this country, where students live in one state and study in another. Things like transport concession passes should work across borders - but they don't. As a result, we impose financial hardship on many Australian families.
It seems to be a replay of the problems with trying to get a common educational curriculum across all states. To have that happen will require give and take by all concerned, but instead of cooperation all we see is point scoring and claims of superiority. Progress is slow - and in this mobile age of moving to where jobs are available - kids suffer a huge disadvantage in trying to comprehend different state education standards.
But it seems that this " Curriculum Authority " is more interested in dotting i's and crossing t's to achieve political correctness - than solving real problems.
In their place, it is suggested that we adopt " BCE " and " CE ". These are abbreviations of " Before Common Era " and " Common Era ".
Presumably the sticking point is that our calendar is based on Christianity, and that this might be offensive to those of other religions. Of course we are not about to dump the actual starting point of the Gregorian calendar - just deleting any reference to Jesus Christ.
This seems to be the edict of a body with the unlikely name of the " Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority ". Probably the same mob that is trying to outlaw Christmas - and replace it with a new name.
Instead of trying to tinker with a perfectly good system that is not a problem with other religions, their time would be better spent working on real problems that affect flesh and blood people.
One that comes to mind is the incompatibility of student concessions when they cross state lines.
We have a lot of " border towns " in this country, where students live in one state and study in another. Things like transport concession passes should work across borders - but they don't. As a result, we impose financial hardship on many Australian families.
It seems to be a replay of the problems with trying to get a common educational curriculum across all states. To have that happen will require give and take by all concerned, but instead of cooperation all we see is point scoring and claims of superiority. Progress is slow - and in this mobile age of moving to where jobs are available - kids suffer a huge disadvantage in trying to comprehend different state education standards.
But it seems that this " Curriculum Authority " is more interested in dotting i's and crossing t's to achieve political correctness - than solving real problems.
Friday 21 October 2011
Welfare - and the Dole !
There is pressure building to remove the structure of welfare payments from decisions by politicians - to a yet to be formed independent body. It is argued that welfare levels should be based on the cost of living - not on a percentage of the minimum wage - as is currently the case.
The problem is that such a body would have a very different perspective from politicians. It would be easy to justify big increases across all sectors, based on living costs and the aspirations of a just society. Finding the money would not be the concern of such a body.
We would do well to consider what is happening in Europe at the present time. The formation of the European Union (EU) brought this combination of nations under a common welfare umbrella - and an excess of benevolence has exceeded it's ability to pay. Wages are being cut - and with them - pensions and allowances, and as a result the people are in the streets, manning the barricades.
Europe - and many other world countries - have been living beyond their means. This economic downturn has seen Treasuries caught short as they try to bail out banks and commerce. Where it will all end is still an unanswered question, but for most people further welfare generosity is out of the question.
Many people point to the frugality of the dole here to illustrate the unfairness of welfare. The dole has long been deemed an unsavoury word - and it has been renamed " Newstart Allowance ". It certainly is a big come down for anyone previously earning the average wage - and after retrenchment - expected to survive on just $ 35 a day - less than $ 250 a week.
Critics point out that this is $ 131 a week less than the old age pension.
But - and it is a very big " but " - the dole was never intended to replace the income from a job on a long term basis. It is a temporary payment. It is sheer survival money while the unemployed seek a new job - and on that basis it's shortcomings are acknowledged.
It would be nice to equate the dole with the old age pension, but for some people this would remove the incentive of vigorously seeking fresh employment. It would be too easy to lapse into a state of " semi retirement " at a much earlier age.
Whenever the question of welfare generally comes under review, we would be wise to take a reality check - and look at what is happening elsewhere - in the " real world " !
The problem is that such a body would have a very different perspective from politicians. It would be easy to justify big increases across all sectors, based on living costs and the aspirations of a just society. Finding the money would not be the concern of such a body.
We would do well to consider what is happening in Europe at the present time. The formation of the European Union (EU) brought this combination of nations under a common welfare umbrella - and an excess of benevolence has exceeded it's ability to pay. Wages are being cut - and with them - pensions and allowances, and as a result the people are in the streets, manning the barricades.
Europe - and many other world countries - have been living beyond their means. This economic downturn has seen Treasuries caught short as they try to bail out banks and commerce. Where it will all end is still an unanswered question, but for most people further welfare generosity is out of the question.
Many people point to the frugality of the dole here to illustrate the unfairness of welfare. The dole has long been deemed an unsavoury word - and it has been renamed " Newstart Allowance ". It certainly is a big come down for anyone previously earning the average wage - and after retrenchment - expected to survive on just $ 35 a day - less than $ 250 a week.
Critics point out that this is $ 131 a week less than the old age pension.
But - and it is a very big " but " - the dole was never intended to replace the income from a job on a long term basis. It is a temporary payment. It is sheer survival money while the unemployed seek a new job - and on that basis it's shortcomings are acknowledged.
It would be nice to equate the dole with the old age pension, but for some people this would remove the incentive of vigorously seeking fresh employment. It would be too easy to lapse into a state of " semi retirement " at a much earlier age.
Whenever the question of welfare generally comes under review, we would be wise to take a reality check - and look at what is happening elsewhere - in the " real world " !
Thursday 20 October 2011
Those pesky PIN's and Passwords !
Most people manage to memorise the PIN necessary to access their money in an ATM because they use it frequently. The ones that evade recall are PIN's less frequently used. There seems an overwhelming need to commit them to a disguised form and kept hidden somewhere in purse or wallet.
The most frequent form of disguise for a four number PIN is to precede it with a common two number telephone exchange code, thus making it appear as an innocent telephone number. Unfortunately, the criminal fraternity is aware of this dodge.
There is a simple way of encrypting PIN's so that they can be openly written - and yet be completely safe from detection by others.
All that is needed is the selection of a ten letter word or phrase - which contains no repetition of letters.
Suppose the word you have chosen is P N E U M A T I C S
Simply apply numbers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Now - suppose your PIN is 6310 . You can safely write is somewhere as AEPS.
Your PIN is safe, provided you never divulge your " WORD " to others, and it can easily be retrieved by a little mental gymnastics when standing at the ATM.
The same system can be applied to computer passwords. We are allowed to choose our own passwords, but more and more access is limited to a mix of letters and numbers - and a six sequence has become a requirement.
Add two letters to the mix by selecting a common denominator - as an example - perhaps the month of your birth. Let us say that was JUNE. Make the first and last letter of JUNE the first two letters of your password.
You could - using the PIN example above - construct a computer password that was :
JE6310
A meaningless jumble of letters - JEAEPS - which means absolutely nothing is observed by another person.
With a little ingenuity - the PIN and Password problems can be easily solved.
The most frequent form of disguise for a four number PIN is to precede it with a common two number telephone exchange code, thus making it appear as an innocent telephone number. Unfortunately, the criminal fraternity is aware of this dodge.
There is a simple way of encrypting PIN's so that they can be openly written - and yet be completely safe from detection by others.
All that is needed is the selection of a ten letter word or phrase - which contains no repetition of letters.
Suppose the word you have chosen is P N E U M A T I C S
Simply apply numbers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Now - suppose your PIN is 6310 . You can safely write is somewhere as AEPS.
Your PIN is safe, provided you never divulge your " WORD " to others, and it can easily be retrieved by a little mental gymnastics when standing at the ATM.
The same system can be applied to computer passwords. We are allowed to choose our own passwords, but more and more access is limited to a mix of letters and numbers - and a six sequence has become a requirement.
Add two letters to the mix by selecting a common denominator - as an example - perhaps the month of your birth. Let us say that was JUNE. Make the first and last letter of JUNE the first two letters of your password.
You could - using the PIN example above - construct a computer password that was :
JE6310
A meaningless jumble of letters - JEAEPS - which means absolutely nothing is observed by another person.
With a little ingenuity - the PIN and Password problems can be easily solved.
Wednesday 19 October 2011
Common sense prevailed !
Yesterday, many Telstra shareholders heaved a sigh of relief when 99.45% voted to accept a peace deal between the company and the Federal government. In exchange for eleven billion dollars in compensation, Telstra will relinquish it's copper wire network to the National Broadband Network ( NBN ), which will decommission it and use it's existing cableways to connect it's optic fibre system to Australian homes.
It's been a long and rocky road, made harder by past arrogant Telstra management seeking a fight and making unrealistic demands to retain monopoly rights. Had this shareholder vote failed, Telstra would have been committed to a fight with the NBN for market share of communications - pitting it's old copper wire system against their optic fibre. Picking that winner would have been a no brainer !
This is a win - win - win situation. Wollongong has advanced in priority to be amongst the first connected to the NBN and the work should go seamlessly now that optic cable will use the Telstra cableways and not require streets to be dug up to lay a new cable highway.
Telstra has avoided a nasty commercial fight - and has emerged as a cashed up company with eleven billion dollars in the kitty to finance the way forward. Long suffering shareholders - who saw their investment dwindle to below two dollars a share as uncertainty over the company's future depressed market interest can look forward to better times.
As they say in the classics - " Winners are grinner's ! "
It's been a long and rocky road, made harder by past arrogant Telstra management seeking a fight and making unrealistic demands to retain monopoly rights. Had this shareholder vote failed, Telstra would have been committed to a fight with the NBN for market share of communications - pitting it's old copper wire system against their optic fibre. Picking that winner would have been a no brainer !
This is a win - win - win situation. Wollongong has advanced in priority to be amongst the first connected to the NBN and the work should go seamlessly now that optic cable will use the Telstra cableways and not require streets to be dug up to lay a new cable highway.
Telstra has avoided a nasty commercial fight - and has emerged as a cashed up company with eleven billion dollars in the kitty to finance the way forward. Long suffering shareholders - who saw their investment dwindle to below two dollars a share as uncertainty over the company's future depressed market interest can look forward to better times.
As they say in the classics - " Winners are grinner's ! "
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Let sanity prevail !
One of the sure signs that a government is in disarray is when cabinet meetings leak like a sieve. Factions pulling in opposite directions disregard cabinet solidarity in the hope that resulting public opinion will force a change of direction.
So - just what is the problem ?
It seems that when Labor won office back in 2007 they were determined to dump John Howard's " Pacific Solution " to curb boat arrivals at Christmas Island, despite that policy being very successful. This haste to scrub every last vestige of the former government's plans from the statute books was taken while they lacked a coherent replacement plan. As a result, naive new measures were introduced - without a careful study of cause and effect.
The result was ongoing disasters, culminating in a crazy plan to swap eight hundred of our new arrivals with Malaysia - in exchange for four thousand of those held in detention in that country. The immediate problem was that Malaysia has a shocking reputation for neglect and refusal of human rights for those who land on their shores as refugees - and this includes caning for any sign of insubordination.
The Australian High court gave this plan the thumbs down - mainly on the basis that Malaysia is not a signatory to the United Nations compact on refugees. Incredibly - our government's response was to try and legislate to move the law to circumvent the powers of our own High court - and this failed.
Any sane person can see a clear option - ready and waiting to resolve this whole mess.
The island of Nauru is eager to accept and process our refugee arrivals - and existing facilities from the Howard era are in place. Nauru would welcome this function because it would deliver badly needed jobs - and they place no restriction on numbers, which is a limitation with the Malaysia deal. Nauru is also willing to sign that United Nations agreement.
Portions of the cabinet have obviously come to the conclusion that switching from Malaysia to Nauru is the only sensible option remaining - but the sheer arrogance of the Prime Minister's faction in refusing to have anything to do with what others may think is a retreat to the policies of the last government is causing the impasse.
In the meantime - we continue to bleed money. Defending the Malaysia/High court drama has just set us back another five million dollars - and there has been absolutely no progress in reaching a solution to the boat people mess.
No wonder the opinion polls are in vertical fall. Wiser heads within the Labor party are ready to grasp the nettle and make a logical decision. Refusal to allow that because it is seen as a loss of face is preventing sanity to prevail.
How long can this be allowed to continue ?
So - just what is the problem ?
It seems that when Labor won office back in 2007 they were determined to dump John Howard's " Pacific Solution " to curb boat arrivals at Christmas Island, despite that policy being very successful. This haste to scrub every last vestige of the former government's plans from the statute books was taken while they lacked a coherent replacement plan. As a result, naive new measures were introduced - without a careful study of cause and effect.
The result was ongoing disasters, culminating in a crazy plan to swap eight hundred of our new arrivals with Malaysia - in exchange for four thousand of those held in detention in that country. The immediate problem was that Malaysia has a shocking reputation for neglect and refusal of human rights for those who land on their shores as refugees - and this includes caning for any sign of insubordination.
The Australian High court gave this plan the thumbs down - mainly on the basis that Malaysia is not a signatory to the United Nations compact on refugees. Incredibly - our government's response was to try and legislate to move the law to circumvent the powers of our own High court - and this failed.
Any sane person can see a clear option - ready and waiting to resolve this whole mess.
The island of Nauru is eager to accept and process our refugee arrivals - and existing facilities from the Howard era are in place. Nauru would welcome this function because it would deliver badly needed jobs - and they place no restriction on numbers, which is a limitation with the Malaysia deal. Nauru is also willing to sign that United Nations agreement.
Portions of the cabinet have obviously come to the conclusion that switching from Malaysia to Nauru is the only sensible option remaining - but the sheer arrogance of the Prime Minister's faction in refusing to have anything to do with what others may think is a retreat to the policies of the last government is causing the impasse.
In the meantime - we continue to bleed money. Defending the Malaysia/High court drama has just set us back another five million dollars - and there has been absolutely no progress in reaching a solution to the boat people mess.
No wonder the opinion polls are in vertical fall. Wiser heads within the Labor party are ready to grasp the nettle and make a logical decision. Refusal to allow that because it is seen as a loss of face is preventing sanity to prevail.
How long can this be allowed to continue ?
Monday 17 October 2011
An end to Primogeniture ?
One interesting topic that will be discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government ( CHOGM ) meeting in Perth this month will be the proposal for Britain to end Primogeniture when it comes to succession to the British throne.
Under Primogeniture, if the first born of the Monarch is a girl, she will be replaced as first in line for the throne should a later male be born. In this era of equal rights and women's liberation, such a law change is probably long overdue.
But - it also raises the matter of titled folk. In this day and age, do we really need Barons, Earls, Dukes - and a whole raft of gentry whose titles just go rolling on from one generation to the next - forever ?
Australia's forefathers made a wise decision way back in 1788 when they resolved not to follow English custom and bestow hereditary honours here. The best any Australian could hope for after a lifetime of public service was a knighthood - and that only lasted until the death of the person so honoured.
These English titles tend to have some very dodgy backgrounds. Many date back to the constant civil wars that erupted centuries ago when pretenders tried to unseat the current king and ascend to the throne. The wealthy landowners who took their retainers into battle to support the winner were rewarded with a title - and often with the lands and retainers of those who supported the losing side.
This seems to be a burr under the saddlecloth of most socialists. The immensely wealthy titled elite of Britain got that way by picking the right side to support in a civil war, and that wealth and title rolls on in this modern day and age.
The Queen supports the end of Primogeniture in deciding who ascends to the throne and it will most likely get the nod at CHOGM, but divesting titles and all that goes with them would be a complicated can of worms.
Very few new titles have been awarded in recent years - excepting the elevation of a commoner who recently married the heir apparent. Britain has instead embraced honours that only remain in force during the lifetime of the recipient.
Presumably, if Primogeniture is abolished in regard to the throne, it will also be applied to all aspects of heraldry - and daughters will rank in equality with sons ?
Just imagine the consternation amongst the progeny of an ageing titled parent - now that the winds of change are blowing away a carefully orchestrated line of succession !
Under Primogeniture, if the first born of the Monarch is a girl, she will be replaced as first in line for the throne should a later male be born. In this era of equal rights and women's liberation, such a law change is probably long overdue.
But - it also raises the matter of titled folk. In this day and age, do we really need Barons, Earls, Dukes - and a whole raft of gentry whose titles just go rolling on from one generation to the next - forever ?
Australia's forefathers made a wise decision way back in 1788 when they resolved not to follow English custom and bestow hereditary honours here. The best any Australian could hope for after a lifetime of public service was a knighthood - and that only lasted until the death of the person so honoured.
These English titles tend to have some very dodgy backgrounds. Many date back to the constant civil wars that erupted centuries ago when pretenders tried to unseat the current king and ascend to the throne. The wealthy landowners who took their retainers into battle to support the winner were rewarded with a title - and often with the lands and retainers of those who supported the losing side.
This seems to be a burr under the saddlecloth of most socialists. The immensely wealthy titled elite of Britain got that way by picking the right side to support in a civil war, and that wealth and title rolls on in this modern day and age.
The Queen supports the end of Primogeniture in deciding who ascends to the throne and it will most likely get the nod at CHOGM, but divesting titles and all that goes with them would be a complicated can of worms.
Very few new titles have been awarded in recent years - excepting the elevation of a commoner who recently married the heir apparent. Britain has instead embraced honours that only remain in force during the lifetime of the recipient.
Presumably, if Primogeniture is abolished in regard to the throne, it will also be applied to all aspects of heraldry - and daughters will rank in equality with sons ?
Just imagine the consternation amongst the progeny of an ageing titled parent - now that the winds of change are blowing away a carefully orchestrated line of succession !
Sunday 16 October 2011
The new " Booze Cruise " industry !
It seems that the state government is trying to create legislative restrictions to shut down - or at least limit - the very popular " Booze Cruise " industry.
Bus operators are making a lot of money promoting what they also call " a motorised pub crawl ". Bus loads of patrons - usually men - laden with alcohol board buses that cruise the city and stop for a short time at various pubs, clubs and other night spots.
The objective seems to be to have a beer at the greatest number of venues visited, but the unstated objective is to get roaring, rippingly drunk ! The bus contains ice buckets to keep the alcohol taken aboard by passengers cool - and the drinking at and between stops is constant.
Health authorities could probably list a whole book of reasons why this can cause health problems, and anecdotal evidence exists of intrusions into public order. These buses do not have toilets, and it has been the custom for the bus to stop when someone calls for a " rest break ". All the men pile out - and relieve themselves. Often - this is against some householders front fence - or it may be "en masse " against the windows in a local shopping centre.
The government might be wise to consider both sides of the argument before they rush to implement legislation. If a group of people are determined to get disgustingly drunk it might be better if they are contained in a group - rather than scattered randomly across various venues and suburbs.
One of the definite advantages of these motorised pub crawls is the fact that they do not drive cars to get home. It seems part of the culture that at the end of the night the bus people drop them off outside their own homes.
As the law currently stands, anyone with a bus is entitled to provide this service - and make money from conducting a tour of drinking spots.Perhaps liaison with the bus people would be a better option, In place of draconian new laws it might be possible to curb the worst excesses - like including public toilets on the itinerary - rather than random stops anywhere when the patrons feel the need.
The aim of " moderation " would be more practical than an outright ban !
Bus operators are making a lot of money promoting what they also call " a motorised pub crawl ". Bus loads of patrons - usually men - laden with alcohol board buses that cruise the city and stop for a short time at various pubs, clubs and other night spots.
The objective seems to be to have a beer at the greatest number of venues visited, but the unstated objective is to get roaring, rippingly drunk ! The bus contains ice buckets to keep the alcohol taken aboard by passengers cool - and the drinking at and between stops is constant.
Health authorities could probably list a whole book of reasons why this can cause health problems, and anecdotal evidence exists of intrusions into public order. These buses do not have toilets, and it has been the custom for the bus to stop when someone calls for a " rest break ". All the men pile out - and relieve themselves. Often - this is against some householders front fence - or it may be "en masse " against the windows in a local shopping centre.
The government might be wise to consider both sides of the argument before they rush to implement legislation. If a group of people are determined to get disgustingly drunk it might be better if they are contained in a group - rather than scattered randomly across various venues and suburbs.
One of the definite advantages of these motorised pub crawls is the fact that they do not drive cars to get home. It seems part of the culture that at the end of the night the bus people drop them off outside their own homes.
As the law currently stands, anyone with a bus is entitled to provide this service - and make money from conducting a tour of drinking spots.Perhaps liaison with the bus people would be a better option, In place of draconian new laws it might be possible to curb the worst excesses - like including public toilets on the itinerary - rather than random stops anywhere when the patrons feel the need.
The aim of " moderation " would be more practical than an outright ban !
Saturday 15 October 2011
Patents ! Protection ? Or Opportunity ?
This week Apple brought action in the Federal court to prevent rival Samsung from selling it's Galaxy Tablet 10.1 in Australia. A temporary injunction was granted on the grounds that Apple claims that Samsung has infringed it's patents on the Apple IPad.
Patents open a complex can of worms - as anyone in the pharmaceutical industry will attest. They are designed as a protection for intellectual property, but they can equally be misused to built a protective wall and shield against legitimate competition.
The IPad and Galaxt 10.1 are certainly similar products, but the depth of that similarity is something that will need scientists to determine - and in all probability they may disagree and fail to come to a united conclusion. What is at stake is a huge amount of money when one product is denied market share for even a short period of time - and that in an industry when innovation makes most new products innrelevant in a matter of months.
In this case, the battle is joined between two giant, cashed-up companies who can afford an army of top line barristers and technical experts to argue their cases. Had one of the litigants been a hapless inventor of modest means - the battle would have been lost before it even entered the court doors. In this modern day and age, litigation is the preserve of the rich !
This case has all the makings of a classic battle. It is something that could ebb and flow for years, because even when the court delivers a finding the way is open to appeal, and the winner can be expected to pursue a further claim for compensation.
While this is going on, one company has a clear field to market it's product. At issue is the fine line dividing where further improvement take intellectual property into a new dimension.
Pity the poor judge trying to figure that out !
Patents open a complex can of worms - as anyone in the pharmaceutical industry will attest. They are designed as a protection for intellectual property, but they can equally be misused to built a protective wall and shield against legitimate competition.
The IPad and Galaxt 10.1 are certainly similar products, but the depth of that similarity is something that will need scientists to determine - and in all probability they may disagree and fail to come to a united conclusion. What is at stake is a huge amount of money when one product is denied market share for even a short period of time - and that in an industry when innovation makes most new products innrelevant in a matter of months.
In this case, the battle is joined between two giant, cashed-up companies who can afford an army of top line barristers and technical experts to argue their cases. Had one of the litigants been a hapless inventor of modest means - the battle would have been lost before it even entered the court doors. In this modern day and age, litigation is the preserve of the rich !
This case has all the makings of a classic battle. It is something that could ebb and flow for years, because even when the court delivers a finding the way is open to appeal, and the winner can be expected to pursue a further claim for compensation.
While this is going on, one company has a clear field to market it's product. At issue is the fine line dividing where further improvement take intellectual property into a new dimension.
Pity the poor judge trying to figure that out !
Friday 14 October 2011
Refund rights !
That perennial question - are you entitled to a refund - has arisen since an announcement that the " Rewind 80's Festival " has been moved from Kembla Grange in Wollongong to the Hordern Pavilion in inner Sydney.
The organiser has stated that refunds will not be offered, and yet this is not the same form of entertainment that was promoted when tickets went on sale. For a start, the festival has contracted from a three day event - to just two days. Many bands have pulled out and been replaced by others - and following a particular band is usually the only reason people buy tickets to these sorts of events. Some people will claim that the fare offered is inferior to the original offering.
There is also a huge change of style from an outdoor event which brings back memories of " Woodstock " to a theatre like presentation inside a hall. The " atmosphere " is different and it is almost like an audience attending what was billed as a stage play suddenly finding that it had morphed into a movie.
Then there is distance - and costs. The Hordern Pavilion is eighty kilometres away from Kembla Grange, so those who bought tickets for a local event are now stuck with rail fares and taxis from Central to the venue - or car costs and parking fees - which are doubled for a two day event.
The reason for this venue change is unconvincing. It is suggested that it is being brought under cover because heavy rain is expected on the 28 and 29'th, but if so then we are experiencing a new miracle of weather forecasting. There are also rumours that ticket sales have been slow - and that the organizers are in panic and hope that a move to a venue in a bigger city may restore their fortunes.
The question of refunds should not rest with the organizers. There is sufficient areas of change to put this in the hands of Fair Trading for a decision - and this needs to happen fast !
The organiser has stated that refunds will not be offered, and yet this is not the same form of entertainment that was promoted when tickets went on sale. For a start, the festival has contracted from a three day event - to just two days. Many bands have pulled out and been replaced by others - and following a particular band is usually the only reason people buy tickets to these sorts of events. Some people will claim that the fare offered is inferior to the original offering.
There is also a huge change of style from an outdoor event which brings back memories of " Woodstock " to a theatre like presentation inside a hall. The " atmosphere " is different and it is almost like an audience attending what was billed as a stage play suddenly finding that it had morphed into a movie.
Then there is distance - and costs. The Hordern Pavilion is eighty kilometres away from Kembla Grange, so those who bought tickets for a local event are now stuck with rail fares and taxis from Central to the venue - or car costs and parking fees - which are doubled for a two day event.
The reason for this venue change is unconvincing. It is suggested that it is being brought under cover because heavy rain is expected on the 28 and 29'th, but if so then we are experiencing a new miracle of weather forecasting. There are also rumours that ticket sales have been slow - and that the organizers are in panic and hope that a move to a venue in a bigger city may restore their fortunes.
The question of refunds should not rest with the organizers. There is sufficient areas of change to put this in the hands of Fair Trading for a decision - and this needs to happen fast !
Thursday 13 October 2011
The long wait !
Yesterday, what the average Australian refers to as " the Carbon tax " passed through the lower house of parliament. It seems certain to pass the Senate - and accordingly on the first of July, 2012 the five hundred biggest polluters in this country will be required to pay a tax of $ 23 per tonne on the carbon dioxide they emit.
We are assured that as the price for electricity, gas and other essentials increases, this will cost the average household just $ 9.90 per week. These costs will be reimbursed by the government to the extent of $ 10.10 per week, by way of pension increases and changes to the tax laws.
It sounds revenue neutral for the average family, but as with all things political - it is necessary to dig a little deeper to get the true picture.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard went to the last election with a promise of " no carbon tax from her government ". She probably meant that at the time, but when faced with either loss of office - or form an alliance with the Greens - her lust for power overcame her principles. She broke her word - and at the next election that will probably come back to haunt her.
So - what of this new promise that the " average " household will be no worse off under this tax forced on her by the Greens ?
Again, this is a " political promise " - and political promises have a limited time factor. This promise is probably only good for the period from July 2012 to whatever date in 2013 the nation again goes to the polls. If the government is re-elected - all bets are then off !
There is a time honoured way of slipping out of inconvenient promises. Simply fail to index the promised benefits and allow inflation to run it's course. Under that scenario the pension slips behind the cost of living increases and taxpayers find themselves moving into higher tax brackets.
This is a favourite ploy used by all incoming governments. Rather than cause an outcry by cancelling a service or benefit - it is much simpler to just freeze funding and allow it to die a natural death further down the track.
Whether this carbon tax is a means of saving the world - or a disaster for both industry and average Australians - will not become clear until the passage of time reveals a result.
For most of us - it will be a long wait !
We are assured that as the price for electricity, gas and other essentials increases, this will cost the average household just $ 9.90 per week. These costs will be reimbursed by the government to the extent of $ 10.10 per week, by way of pension increases and changes to the tax laws.
It sounds revenue neutral for the average family, but as with all things political - it is necessary to dig a little deeper to get the true picture.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard went to the last election with a promise of " no carbon tax from her government ". She probably meant that at the time, but when faced with either loss of office - or form an alliance with the Greens - her lust for power overcame her principles. She broke her word - and at the next election that will probably come back to haunt her.
So - what of this new promise that the " average " household will be no worse off under this tax forced on her by the Greens ?
Again, this is a " political promise " - and political promises have a limited time factor. This promise is probably only good for the period from July 2012 to whatever date in 2013 the nation again goes to the polls. If the government is re-elected - all bets are then off !
There is a time honoured way of slipping out of inconvenient promises. Simply fail to index the promised benefits and allow inflation to run it's course. Under that scenario the pension slips behind the cost of living increases and taxpayers find themselves moving into higher tax brackets.
This is a favourite ploy used by all incoming governments. Rather than cause an outcry by cancelling a service or benefit - it is much simpler to just freeze funding and allow it to die a natural death further down the track.
Whether this carbon tax is a means of saving the world - or a disaster for both industry and average Australians - will not become clear until the passage of time reveals a result.
For most of us - it will be a long wait !
Wednesday 12 October 2011
Compulsory student union fees !
In 2006 John Howard's government removed the compulsory nature of student union fees and made them voluntary. Predictably, the vast majority of university students opted out - and the universities have been able to deliver quality education without them ever since.
It took a long time for the Socialist government in Canberra to pass legislation to restore that " compulsory " requirement to join a union, but it is now back in place and the University of Wollongong is about to propose a $ 263 union fee from next year. It has yet to decide if the full fee will be charged, and how this will affect temporary students and those taking external courses.
Union fees were always a contentious issue. The money gained was used to subsidise services such as the price of meals in the university cafeteria, child minding facilities, sporting clubs, a student newspaper - and in many cases - political activities.
The sticking point for many was the compulsory nature of paying money for services they did not want or need - and in particular - the use of that money to support an aspect of politics with which they did not agree.
In principle, joining any sort of union is supposed to be voluntary, but the nature of compulsory union fees smacked of the " closed shop " approach.
So - we are going back to square one.
Those of limited means trying to get a university education will be hit with another financial impost, and the period when joining the student union was voluntary clearly indicated the wishes of the majority of students.
This voluntary decision making did not agree with socialist philosophy - which contends that everybody should be forced to join some sort of union.
So far, this new regime change has passed with little comment. Expect it to become a much bigger issue early next year - when students start to sign up for their courses - and find an outstretched hand waiting for that $ 263 fee !
It took a long time for the Socialist government in Canberra to pass legislation to restore that " compulsory " requirement to join a union, but it is now back in place and the University of Wollongong is about to propose a $ 263 union fee from next year. It has yet to decide if the full fee will be charged, and how this will affect temporary students and those taking external courses.
Union fees were always a contentious issue. The money gained was used to subsidise services such as the price of meals in the university cafeteria, child minding facilities, sporting clubs, a student newspaper - and in many cases - political activities.
The sticking point for many was the compulsory nature of paying money for services they did not want or need - and in particular - the use of that money to support an aspect of politics with which they did not agree.
In principle, joining any sort of union is supposed to be voluntary, but the nature of compulsory union fees smacked of the " closed shop " approach.
So - we are going back to square one.
Those of limited means trying to get a university education will be hit with another financial impost, and the period when joining the student union was voluntary clearly indicated the wishes of the majority of students.
This voluntary decision making did not agree with socialist philosophy - which contends that everybody should be forced to join some sort of union.
So far, this new regime change has passed with little comment. Expect it to become a much bigger issue early next year - when students start to sign up for their courses - and find an outstretched hand waiting for that $ 263 fee !
Tuesday 11 October 2011
A possible " Pyrrhic outcome " !
There is something unhealthy about the deteriorating conflict between Qantas and it's unions. This has progressed well beyond the usual " argy-bargy " when pay and conditions are being negotiated - and unless common sense comes into the equation there is a distinct chance that it will end with a Pyrrhic outcome !
Strikes are a legitimate weapon when unions reach an impasse in negotiations, but the tactics by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers is not fair play. They announced a four hour stoppage - and then cancelled that at the last moment. An airline can not be run on other than a forward planning basis and consequently flights were cancelled and passengers inconvenienced - but the engineers did not actually strike and therefore received their full pay packets.
It is almost unbelievable that the unions are publicly advising travellers planning holidays this Christmas not to book with Qantas. Eventually, this dispute will be resolved, and when it is the work force needed by Qantas will entirely depend on what market share is held by the airline. If Qantas planes are flying half empty then some services will be cancelled - and if Qantas flies fewer aircraft then layoffs of engineers and baggage handlers become inevitable.
This dispute is about pay and job security. Qantas has signalled that some maintenance will be done overseas and that a new, low cost service may be developed in an Asian city. The danger is that if the unions manage to cripple Qantas profitability and market share there may be no option other than to close shop in Australia and move the airline in it's entirety overseas. We would then lose our iconic national carrier.
It sounds like a personal edge is developing between some bitter people both in Qantas management and in the union hierarchy. Time for both to take a deep breath, think sanely and sensibly - and sit down and work this thing out.
The present situation is simply a recipe for disaster - for all those who work for Qantas - for the airline - and for those Mums and Dads who have money invested in Qantas shares.
Strikes are a legitimate weapon when unions reach an impasse in negotiations, but the tactics by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers is not fair play. They announced a four hour stoppage - and then cancelled that at the last moment. An airline can not be run on other than a forward planning basis and consequently flights were cancelled and passengers inconvenienced - but the engineers did not actually strike and therefore received their full pay packets.
It is almost unbelievable that the unions are publicly advising travellers planning holidays this Christmas not to book with Qantas. Eventually, this dispute will be resolved, and when it is the work force needed by Qantas will entirely depend on what market share is held by the airline. If Qantas planes are flying half empty then some services will be cancelled - and if Qantas flies fewer aircraft then layoffs of engineers and baggage handlers become inevitable.
This dispute is about pay and job security. Qantas has signalled that some maintenance will be done overseas and that a new, low cost service may be developed in an Asian city. The danger is that if the unions manage to cripple Qantas profitability and market share there may be no option other than to close shop in Australia and move the airline in it's entirety overseas. We would then lose our iconic national carrier.
It sounds like a personal edge is developing between some bitter people both in Qantas management and in the union hierarchy. Time for both to take a deep breath, think sanely and sensibly - and sit down and work this thing out.
The present situation is simply a recipe for disaster - for all those who work for Qantas - for the airline - and for those Mums and Dads who have money invested in Qantas shares.
Monday 10 October 2011
An era has ended !
A few days ago, BlueScopes number six blast furnace ceased making iron and now the process of cooling and cleaning is taking place. There was hope in the early days after the announcement that this facility would be " banked " - to allow it to remain on standby. The fact that this option was rejected is a sure sign that the company sees no prospect of a return to full production - even on the long term horizon.
Australia steel making capacity has shrunk from three blast furnaces - to two. There is an assumption that the Australian domestic steel market will be a mix of local production and imports, and many economists doubt that local steel can survive long term against competition from Asia.
That must cause concern to those tasked with Australia's defence. Steel is a vital defence need. If local steel production is ever forced to close and we are reliant on imports, then our capacity to respond to a threat depends on keeping our sea lanes open - and the hope that overseas steel suppliers are not part of that threat.
The basic idea of " Globalization " was to allow world production to stabilise on the basis of countries doing what they are good at. On that basis, labour intensive work would become concentrated in low wage countries with big populations and skilled and technical production would remain where the work force was highly educated.
It didn't work out that way. Education expanded quickly in low wage countries and " robotics " shrunk the labour content needed further. As a result, we now have China and India manufacturing cars and fast learning to compete with countries like South Korea - who have made serious inroads into the traditional western car markets.
Serious world tensions remain and the threat of future wars can not be discounted. Australia is no longer safely situated out of the way " down under " . In fact, we are in an emerging hot spot, surrounded by countries with big populations who are under pressure to both feed and find employment for their people.
What remains of Australian steel production must be considered part of our defence needs - and not allowed to diminish further.
Australia steel making capacity has shrunk from three blast furnaces - to two. There is an assumption that the Australian domestic steel market will be a mix of local production and imports, and many economists doubt that local steel can survive long term against competition from Asia.
That must cause concern to those tasked with Australia's defence. Steel is a vital defence need. If local steel production is ever forced to close and we are reliant on imports, then our capacity to respond to a threat depends on keeping our sea lanes open - and the hope that overseas steel suppliers are not part of that threat.
The basic idea of " Globalization " was to allow world production to stabilise on the basis of countries doing what they are good at. On that basis, labour intensive work would become concentrated in low wage countries with big populations and skilled and technical production would remain where the work force was highly educated.
It didn't work out that way. Education expanded quickly in low wage countries and " robotics " shrunk the labour content needed further. As a result, we now have China and India manufacturing cars and fast learning to compete with countries like South Korea - who have made serious inroads into the traditional western car markets.
Serious world tensions remain and the threat of future wars can not be discounted. Australia is no longer safely situated out of the way " down under " . In fact, we are in an emerging hot spot, surrounded by countries with big populations who are under pressure to both feed and find employment for their people.
What remains of Australian steel production must be considered part of our defence needs - and not allowed to diminish further.
Sunday 9 October 2011
Charity - and the high life !
Once you make your first donation to some form of charity a strange thing happens. You start getting plaintive letters from other worthy causes streaming into your mail box, begging for a donation.
Charity is big business these days - and one of the cornerstones of success is an ever expanding list of potential donors to keep the dollars rolling in. Names are a " tradeable " component - and some charities even make money selling donor names to other charities.
The advertising industry makes money devising successful lines of approach. In some instances they rely on pity - by putting together a harrowing approach showing starving children and destitute families. Others rely on a form of intimidation. They include a gift - sometimes a sheet of your name and address to use on mail - in the hope that you will feel compelled to donate in return.
Another component of a successful charity is to enlist a big name person to be either the patron - or to head up the organization. Sometimes this is a retired politician - and sometimes it is someone from the arts. It needs to be someone who generates respect.
And then there is the " nuts and bolts " running of the charity. In many cases these are the " invisible " people who are unknown to the public, but they drive expensive cars and they draw executive level salaries - and those expenses are legitimately drawn from the funds that the public donate.
There are many worthy organizations competing for donations from the public, but there are also a small number that seem to absorb the greater part of the money that rolls in by way of " expenses " - and only a few cents in each donated dollar actually reaches it's target.
Perhaps the time has come for a law change to require all charities to include the results of a financial audit with each approach. This should include the amount raised in the latest audit period - and detail what level of expenses were incurred - and how many dollars actually reached that charity's target.
Such a requirement might reduce the requests flowing through our mail boxes to a lesser number who proudly declare how much of each donated dollar achieves the purpose you intended.
Charity is big business these days - and one of the cornerstones of success is an ever expanding list of potential donors to keep the dollars rolling in. Names are a " tradeable " component - and some charities even make money selling donor names to other charities.
The advertising industry makes money devising successful lines of approach. In some instances they rely on pity - by putting together a harrowing approach showing starving children and destitute families. Others rely on a form of intimidation. They include a gift - sometimes a sheet of your name and address to use on mail - in the hope that you will feel compelled to donate in return.
Another component of a successful charity is to enlist a big name person to be either the patron - or to head up the organization. Sometimes this is a retired politician - and sometimes it is someone from the arts. It needs to be someone who generates respect.
And then there is the " nuts and bolts " running of the charity. In many cases these are the " invisible " people who are unknown to the public, but they drive expensive cars and they draw executive level salaries - and those expenses are legitimately drawn from the funds that the public donate.
There are many worthy organizations competing for donations from the public, but there are also a small number that seem to absorb the greater part of the money that rolls in by way of " expenses " - and only a few cents in each donated dollar actually reaches it's target.
Perhaps the time has come for a law change to require all charities to include the results of a financial audit with each approach. This should include the amount raised in the latest audit period - and detail what level of expenses were incurred - and how many dollars actually reached that charity's target.
Such a requirement might reduce the requests flowing through our mail boxes to a lesser number who proudly declare how much of each donated dollar achieves the purpose you intended.
Saturday 8 October 2011
Fees and charges !
It seems that all levels of government - and that includes local government - automatically assume that anybody who owns a business is rich - and levy fees and charges accordingly.
Wollongong council inspects all food outlets on an annual basis - and charges a $ 400 fee for this service. This breaks down to a $ 250 " Administration component " and $ 152 for the actual visit by inspectors.
It is certainly important that food preparation and serving be safe and hygienic, but the return to council coffers is exceptional. Last year they carried out 1721 inspections - for a return of $ 688,400. These inspections resulted in 19 fines - for a penalty count of $ 12, 980.
It could be argued that food premises safety inspections are a normal council duty which should be paid for from rates returns. This sort of fee gouging is a positive disincentive for those thinking of opening a business - and could explain why we have a plethora of vacant retail shops in upper Crown street - and scattered throughout the CBD.
But - this "soak the rich " mentality doesn't stop with food inspections. The price of electricity for other than domestic customers is way higher - and the water bill for retail premises is plainly exorbitant. It can run to thousands of dollars for a small shop with just a single toilet to flush - and one tap to provide water to make a cup of tea for the staff.
Big business absorbs these imposts and simply passes them on to the retail customer by allowing for them in profit mark-ups, but they can be " make or break " for the little people struggling to establish a service and make a living.
Every necessity is loaded against small business - from the charge to register a business name to the stamp duties that apply to insurance cover and vehicle registrations.
We are experiencing difficult times in both a local and international context. If we want to encourage business investment perhaps we would be wise to scale these charges on a more gradual basis. It would help if they were sharply reduced in the first year of business, and then increased proportionally each year over a five year scale.
One thing is definitely certain. The present fee and charge regime is hindering new business development !
Wollongong council inspects all food outlets on an annual basis - and charges a $ 400 fee for this service. This breaks down to a $ 250 " Administration component " and $ 152 for the actual visit by inspectors.
It is certainly important that food preparation and serving be safe and hygienic, but the return to council coffers is exceptional. Last year they carried out 1721 inspections - for a return of $ 688,400. These inspections resulted in 19 fines - for a penalty count of $ 12, 980.
It could be argued that food premises safety inspections are a normal council duty which should be paid for from rates returns. This sort of fee gouging is a positive disincentive for those thinking of opening a business - and could explain why we have a plethora of vacant retail shops in upper Crown street - and scattered throughout the CBD.
But - this "soak the rich " mentality doesn't stop with food inspections. The price of electricity for other than domestic customers is way higher - and the water bill for retail premises is plainly exorbitant. It can run to thousands of dollars for a small shop with just a single toilet to flush - and one tap to provide water to make a cup of tea for the staff.
Big business absorbs these imposts and simply passes them on to the retail customer by allowing for them in profit mark-ups, but they can be " make or break " for the little people struggling to establish a service and make a living.
Every necessity is loaded against small business - from the charge to register a business name to the stamp duties that apply to insurance cover and vehicle registrations.
We are experiencing difficult times in both a local and international context. If we want to encourage business investment perhaps we would be wise to scale these charges on a more gradual basis. It would help if they were sharply reduced in the first year of business, and then increased proportionally each year over a five year scale.
One thing is definitely certain. The present fee and charge regime is hindering new business development !
Friday 7 October 2011
Asset seizures !
There has been a veritable " armada of complaints " about investigations carried out by the New South Wales Crime Commission. In particular, this crime fighting agency is concerned with the seizure of assets which are gained through criminal activity.
Asset seizures tend to skate close to the fine edge of the law. We hold to the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty, and yet as soon as a charge is laid there is a rush to seize assets and take them out of the control of the owner. In most cases, an actual trial will be many months away - and in some cases - it will be years before the defendant faces a judge.
This asset seizure tends to err on the side of caution. The attitude seems to be " grab everything possible - and argue the merits of the case later ". In many cases, this leaves the family of the accused with a sharply reduced standard of living. Children may be attending expensive private schools. Motor vehicles, boats and holiday homes have been scooped up in the net - and then there is the necessity of financing a legal defence.
The system allows for a funding release to cover " necessary expenses ", but obviously this becomes a matter of contention. The words " Necessary " and " Reasonable " are open to interpretation - and rarely will both parties agree.
In particular, the cost of mounting a legal defence is a sticking point. A person accused of a crime which will involve a long period in gaol will opt for the best possible level of representation - and that will be expensive.
Obviously the whole point of asset seizures is to contain ill gotten gains until the court makes a decision on guilt or innocence - and to prevent the accused from squirrelling away money to put it out of reach of the authorities. But this tends to deliver a form of punishment - before a court had delivered a verdict.
And then there is the matter of loss while those assets are in the hands of the authorities. The owner is prevented from dealing in shares and properties while they are in limbo - so who is responsible if their value decreases. Is the owner entitled to compensation when they are returned to his or her control ?
The public generally agrees that criminals should not profit from illegal activity, but it is questionable whether asset seizure should take place before - or after a court has delivered a verdict. It seems to fly in the face of the maxim of " innocent until proved guilty ! "
Asset seizures tend to skate close to the fine edge of the law. We hold to the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty, and yet as soon as a charge is laid there is a rush to seize assets and take them out of the control of the owner. In most cases, an actual trial will be many months away - and in some cases - it will be years before the defendant faces a judge.
This asset seizure tends to err on the side of caution. The attitude seems to be " grab everything possible - and argue the merits of the case later ". In many cases, this leaves the family of the accused with a sharply reduced standard of living. Children may be attending expensive private schools. Motor vehicles, boats and holiday homes have been scooped up in the net - and then there is the necessity of financing a legal defence.
The system allows for a funding release to cover " necessary expenses ", but obviously this becomes a matter of contention. The words " Necessary " and " Reasonable " are open to interpretation - and rarely will both parties agree.
In particular, the cost of mounting a legal defence is a sticking point. A person accused of a crime which will involve a long period in gaol will opt for the best possible level of representation - and that will be expensive.
Obviously the whole point of asset seizures is to contain ill gotten gains until the court makes a decision on guilt or innocence - and to prevent the accused from squirrelling away money to put it out of reach of the authorities. But this tends to deliver a form of punishment - before a court had delivered a verdict.
And then there is the matter of loss while those assets are in the hands of the authorities. The owner is prevented from dealing in shares and properties while they are in limbo - so who is responsible if their value decreases. Is the owner entitled to compensation when they are returned to his or her control ?
The public generally agrees that criminals should not profit from illegal activity, but it is questionable whether asset seizure should take place before - or after a court has delivered a verdict. It seems to fly in the face of the maxim of " innocent until proved guilty ! "
Thursday 6 October 2011
The buck stops - where ?
Is there anything this Federal government can't manage to turn into a disaster ?
On April 20 residents at the Villawood Detention centre started a riot. They climbed onto the roof of some of the buildings and demanded to be released into the community. For the next eleven days utter chaos reigned - and then buildings were torched and this cost Australian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
An enquiry into this event has revealed some astonishing facts. Serco, the contractor tasked with managing Villawood - and many other similar centres scattered around Australia - has terms of contract which preclude them from physically removing people who climb onto the roof of buildings and organise riots.
Serco very reasonably expected to be able to call in the New South Wales police force for assistance, but here the fine point of the law gets in the way. Villawood Detention centre is deemed to be Commonwealth property - and as such is outside the state force's jurisdiction.
Having been rebuffed, Serco called for help from the Federal police force - only to again be rebuffed because that body did not have the capacity to provide a response. No changes have since taken place, hence if another riot occurs the same circumstances will apply.
It is an almost unbelievable fiasco. The contractor running the centre is prevented by contract from preserving Commonwealth property from harm. The State police can not help because the site is not legally part of New South Wales - and the Federal Police lacks the strength and resources to act.
It seems that all that is left is the Australian army !
How did a " Detention Centre " come into existence without a control plan being in place ? Would be built a prison without measures to control the inmates, given that escape would be an issue and tight control an absolute necessity.
And so far nothing is being done to fix the problem. All our detention centres are vulnerable to riot damage and loss of taxpayer's money.
The question is ? On whose desk does this buck stop ?
On April 20 residents at the Villawood Detention centre started a riot. They climbed onto the roof of some of the buildings and demanded to be released into the community. For the next eleven days utter chaos reigned - and then buildings were torched and this cost Australian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
An enquiry into this event has revealed some astonishing facts. Serco, the contractor tasked with managing Villawood - and many other similar centres scattered around Australia - has terms of contract which preclude them from physically removing people who climb onto the roof of buildings and organise riots.
Serco very reasonably expected to be able to call in the New South Wales police force for assistance, but here the fine point of the law gets in the way. Villawood Detention centre is deemed to be Commonwealth property - and as such is outside the state force's jurisdiction.
Having been rebuffed, Serco called for help from the Federal police force - only to again be rebuffed because that body did not have the capacity to provide a response. No changes have since taken place, hence if another riot occurs the same circumstances will apply.
It is an almost unbelievable fiasco. The contractor running the centre is prevented by contract from preserving Commonwealth property from harm. The State police can not help because the site is not legally part of New South Wales - and the Federal Police lacks the strength and resources to act.
It seems that all that is left is the Australian army !
How did a " Detention Centre " come into existence without a control plan being in place ? Would be built a prison without measures to control the inmates, given that escape would be an issue and tight control an absolute necessity.
And so far nothing is being done to fix the problem. All our detention centres are vulnerable to riot damage and loss of taxpayer's money.
The question is ? On whose desk does this buck stop ?
Wednesday 5 October 2011
How " safe " are we ?
At first glance, the report by RailCorp that detection of drug affected staff has increased fifty percent in the past year is alarming. Random drug testing returned ninety positives in 2010/11, and this compared with sixty-one in the previous year.
On reflection, that ninety was a very small percentage of the immense workforce involved in the state rail system, but what we need to know is precisely what jobs these drug and alcohol users were doing.
It is desirable that all workers in the rail system come to work sober and free of drugs, but certain segments of the work force pose an elevated risk to life and limb
In particular, those who actually drive the trains and those who control the signalling system are vital to safety.
We would be less concerned if these random drug and alcohol checks were finding fault amongst the men and women who sell us tickets, sweep the platform, or carry out maintenance duties along the rail corridors or in the railway workshops. The RailCorp statistics do not make this clear.
A very small number of people within the RailCorp organization carry a heavy safety load. Each train driver has more people's lives in his or her hands than the pilot of a Jumbo jet - and yet in public perception that jet pilot has a much higher standing - and earns a hugely bigger pay packet.
RailCorp relies on random testing to keep it's workforce sober and drug free. Obviously, sheer luck means that some people get away with infringements because of this random pattern. Can we take the risk that this includes drivers and signalling staff ?
Would it not be reasonable to insist that all staff engaged in such sensitive risk areas undergo an alcohol/drug test at the start of their shift ? No doubt some would claim that this was a civil liberties infringement, but do we have to wait until a rail accident delivers a huge death toll before we put in place a common sense measure to enhance safety ?
It would be nice to know that the person driving the train we were on was absolutely free of alcohol or drug impairment !
On reflection, that ninety was a very small percentage of the immense workforce involved in the state rail system, but what we need to know is precisely what jobs these drug and alcohol users were doing.
It is desirable that all workers in the rail system come to work sober and free of drugs, but certain segments of the work force pose an elevated risk to life and limb
In particular, those who actually drive the trains and those who control the signalling system are vital to safety.
We would be less concerned if these random drug and alcohol checks were finding fault amongst the men and women who sell us tickets, sweep the platform, or carry out maintenance duties along the rail corridors or in the railway workshops. The RailCorp statistics do not make this clear.
A very small number of people within the RailCorp organization carry a heavy safety load. Each train driver has more people's lives in his or her hands than the pilot of a Jumbo jet - and yet in public perception that jet pilot has a much higher standing - and earns a hugely bigger pay packet.
RailCorp relies on random testing to keep it's workforce sober and drug free. Obviously, sheer luck means that some people get away with infringements because of this random pattern. Can we take the risk that this includes drivers and signalling staff ?
Would it not be reasonable to insist that all staff engaged in such sensitive risk areas undergo an alcohol/drug test at the start of their shift ? No doubt some would claim that this was a civil liberties infringement, but do we have to wait until a rail accident delivers a huge death toll before we put in place a common sense measure to enhance safety ?
It would be nice to know that the person driving the train we were on was absolutely free of alcohol or drug impairment !
Tuesday 4 October 2011
Opposite directions !
Two news reports emphasise forces that are pulling in opposite directions when they affect the Australian economy.
The Australian Industry Group's price manufacturing index fell again in August and now stands at 43.3%. Any figure under an index of 50 is seen as " retreating " - and that would aptly describe the decision by BlueScope steel to quit exporting it's product and close down a blast furnace.
At the same time Ged Kearney, president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions ( ACTU ) is calling on industry to adopt a new law that came into force in Britain this month That law bestows overtime, public holidays - and the same conditions that apply to permanent employees to those who are deemed " temporary " or " Casual ", provided they remain with the same employer for a twelve week period.
This demand completely ignores the reason why employers opt for casual staff instead of adding a permanent to their work force. In a volatile market it is preferable to pay a person a higher casual rate to avoid the complications that will arise if it becomes necessary to stand down or dismiss a permanent member of the staff.
Without access to " casuals " it would be impossible to cater for seasonal or " unusual event " market surges. At the same time, the philosophy of the ACTU denies that any valid reason exists to dismiss employees.
A market decline is dismissed as a fault of the employer for not making adequate plans to counter such an event.
Any economist would be quick to point out that the British economy is not exactly booming - and this new law could well be the cross that many industries find impossible to carry. It certainly blurs the line between " casual " and " permanent ".
Hopefully, applying that law here is merely another flight of fancy on the ACTU's " wish list ". It would be a sure way to further decline employment opportunities because most employers would revert to the time tested method of retaining a small work force and working huge amounts of overtime.
That keeps their payroll and obligations under control - but it sharply restricts job opportunities for both permanent and casual hopefuls.
The idea seems to be wishful thinking from the " socialist " side of politics. Unfortunately it is not practical in the real world !
The Australian Industry Group's price manufacturing index fell again in August and now stands at 43.3%. Any figure under an index of 50 is seen as " retreating " - and that would aptly describe the decision by BlueScope steel to quit exporting it's product and close down a blast furnace.
At the same time Ged Kearney, president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions ( ACTU ) is calling on industry to adopt a new law that came into force in Britain this month That law bestows overtime, public holidays - and the same conditions that apply to permanent employees to those who are deemed " temporary " or " Casual ", provided they remain with the same employer for a twelve week period.
This demand completely ignores the reason why employers opt for casual staff instead of adding a permanent to their work force. In a volatile market it is preferable to pay a person a higher casual rate to avoid the complications that will arise if it becomes necessary to stand down or dismiss a permanent member of the staff.
Without access to " casuals " it would be impossible to cater for seasonal or " unusual event " market surges. At the same time, the philosophy of the ACTU denies that any valid reason exists to dismiss employees.
A market decline is dismissed as a fault of the employer for not making adequate plans to counter such an event.
Any economist would be quick to point out that the British economy is not exactly booming - and this new law could well be the cross that many industries find impossible to carry. It certainly blurs the line between " casual " and " permanent ".
Hopefully, applying that law here is merely another flight of fancy on the ACTU's " wish list ". It would be a sure way to further decline employment opportunities because most employers would revert to the time tested method of retaining a small work force and working huge amounts of overtime.
That keeps their payroll and obligations under control - but it sharply restricts job opportunities for both permanent and casual hopefuls.
The idea seems to be wishful thinking from the " socialist " side of politics. Unfortunately it is not practical in the real world !
Monday 3 October 2011
Free Speech !
Australians have always taken pride in our right to speak freely, but in recent times there have been moves to curtail the subject matter.
Tasmanian politician Alan Wilkie is calling for an enquiry after yesterdays's grand final because commentators Ray Warren and Phil Gould dared to speak against his demand that those who wish to play poker machines be forced to register the amount they are prepared to lose - in advance !
Surely Warren and Gould are entitled to have an opinion - and the clubs that support the Rugby League teams draw much of their money from their gaming facilities. If Wilkie has the right to suggest a law change, then every citizen should have the right to speak for or against it.
Then there is the decision handed down by a court against Andrew Bolt, presenter of the Bolt Report. Bolt questioned the "Aboriginality" or some fair skinned people. The court decided that this could " offend " some people of Aboriginal descent - and that decision may be open to appeal.
There was a time - and not many years ago - when many people with Aboriginal blood hotly denied their Aboriginality. It was only after legislative changes that preserved employment quotas and dispensed benefits to enhance the lives and prospects of our original dwellers that many began to proudly announce their roots. It would seem to be almost impossible to make any sort of comment without someone - somewhere finding that comment not to their liking.
Then there is the thinly disguised " enquiry " into the newspaper industry - and the suggestion that we should have some sort of tribunal to dictate " publishing standards ". That sounds like an Antipodean version of the " Stasi " - where a faceless group has their thumb on a " license to publish " - and uses it to dictate from what view the news will be presented.
It seems that politicians and pressure groups are aiming for a double set of standards. Under the cover of " Parliamentary privilege " they can insult and " offend " anyone they like - but if that person responds they will be hauled before a tribunal and punished.
We are to be denied having opinions - or at least - denied the right to freely express those opinions in case we " offend " some other person.
Of course those offended will deny that this is an attack on freedom of speech. It will be described as taking up a better set of standards.
You may say or write whatever you like - just so long as no other Australian takes offence at your point of view !
Tasmanian politician Alan Wilkie is calling for an enquiry after yesterdays's grand final because commentators Ray Warren and Phil Gould dared to speak against his demand that those who wish to play poker machines be forced to register the amount they are prepared to lose - in advance !
Surely Warren and Gould are entitled to have an opinion - and the clubs that support the Rugby League teams draw much of their money from their gaming facilities. If Wilkie has the right to suggest a law change, then every citizen should have the right to speak for or against it.
Then there is the decision handed down by a court against Andrew Bolt, presenter of the Bolt Report. Bolt questioned the "Aboriginality" or some fair skinned people. The court decided that this could " offend " some people of Aboriginal descent - and that decision may be open to appeal.
There was a time - and not many years ago - when many people with Aboriginal blood hotly denied their Aboriginality. It was only after legislative changes that preserved employment quotas and dispensed benefits to enhance the lives and prospects of our original dwellers that many began to proudly announce their roots. It would seem to be almost impossible to make any sort of comment without someone - somewhere finding that comment not to their liking.
Then there is the thinly disguised " enquiry " into the newspaper industry - and the suggestion that we should have some sort of tribunal to dictate " publishing standards ". That sounds like an Antipodean version of the " Stasi " - where a faceless group has their thumb on a " license to publish " - and uses it to dictate from what view the news will be presented.
It seems that politicians and pressure groups are aiming for a double set of standards. Under the cover of " Parliamentary privilege " they can insult and " offend " anyone they like - but if that person responds they will be hauled before a tribunal and punished.
We are to be denied having opinions - or at least - denied the right to freely express those opinions in case we " offend " some other person.
Of course those offended will deny that this is an attack on freedom of speech. It will be described as taking up a better set of standards.
You may say or write whatever you like - just so long as no other Australian takes offence at your point of view !
Sunday 2 October 2011
Threats - and opportunities !
The computer world is in a constant state of renewal. Change is happening as new models offer more power and expanded memory - and developments like the I-Pad bring extended flexibility. We are constantly urged to - upgrade !
It seems that most people give little thought to what happens to that old computer that they discard. It has been a good and faithful servant, and locked away in the hard drive is a wealth of information that can do enormous damage if accessed by the wrong people.
Some discarded computers end up in landfills, where the Lead, Cadmium, Mercury and Chromium in their parts can leach into the ground water and poison the soil. Many others are exported overseas - to countries like Ghana and India - where an industry has built-up recovering precious metals for a few dollars profit.
It didn't take long for the crime gangs to sense opportunity, and now there is a thriving market for the hard drives from these old computers - and they are bringing up to $ 200 for the people who strip computers for spare parts. It seems that divesting hard drives of information is relatively easy - and in the wrong hands it can be used for identity theft - or even blackmail.
The hard drive of the average computer contains a wealth of personal information. All the emails you have ever sent - or received. Every bill you have paid. Every banking transaction you have done on the computer. Every bit of information such as bank account number and password that has been tapped in via your keyboard - are recorded on the hard drive.
Most people think that by simply deleting information their computer is made safe. Not so ! We see the truth often enough in TV crime shows. The police always confiscate computers and mine them for information when they investigate a crime - and what they actually do is recover secrets from each unit's hard drive.
That is enough to spoil the day of anyone who has recently dumped his or her old computer and neglected to determine precisely where it might end up. The thought that every key stroke and inward message that ever passed through that machine may be in the hands of a cyber criminal who intends to use it to cause harm and cost you money is alarming.
But - wherever there is a threat - there is opportunity ! Surely the people who service computers and those who run the thousands of computer shops spread across this country should see that the way is open to offer a new service to neutralise that harm.
Surely thinking people would welcome a service where before disposal they take their old computer to an establishment which removes that hard drive - and destroys it by melting it down - right before their eyes ?
It seems strange that as the media constantly remind us of the dangers of bandits raiding hard drives, the industry has not responded with an advertised service to eliminate this problem - and to make a tidy profit from doing so.
This seems more than just an opportunity knocking on the door. It sounds remarkably like necessity beating a drum and demanding to be heard.
But - is the industry listening ?
It seems that most people give little thought to what happens to that old computer that they discard. It has been a good and faithful servant, and locked away in the hard drive is a wealth of information that can do enormous damage if accessed by the wrong people.
Some discarded computers end up in landfills, where the Lead, Cadmium, Mercury and Chromium in their parts can leach into the ground water and poison the soil. Many others are exported overseas - to countries like Ghana and India - where an industry has built-up recovering precious metals for a few dollars profit.
It didn't take long for the crime gangs to sense opportunity, and now there is a thriving market for the hard drives from these old computers - and they are bringing up to $ 200 for the people who strip computers for spare parts. It seems that divesting hard drives of information is relatively easy - and in the wrong hands it can be used for identity theft - or even blackmail.
The hard drive of the average computer contains a wealth of personal information. All the emails you have ever sent - or received. Every bill you have paid. Every banking transaction you have done on the computer. Every bit of information such as bank account number and password that has been tapped in via your keyboard - are recorded on the hard drive.
Most people think that by simply deleting information their computer is made safe. Not so ! We see the truth often enough in TV crime shows. The police always confiscate computers and mine them for information when they investigate a crime - and what they actually do is recover secrets from each unit's hard drive.
That is enough to spoil the day of anyone who has recently dumped his or her old computer and neglected to determine precisely where it might end up. The thought that every key stroke and inward message that ever passed through that machine may be in the hands of a cyber criminal who intends to use it to cause harm and cost you money is alarming.
But - wherever there is a threat - there is opportunity ! Surely the people who service computers and those who run the thousands of computer shops spread across this country should see that the way is open to offer a new service to neutralise that harm.
Surely thinking people would welcome a service where before disposal they take their old computer to an establishment which removes that hard drive - and destroys it by melting it down - right before their eyes ?
It seems strange that as the media constantly remind us of the dangers of bandits raiding hard drives, the industry has not responded with an advertised service to eliminate this problem - and to make a tidy profit from doing so.
This seems more than just an opportunity knocking on the door. It sounds remarkably like necessity beating a drum and demanding to be heard.
But - is the industry listening ?
Saturday 1 October 2011
" The tax man cometh ! "
There is a suggestion being promoted in tax circles that should send a shiver of real fear down the spines of every person in this great country.
The Australian Industry Group is agitating for changes to the Goods and Services tax ( GST ). It wants either the base rate of 10% increased, or the tax base broadened - or both !
John Howard introduced the GST back on July 1, 2000, and at that time the Australian public surprisingly approved the idea by returning him to office at a general election. The tax rate was set at 10% and food was excluded - but there was also another benefit that was part of the deal.
This tax was to be collected by the Federal government, but the proceeds paid to the states to compensate them for giving up some state taxes that were considered harmful to the economy. This included two banking taxes - but the one that would most benefit the public was to be the repeal of stamp duty.
The states were given a five year adjustment period to factor in the repeal of stamp duty, but when that time came - they reneged. They refused to honour their part of the agreement - and so we are still stuck with this regressive tax - and we also pay GST.
Once again, this suggestion of increasing the GST and/or increasing the tax base is being promoted as a way of replacing some state taxes. We have been down that road - and that old expression - " Once bitten, twice shy " comes to mind.
There are negative outcomes likely if the taxation base is broadened - because the only real option for collecting a lot more money that way would be to apply it to food. We are already struggling with food prices soaring - and with a world food shortage option looming - the last thing the average household needs is to see the supermarket shopping cart bill rise by ten percent.
And that ten percent GST has so far been set in concrete - and in that respect we are probably the only country in the world to honour that initial agreement.
Such a tax exists under many names. We call it a GST. Others call it a " Value added tax " - VAT.
Other governments have tried to solve budget problems by raising the tax rate - and in some other parts of the world varied rates apply - and in some cases that is nearing 30%.
The Treasurer has stated that he has no plans to either raise the tax rate - or broaden the base, but by the look of the world economy we are all in for a rough ride - and now this suggestion has been made there will be some in government circles who will scratch their chins and speculate on the opportunities offering.
Just as Paul Revere jumped on his horse and raised the alarm by shouting " The British are coming " - now is the time to head off any talk of interfering with the GST by warning that " The tax man cometh " !
This is a bad idea ! Stop it dead in it's tracks - right now !
The Australian Industry Group is agitating for changes to the Goods and Services tax ( GST ). It wants either the base rate of 10% increased, or the tax base broadened - or both !
John Howard introduced the GST back on July 1, 2000, and at that time the Australian public surprisingly approved the idea by returning him to office at a general election. The tax rate was set at 10% and food was excluded - but there was also another benefit that was part of the deal.
This tax was to be collected by the Federal government, but the proceeds paid to the states to compensate them for giving up some state taxes that were considered harmful to the economy. This included two banking taxes - but the one that would most benefit the public was to be the repeal of stamp duty.
The states were given a five year adjustment period to factor in the repeal of stamp duty, but when that time came - they reneged. They refused to honour their part of the agreement - and so we are still stuck with this regressive tax - and we also pay GST.
Once again, this suggestion of increasing the GST and/or increasing the tax base is being promoted as a way of replacing some state taxes. We have been down that road - and that old expression - " Once bitten, twice shy " comes to mind.
There are negative outcomes likely if the taxation base is broadened - because the only real option for collecting a lot more money that way would be to apply it to food. We are already struggling with food prices soaring - and with a world food shortage option looming - the last thing the average household needs is to see the supermarket shopping cart bill rise by ten percent.
And that ten percent GST has so far been set in concrete - and in that respect we are probably the only country in the world to honour that initial agreement.
Such a tax exists under many names. We call it a GST. Others call it a " Value added tax " - VAT.
Other governments have tried to solve budget problems by raising the tax rate - and in some other parts of the world varied rates apply - and in some cases that is nearing 30%.
The Treasurer has stated that he has no plans to either raise the tax rate - or broaden the base, but by the look of the world economy we are all in for a rough ride - and now this suggestion has been made there will be some in government circles who will scratch their chins and speculate on the opportunities offering.
Just as Paul Revere jumped on his horse and raised the alarm by shouting " The British are coming " - now is the time to head off any talk of interfering with the GST by warning that " The tax man cometh " !
This is a bad idea ! Stop it dead in it's tracks - right now !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)