Today is the last day of summer - and it is raining. In fact, we are promised torrential rain across a wide stretch of this state, and we are warned that there will be flooding as a result - and this follows other floods that have ravaged the city of Brisbane, wide areas of country Queensland and northern NSW. It may be just a freak phenomenon, or as some suggest - this may be the way of the future as a result of global warming.
One thing that has not changed is the unhappy experience those affected by floods are having with their insurance companies. When a property is damaged by fire there is little opportunity for an insurer to duck and dodge delivering a payment, but when water is involved a whole new set of interpretations come into play. That is the time insurers start citing the conditions in fine print in their policies.
What is discouraging is to watch the news on television and see the hand written signs being displayed by those who have had claims rejected. The names of the insurance companies involved are the same ones who reneged here in Wollongong way back after the big rain storm of 1998 - and who closed their offices here and walked away, leaving many policyholders destitute.
At that time, all levels of government promised a crackdown on shonky insurance companies. There was talk of imposing a common definition of water damage to define clearly the difference between " flood " and " storm " - and to insist that each and every policy contain a statement in clear, precise English stating exactly what is - and what is not - covered in that policy.
Obviously - that has not happened !
There are literally hundreds of insurance companies operating under multi names here in Australia. In past decades insurance has been a very profitable business. Most of the big companies are reputable and perform to a high standard, but there are some who cream off profits in periods of stable weather - and duck for cover and close their doors when an adverse weather cycle hits those profits.
A glance at the stock exchange price of insurance shares should be a warning to most people that few insurers are making a healthy profit in this present weather cycle, and as a result they are all tightening their belts and insisting on vetting every claim with a fine tooth comb. What does not help is the lack of clear rules that apply - to protect policyholders and ensure that legitimate claims are not summarily rejected.
Each insurance company seems free to write it's own policy conditions - and to act as both judge and jury when it comes to decisions on claims. It is time for the government to set a uniform code that will apply to all insurers - with no if's, but's or maybe's.
Right now, it would be a sure bet that insurance premiums are set to rise at the next renewal, and if such a common policy is forced on the insurers the premium will rise further, but the great leveller is competition - and at least that will remove the uncertainty about whether the lowest premium price is also an indication that a claim will get dodgy treatment.
Governments of all political persuasions have been making cleanup promises for many decades. Time to demand that they deliver the goods !
Wednesday 29 February 2012
Tuesday 28 February 2012
And now - the waiting game !
Yesterdays vote in the Labor caucus delivered a confusing picture. It was clear that the citizens of Australia preferred Kevin Rudd for this country's top job, but it was equally clear that Rudd's colleagues rejected that choice. Perhaps the seventy-one supporting Gillard were delivering a verdict against Rudd's " Presidential " style of holding office. In his early days he clearly abandoned the Westminster system when he surrounded himself with a small clique of advisers - and virtually ignored his caucus - to rule by diktat !
At least the verbal war seems over. Rudd has been graceful in defeat, and he has retired to the backbench promising to offer no future threat to Gillard's hold on the position of prime minister. This promise does not extend to the possibility of being drafted, should Gillard's approval rating remain at abysmal levels as the next election approaches - but given the extent of yesterday's rejection, that seems unlikely.
This whole mess has delivered a stunning blow to the Labor brand. The degree of division and in-fighting within the party has been dragged, kicking and screaming into the open for all to see, and the reasons that the party is on the nose with the voters remains unresolved - and can not be resolved as long as Labor remains hostage to the policies of the Greens and the whims of the independents.
Gillard promises to heal the divisions and in a surprise move, one of the Mandarins has stepped down from his position as a Senator, giving the old excuse of " needing to spend more time with family. " This will not change the numbers, but merely replace him with another Labor nominee. Perhaps this resignation is an attempt to bring distance between a dissenter - and the plans in place to resolve the problem formulated by the remainder of the " faceless men of the factions ".
It seems that the Mandarins have concluded that the next election will be a stunning loss with either Gillard or Rudd at the helm. The damage done is too deep, and the only hope of salvation is a new face - and some dramatic new policies. That new face has been selected. Now it is a matter of timing.
Obviously Gillard must be given time to restore confidence in her government, but it would be fatal to stick with her too close to the next voting day, preventing that new face from having time to work magic on the voters. Decision time is likely to be later this year - and certainly before years end.
That might provoke a new crisis. Will Gillard respond to a quiet tap on the shoulder from the Mandarins - and step aside for the good of the party, or will she barricade herself in office and have to be dragged out screaming - as happened to several other celebrated political leaders in Queensland and Britain ?
Each day of each week the inner workings of the Labor party will be ruled by opinion polls. Saving the party from itself requires strong nerves and iron wills. Even the slightest hesitation could see it slip away - past the " point of no return ! "
At least the verbal war seems over. Rudd has been graceful in defeat, and he has retired to the backbench promising to offer no future threat to Gillard's hold on the position of prime minister. This promise does not extend to the possibility of being drafted, should Gillard's approval rating remain at abysmal levels as the next election approaches - but given the extent of yesterday's rejection, that seems unlikely.
This whole mess has delivered a stunning blow to the Labor brand. The degree of division and in-fighting within the party has been dragged, kicking and screaming into the open for all to see, and the reasons that the party is on the nose with the voters remains unresolved - and can not be resolved as long as Labor remains hostage to the policies of the Greens and the whims of the independents.
Gillard promises to heal the divisions and in a surprise move, one of the Mandarins has stepped down from his position as a Senator, giving the old excuse of " needing to spend more time with family. " This will not change the numbers, but merely replace him with another Labor nominee. Perhaps this resignation is an attempt to bring distance between a dissenter - and the plans in place to resolve the problem formulated by the remainder of the " faceless men of the factions ".
It seems that the Mandarins have concluded that the next election will be a stunning loss with either Gillard or Rudd at the helm. The damage done is too deep, and the only hope of salvation is a new face - and some dramatic new policies. That new face has been selected. Now it is a matter of timing.
Obviously Gillard must be given time to restore confidence in her government, but it would be fatal to stick with her too close to the next voting day, preventing that new face from having time to work magic on the voters. Decision time is likely to be later this year - and certainly before years end.
That might provoke a new crisis. Will Gillard respond to a quiet tap on the shoulder from the Mandarins - and step aside for the good of the party, or will she barricade herself in office and have to be dragged out screaming - as happened to several other celebrated political leaders in Queensland and Britain ?
Each day of each week the inner workings of the Labor party will be ruled by opinion polls. Saving the party from itself requires strong nerves and iron wills. Even the slightest hesitation could see it slip away - past the " point of no return ! "
Monday 27 February 2012
Ethics - and the money industries !
The big four Australian banks are the " bad boys " of the money industry. They continually get a bad press for gouging transaction fees and hiking interest rates in excess of levels set by the Reserve bank. In contrast, Credit Unions and Building Societies are seen as " the good guys " because they charge lower fees and are thought to have their customers interest in mind.
Unfortunately the entire money industry seems to have succumbed to a ploy to rob people with term deposits of their legitimate interest rewards.
If you are lucky enough to have a little money invested in a term deposit, about a week before maturity you will get a nice letter from that institution making you aware of the maturity date. It will probably state that it" continually offers it's members competitive interest rates and with the pending maturity of your investment this would be a perfect time to confirm your automatic renewal and add any additional funds to your account ".
You have seven days to make change - or your funds are automatically reinvested for the previous term - and this letter then goes on to say " Your investment will be automatically renewed for a term of 180 days at the standard interest rate applicable on the maturity date.
If that was happening today, you would expect an interest rate of 5.4% on a $ 40,000 deposit, but when you examine the small print of the offer contained in this letter - the interest rate the financial institution is about to lock you into for six months is a full 2% below the going rate - at just 3.25%.
If you present at the counter and suggest withdrawing your funds, you will be immediately offered a better rate - at 5.4%, which is the common rate offering from most financial institutions for a term deposit of that size.
This is certainly a matter of ethics. The financial industry is deliberately trying to take advantage of those people lacking knowledge of the money market, and those who are elderly, in poor health - or for a variety of reasons would think this letter was a reasonable offer. So much for keeping the interests of customers to the fore. The sole benefit of this ploy - is the bottom line of the financial institution concerned.
There once was a day when banks and those whose business was the money market made regular visits to schools, handing out money boxes and exhorting kids to get into a savings regime. Those days are long gone - and if you save small change and try and have it added to your account, you will most likely find that banking institutions refuse to count it - and those that do charge a high percentage of the total for doing that task.
It seems we live in a world devoid of ethics. The pursuit of profit takes precedence and customers would be well advised to get a second opinion on all areas of finance - on the basis that trust no longer exists !
Unfortunately the entire money industry seems to have succumbed to a ploy to rob people with term deposits of their legitimate interest rewards.
If you are lucky enough to have a little money invested in a term deposit, about a week before maturity you will get a nice letter from that institution making you aware of the maturity date. It will probably state that it" continually offers it's members competitive interest rates and with the pending maturity of your investment this would be a perfect time to confirm your automatic renewal and add any additional funds to your account ".
You have seven days to make change - or your funds are automatically reinvested for the previous term - and this letter then goes on to say " Your investment will be automatically renewed for a term of 180 days at the standard interest rate applicable on the maturity date.
If that was happening today, you would expect an interest rate of 5.4% on a $ 40,000 deposit, but when you examine the small print of the offer contained in this letter - the interest rate the financial institution is about to lock you into for six months is a full 2% below the going rate - at just 3.25%.
If you present at the counter and suggest withdrawing your funds, you will be immediately offered a better rate - at 5.4%, which is the common rate offering from most financial institutions for a term deposit of that size.
This is certainly a matter of ethics. The financial industry is deliberately trying to take advantage of those people lacking knowledge of the money market, and those who are elderly, in poor health - or for a variety of reasons would think this letter was a reasonable offer. So much for keeping the interests of customers to the fore. The sole benefit of this ploy - is the bottom line of the financial institution concerned.
There once was a day when banks and those whose business was the money market made regular visits to schools, handing out money boxes and exhorting kids to get into a savings regime. Those days are long gone - and if you save small change and try and have it added to your account, you will most likely find that banking institutions refuse to count it - and those that do charge a high percentage of the total for doing that task.
It seems we live in a world devoid of ethics. The pursuit of profit takes precedence and customers would be well advised to get a second opinion on all areas of finance - on the basis that trust no longer exists !
Sunday 26 February 2012
Just a bad idea !
When a lot of people want to buy a house with ocean views and a nice address the fairest way to select a buyer is to put that house up for auction. Every person is free to put in a bid, but the one willing to pay the most money gets the house.
Now it seems that this type of trading transaction is about to become the norm for booking a taxi !
The wonderful world of communications - which gave us the mobile phone and is now expanding by way of the I-Pad - has a new app named Ingogo. Intending passengers compete with one another to gain the services of the cab driver by offering an auction style reward for his or her services.
This Ingogo app had been on offer for just eight weeks, and so far a thousand cab drivers have taken up the option - and ominously - 34,000 intending passengers have downloaded the app.
Supporters of Ingogo claim that this is nothing new. At peak times such as New Year's eve, when the streets are jam packed with revellers - getting a cab to go home often means shelling out a hundred dollar tip. This is simply the way the market place decides the law of " supply and demand ". When demand is greater than supply - the price goes up !
On that basis, the cost of any cab fare would be an unknown factor. A $ 20 trip into town could morph into a $ 100 return if Sydney turned on one of it's torrential mid-afternoon rain storms - and half the population needed to urgently hire a taxi.
Just imagine, if that system were applied to the railway system ? What price actually getting a seat on a train - as opposed to standing and strap hanging - on peak hour services ?
Unfortunately, the law of the jungle quickly comes to the fore when schemes like Ingogo replace an orderly fare structure. Unscrupulous drivers will resort to dumping agreed bookings if someone else offers more money and cabs will quickly avoid taxi ranks as they lurk in back streets and negotiate their next best paying fare on their mobile phones.
Getting a license to operate as a taxi involves a deal between the cab company and the state government. The number of taxi licenses is restricted to ensure that there is a balance between supply and demand on an overall basis.
The license also brings with it a set of standards with which the cab industry must comply. The cars must be modern, clean and in good repair. The drivers must wear a uniform - and have at least a basic knowledge of the city street system. There are penalties if these rules are broken.
Cabs have meters and the government negotiates the fare per kilometre cabs can charge. It seems that this new scheme is nothing more than a " hiring fee " - that is added to the charge on the meter.
It is open to abuse - and if the present laws are inadequate - new legislation is urgently needed to safeguard citizens rights to hire a cab within a regulated fare system !
Now it seems that this type of trading transaction is about to become the norm for booking a taxi !
The wonderful world of communications - which gave us the mobile phone and is now expanding by way of the I-Pad - has a new app named Ingogo. Intending passengers compete with one another to gain the services of the cab driver by offering an auction style reward for his or her services.
This Ingogo app had been on offer for just eight weeks, and so far a thousand cab drivers have taken up the option - and ominously - 34,000 intending passengers have downloaded the app.
Supporters of Ingogo claim that this is nothing new. At peak times such as New Year's eve, when the streets are jam packed with revellers - getting a cab to go home often means shelling out a hundred dollar tip. This is simply the way the market place decides the law of " supply and demand ". When demand is greater than supply - the price goes up !
On that basis, the cost of any cab fare would be an unknown factor. A $ 20 trip into town could morph into a $ 100 return if Sydney turned on one of it's torrential mid-afternoon rain storms - and half the population needed to urgently hire a taxi.
Just imagine, if that system were applied to the railway system ? What price actually getting a seat on a train - as opposed to standing and strap hanging - on peak hour services ?
Unfortunately, the law of the jungle quickly comes to the fore when schemes like Ingogo replace an orderly fare structure. Unscrupulous drivers will resort to dumping agreed bookings if someone else offers more money and cabs will quickly avoid taxi ranks as they lurk in back streets and negotiate their next best paying fare on their mobile phones.
Getting a license to operate as a taxi involves a deal between the cab company and the state government. The number of taxi licenses is restricted to ensure that there is a balance between supply and demand on an overall basis.
The license also brings with it a set of standards with which the cab industry must comply. The cars must be modern, clean and in good repair. The drivers must wear a uniform - and have at least a basic knowledge of the city street system. There are penalties if these rules are broken.
Cabs have meters and the government negotiates the fare per kilometre cabs can charge. It seems that this new scheme is nothing more than a " hiring fee " - that is added to the charge on the meter.
It is open to abuse - and if the present laws are inadequate - new legislation is urgently needed to safeguard citizens rights to hire a cab within a regulated fare system !
Saturday 25 February 2012
A church versus state issue !
An inquiry is under way in the New South Wales parliament as a result of Christian Democrat Reverend Fred Nile's private members bill to abolish ethics classes in this states primary schools. Back in 2010 the then Labor government allowed ethics classes as an alternative to what was formerly known as " scripture ".
The constitution requires separation of state and religion and this seems to be a continuation of the classical tussle to keep the balance in religions favour.
Parents have the right to decide whether their children should get religious instruction in government schools, and in the past those who declined were simply sent to the library for the forty-five minute weekly religious session, where they read books, played games or got an early start on their homework.
Ethics classes were seen as a logical alternative. They presented an opportunity to discuss with students the mutual obligations we have to live peacefully in the community and the many ways that an understanding of right and wrong can have a bearing on our relationship with others.
Some religious leaders leaders see ethics classes as a threat that will cause a drop in numbers taking religious instruction. They fear that peer pressure will result in children bringing pressure to drop religion in favour of this new and exciting form of " entertainment ". What they really want is anything that competes with religion to be banned.
In many ways, religious instruction in todays society is an impossible enigma to conduct in a mixed school environment. Our state schools contain a mix of Christianity and just about every other form of religion on the planet because of years of multiculturalism. Just about every school will not only have a mix of the myriad branches of the Christian faith, but those who follow Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, - and all the multiple sects into which each of these is divided.
At least ethics classes teach a code of conduct which finds common ground within this religious mix.
It would be a sad day if this innovative approach was laid to rest by virtue of what is little more than religious bigotry - and we return to the days when those who opt out of religious training waste a forty-five minute period weekly, sitting doing nothing in the school library.
Hopefully, our politicians have more sense than to let that happen !
The constitution requires separation of state and religion and this seems to be a continuation of the classical tussle to keep the balance in religions favour.
Parents have the right to decide whether their children should get religious instruction in government schools, and in the past those who declined were simply sent to the library for the forty-five minute weekly religious session, where they read books, played games or got an early start on their homework.
Ethics classes were seen as a logical alternative. They presented an opportunity to discuss with students the mutual obligations we have to live peacefully in the community and the many ways that an understanding of right and wrong can have a bearing on our relationship with others.
Some religious leaders leaders see ethics classes as a threat that will cause a drop in numbers taking religious instruction. They fear that peer pressure will result in children bringing pressure to drop religion in favour of this new and exciting form of " entertainment ". What they really want is anything that competes with religion to be banned.
In many ways, religious instruction in todays society is an impossible enigma to conduct in a mixed school environment. Our state schools contain a mix of Christianity and just about every other form of religion on the planet because of years of multiculturalism. Just about every school will not only have a mix of the myriad branches of the Christian faith, but those who follow Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, - and all the multiple sects into which each of these is divided.
At least ethics classes teach a code of conduct which finds common ground within this religious mix.
It would be a sad day if this innovative approach was laid to rest by virtue of what is little more than religious bigotry - and we return to the days when those who opt out of religious training waste a forty-five minute period weekly, sitting doing nothing in the school library.
Hopefully, our politicians have more sense than to let that happen !
Friday 24 February 2012
Cat among the pigeons !
Kevin Rudd certainly scattered the pigeons in the Australian parliament when he called a 1 am press conference in the United States - and resigned as this country's Foreign Minister.
The " Mexican Standoff " between Rudd and Prime Minster Julia Gillard had been moving towards an inevitable conclusion. Gillard was quietly counting the number of her supporters in the 103 member caucus and Rudd was carefully avoiding a direct challenge. The " Mandarins " - those faceless men of the factions who actually run Labor politics - were plotting a different scenario. It was all a matter of secrecy - and timing !
Where Kevin Rudd is concerned - expect the unexpected !
Gillard has moved her Chess piece on the board by calling a caucus meeting for 10 am on Monday. Ministers loyal to her are running a fast and furious media campaign to denigrate Rudd, but the option of declaring a membership spill on Monday rests with the Prime Minister.
Gillard or Rudd would need 52 votes to win. So far, the numbers seem stacked in Gillard's favour but this weekend will be a torrid time of ceaseless phone calls, wheels and deals and a tug of war for votes - and Rudd has given no indication of what he intends to do if the numbers do not go his way.
Rudd is not an easy man to read. His boyish looks and easy manner captivated the voters back in 2007 and there is no doubt that he was the pivot point of the Labor win. The Kevin Rudd in the prime minister's suite was not what his colleagues expected. He was far from a leader who delegates power - and in fact he was a micro manager who surrounded himself with a close group of trusted colleagues - and mostly ignored the Labor caucus.
A lot will depend on what inner mind Rudd brings to that meeting on Monday. It has been claimed that Rudd has little loyalty to the Labor party and is motivated by self interest. If that is so - then there is a good chance that he may strike at the very heart of this government if he becomes aware that he does not have the numbers to win in a spill.
The ultimate would be for Rudd to use the full glare of publicity to resign from parliament - and to announce that her will run as an independent at the consequent by-election.
He would certainly be shunned by Labor' " true believers ", but he would also attract a lot of disaffected Labor votes, and he would certainly gain Liberal/National party voter support if they declined to name a candidate to run against him.
The Labor government balances on a razor knife edge. Rudd as an independent could tip the balance and a vindictive Rudd would hold enormous power - and perhaps it is power that is the moving force behind this man.
On Monday morning at 10 am - the number of viewers glued to their television screens or watching proceedings on their I-Pads or mobile phones will take the statistics right off the chart.
At this stage - it would take a brave soul to predict the outcome !
The " Mexican Standoff " between Rudd and Prime Minster Julia Gillard had been moving towards an inevitable conclusion. Gillard was quietly counting the number of her supporters in the 103 member caucus and Rudd was carefully avoiding a direct challenge. The " Mandarins " - those faceless men of the factions who actually run Labor politics - were plotting a different scenario. It was all a matter of secrecy - and timing !
Where Kevin Rudd is concerned - expect the unexpected !
Gillard has moved her Chess piece on the board by calling a caucus meeting for 10 am on Monday. Ministers loyal to her are running a fast and furious media campaign to denigrate Rudd, but the option of declaring a membership spill on Monday rests with the Prime Minister.
Gillard or Rudd would need 52 votes to win. So far, the numbers seem stacked in Gillard's favour but this weekend will be a torrid time of ceaseless phone calls, wheels and deals and a tug of war for votes - and Rudd has given no indication of what he intends to do if the numbers do not go his way.
Rudd is not an easy man to read. His boyish looks and easy manner captivated the voters back in 2007 and there is no doubt that he was the pivot point of the Labor win. The Kevin Rudd in the prime minister's suite was not what his colleagues expected. He was far from a leader who delegates power - and in fact he was a micro manager who surrounded himself with a close group of trusted colleagues - and mostly ignored the Labor caucus.
A lot will depend on what inner mind Rudd brings to that meeting on Monday. It has been claimed that Rudd has little loyalty to the Labor party and is motivated by self interest. If that is so - then there is a good chance that he may strike at the very heart of this government if he becomes aware that he does not have the numbers to win in a spill.
The ultimate would be for Rudd to use the full glare of publicity to resign from parliament - and to announce that her will run as an independent at the consequent by-election.
He would certainly be shunned by Labor' " true believers ", but he would also attract a lot of disaffected Labor votes, and he would certainly gain Liberal/National party voter support if they declined to name a candidate to run against him.
The Labor government balances on a razor knife edge. Rudd as an independent could tip the balance and a vindictive Rudd would hold enormous power - and perhaps it is power that is the moving force behind this man.
On Monday morning at 10 am - the number of viewers glued to their television screens or watching proceedings on their I-Pads or mobile phones will take the statistics right off the chart.
At this stage - it would take a brave soul to predict the outcome !
Speed limiters !
The speed limit on the Hume and the Federal highways of New South Wales is 110 kph, but heavy trucks are restricted to 100 kph and they are fitted with speed limiters to ensure that they do not exceed that limit.
Any car driver travelling either of those two highways would be aware of the difficulty of passing a heavy vehicle on those long, straight stretches - because the supposed 10 kph difference between car and truck speeds is an illusion - and now we know why !
A horror crash between a car and a B-Double that killed three people had forensic police examine the crashed truck. As a result of that investigation, the trucking firm involved was raided and all it's trucks examined - and this disclosed a litany of ruses to circumvent speed and safety laws.
It is possible to fit modifications that deceive the onboard computer registering speed, thus allowing the truck to consistently travel faster than the limit, and other modifications deliver more fuel to increase engine output - and go faster. Add falsification to the safe driving log books all drivers must maintain and you have a risky scenario of trucks with tired drivers travelling well above the posted speed limit.
It seems that the trucking industry could best be described as a conspiracy between trucking companies and those demanding that deliveries happen within a highly unreasonable time frame. The only way this can be accomplished is for trucks to break the speed limits and for drivers to ignore compulsory rest breaks. In most cases, to get a reasonable wage, drivers must achieve these tight schedules because doing so results in a " bonus " , rather than just the standard " dollars per hour "stipend.
It's a vicious cycle. The owners of trucking companies are desperate for work to keep their trucks rolling and this makes them vulnerable to unreasonable time delivery demands. In turn, they pressure their drivers to ignore or falsify rest breaks - and drive above the speed limit. Job security ensures that the men at the coal face have no option than to meet these demands.
The present furore will have inspectors crawling all over heavy trucks at inspection stations and teams of analysts combing through driver's log books, but the danger is that as time passes the attention to detail will wane - and things will return to normal.
If we are to have safe roads for all users the regulatory system must be so tight that no sane company will ever consider making modifications to deceive - and no driver would dare falsify a log book - and equally importantly - any firm making unsafe delivery demands should suffer the same heavy penalties - including gaol terms for senior management.
That is likely to be what is promised - but on the basis of past history - promised and delivered seem to be two totally different outcomes !
Any car driver travelling either of those two highways would be aware of the difficulty of passing a heavy vehicle on those long, straight stretches - because the supposed 10 kph difference between car and truck speeds is an illusion - and now we know why !
A horror crash between a car and a B-Double that killed three people had forensic police examine the crashed truck. As a result of that investigation, the trucking firm involved was raided and all it's trucks examined - and this disclosed a litany of ruses to circumvent speed and safety laws.
It is possible to fit modifications that deceive the onboard computer registering speed, thus allowing the truck to consistently travel faster than the limit, and other modifications deliver more fuel to increase engine output - and go faster. Add falsification to the safe driving log books all drivers must maintain and you have a risky scenario of trucks with tired drivers travelling well above the posted speed limit.
It seems that the trucking industry could best be described as a conspiracy between trucking companies and those demanding that deliveries happen within a highly unreasonable time frame. The only way this can be accomplished is for trucks to break the speed limits and for drivers to ignore compulsory rest breaks. In most cases, to get a reasonable wage, drivers must achieve these tight schedules because doing so results in a " bonus " , rather than just the standard " dollars per hour "stipend.
It's a vicious cycle. The owners of trucking companies are desperate for work to keep their trucks rolling and this makes them vulnerable to unreasonable time delivery demands. In turn, they pressure their drivers to ignore or falsify rest breaks - and drive above the speed limit. Job security ensures that the men at the coal face have no option than to meet these demands.
The present furore will have inspectors crawling all over heavy trucks at inspection stations and teams of analysts combing through driver's log books, but the danger is that as time passes the attention to detail will wane - and things will return to normal.
If we are to have safe roads for all users the regulatory system must be so tight that no sane company will ever consider making modifications to deceive - and no driver would dare falsify a log book - and equally importantly - any firm making unsafe delivery demands should suffer the same heavy penalties - including gaol terms for senior management.
That is likely to be what is promised - but on the basis of past history - promised and delivered seem to be two totally different outcomes !
The " Name " games !
Under the present laws, any citizen is entitled to change their name legally by deed poll. That is about to change.
Legislation is proposed to close this option for serious offenders in New South Wales. Those found guilty of the higher range of sexual crimes - such as multiple rape and the murder of children - will have their names on a list held by the registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages - and be prevented from adopting a new name.
This legislation was prompted by a child killer who hid his past by making a name change, and was subsequently found living with a woman and her two children, in contravention of the terms of his release on parole. Part of this new legislation will also limit the number of times any citizen can make a name change by deed poll - to just three in their entire lifetime.
Obviously, the intention is good, but there will be unintended problems.
When a notorious offender has served his or her sentence it is the responsibility of the parole people to manage their release and settle them back in the community. The release of any serious offender attracts media interest and the trial and sentence usually receives wide publicity, including photographs. The period of incarceration helps to age that face profile, but a notorious name sticks in people's memory.
We have been plagued by vigilante action in the past, resulting in such people being hounded out of the accommodation approved by the parole people - and the resulting publicity has made them pariahs who are virtually homeless.
This legislation will simply exacerbate that situation. It flies in the face of the contention that once a prisoner has served the term dictated by a court, he or she is entitled to make a fresh start. In most cases, the parole people are the ones who suggest a name change to avoid the name/crime association in the minds of the public.
There could be a hidden agenda here. This legislation only applies to the state of New South Wales. Perhaps the government is hoping that released serious offenders will be forced to depart to another place - where they will not be a threat to this state's citizens.
Usually the parole people insist that a released felon remains in their home state for the full term of their parole - to be under their jurisdiction, but in the event of vigilante action such orders can be varied if public reaction makes settlement impossible.
We seem to have a conflict of interest here - between the aims of the government in keeping the state safe - and in the duties of those tasked with managing released major criminals and their return to society.
Legislation is proposed to close this option for serious offenders in New South Wales. Those found guilty of the higher range of sexual crimes - such as multiple rape and the murder of children - will have their names on a list held by the registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages - and be prevented from adopting a new name.
This legislation was prompted by a child killer who hid his past by making a name change, and was subsequently found living with a woman and her two children, in contravention of the terms of his release on parole. Part of this new legislation will also limit the number of times any citizen can make a name change by deed poll - to just three in their entire lifetime.
Obviously, the intention is good, but there will be unintended problems.
When a notorious offender has served his or her sentence it is the responsibility of the parole people to manage their release and settle them back in the community. The release of any serious offender attracts media interest and the trial and sentence usually receives wide publicity, including photographs. The period of incarceration helps to age that face profile, but a notorious name sticks in people's memory.
We have been plagued by vigilante action in the past, resulting in such people being hounded out of the accommodation approved by the parole people - and the resulting publicity has made them pariahs who are virtually homeless.
This legislation will simply exacerbate that situation. It flies in the face of the contention that once a prisoner has served the term dictated by a court, he or she is entitled to make a fresh start. In most cases, the parole people are the ones who suggest a name change to avoid the name/crime association in the minds of the public.
There could be a hidden agenda here. This legislation only applies to the state of New South Wales. Perhaps the government is hoping that released serious offenders will be forced to depart to another place - where they will not be a threat to this state's citizens.
Usually the parole people insist that a released felon remains in their home state for the full term of their parole - to be under their jurisdiction, but in the event of vigilante action such orders can be varied if public reaction makes settlement impossible.
We seem to have a conflict of interest here - between the aims of the government in keeping the state safe - and in the duties of those tasked with managing released major criminals and their return to society.
Tuesday 21 February 2012
Whispers from the " Worm-Hole " !
It seems that the Mandarins who hold the levers of power within the Australian Labor party are convinced that the leadership spat between Gillard and Rudd is terminal to the chances of the party retaining it's hold on power.
As things stand, Gillard is being edged to bring on a vote before Rudd accumulates sufficient support for a successful challenge, but a win either way would achieve nothing ! It would simply lead to a new round of tactical battles and it is these that are slowly squeezing the life out of Labor's standing in the community.
The whispers from the " Worm-Hole " into the inner accesses of power reveal that the stage is being set for a new scenario to emerge when the gauntlet of challenge is laid down, and this will hinge on the present vote distribution - about a third each held by both Rudd and Gillard - with that final third undecided.
The Mandarins will then move to convince their people that the only way to avoid disaster is to bring forth a new charismatic leader and consign the Rudd/Gillard controversy to the history books - and that new leader has not only been selected, but a bold and imaginative plan is ready to be put in place to galvanise politics.
The new face of Labor politics will be - Bill Shorten.
Shorten has all the attributes that enabled Rudd to swing the voters behind him back in 2007, and defeat an established prime minister who was delivering good government. Both are good looking, youngish men with an articulate style of delivering a message. Shorten will be groomed to deliver a new policy based on " shock and awe ".
The Mandarins contend that all Labor's problems revolve around their need to go into coalition with the Greens when the voters delivered a hung parliament. The issues forced on them by the Greens are the issues that the general public feel uncomfortable with - and Shorten will dump those policies and chart a new course, which it is hoped will return that lost support.
It is a highly risky plan. It means open warfare with the Greens and a broken alliance, but then that is part of the strategy. If Shorten can deliver a bold new plan that grabs public attention he may gain the impetus to take the issue to the nation and win a new election. This whole strategy rests on revitalising Labor - at the expense of both the Greens and the Liberal/National coalition.
The Mandarins are risking everything on the ability of Shorten to deliver a message - and for that message to deliver the goods - and reinvigorate the party.
It is a " big ask " - but then those at the other end of this " Worm-Hole " see nothing but disaster in allowing the present mess to continue !
As things stand, Gillard is being edged to bring on a vote before Rudd accumulates sufficient support for a successful challenge, but a win either way would achieve nothing ! It would simply lead to a new round of tactical battles and it is these that are slowly squeezing the life out of Labor's standing in the community.
The whispers from the " Worm-Hole " into the inner accesses of power reveal that the stage is being set for a new scenario to emerge when the gauntlet of challenge is laid down, and this will hinge on the present vote distribution - about a third each held by both Rudd and Gillard - with that final third undecided.
The Mandarins will then move to convince their people that the only way to avoid disaster is to bring forth a new charismatic leader and consign the Rudd/Gillard controversy to the history books - and that new leader has not only been selected, but a bold and imaginative plan is ready to be put in place to galvanise politics.
The new face of Labor politics will be - Bill Shorten.
Shorten has all the attributes that enabled Rudd to swing the voters behind him back in 2007, and defeat an established prime minister who was delivering good government. Both are good looking, youngish men with an articulate style of delivering a message. Shorten will be groomed to deliver a new policy based on " shock and awe ".
The Mandarins contend that all Labor's problems revolve around their need to go into coalition with the Greens when the voters delivered a hung parliament. The issues forced on them by the Greens are the issues that the general public feel uncomfortable with - and Shorten will dump those policies and chart a new course, which it is hoped will return that lost support.
It is a highly risky plan. It means open warfare with the Greens and a broken alliance, but then that is part of the strategy. If Shorten can deliver a bold new plan that grabs public attention he may gain the impetus to take the issue to the nation and win a new election. This whole strategy rests on revitalising Labor - at the expense of both the Greens and the Liberal/National coalition.
The Mandarins are risking everything on the ability of Shorten to deliver a message - and for that message to deliver the goods - and reinvigorate the party.
It is a " big ask " - but then those at the other end of this " Worm-Hole " see nothing but disaster in allowing the present mess to continue !
Monday 20 February 2012
Age discrimination !
It is hard not to reach the conclusion that the government is simply not interested in retraining nurses who have taken a break from the profession to raise their children. We are desperately short of qualified nursing staff, and yet obstacles are put in the way of those who wish to return to the hospital system.
There is only one course open to those who have not been actively engaged in nursing for between five and ten years - and that is at a cost to the applicant of at least ten thousand dollars - and the course only exists within the city of Sydney.
The unstated rejection of these men and women seems to be age related. Many returning nurses would now be between forty and fifty years of age, and it seems that the government is applying age discrimination by deliberately making it harder for their applications to succeed.
There is no doubt that medicine has made huge advances in recent years and these people completed their basic education in an earlier age - when standards were very different. The government seems to be saying that while their standard of nursing was adequate for an earlier period, it would not do today - and perhaps their basic education is insufficient to allow them to meet the current standards.
In other words, they want bright young people - fresh out of school - and with a stint at university behind them, rather than middle aged mums and dads who are out of touch with the wonderful new world of nuclear science.
So much for all the rhetoric we hear about constantly retraining the unemployed. A nurse returning at age fifty is about to deliver between ten and fifteen years of quality service - and bring to the profession the wisdom gained through child rearing years. We certainly do need people with advanced training to handle medical advances, but we also need nurses with compassion and understanding to treat patients as human beings.
Limiting the retraining course to a single entity in Sydney is robbing the community of all those people in other parts of this state who would find it hard to have to find that $ 10,000 fee - but also not be able to cover the cost of their accommodation in Sydney during the length of the course.
We have university campuses in all the major cities and towns in this state. If the government was fair dinkum in opening opportunities for those wishing to return to nursing - this course would be free of charge - and available on the widest possible basis !
There is only one course open to those who have not been actively engaged in nursing for between five and ten years - and that is at a cost to the applicant of at least ten thousand dollars - and the course only exists within the city of Sydney.
The unstated rejection of these men and women seems to be age related. Many returning nurses would now be between forty and fifty years of age, and it seems that the government is applying age discrimination by deliberately making it harder for their applications to succeed.
There is no doubt that medicine has made huge advances in recent years and these people completed their basic education in an earlier age - when standards were very different. The government seems to be saying that while their standard of nursing was adequate for an earlier period, it would not do today - and perhaps their basic education is insufficient to allow them to meet the current standards.
In other words, they want bright young people - fresh out of school - and with a stint at university behind them, rather than middle aged mums and dads who are out of touch with the wonderful new world of nuclear science.
So much for all the rhetoric we hear about constantly retraining the unemployed. A nurse returning at age fifty is about to deliver between ten and fifteen years of quality service - and bring to the profession the wisdom gained through child rearing years. We certainly do need people with advanced training to handle medical advances, but we also need nurses with compassion and understanding to treat patients as human beings.
Limiting the retraining course to a single entity in Sydney is robbing the community of all those people in other parts of this state who would find it hard to have to find that $ 10,000 fee - but also not be able to cover the cost of their accommodation in Sydney during the length of the course.
We have university campuses in all the major cities and towns in this state. If the government was fair dinkum in opening opportunities for those wishing to return to nursing - this course would be free of charge - and available on the widest possible basis !
Sunday 19 February 2012
Smoke and mirrors !
There are ominous signs that all is not well with WorkCover, the workers compensation scheme that reimburses injured workers in this state. WorkCover chairman, Greg McCarthy has resigned and it seems that this major insurer is heading for a five billion dollar deficit.
Rumour has it that this drop in finance can be traced back to both a drop in investment value as a result of the GFC, and incompetence by ministers holding it's reigns during the last state government. Urgent action is needed and the traditional remedy would be to increase premiums or reduce benefits - or perhaps a bit of both.
Fixing monetary problems is dangerous territory for any government. The art of politics is often referred to as a " smoke and mirrors " approach. What you see - and what you get - are often two entirely different things.
There are indications that a merger of certain authorities is in the offing, and no doubt these will be promoted to the public as a means of achieving economies of scale by reducing overheads and creating new efficiencies. If their resources are pooled - it will also serve to effectively mask a deficiency by submerging that in a bigger pool of money.
This merger is likely to combine the Motor Accidents Authority, the Dust and Diseases Tribunal, the Sporting Injuries Committee, and the Lifetime Care and Support Authority.
The one most people should be interested in is the Motor Accident Authority. Way back in the dim, dark past there was a growing deficit in the funds collected through motor vehicle registrations to reimburse the victims of road accidents. The government at that time slapped a new charge on registering vehicles - and so the " Green Slip " insurance scheme was born. A " Green Slip " is added to a general pool of money and the annual charge has been steadily increasing ever since.
If " Green Slip " is added to a common money pool that also includes WorkCover the way is open to cover that deficit by simply raising Green Slip premiums. After all, Treasury has motorists by the short and curlies - because without that piece of paper you can not legally register your vehicle.
Perhaps that is why politics is so often described as " smoke and mirrors". When a major problem seems likely to get the voters all riled up, muddy up the waters - and create an illusion !
And it is a fact of life that good politicians are also good magicians !
Rumour has it that this drop in finance can be traced back to both a drop in investment value as a result of the GFC, and incompetence by ministers holding it's reigns during the last state government. Urgent action is needed and the traditional remedy would be to increase premiums or reduce benefits - or perhaps a bit of both.
Fixing monetary problems is dangerous territory for any government. The art of politics is often referred to as a " smoke and mirrors " approach. What you see - and what you get - are often two entirely different things.
There are indications that a merger of certain authorities is in the offing, and no doubt these will be promoted to the public as a means of achieving economies of scale by reducing overheads and creating new efficiencies. If their resources are pooled - it will also serve to effectively mask a deficiency by submerging that in a bigger pool of money.
This merger is likely to combine the Motor Accidents Authority, the Dust and Diseases Tribunal, the Sporting Injuries Committee, and the Lifetime Care and Support Authority.
The one most people should be interested in is the Motor Accident Authority. Way back in the dim, dark past there was a growing deficit in the funds collected through motor vehicle registrations to reimburse the victims of road accidents. The government at that time slapped a new charge on registering vehicles - and so the " Green Slip " insurance scheme was born. A " Green Slip " is added to a general pool of money and the annual charge has been steadily increasing ever since.
If " Green Slip " is added to a common money pool that also includes WorkCover the way is open to cover that deficit by simply raising Green Slip premiums. After all, Treasury has motorists by the short and curlies - because without that piece of paper you can not legally register your vehicle.
Perhaps that is why politics is so often described as " smoke and mirrors". When a major problem seems likely to get the voters all riled up, muddy up the waters - and create an illusion !
And it is a fact of life that good politicians are also good magicians !
Saturday 18 February 2012
The " Education" enigma !
It seems that the question of " education " will come front and centre again on Monday when an enquiry by David Gonski, Chancellor of the University of New South Wales is released. Unfortunately, in the minds of most people the education issue is simply a tug of war between private and public schools for a share of funding.
Teachers and the Greens demand that the public system get a $ 10 billion upgrade, but what is really needed is a review of what we are hoping to achieve when kids finish school and head out into the work force. At present, the education system operates like a giant funnel, channelling the output into mass produced clones who have achieved a piece of paper called " the Higher School certificate ".
This is certainly essential for those who are going on to university, and these days that has become the starting point for an ever increasing number of professions. The " learn on the job " days are over. In particular, two of the essential careers for women - nursing and teaching - are closed to those who are not university educated.
One of the problems is that this system forces a mix of kids who will go on to university to share a classroom with others who are not academically interested and who are heading off to some sort of trade career path. All that produces is an unruly class that brings benefit to neither group.
The TAFE system is supposed to provide a forked path between university and trade careers, but the timing is all wrong. The TAFE option cuts in well into high school years, and by then the damage is done when those not academically gifted have been forced to co-exist beside those with a need and desire for higher learning.
There is also a perception problem. Those who are going on to get their HSC and enter university are seen as an elite by many, and in comparison - those going to TAFE are seen by some as " losers " - and yet the earning capacity of both groups has been steadily narrowing in past decades.
The " trades " are highly skilled and very well paid careers, and yet this is the area that is most neglected as our education system seems concentrated on achieving an HSC output.
Kids may be forced to make a career choice much earlier than in the past, and their education may have to diverge almost from the end of primary school days to get the best out of a future education system - and without much doubt - we need to spend more money to get the system right.
Unfortunately, getting it right is unlikely to happen from the tabling of this report because we are in a period of political uncertainty. The world economic system is on shaky ground, and here in Australia we are facing a Federal election next year - and that makes biting the bullet and making drastic changes to education an unlikely option !
Teachers and the Greens demand that the public system get a $ 10 billion upgrade, but what is really needed is a review of what we are hoping to achieve when kids finish school and head out into the work force. At present, the education system operates like a giant funnel, channelling the output into mass produced clones who have achieved a piece of paper called " the Higher School certificate ".
This is certainly essential for those who are going on to university, and these days that has become the starting point for an ever increasing number of professions. The " learn on the job " days are over. In particular, two of the essential careers for women - nursing and teaching - are closed to those who are not university educated.
One of the problems is that this system forces a mix of kids who will go on to university to share a classroom with others who are not academically interested and who are heading off to some sort of trade career path. All that produces is an unruly class that brings benefit to neither group.
The TAFE system is supposed to provide a forked path between university and trade careers, but the timing is all wrong. The TAFE option cuts in well into high school years, and by then the damage is done when those not academically gifted have been forced to co-exist beside those with a need and desire for higher learning.
There is also a perception problem. Those who are going on to get their HSC and enter university are seen as an elite by many, and in comparison - those going to TAFE are seen by some as " losers " - and yet the earning capacity of both groups has been steadily narrowing in past decades.
The " trades " are highly skilled and very well paid careers, and yet this is the area that is most neglected as our education system seems concentrated on achieving an HSC output.
Kids may be forced to make a career choice much earlier than in the past, and their education may have to diverge almost from the end of primary school days to get the best out of a future education system - and without much doubt - we need to spend more money to get the system right.
Unfortunately, getting it right is unlikely to happen from the tabling of this report because we are in a period of political uncertainty. The world economic system is on shaky ground, and here in Australia we are facing a Federal election next year - and that makes biting the bullet and making drastic changes to education an unlikely option !
Friday 17 February 2012
A " Protected " industry ?
A comment by Caltex yesterday should strike fear into the heart of every motorist in Australia. The company is considering closing it's two oil refineries here, with the loss of eight hundred jobs.
Caltex has refined oil into petrol, diesel and aviation kerosene in Australia for seventy years. We are still an oil producing country and it seems ludicrous that this oil might end up being shipped to refineries somewhere in Asia, and then shipped back here to supply our motoring needs.
Apart from the sheer economic logic, it would leave us vulnerable to a future Asian war that might disrupt sea traffic - and without fuel the entire Australian economy would quickly grind to a halt. Oil refining is a strategic industry - and as such it should be protected.
The pundits have long claimed that world oil will run dry soon and in particular - that Australia has only a mere matter of years left in oil production. Despite this gloomy outlook, we continue to have oil strikes and it seems that there is a lot more oil in Australia than even the most optimistic people of science predicted.
It is not much use having near sustainability in oil - if we lack the means to refine it into products we can use.
The reason given for this Caltex proposal is the strong Australian dollar. When oil was first discovered in Australia the Federal government of that time decreed that it would be wise to tax it heavily as it was a dwindling resource - and so Australians were not treated to cheap oil products, as was the case in many oil producing countries.
Now would be the time to remit some of that tax back to make refining in Australia economic in comparison to low wage refineries in Asia. This would be justified under the umbrella of " defence needs ". The worst possible scenarion would be to lose our refining capacity, because oil and it's by-products are the essential tools of our defense capacity.
And if push comes to shove, rather than allow those two refineries to close - they should be acquired under government ownership as part of our " national interest " economic structure !
Caltex has refined oil into petrol, diesel and aviation kerosene in Australia for seventy years. We are still an oil producing country and it seems ludicrous that this oil might end up being shipped to refineries somewhere in Asia, and then shipped back here to supply our motoring needs.
Apart from the sheer economic logic, it would leave us vulnerable to a future Asian war that might disrupt sea traffic - and without fuel the entire Australian economy would quickly grind to a halt. Oil refining is a strategic industry - and as such it should be protected.
The pundits have long claimed that world oil will run dry soon and in particular - that Australia has only a mere matter of years left in oil production. Despite this gloomy outlook, we continue to have oil strikes and it seems that there is a lot more oil in Australia than even the most optimistic people of science predicted.
It is not much use having near sustainability in oil - if we lack the means to refine it into products we can use.
The reason given for this Caltex proposal is the strong Australian dollar. When oil was first discovered in Australia the Federal government of that time decreed that it would be wise to tax it heavily as it was a dwindling resource - and so Australians were not treated to cheap oil products, as was the case in many oil producing countries.
Now would be the time to remit some of that tax back to make refining in Australia economic in comparison to low wage refineries in Asia. This would be justified under the umbrella of " defence needs ". The worst possible scenarion would be to lose our refining capacity, because oil and it's by-products are the essential tools of our defense capacity.
And if push comes to shove, rather than allow those two refineries to close - they should be acquired under government ownership as part of our " national interest " economic structure !
Thursday 16 February 2012
The " Too Hard " basket !
Selecting a site for Sydney's second airport was consigned to the " too hard " basket several years ago. Once again it has arisen to haunt politicians as the latest report on " Sydney's future aviation needs " is nearing release.
The options facing Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese are daunting. It seems to be a choice between taking unpopular measures to extend the life of Kingsford-Smith airport at Mascot, or biting the bullet and deciding where a new secondary airport will be located.
The big decision seems to be whether to please both the aviation and the tourist industries - and keep this second airport within the Sydney basin, or to go with the " big picture " scenario and locate it as far away as Goulburn and connect it to Sydney by a very fast train.
The " Sydney basin " option resurrects just two possible sites - Wilton or Badgery's Creek, and both of these will inflict airport noise of vast surrounding areas. No doubt the politicians will try and nullify expected opposition by promising that as aircraft become bigger, hence fewer will be needed to carry more passengers - engine developments are making them progressively quieter.
Despite denials, Kingsford-Smith is bursting at the seams. The only way to expand landing and takeoff numbers is to dump the night noise curfew and extend the cap on eighty movements per hour - and that would mean breaking promises and enraging a vast number of Sydney residents.
In the past, this " hot potato " has been flick passed back for further evaluation by both sides of politics. Nobody seems inclined to take the flak that goes with a firm decision, and that looks likely to be the scenario again - this time around.
The most likely outcome will be tinkering with the rules governing the use of Kingsford-Smith - to gain a little more elbow room in movement numbers. That will also play well with regional politics. Both Melbourne and Brisbane are keen to see the limits on Sydney airport maintained, because it helps their " International airport " status.
Regional jealousy exists - and it rankles our two sister states that when international visitors opt to come to Australia - Sydney is automatically their choice of destination, because of the harbour/bridge/opera house mental picture that springs to mind.
Once more - the " too hard " basket beckons !
The options facing Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese are daunting. It seems to be a choice between taking unpopular measures to extend the life of Kingsford-Smith airport at Mascot, or biting the bullet and deciding where a new secondary airport will be located.
The big decision seems to be whether to please both the aviation and the tourist industries - and keep this second airport within the Sydney basin, or to go with the " big picture " scenario and locate it as far away as Goulburn and connect it to Sydney by a very fast train.
The " Sydney basin " option resurrects just two possible sites - Wilton or Badgery's Creek, and both of these will inflict airport noise of vast surrounding areas. No doubt the politicians will try and nullify expected opposition by promising that as aircraft become bigger, hence fewer will be needed to carry more passengers - engine developments are making them progressively quieter.
Despite denials, Kingsford-Smith is bursting at the seams. The only way to expand landing and takeoff numbers is to dump the night noise curfew and extend the cap on eighty movements per hour - and that would mean breaking promises and enraging a vast number of Sydney residents.
In the past, this " hot potato " has been flick passed back for further evaluation by both sides of politics. Nobody seems inclined to take the flak that goes with a firm decision, and that looks likely to be the scenario again - this time around.
The most likely outcome will be tinkering with the rules governing the use of Kingsford-Smith - to gain a little more elbow room in movement numbers. That will also play well with regional politics. Both Melbourne and Brisbane are keen to see the limits on Sydney airport maintained, because it helps their " International airport " status.
Regional jealousy exists - and it rankles our two sister states that when international visitors opt to come to Australia - Sydney is automatically their choice of destination, because of the harbour/bridge/opera house mental picture that springs to mind.
Once more - the " too hard " basket beckons !
Wednesday 15 February 2012
Predatory councils.
The aftermath of most declared " natural disasters " is a massive cleanup funded by the government to get those affected back on their feet in the shortest possible time. It seems that this cleanup from the devastating floods that hit the Illawarra last March continues to linger.
Shellharbour council is demanding that a single parent with a property at the junction of Macquarie Rivulet and Lake Illawarra remove a shipping container that floated downstream in the flood - and lodged on her property.
The problem is one of access. This massive steel container will either be lifted out by the use of an Air-Crane, or it will need to be cut up with welding torches and removed by boat - and the cost of this removal is estimated to be at least $ 24,000.
The council has flick passed the responsibility of having this work done back to the young family, despite having received public assistance money to fund the flood cleanup. The cost is obviously far beyond her capacity to pay, but the council is relentless - and so far she has been fined $500 for not obeying a $ 445 compliance order to remove the container, with more legal action threatened.
This whole mess is an interesting can of worms. The container was filled with horse saddles and other riding equipment and was obviously the property of someone further upstream. Surely that owner has some responsibility for the recovery of their property, but it seems that the council has simply washed it's hands of the affair - and taken the easiest way out by dumping the whole mess on the head of the property owner where the container came to rest.
It is possible that legally the council is within it's rights, but morally it seems unjust to inflict a course of action that may lead to personal bankruptcy on a struggling single parent when council has received public money specifically to avoid such distress.
It is a hard hearted decision - exacerbated by the fact that this came about during a natural disaster. Hopefully, the airing of this problem in the media may cause the council to have a change of mind !
Shellharbour council is demanding that a single parent with a property at the junction of Macquarie Rivulet and Lake Illawarra remove a shipping container that floated downstream in the flood - and lodged on her property.
The problem is one of access. This massive steel container will either be lifted out by the use of an Air-Crane, or it will need to be cut up with welding torches and removed by boat - and the cost of this removal is estimated to be at least $ 24,000.
The council has flick passed the responsibility of having this work done back to the young family, despite having received public assistance money to fund the flood cleanup. The cost is obviously far beyond her capacity to pay, but the council is relentless - and so far she has been fined $500 for not obeying a $ 445 compliance order to remove the container, with more legal action threatened.
This whole mess is an interesting can of worms. The container was filled with horse saddles and other riding equipment and was obviously the property of someone further upstream. Surely that owner has some responsibility for the recovery of their property, but it seems that the council has simply washed it's hands of the affair - and taken the easiest way out by dumping the whole mess on the head of the property owner where the container came to rest.
It is possible that legally the council is within it's rights, but morally it seems unjust to inflict a course of action that may lead to personal bankruptcy on a struggling single parent when council has received public money specifically to avoid such distress.
It is a hard hearted decision - exacerbated by the fact that this came about during a natural disaster. Hopefully, the airing of this problem in the media may cause the council to have a change of mind !
Tuesday 14 February 2012
" Feral " children !
Last weekend the New South Wales police had a blitz on under age children roaming the Sydney CBD in the early hours of the morning. About a dozen kids aged about fourteen - boys and girls - came to their notice and police report that all were affected by either excessive amounts of alcohol - or drugs.
The police complain that when they contacted the parents of these children there was little response. No parent took the trouble to come and collect their child and the police had the responsibility of taking them to their homes across the wide spectrum of Sydney.
Is it fair to point the finger at the parents without having a long, hard look at the options open to them ?
We live in a society where legions of civil liberties people have reduced parents powers to control their offspring. Every form of discipline seems to be contentious - but corporal punishment is now considered an " assault " by most child authorities, including magistrates. Even a mother who gives an unruly toddler a small smack on the leg is often vilified by passers-by.
The laws have changed to make it perfectly legal for a juvenile to refuse to live in the family home. In fact, the welfare system will actually pay a stipend and help such a child find accommodation if there is a claim of " abuse " - and today's kids are very canny when it comes to manufacturing a story that will bring support from the authorities.
Suppose some of those parents had responded by driving into the city to collect their son or daughter. The moment they returned home, the child would have been under no legal obligation to go to bed - or even remain in the house. The police would have discharged their responsibility for the child - and the parent would be powerless to exert any form of control.
In many cases it is not lack of interest that makes parents walk away in such situations. Often it is just one more crisis in a long, long road of heartbreak. There comes a time in any parents life when they must recognise that they have a feral child. If that child has passed the point of no return, then their efforts are better spent shielding any siblings from a similar fate.
Life is a balance and it seems that the scales of justice have dipped a long way in the wrong direction. We will never return to the days when some children were mercilessly thrashed by demonic parents or children were mere chattels - with no rights. But, parents have rights too - and that seems to have been forgotten in the rush to install " justice " for children.
Sadly, there is no prospect of achieving a balance of equality because the community points of view are so far apart that the politicians will avoid meaningful action.
The future seems to be a promise of " more of the same ! "
.
The police complain that when they contacted the parents of these children there was little response. No parent took the trouble to come and collect their child and the police had the responsibility of taking them to their homes across the wide spectrum of Sydney.
Is it fair to point the finger at the parents without having a long, hard look at the options open to them ?
We live in a society where legions of civil liberties people have reduced parents powers to control their offspring. Every form of discipline seems to be contentious - but corporal punishment is now considered an " assault " by most child authorities, including magistrates. Even a mother who gives an unruly toddler a small smack on the leg is often vilified by passers-by.
The laws have changed to make it perfectly legal for a juvenile to refuse to live in the family home. In fact, the welfare system will actually pay a stipend and help such a child find accommodation if there is a claim of " abuse " - and today's kids are very canny when it comes to manufacturing a story that will bring support from the authorities.
Suppose some of those parents had responded by driving into the city to collect their son or daughter. The moment they returned home, the child would have been under no legal obligation to go to bed - or even remain in the house. The police would have discharged their responsibility for the child - and the parent would be powerless to exert any form of control.
In many cases it is not lack of interest that makes parents walk away in such situations. Often it is just one more crisis in a long, long road of heartbreak. There comes a time in any parents life when they must recognise that they have a feral child. If that child has passed the point of no return, then their efforts are better spent shielding any siblings from a similar fate.
Life is a balance and it seems that the scales of justice have dipped a long way in the wrong direction. We will never return to the days when some children were mercilessly thrashed by demonic parents or children were mere chattels - with no rights. But, parents have rights too - and that seems to have been forgotten in the rush to install " justice " for children.
Sadly, there is no prospect of achieving a balance of equality because the community points of view are so far apart that the politicians will avoid meaningful action.
The future seems to be a promise of " more of the same ! "
.
Monday 13 February 2012
Creating a " Demon " !
The franchise owners of a McDonalds store have offered a $ 66,000 dollar sponsorship to Shellharbour hospital - and this has been rejected because the hospital fears that it would compromise it's " product endorsement " policy, and now that rejection has been approved by the Australian Medical Association ( AMA ).
McDonalds has become the whipping boy of the food fanatic movement, probably because it was the first - and certainly the most successful - food chain to spread it's " Golden Arches " across the entire world. Whenever a proposal for a new McDonalds store arises, it attracts objections that range from petitions to outright demonstrating mobs that gain media attention.
That magic word - " Obesity " - is at the core of the anti-McDonalds movement. We are an over-weight nation in an over-weight world and it is claimed that the primary culprit is McDonalds because they serve food that the pundits consider unhealthy and they are one of the biggest advertisers on this planet - and most of their advertising is aimed at kids.
Strangely, this bitter opposition does not seem to have the same vitriol when it applies to McDonalds competitors - such as Hungry Jacks, KFC, Red Rooster - nor to the plethora of little hamburger joints and cafes dotted around every shopping centre and even every country town. They all offer the same fare - cooked in oil - and that seems to be the food we mere mortals consume at every opportunity.
The reason it is so popular is because it is quick to prepare, very tasty - and much cheaper than food prepared and served in the traditional way. McDonalds pioneered what became known as " fast food " - and now they are paying the price because of it's popularity.
No doubt the rejection of that $ 66,000 sponsorship will make some food fanatics feel happy, but in reality it is a disaster for the cash strapped hospital. The money would have advanced some form of patient care and it is doubtful that this " victory " will have any change in the numbers passing through McDonalds doors to grab a quick lunch or dinner.
And in the end - how we eat and how this affects our waistlines is a matter of free choice. It seems strange that some people think they have the right to dictate their views on cuisine to others.
McDonalds has become the whipping boy of the food fanatic movement, probably because it was the first - and certainly the most successful - food chain to spread it's " Golden Arches " across the entire world. Whenever a proposal for a new McDonalds store arises, it attracts objections that range from petitions to outright demonstrating mobs that gain media attention.
That magic word - " Obesity " - is at the core of the anti-McDonalds movement. We are an over-weight nation in an over-weight world and it is claimed that the primary culprit is McDonalds because they serve food that the pundits consider unhealthy and they are one of the biggest advertisers on this planet - and most of their advertising is aimed at kids.
Strangely, this bitter opposition does not seem to have the same vitriol when it applies to McDonalds competitors - such as Hungry Jacks, KFC, Red Rooster - nor to the plethora of little hamburger joints and cafes dotted around every shopping centre and even every country town. They all offer the same fare - cooked in oil - and that seems to be the food we mere mortals consume at every opportunity.
The reason it is so popular is because it is quick to prepare, very tasty - and much cheaper than food prepared and served in the traditional way. McDonalds pioneered what became known as " fast food " - and now they are paying the price because of it's popularity.
No doubt the rejection of that $ 66,000 sponsorship will make some food fanatics feel happy, but in reality it is a disaster for the cash strapped hospital. The money would have advanced some form of patient care and it is doubtful that this " victory " will have any change in the numbers passing through McDonalds doors to grab a quick lunch or dinner.
And in the end - how we eat and how this affects our waistlines is a matter of free choice. It seems strange that some people think they have the right to dictate their views on cuisine to others.
Sunday 12 February 2012
An issue beyond politics !
One subject that seems universal is the wish to ensure that children have a high degree of safety. From the moment they are born there are laws protecting them across the spectrum of food that they eat, cots that they sleep in - and what restraints are demanded when they travel in cars.
Attaining school age sees them enter a new domain of protection. Areas surrounding their school access are deemed " safety zones " and car speeds are restricted during the times they are arriving and departing. The police regularly patrol these zones with speed radar, and heavy penalties are incurred by offenders.
What seems strange is the lack of attention to the signage around schools by the regularity authorities in New South Wales. Many school safety signs are faded to the point of blandness, while others are obscured by vegetation. It seems that cutting back trees that obscure signs is a council responsibility, and councils are subject to a plethora of trees preservation legislation that makes any sort of pruning almost a mortal sin.
Perhaps the most intriguing departure from reality is the policies of New South Wales governments when it comes to installing the flashing light systems that operate to warn drivers when school speed reduction times apply - and these remain constant nomatter which side of politics is in power.
Rolling out flashing lights is subjected to a small annual budget, and it seems that under this regime it will be about the middle of this century before every school crossing in this state will have this safety feature.
It is the usual type of government response. There is only one type of light system that is approved - and that is vastly over priced. All offers from charity organisations - such as Rotary and Lions Clubs - is rejected, and yet many of these have offered to fund the installation of the government system.
The sticking point seems to be - signage !
Any sponsor - and that would include a lot of commercial companies - would be happy to pay for a valid safety innovation, provided they could apply small signage to claim credit for their donation.
Governments - of both political persuasions - seem terrified of a public backlash should they agree to allow commerce to be identified with public works, and yet they freely enter into public/private deals on road tunnels and pay roads.
One of the best forms of protection for our kids would be to have clearly visible signs around school safety areas - and having them flashing at the times motorists are required to slow down. It would save kid's lives and be a welcome reprieve for drivers unfamiliar with the area.
With a change of government thinking, the entire school network in this state could have these flashing lights within the next twelve months - if the government allowed commercial sponsorship and saw reason on allowing a discreet signage credit.
This seems to be an issue that should be beyond politics !
Attaining school age sees them enter a new domain of protection. Areas surrounding their school access are deemed " safety zones " and car speeds are restricted during the times they are arriving and departing. The police regularly patrol these zones with speed radar, and heavy penalties are incurred by offenders.
What seems strange is the lack of attention to the signage around schools by the regularity authorities in New South Wales. Many school safety signs are faded to the point of blandness, while others are obscured by vegetation. It seems that cutting back trees that obscure signs is a council responsibility, and councils are subject to a plethora of trees preservation legislation that makes any sort of pruning almost a mortal sin.
Perhaps the most intriguing departure from reality is the policies of New South Wales governments when it comes to installing the flashing light systems that operate to warn drivers when school speed reduction times apply - and these remain constant nomatter which side of politics is in power.
Rolling out flashing lights is subjected to a small annual budget, and it seems that under this regime it will be about the middle of this century before every school crossing in this state will have this safety feature.
It is the usual type of government response. There is only one type of light system that is approved - and that is vastly over priced. All offers from charity organisations - such as Rotary and Lions Clubs - is rejected, and yet many of these have offered to fund the installation of the government system.
The sticking point seems to be - signage !
Any sponsor - and that would include a lot of commercial companies - would be happy to pay for a valid safety innovation, provided they could apply small signage to claim credit for their donation.
Governments - of both political persuasions - seem terrified of a public backlash should they agree to allow commerce to be identified with public works, and yet they freely enter into public/private deals on road tunnels and pay roads.
One of the best forms of protection for our kids would be to have clearly visible signs around school safety areas - and having them flashing at the times motorists are required to slow down. It would save kid's lives and be a welcome reprieve for drivers unfamiliar with the area.
With a change of government thinking, the entire school network in this state could have these flashing lights within the next twelve months - if the government allowed commercial sponsorship and saw reason on allowing a discreet signage credit.
This seems to be an issue that should be beyond politics !
Saturday 11 February 2012
Conflicting values !
On Thursday night Wollongong got hit by a rain storm of the magnitude usually only experienced at intervals of several years - and then on Friday the southern suburbs got a repeat dose. Water rose swiftly in low lying suburbs and people were evacuated from cars and houses as roads became impassable and emergency services swung into action.
Nobody lost their life and there were no serious injuries, but the financial cost will be huge. Water flooded through business premises and car parks became lakes, and in most cases when a modern car is immersed in water it becomes a write off for insurance purposes.
Rain events across Australia in recent years have been an interesting phenomenon. Both the Brisbane and northern New South Wales floods were classed as " catastrophic " and there is no doubt that we are all going to see insurance premiums rise as a result. Tragically, a lot of victims were not insured, and these premium increases will probably cause many other financially hard pressed people to drop insurance cover because they simply can not meet the payment.
One factor always seems to come to the fore every time we have a rain event - and that is this city's network of creeks and waterways.
This city is surrounded by the escarpment and that acts as a huge funnel to collect water and channel it into the city - on it's way to either the ocean or lake Illawarra. Nature has provided an escape mechanism for natural rain and this handles water disposal efficiently as long as normal volumes are involved. It is only at times of phenomenal rain events that the system fails - and we get homes and business flooding.
The problem seems to be a whole set of ecology laws that are now applied to these creek systems. It is fashionable to talk of " re-generating " the landscape, removing introduced species of plants and replacing them with native vegetation.
One of the business owners affected by these floods complains that she asked council to clear the waterway adjacent to her property - and even offered to pay to have this work done. This offer was refused - and she was told she would be fined if she interfered with the vegetation in that waterway.
Not only are creeks becoming congested with general rubbish, abandoned supermarket trolleys, bottles and cans - and huge amounts of plastic bags, but some land care groups are actually planting vegetation. There seems to be a huge conflict between keeping the creeks clear as rainwater escape channels and botany groups who see them as part of the horticultural landscape.
Laws that make sense when applied to general forest areas make absolutely no sense when they are applied to waterways - and yet this is what is happening, and this legislation is being used to stop creeks being cleared to maintain a water flow.
Thursday and Friday's deluge was a natural event and nothing can really be done to prevent floods in times of excessive rain, but the damage can be mitigated if the creeks are treated properly. To have that happen - we need a law change to restore the right of councils and residents to maintain the flow system as nature intended.,
Nobody lost their life and there were no serious injuries, but the financial cost will be huge. Water flooded through business premises and car parks became lakes, and in most cases when a modern car is immersed in water it becomes a write off for insurance purposes.
Rain events across Australia in recent years have been an interesting phenomenon. Both the Brisbane and northern New South Wales floods were classed as " catastrophic " and there is no doubt that we are all going to see insurance premiums rise as a result. Tragically, a lot of victims were not insured, and these premium increases will probably cause many other financially hard pressed people to drop insurance cover because they simply can not meet the payment.
One factor always seems to come to the fore every time we have a rain event - and that is this city's network of creeks and waterways.
This city is surrounded by the escarpment and that acts as a huge funnel to collect water and channel it into the city - on it's way to either the ocean or lake Illawarra. Nature has provided an escape mechanism for natural rain and this handles water disposal efficiently as long as normal volumes are involved. It is only at times of phenomenal rain events that the system fails - and we get homes and business flooding.
The problem seems to be a whole set of ecology laws that are now applied to these creek systems. It is fashionable to talk of " re-generating " the landscape, removing introduced species of plants and replacing them with native vegetation.
One of the business owners affected by these floods complains that she asked council to clear the waterway adjacent to her property - and even offered to pay to have this work done. This offer was refused - and she was told she would be fined if she interfered with the vegetation in that waterway.
Not only are creeks becoming congested with general rubbish, abandoned supermarket trolleys, bottles and cans - and huge amounts of plastic bags, but some land care groups are actually planting vegetation. There seems to be a huge conflict between keeping the creeks clear as rainwater escape channels and botany groups who see them as part of the horticultural landscape.
Laws that make sense when applied to general forest areas make absolutely no sense when they are applied to waterways - and yet this is what is happening, and this legislation is being used to stop creeks being cleared to maintain a water flow.
Thursday and Friday's deluge was a natural event and nothing can really be done to prevent floods in times of excessive rain, but the damage can be mitigated if the creeks are treated properly. To have that happen - we need a law change to restore the right of councils and residents to maintain the flow system as nature intended.,
Friday 10 February 2012
The safety versus cost dilemma !
A fire at a Quakers Hill nursing home took the lives of eleven residents. This fire was deliberately lit and the incident has resulted in pressure for legislation to make fire sprinklers compulsory in all buildings used for aged care. Unfortunately this added cost would probably result in the closure of many facilities - and a sharp drop in the number of aged care beds available to meet our growing needs.
All new nursing homes have been required to have sprinklers since this requirement came into force in 2002. The Quakers Hill building was modern, but it was constructed in 1981 - and hence it lacked this facility. Despite heroic efforts by nearby residents and fire crews, smoke inhalation, burns and shock cut a swathe through those who actually survived the fire, only to die days later in hospital.
Adding sprinklers to existing buildings would impose a cost of between $ 3,000 and $ 11,000 per resident, depending on the type of structure involved. Our nursing home stock is a mix of government supplied buildings, non for profit charities - and private carers who operate on a business basis.
The fees charged in nursing homes is strictly controlled by the Federal government, as is the entry procedure on which beds are allotted. In the vast majority of cases the money is simply not there to pay for sprinklers if this becomes a condition of license - and many existing nursing homes would have to close their doors and go out of business.
This is a classical safety versus cost dilemma. All levels of government have the right to dictate safety issues, but at the same time they must accept responsibility for their actions. Statisticians are sounding alarm bells about an avalanche of elderly people about to overwhelm existing care facilities and this must be taken into consideration when the sprinkler issue is considered.
There is little point in passing draconian legislation if the end result is a sharp drop in nursing home bed availability. If sprinkler installation is to become a legal requirement, then both levels of government will need to put their hands in their pocket and pay a substantial proportion of the costs.
It all boils down to a matter of risk analysis. Horrible as the pictures shown on television were when the Quakers Hill fire was reported, given the number of such fires as against the number of people sleeping in nursing home beds in Australia - the odds of a patient dying in such a fire is about even with getting struck by lightning.
We would all like to think that every nursing home bed had absolute safety - but in this real world - the cost must be weighed against the risk !
All new nursing homes have been required to have sprinklers since this requirement came into force in 2002. The Quakers Hill building was modern, but it was constructed in 1981 - and hence it lacked this facility. Despite heroic efforts by nearby residents and fire crews, smoke inhalation, burns and shock cut a swathe through those who actually survived the fire, only to die days later in hospital.
Adding sprinklers to existing buildings would impose a cost of between $ 3,000 and $ 11,000 per resident, depending on the type of structure involved. Our nursing home stock is a mix of government supplied buildings, non for profit charities - and private carers who operate on a business basis.
The fees charged in nursing homes is strictly controlled by the Federal government, as is the entry procedure on which beds are allotted. In the vast majority of cases the money is simply not there to pay for sprinklers if this becomes a condition of license - and many existing nursing homes would have to close their doors and go out of business.
This is a classical safety versus cost dilemma. All levels of government have the right to dictate safety issues, but at the same time they must accept responsibility for their actions. Statisticians are sounding alarm bells about an avalanche of elderly people about to overwhelm existing care facilities and this must be taken into consideration when the sprinkler issue is considered.
There is little point in passing draconian legislation if the end result is a sharp drop in nursing home bed availability. If sprinkler installation is to become a legal requirement, then both levels of government will need to put their hands in their pocket and pay a substantial proportion of the costs.
It all boils down to a matter of risk analysis. Horrible as the pictures shown on television were when the Quakers Hill fire was reported, given the number of such fires as against the number of people sleeping in nursing home beds in Australia - the odds of a patient dying in such a fire is about even with getting struck by lightning.
We would all like to think that every nursing home bed had absolute safety - but in this real world - the cost must be weighed against the risk !
Thursday 9 February 2012
Sporting finance chaos !
One of the mainstays of sporting finance is the fee from negotiating television rights to show the games live on television. In particular, all the television networks tender big money to secure the contract to exclusively show live AFL and NRL games because these sports draw big audiences - and consequently - big advertising revenue.
All that is now in doubt since a Federal court ruled that Optus had not breached copyright by sending to air AFL and and NRL games - with a few seconds delay - on their Mobile TV Now service.
It seems that this Federal court decision revolves around the concept that citizens are free to record programmes of their choice on the recording equipment available from any electronics shop - and play back the content recorded at a time of their choice. The court sees no difference between a commercial operator doing exactly the same - and stipulates that as there is at least a few seconds time delay - this recording does not infringe the contract holders right to show instantaneous play on their channel.
In this instance, the loser is Telstra, who has paid about $ 150 million for the exclusive rights to show such games live on free to air television.
The court is drawing an extraordinary long bow in equating what a citizen can watch and do in their own home with what a commercial organisation can show on free to air TV channels. No money is involved when a citizen records a show for his or her own entertainment, but a commercial channel charges advertisers for air time interspersed with play - and the nature of the entertainment has a bearing on the rates charged.
If this decision stands, all sporting codes seem certain to lose a substantial source of revenue. The fact that sporting content is divided between free to air television - and what can be viewed on a mobile device such as a mobile phone is simply splitting straws.
It also opens a Pandora's box by questioning all areas of exclusivity. What else will become fair game for predators who decide to ignore contractual rights to some form of copyright. Most citizens have a printer with scanning capacity sitting beside their computer. Does this decision mean it is now permissible to copy any writer's work - free of charge - and make this available to others - without the permission of either the author or the original book publisher ?
If this decision falls within the letter of the law, then it is time for the law to be changed to protect not only all sporting codes, but the principle of copyright conferring reward for those who originate something that is of value to others.
As it now stands - that has become worthless !
All that is now in doubt since a Federal court ruled that Optus had not breached copyright by sending to air AFL and and NRL games - with a few seconds delay - on their Mobile TV Now service.
It seems that this Federal court decision revolves around the concept that citizens are free to record programmes of their choice on the recording equipment available from any electronics shop - and play back the content recorded at a time of their choice. The court sees no difference between a commercial operator doing exactly the same - and stipulates that as there is at least a few seconds time delay - this recording does not infringe the contract holders right to show instantaneous play on their channel.
In this instance, the loser is Telstra, who has paid about $ 150 million for the exclusive rights to show such games live on free to air television.
The court is drawing an extraordinary long bow in equating what a citizen can watch and do in their own home with what a commercial organisation can show on free to air TV channels. No money is involved when a citizen records a show for his or her own entertainment, but a commercial channel charges advertisers for air time interspersed with play - and the nature of the entertainment has a bearing on the rates charged.
If this decision stands, all sporting codes seem certain to lose a substantial source of revenue. The fact that sporting content is divided between free to air television - and what can be viewed on a mobile device such as a mobile phone is simply splitting straws.
It also opens a Pandora's box by questioning all areas of exclusivity. What else will become fair game for predators who decide to ignore contractual rights to some form of copyright. Most citizens have a printer with scanning capacity sitting beside their computer. Does this decision mean it is now permissible to copy any writer's work - free of charge - and make this available to others - without the permission of either the author or the original book publisher ?
If this decision falls within the letter of the law, then it is time for the law to be changed to protect not only all sporting codes, but the principle of copyright conferring reward for those who originate something that is of value to others.
As it now stands - that has become worthless !
Wednesday 8 February 2012
The cameras that convict !
Ten Thousand New South Wales drivers have been charged for driving on a toll road in another state - despite their cars never leaving their home state. It seems that a glitch in the number plate recognition software confused state of origin when the same numbers and letters configuration were used in both states.
Motorists are advised to carefully check their toll accounts but the company is confident that it will quickly reverse any incorrect charges - and install upgraded software to make sure this does not happen again in the future.
This fiasco raises the question of error when it comes to police speed cameras. From time to time we get instances of motorists getting an unexpected fine notice - from a state they or their car have never visited. It doesn't happen very often, but it serves to underline the chance of an incorrect booking when number plate recognition encounters a difficulty.
Obviously number plates are not fully identical between states, but perhaps insects or debris from a muddy road can create sufficient change to fool the system - and then an innocent motorists faces both a fine - and a loss of demerit points.
That can be a costly problem to rectify. Any such fine can be challenged in court, but that involves the retention of a solicitor and in most cases the magistrate would accept a signed statutory declaration of innocence - and dismiss the fine.
Unfortunately, dismissing the fine does not automatically restore lost demerit points. One of the peculiarities of the law is that demerit points remain in force irrespective of the outcome of each court case - and that is clearly a denial of justice.
It is time the law was changed to treat fines and demerit points in tandem. When one is dismissed - the other should automatically suffer the same fate !
Motorists are advised to carefully check their toll accounts but the company is confident that it will quickly reverse any incorrect charges - and install upgraded software to make sure this does not happen again in the future.
This fiasco raises the question of error when it comes to police speed cameras. From time to time we get instances of motorists getting an unexpected fine notice - from a state they or their car have never visited. It doesn't happen very often, but it serves to underline the chance of an incorrect booking when number plate recognition encounters a difficulty.
Obviously number plates are not fully identical between states, but perhaps insects or debris from a muddy road can create sufficient change to fool the system - and then an innocent motorists faces both a fine - and a loss of demerit points.
That can be a costly problem to rectify. Any such fine can be challenged in court, but that involves the retention of a solicitor and in most cases the magistrate would accept a signed statutory declaration of innocence - and dismiss the fine.
Unfortunately, dismissing the fine does not automatically restore lost demerit points. One of the peculiarities of the law is that demerit points remain in force irrespective of the outcome of each court case - and that is clearly a denial of justice.
It is time the law was changed to treat fines and demerit points in tandem. When one is dismissed - the other should automatically suffer the same fate !
Tuesday 7 February 2012
Time to dump the " Veto " ?
China and Russia have used their Veto in the Security Council to block any move to bring relief to the citizens of Syria, and as a result - the Bashar Assad regime is free to massacre opponents at will.
The Veto is really a thing of the past. When the United Nations came into being after the end of the second world war, five " great powers " were only coaxed into becoming members if they were allowed to ignore the wishes of other countries - and so the " Veto " was born.
What gave these five countries the right to impose their wills on the rest of the world ? They were the countries that possessed nuclear weapons. The terrible power of these weapons gave them the status of " super powers " - and so Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States of America became de-factor rulers of world affairs.
Times have changed. That was then - and this is now !
India, Pakistan and North Korea have joined the nuclear club - and several other countries are either close to producing nuclear weapons, or are believed to have them secretly in their arsenal. Yet there are no moves to bestow the power of Veto on any of these countries.
What would really happen if the Veto was removed and the Security Council became a democratic institution, where the vote by every member held equal value ?
The tactic of moving a motion that was sure to bring a Veto from the other side of world politics would disappear. Half the time either side is advancing a prospective course of action that they have no intention of actually carrying out - because they know it will be blocked by veto - but it is good publicity to seem to be responding to world opinion.
This veto does not stop any country taking action in support of a perceived world issue. It merely stops it getting that seal of approval - a United Nations mandate to proceed - and that seems to be essential to stave off criticism.
Unfortunately we seem to be stuck with the Veto - because there seems no chance that any or all of the five great super powers are likely to agree to change, and as long as they hold that power of Veto - it would be impossible to introduce change into the security council without it first getting universal approval from those five members.
Unless - of course - those new nuclear nations also demand entry as permanent members of the security council - with Veto rights. That would be a whole new ball game - and perhaps the only way the Veto may disappear from the equation !
The Veto is really a thing of the past. When the United Nations came into being after the end of the second world war, five " great powers " were only coaxed into becoming members if they were allowed to ignore the wishes of other countries - and so the " Veto " was born.
What gave these five countries the right to impose their wills on the rest of the world ? They were the countries that possessed nuclear weapons. The terrible power of these weapons gave them the status of " super powers " - and so Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States of America became de-factor rulers of world affairs.
Times have changed. That was then - and this is now !
India, Pakistan and North Korea have joined the nuclear club - and several other countries are either close to producing nuclear weapons, or are believed to have them secretly in their arsenal. Yet there are no moves to bestow the power of Veto on any of these countries.
What would really happen if the Veto was removed and the Security Council became a democratic institution, where the vote by every member held equal value ?
The tactic of moving a motion that was sure to bring a Veto from the other side of world politics would disappear. Half the time either side is advancing a prospective course of action that they have no intention of actually carrying out - because they know it will be blocked by veto - but it is good publicity to seem to be responding to world opinion.
This veto does not stop any country taking action in support of a perceived world issue. It merely stops it getting that seal of approval - a United Nations mandate to proceed - and that seems to be essential to stave off criticism.
Unfortunately we seem to be stuck with the Veto - because there seems no chance that any or all of the five great super powers are likely to agree to change, and as long as they hold that power of Veto - it would be impossible to introduce change into the security council without it first getting universal approval from those five members.
Unless - of course - those new nuclear nations also demand entry as permanent members of the security council - with Veto rights. That would be a whole new ball game - and perhaps the only way the Veto may disappear from the equation !
Monday 6 February 2012
The enemy within !
Yesterday, Julia Gillard summonsed eighty of her 103 Federal MP's to the Lodge for what was described as a " planning session ". It was in fact an attempt to instill discipline and hose down backbench moves to resurrect Kevin Rudd to the prime minister's job because the rank and file think Gillard is leading them to inevitable defeat.
It is not policies that seem paramount to those earning a parliamentary salary - it is job security, and the fact that this Labor government remains on the nose with voters is causing fear in the ranks as the months tick away - closer to the next " day of destiny " with the voters.
There is another matter that many of those same voters are watching with interest. The Gillard government walks a " numbers tightrope " and she has just lost the support of Andrew Wilkie when she walked away from her promise to him on poker machine legislation. Now the continued presence in the parliament of Craig Thompson is critical.
Thompson is accused of " credit card irregularities " when he was boss of the electrical union - and since 2009 Fair Work Australia has been conducting a long and tedious enquiry. Fair Work Australia is a creature of this Labor government, and it seems to many that any enquiry of misconduct could not stretch to this length without political interference.
Just as it is finally reaching conclusion, Bill Shorten, the minister responsible for FWA warns that " he can not guarantee that this FWA report will be made public ".
If the report makes adverse findings against Thompson and the Labor government fudges the legal process to keep those findings under wrap - so that Thompson can remain in office and save the government from being forced to face the people - it will be a case of blatant dishonesty.
This government - in the eyes of many - lacks a mandate to hold office because of the " carbon tax " promise that was callously broken when Gillard went into coalition with the Greens.
Breaking promises is a matter of personal trust between politicians and the voting public. Interfering with the due process of the law is an entirely different matter. Any government that steps over that dividing line - does so at their peril !
It is not policies that seem paramount to those earning a parliamentary salary - it is job security, and the fact that this Labor government remains on the nose with voters is causing fear in the ranks as the months tick away - closer to the next " day of destiny " with the voters.
There is another matter that many of those same voters are watching with interest. The Gillard government walks a " numbers tightrope " and she has just lost the support of Andrew Wilkie when she walked away from her promise to him on poker machine legislation. Now the continued presence in the parliament of Craig Thompson is critical.
Thompson is accused of " credit card irregularities " when he was boss of the electrical union - and since 2009 Fair Work Australia has been conducting a long and tedious enquiry. Fair Work Australia is a creature of this Labor government, and it seems to many that any enquiry of misconduct could not stretch to this length without political interference.
Just as it is finally reaching conclusion, Bill Shorten, the minister responsible for FWA warns that " he can not guarantee that this FWA report will be made public ".
If the report makes adverse findings against Thompson and the Labor government fudges the legal process to keep those findings under wrap - so that Thompson can remain in office and save the government from being forced to face the people - it will be a case of blatant dishonesty.
This government - in the eyes of many - lacks a mandate to hold office because of the " carbon tax " promise that was callously broken when Gillard went into coalition with the Greens.
Breaking promises is a matter of personal trust between politicians and the voting public. Interfering with the due process of the law is an entirely different matter. Any government that steps over that dividing line - does so at their peril !
Sunday 5 February 2012
The " drumbeats to war " !
There is a certain inevitability about the threats being exchanged between Iran and Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president has made it quite clear that he wants Israel " wiped from the map " and the country's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has described it as a " cancerous tumour ".
On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamim Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel can not afford to stand aside and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and there is past precedent of the Israeli armed forces destroying a nuclear reactor in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was making similar threats against the Israeli state.
Iran is undoubtedly pursuing a nuclear course, but it claims that this is for peaceful purposes and claims the right to use nuclear fission for the generation of electric power. This claim is refuted by United Nations nuclear inspectors who state that the level of uranium enrichment is heading to weapons standard and the direction of research is unmistakably part of an arms race.
There is no doubt that Israel's nationhood poses a vexing question. It was created by the United Nations while the whole world was reeling at disclosure of the horrors of the Holocaust after the end of the second world war. There was sympathy for the Jews - but in providing a Jewish homeland it was necessary to dispossess the Arabs of land they considered their own.
A number of wars have been fought over this very question, and so far on each occasion the Israelis have emerged victorious. There have been suggestions of establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but neither side can agree on it's borders - or on sharing Jerusalem as a capital.
Now we are approaching the final confrontation. Iran is just months away from developing the nuclear bomb - and they have declared that it is their intention to attack and destroy the Jewish state.
Many Israeli's feel that for sheer survival Israel must destroy the Iranian nuclear industry before that happens. Clearly - we are on the brink of a war between these two countries.
Just as the first world war was the result of overlapping treaties between European states, so a conflict between Iran and Israel has the potential to draw in the two great opposing power blocks of the present world.
Common sense - and a great deal of luck - prevented the rivalry of the cold war from developing into a nuclear exchange which could have abolished life on this planet. Unfortunately, this time around it is not political rivalry that is the issue. It is a headlong clash of religion - and when religion enters the picture - common sense flies out the window.
We have every reason to be very - very - very afraid !
On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamim Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel can not afford to stand aside and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and there is past precedent of the Israeli armed forces destroying a nuclear reactor in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was making similar threats against the Israeli state.
Iran is undoubtedly pursuing a nuclear course, but it claims that this is for peaceful purposes and claims the right to use nuclear fission for the generation of electric power. This claim is refuted by United Nations nuclear inspectors who state that the level of uranium enrichment is heading to weapons standard and the direction of research is unmistakably part of an arms race.
There is no doubt that Israel's nationhood poses a vexing question. It was created by the United Nations while the whole world was reeling at disclosure of the horrors of the Holocaust after the end of the second world war. There was sympathy for the Jews - but in providing a Jewish homeland it was necessary to dispossess the Arabs of land they considered their own.
A number of wars have been fought over this very question, and so far on each occasion the Israelis have emerged victorious. There have been suggestions of establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but neither side can agree on it's borders - or on sharing Jerusalem as a capital.
Now we are approaching the final confrontation. Iran is just months away from developing the nuclear bomb - and they have declared that it is their intention to attack and destroy the Jewish state.
Many Israeli's feel that for sheer survival Israel must destroy the Iranian nuclear industry before that happens. Clearly - we are on the brink of a war between these two countries.
Just as the first world war was the result of overlapping treaties between European states, so a conflict between Iran and Israel has the potential to draw in the two great opposing power blocks of the present world.
Common sense - and a great deal of luck - prevented the rivalry of the cold war from developing into a nuclear exchange which could have abolished life on this planet. Unfortunately, this time around it is not political rivalry that is the issue. It is a headlong clash of religion - and when religion enters the picture - common sense flies out the window.
We have every reason to be very - very - very afraid !
Saturday 4 February 2012
Crime - and punishment !
A lot of people will be thoroughly disgusted at the mere two and a half year gaol sentence handed down to what could be described as a guilty plea to " urban terrorism ".
A 44 year old father of two devised a plan to extort money by threatening to kill or rape the children of his victims, and went on to describe such horrors as infecting them with AIDS or hepatitis - unless they handed over money. Sixteen families were threatened with this act of extortion - and in one case a sum of $ 50,000 was handed over.
This case takes crime to a new level. The prosecution is satisfied that the perpetrator had no intention of actually carrying out any of his threats, but the psychological damage he caused will stay with some of these victims for the rest of their lives. Some will never again rest easily with the thought that their children are safe from danger.
One of the problems is the fact that this new criminal strategy has been reported in the media. Copycat criminals will now be aware that such a plan netted a rich reward - and brought a minuscule gaol term in comparison with those prosecuted for armed robbery - or even dealing in drugs.
Some people will compare the gaol term handed down with that being served by terrorist groups convicted of planning bomb attacks in this country. In many such cases, no actual attack took place and the crime involved was one of " planning an attack ". What is the difference in planning to bomb and kill citizens - and planning to rape or kill children ?
Crime is an ever evolving clash of minds between criminals and those tasked with protecting society. It is not helpful when the penalties handed down simply indicate a less punitive result if a new form of criminal activity goes wrong.
Criminals notice - when the punishment reflects the seriousness of the crime !
A 44 year old father of two devised a plan to extort money by threatening to kill or rape the children of his victims, and went on to describe such horrors as infecting them with AIDS or hepatitis - unless they handed over money. Sixteen families were threatened with this act of extortion - and in one case a sum of $ 50,000 was handed over.
This case takes crime to a new level. The prosecution is satisfied that the perpetrator had no intention of actually carrying out any of his threats, but the psychological damage he caused will stay with some of these victims for the rest of their lives. Some will never again rest easily with the thought that their children are safe from danger.
One of the problems is the fact that this new criminal strategy has been reported in the media. Copycat criminals will now be aware that such a plan netted a rich reward - and brought a minuscule gaol term in comparison with those prosecuted for armed robbery - or even dealing in drugs.
Some people will compare the gaol term handed down with that being served by terrorist groups convicted of planning bomb attacks in this country. In many such cases, no actual attack took place and the crime involved was one of " planning an attack ". What is the difference in planning to bomb and kill citizens - and planning to rape or kill children ?
Crime is an ever evolving clash of minds between criminals and those tasked with protecting society. It is not helpful when the penalties handed down simply indicate a less punitive result if a new form of criminal activity goes wrong.
Criminals notice - when the punishment reflects the seriousness of the crime !
Friday 3 February 2012
A " Scrooge " mentality decision !
As this new school year starts, the bureaucracy has delivered a stunning edict to a nine year old Wollongong girl who suffers from cerebral palsy. They have decided that she is no longer eligible for a seat on the bus that takes disabled children to the ParaMeadows school at Fairy Meadow - because her mother has a car and does not work !
In past years this girl has had daily transport from her home at Haywards Bay to ParaMeadows. The only thing that seems to have changed is a move from Haywards Bay to Horsley, but now the department seems to have changed the eligibility rules.
This ruling clearly infringes the Disability Discrimination act. It seems that the bureaucrats have singled out this lone cerebral palsy sufferer for special attention - probably because someone has a bee in their bonnet about parental responsibility issues. It would be interesting to know if the department has surveyed the parents of all those carried by this disability bus - and that all those who continue to meet the eligibility guidelines lack a family car and have a mother with a job.
What the department seems to be saying is the mother has an obligation to provide transport for a disabled daughter - purely on the grounds that she has a car - and doesn't have a job in the work force. That would be an interesting innovation if it were to be extended to the provision of seats on the school bus network. Just imagine the uproar if every kid with a non working mother and a family car was kicked off the school bus system and told to find their own way to and from school.
Inevitably, in the next few days we will read that the problem has been settled in favour of this child being allocated a seat. Such is the way of politics - when the bureaucracy gets a rush of blood and makes some stupid decisions.
In past years this girl has had daily transport from her home at Haywards Bay to ParaMeadows. The only thing that seems to have changed is a move from Haywards Bay to Horsley, but now the department seems to have changed the eligibility rules.
This ruling clearly infringes the Disability Discrimination act. It seems that the bureaucrats have singled out this lone cerebral palsy sufferer for special attention - probably because someone has a bee in their bonnet about parental responsibility issues. It would be interesting to know if the department has surveyed the parents of all those carried by this disability bus - and that all those who continue to meet the eligibility guidelines lack a family car and have a mother with a job.
What the department seems to be saying is the mother has an obligation to provide transport for a disabled daughter - purely on the grounds that she has a car - and doesn't have a job in the work force. That would be an interesting innovation if it were to be extended to the provision of seats on the school bus network. Just imagine the uproar if every kid with a non working mother and a family car was kicked off the school bus system and told to find their own way to and from school.
Inevitably, in the next few days we will read that the problem has been settled in favour of this child being allocated a seat. Such is the way of politics - when the bureaucracy gets a rush of blood and makes some stupid decisions.
Thursday 2 February 2012
Slavery abolished in Australia !
In the 1860's the American nation fought a civil war to abolish slavery. Yesterday, Fair Trading handed down a pay decision that ended slavery in Australia for the people who worked in the Social, Community and Disability Service Industries ( SACS ), the majority of whom are women.
These pay increases range from 19 to 41 % and represent amounts between $6,324 and $ 24,346 per year extra going into pay packets - and they will be progressively introduced over an eight year pay period.
The Community services sector ranges across the entire spectrum of essential services, from those that man community centres to the workers who visit the elderly daily to help them shower, dress and remain in their own homes, saving the cost of hospital or formal aged care accommodation. This has been a grossly underpaid industry - averaging a mere $ 46,000 a year as opposed to a national average of $ 58,000.
This was a brave decision. Underpaying social workers is a hangover from the days when few married women worked and those that undertook social responsibilities were regarded as almost donating their services as some sort of charity gift to those in need.
Times have changed. Many of today's SACS workers need tertiary qualifications to meet the required standards, and those on a pay level of $ 46,000 have no hope of buying their own home, raising a family or even getting finance to buy a decent car in today's competitive world.
But - this pay decision will have consequences. That extra money has to come from somewhere and all levels of governance are strapped for cash. Expect the " do more with less " principle to apply. It will become harder to get on the list to access community services and the numbers employed will probably shrink - and individuals will be asked to take on a heavier work load.
At least earning a decent pay level will stop the attrition that has been steadily taking place as workers abandon social services because they simply can not survive on the pay rates offered.
And it is one more step along the road to the goal claimed by all sides of politics - gender equality !
These pay increases range from 19 to 41 % and represent amounts between $6,324 and $ 24,346 per year extra going into pay packets - and they will be progressively introduced over an eight year pay period.
The Community services sector ranges across the entire spectrum of essential services, from those that man community centres to the workers who visit the elderly daily to help them shower, dress and remain in their own homes, saving the cost of hospital or formal aged care accommodation. This has been a grossly underpaid industry - averaging a mere $ 46,000 a year as opposed to a national average of $ 58,000.
This was a brave decision. Underpaying social workers is a hangover from the days when few married women worked and those that undertook social responsibilities were regarded as almost donating their services as some sort of charity gift to those in need.
Times have changed. Many of today's SACS workers need tertiary qualifications to meet the required standards, and those on a pay level of $ 46,000 have no hope of buying their own home, raising a family or even getting finance to buy a decent car in today's competitive world.
But - this pay decision will have consequences. That extra money has to come from somewhere and all levels of governance are strapped for cash. Expect the " do more with less " principle to apply. It will become harder to get on the list to access community services and the numbers employed will probably shrink - and individuals will be asked to take on a heavier work load.
At least earning a decent pay level will stop the attrition that has been steadily taking place as workers abandon social services because they simply can not survive on the pay rates offered.
And it is one more step along the road to the goal claimed by all sides of politics - gender equality !
Wednesday 1 February 2012
A matter of principle !
It is a simple fact of life that self employed people usually earn more than those who work for a wage, but at the same time they face business risks. Sub-contractors in the building industry spectrum can be seriously out of pocket if the firm they are contracting for collapses - leaving unpaid bills.
A curious situation has developed in the Illawarra that leaves 135 social housing sites not only unfinished, but now picketed by the sub-contractors owed money for work already done.
It all started when the GFC hit in 2008. The Federal government devised a stimulus package to boost social housing. This would be funded by Canberra, but managed by each relevant state government - and the work was let out to tender. As seemed to be the case with so many government contracts, this work quickly got into difficulty, which eventually resulted in the building companies going into liquidation before the mix of villas and town houses were complete - leaving an array of sub-contractors unpaid for the work they had performed. In some cases, this debt was well in excess of a hundred thousand dollars owed.
Unfortunately, this is a familiar outcome in the construction business. In many cases it also send sub-contractors to the bankruptcy court, but most just take the loss and weather the financial storm - and accept it as a normal business hazard.
The difference in this case - was the fact that the job was " government inspired " , and that it involved both the Federal and state levels of government - and in the eyes of both the unions and the sub-contractors, Governments " have deep pockets ".
The sites were declared " black " and pickets were set up. There was a mix of demands. Pressure was applied for both governments to pay out the unpaid sub-contractors bills, whilst others demanded that if new contractors were tasked with completing the jobs, they should not only be required to pay for the work already done - but hire the original sub-contractors to complete the projects.
While this remained unresolved, there came a change of state government - and this seemed to spur the militant Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy union ( CFMEU ) to dig in it's heels and refuse to negotiate a reasonable settlement.
The result is another " Mexican standoff ". The sites remain stagnant and unfinished and there are pickets in place. Both levels of government are adamant that the bankruptcy of builders and their relations with sub-contractors involves a matter of principle. It is one of the risks of doing business that sub-contractors face - and the fact that governments are involved as the contract owners has absolutely no bearing on the issues.
It simply illustrates the distorting factor that arises any time politics gets involved in a business transaction
A curious situation has developed in the Illawarra that leaves 135 social housing sites not only unfinished, but now picketed by the sub-contractors owed money for work already done.
It all started when the GFC hit in 2008. The Federal government devised a stimulus package to boost social housing. This would be funded by Canberra, but managed by each relevant state government - and the work was let out to tender. As seemed to be the case with so many government contracts, this work quickly got into difficulty, which eventually resulted in the building companies going into liquidation before the mix of villas and town houses were complete - leaving an array of sub-contractors unpaid for the work they had performed. In some cases, this debt was well in excess of a hundred thousand dollars owed.
Unfortunately, this is a familiar outcome in the construction business. In many cases it also send sub-contractors to the bankruptcy court, but most just take the loss and weather the financial storm - and accept it as a normal business hazard.
The difference in this case - was the fact that the job was " government inspired " , and that it involved both the Federal and state levels of government - and in the eyes of both the unions and the sub-contractors, Governments " have deep pockets ".
The sites were declared " black " and pickets were set up. There was a mix of demands. Pressure was applied for both governments to pay out the unpaid sub-contractors bills, whilst others demanded that if new contractors were tasked with completing the jobs, they should not only be required to pay for the work already done - but hire the original sub-contractors to complete the projects.
While this remained unresolved, there came a change of state government - and this seemed to spur the militant Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy union ( CFMEU ) to dig in it's heels and refuse to negotiate a reasonable settlement.
The result is another " Mexican standoff ". The sites remain stagnant and unfinished and there are pickets in place. Both levels of government are adamant that the bankruptcy of builders and their relations with sub-contractors involves a matter of principle. It is one of the risks of doing business that sub-contractors face - and the fact that governments are involved as the contract owners has absolutely no bearing on the issues.
It simply illustrates the distorting factor that arises any time politics gets involved in a business transaction
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)