The Federal government has just announced that it will create a new dental health scheme to bring the nation's teeth under the medical umbrella. This is a long awaited initiative. Australia has long ignored dental health and it has been the aim of many groups to include this as a normal facet of Medicare. Proponents contend that seeing a dentist should be no different from seeing a doctor - and subsidised treatment costs should apply to both.
Cynics may question both the motive and the timing of this proposal, and in particular - how the government intends to fund the billions of dollars it will cost ?
The scheme is split into two separate options. It will cost $ 2.7 billion to make dental treatment available to the nation's children, and this will come into effect on January 1, 2014. The second phase will extend dental treatment to pensioners and low income residents. This will cost $ 1.3 billion and come into effect on July 1, 2014.
What will stick in many people's minds is the fact that what we are talking about will not occur - until after the next Federal election.
It is perfectly normal for sitting governments to plan ahead and release their views on long term goals.. What is suspicious is the fact that on the poll figures consistently showing, this present government would not expect to be still in office when the present term expires. An optimist could think that releasing future plans is a ploy to garner support and swing voter sentiments. A pessimist could see this as deliberately planting land mines to make life difficult for the incoming government likely to replace them.
Suggestions such as this dental scheme are purely " pie in the sky " unless they are accompanied by a realistic scenario of financing. Proposals of big ticket items that are unfunded seem to be making regular appearances at a time when the government is also promising a balanced budget - and indeed a surplus.
A decent dental scheme is long overdue and the only reason it has not been brought to reality in the past - is the enormous cost. Governments of both political persuasions have tinkered around the edges, but the huge sum of money needed has been the stumbling block.
If this new proposal is to become reality we need to know how and where it will be financed. Otherwise, it seems that there are politicians who really do believe in the generosity of the " Tooth Fairy " !
Friday 31 August 2012
Thursday 30 August 2012
Closing ranks !
Even in the best of circumstances, events can go tragically wrong. It doesn't help when those involved in the subsequent enquiry close ranks and shield comrades. Such seems to be the case when police investigate police in a case when a man was fatally shot.
A mentally disturbed man began to inflict self harm and his father removed the knife he was using. Paramedics were called and the police arrived minutes later. The victim became agitated, regained the knife and started to inflict more injuries to himself. One police officer called " Taser - Taser - Taser ", which is the code to stand clear because a high volt Taser weapons is about to be fired - but instead discharged a police firearm, killing the victim instantly.
The coroner's report was scathing and the police investigation version of what happened is hotly contested by both the paramedics and the victims father. The police allege the victim was attacking a police officer. The other witnesses claim he was attempting self harm and posed no danger to others. The officer who fired the shot can give no rational explanation of why she called " Taser " when firing a pistol.
The result is a most unsatisfactory outcome. To add insult to injury, two police reviews of the investigation heap praise on the police involved and deny any suggestion of wrong doing. It is clear that there was no intentional reason to harm the victim. The most likely cause could have been stress in a tense situation that caused an officer to draw the wrong weapon. What rankles is the refusal to accept that there was such a mistake and to manipulate the review to achieve an outcome favourable to the police.
It all boils down to the practice of the police investigating fellow police officers when an incident occurs. The investigating officers are from another police unit - but it is still a case of the police investigating the police.
The only way we will get a truly independent outcome of such investigations is if the investigators have no connection to the people being investigated.
The other worrying aspect is the tendency of the police structure to deny all and any suggestion of mistakes being made. It seems to be the police culture to sweep any criticism under the carpet and present a blameless public image. This same tendency to deflect criticism is shared by the world's military, public servants - and specially politicians.
Human beings make mistakes. People tasked with difficult duties act under pressure, and sometimes they make incorrect decisions. The matter is best resolved by telling the truth - and offering an apology. Unfortunately that is not the way that most investigations proceed when vindication is the primary aim !
A mentally disturbed man began to inflict self harm and his father removed the knife he was using. Paramedics were called and the police arrived minutes later. The victim became agitated, regained the knife and started to inflict more injuries to himself. One police officer called " Taser - Taser - Taser ", which is the code to stand clear because a high volt Taser weapons is about to be fired - but instead discharged a police firearm, killing the victim instantly.
The coroner's report was scathing and the police investigation version of what happened is hotly contested by both the paramedics and the victims father. The police allege the victim was attacking a police officer. The other witnesses claim he was attempting self harm and posed no danger to others. The officer who fired the shot can give no rational explanation of why she called " Taser " when firing a pistol.
The result is a most unsatisfactory outcome. To add insult to injury, two police reviews of the investigation heap praise on the police involved and deny any suggestion of wrong doing. It is clear that there was no intentional reason to harm the victim. The most likely cause could have been stress in a tense situation that caused an officer to draw the wrong weapon. What rankles is the refusal to accept that there was such a mistake and to manipulate the review to achieve an outcome favourable to the police.
It all boils down to the practice of the police investigating fellow police officers when an incident occurs. The investigating officers are from another police unit - but it is still a case of the police investigating the police.
The only way we will get a truly independent outcome of such investigations is if the investigators have no connection to the people being investigated.
The other worrying aspect is the tendency of the police structure to deny all and any suggestion of mistakes being made. It seems to be the police culture to sweep any criticism under the carpet and present a blameless public image. This same tendency to deflect criticism is shared by the world's military, public servants - and specially politicians.
Human beings make mistakes. People tasked with difficult duties act under pressure, and sometimes they make incorrect decisions. The matter is best resolved by telling the truth - and offering an apology. Unfortunately that is not the way that most investigations proceed when vindication is the primary aim !
Wednesday 29 August 2012
Tuesday 28 August 2012
The unsolvable enigma !
In a perfect world, nobody would live below the poverty line ! The unsolvable enigma facing governments is to balance the dole at a level that will sustain job seekers, but keep it low to make effort to seek a job an absolute necessity. Raise the level too high and some people will prefer the dole to actually doing paid work.
These days the dole is termed the " Newstart " allowance and it is presently paid at just $ 245 per week. This is clearly in " poverty territory " because the poverty level cuts in at $ 470 per week, $ 225 less than the people out of work are expected to live on.
All the welfare agencies can tell lurid tales of the hardship this imposes. There are people who miss meals themselves to provide food for their children. There are countless families with unpaid heating and light bills - and some are in danger of losing the roof over their head because the money is not there to pay the rent or service the mortgage.
Being out of work brings with it a stigma. The words " Dole Bludger " springs from some lips, and yet the world is going through tough times: Industry is laying off workers and in some cases - shutting their doors and new job opportunities are hard to find. No fair minded person could doubt that for some, being out of work is a product of this twenty-first century.
It is suggested that the level of the dole be taken out of government hands and passed to a tribunal - in a similar manner to the hands off approach of the independent commission that rules on the salary level of politicians, the judiciary and the top level of public servants. This suggestion has met with a resounding " No " from the government.
The welfare agencies are calling for the dole to be raised by another $ 50 a week. They make a good point when they claim that it is becoming impossible for job seekers to get to job interviews in a presentable state at the present sustainability level. The money is simply not there for a haircut, decent clothes - and the fares necessary to get to that interview. To make matters worse, if applicants fail to make it to job interviews, even this meagre sustenance ceases.
It would be easy to play the blame game to divert attention from the fact that the dole at it's present level is below the poverty line. There are some sections of society that are intolerant of the unemployed and maintain that being out of work is their fault. Those with a socialist philosophy think that finding work for everyone is a government responsibility - and that the government must pay a working wage when job search fails. The problem is that both the government and industry are trying to balance budgets and in many cases that means a reduced labour force.
If " Newstart " increases by $50 a week it will cost the government another $ 1.5 billion a year. That is not an unreasonable sum to put food on the tables and restore a little human dignity to whose who are victims of the GFC. The problem is that to do nothing will see the living standards of the unemployed drop further - to catastrophic levels.
There are other options. One would be to issue a travel voucher to enable free passage on all trains and bus transport, valid only on the day of the interview. Finding a few dollars for fares is a big ask out of just $ 245 a week at the present level, and that would certainly help - but the administrative cost of implementing it would blow out of all proportion to the benefit.
It seems the only answer is for the government to bite the bullet and go with that $ 50 a week increase. The cost of living has gained pace since the dole was last reviewed. Maintaining a below poverty level flow of aid to the unemployed is not defendable in a society that has accepted higher pay for politicians and maintained pensioner incomes in line with the cost of living.
To continue to do nothing would be tantamount to abandoning those in need and making them outcasts of society !
These days the dole is termed the " Newstart " allowance and it is presently paid at just $ 245 per week. This is clearly in " poverty territory " because the poverty level cuts in at $ 470 per week, $ 225 less than the people out of work are expected to live on.
All the welfare agencies can tell lurid tales of the hardship this imposes. There are people who miss meals themselves to provide food for their children. There are countless families with unpaid heating and light bills - and some are in danger of losing the roof over their head because the money is not there to pay the rent or service the mortgage.
Being out of work brings with it a stigma. The words " Dole Bludger " springs from some lips, and yet the world is going through tough times: Industry is laying off workers and in some cases - shutting their doors and new job opportunities are hard to find. No fair minded person could doubt that for some, being out of work is a product of this twenty-first century.
It is suggested that the level of the dole be taken out of government hands and passed to a tribunal - in a similar manner to the hands off approach of the independent commission that rules on the salary level of politicians, the judiciary and the top level of public servants. This suggestion has met with a resounding " No " from the government.
The welfare agencies are calling for the dole to be raised by another $ 50 a week. They make a good point when they claim that it is becoming impossible for job seekers to get to job interviews in a presentable state at the present sustainability level. The money is simply not there for a haircut, decent clothes - and the fares necessary to get to that interview. To make matters worse, if applicants fail to make it to job interviews, even this meagre sustenance ceases.
It would be easy to play the blame game to divert attention from the fact that the dole at it's present level is below the poverty line. There are some sections of society that are intolerant of the unemployed and maintain that being out of work is their fault. Those with a socialist philosophy think that finding work for everyone is a government responsibility - and that the government must pay a working wage when job search fails. The problem is that both the government and industry are trying to balance budgets and in many cases that means a reduced labour force.
If " Newstart " increases by $50 a week it will cost the government another $ 1.5 billion a year. That is not an unreasonable sum to put food on the tables and restore a little human dignity to whose who are victims of the GFC. The problem is that to do nothing will see the living standards of the unemployed drop further - to catastrophic levels.
There are other options. One would be to issue a travel voucher to enable free passage on all trains and bus transport, valid only on the day of the interview. Finding a few dollars for fares is a big ask out of just $ 245 a week at the present level, and that would certainly help - but the administrative cost of implementing it would blow out of all proportion to the benefit.
It seems the only answer is for the government to bite the bullet and go with that $ 50 a week increase. The cost of living has gained pace since the dole was last reviewed. Maintaining a below poverty level flow of aid to the unemployed is not defendable in a society that has accepted higher pay for politicians and maintained pensioner incomes in line with the cost of living.
To continue to do nothing would be tantamount to abandoning those in need and making them outcasts of society !
This changing world !
We expect to feel safe when we go for a swim at the beach. We know that there will be lifesavers on duty and if we get into trouble in the water, all we need do it raise our arm and someone will perform a rescue. We tend to equate the service that lifesavers perform to the response we get from dialling 000. We do not question that our needs will be met by the police, the fire brigade, paramedic ambulance crews - and surf lifesavers.
Some refer to lifesavers as " the thin red and yellow line ", referring to their distinctive red and yellow uniforms, but today all is not well with this essential summer service. Lifesaving is a volunteer task - and volunteers are becoming in very short supply. As a result, the clubs are requiring a decreasing membership to patrol more often - and in some cases it is now every second weekend. There is a danger of " burnout !
Not so very long ago, gaining a place in a surf lifesaving club was the cherished ambition of most young men. Often this started from am early age with training starting as membership of " Nipper " feeder programmes, learning water safety and rescue skills. It was a badge of manhood to progress to patrol duties, an event not unnoticed by many young women. Today, the ranks of lifesavers are open to women and most patrols are a mix of either sex.
The present lack of new volunteers has many causes. We no longer have a nine to five working week and job obligations make patrol availability impossible for some people. The sporting scene has expanded rapidly and entertainment has widened in scope to absorb the spare time of many people who might otherwise have considered lifesaving. There has also been an attitudinal change. Lifesaving is hard work and long hours - and that is something that today's youth tends to shun !
Another problem is the attitude of some beach users to the authority that lifesavers need. To maximise safety, lifesavers need people to swim between the flags, but some people ignore this and refuse to obey instructions. Others indulge in objectionable beach behaviour. In some cases, situations develop that pose a serious risk to the people tasked with providing safety.
Lifesaving has been a great Australian tradition and this country is credited with creating this service. If the erosion of new volunteers to provide the numbers continues it can only lead to some clubs fading from the scene, and beach safety becoming the responsibility of paid life guards.
The lifesaving clubs are strongest on the iconic Australian beaches that are tourist attractions. The clubs struggling for new members are usually those out of the main stream and servicing suburban beaches that lack this national exposure. The danger is that if some of these clubs fold the responsibility for beach safety will fall back on local councils, and that may mean a huge increase in unpatrolled beaches - and the water safety that will pose. Paid life guards can only be provided within each councils capacity to pay - and that imposes limitations.
The lifesaving movement is looking to reinvent itself. Trials are under way to combine the use of a drone aircraft with an automated rescue vehicle, both of which could be controlled by people far removed from the beach area. This measure would be labour saving, but would be no help if the person in the water was unconscious - nor could it help with resuscitation. It merely reflects the gravity of the volunteer situation in some clubs.
A popular television series is helping to promote the social aspect of belonging to a lifesaving club and at the same time, emphasising the essential work that lifesavers do in keeping our beaches safe. At the same time, clubs are modernising and this is providing a range of new skill avenues that can be helpful in the job market. Membership of a life saving club can be an impressive item on a job application resume.
Hopefully, lifesaving clubs can turn things around. There are many beaches that lack a surf patrol and each year the number of people who drown in the surf increases. The last thing we need is for surf clubs to diminish the days they will patrol or limit the hours of attendance. That can only be prevented if more people take up the challenge - and join a fraternity that has served this country so well.
Some refer to lifesavers as " the thin red and yellow line ", referring to their distinctive red and yellow uniforms, but today all is not well with this essential summer service. Lifesaving is a volunteer task - and volunteers are becoming in very short supply. As a result, the clubs are requiring a decreasing membership to patrol more often - and in some cases it is now every second weekend. There is a danger of " burnout !
Not so very long ago, gaining a place in a surf lifesaving club was the cherished ambition of most young men. Often this started from am early age with training starting as membership of " Nipper " feeder programmes, learning water safety and rescue skills. It was a badge of manhood to progress to patrol duties, an event not unnoticed by many young women. Today, the ranks of lifesavers are open to women and most patrols are a mix of either sex.
The present lack of new volunteers has many causes. We no longer have a nine to five working week and job obligations make patrol availability impossible for some people. The sporting scene has expanded rapidly and entertainment has widened in scope to absorb the spare time of many people who might otherwise have considered lifesaving. There has also been an attitudinal change. Lifesaving is hard work and long hours - and that is something that today's youth tends to shun !
Another problem is the attitude of some beach users to the authority that lifesavers need. To maximise safety, lifesavers need people to swim between the flags, but some people ignore this and refuse to obey instructions. Others indulge in objectionable beach behaviour. In some cases, situations develop that pose a serious risk to the people tasked with providing safety.
Lifesaving has been a great Australian tradition and this country is credited with creating this service. If the erosion of new volunteers to provide the numbers continues it can only lead to some clubs fading from the scene, and beach safety becoming the responsibility of paid life guards.
The lifesaving clubs are strongest on the iconic Australian beaches that are tourist attractions. The clubs struggling for new members are usually those out of the main stream and servicing suburban beaches that lack this national exposure. The danger is that if some of these clubs fold the responsibility for beach safety will fall back on local councils, and that may mean a huge increase in unpatrolled beaches - and the water safety that will pose. Paid life guards can only be provided within each councils capacity to pay - and that imposes limitations.
The lifesaving movement is looking to reinvent itself. Trials are under way to combine the use of a drone aircraft with an automated rescue vehicle, both of which could be controlled by people far removed from the beach area. This measure would be labour saving, but would be no help if the person in the water was unconscious - nor could it help with resuscitation. It merely reflects the gravity of the volunteer situation in some clubs.
A popular television series is helping to promote the social aspect of belonging to a lifesaving club and at the same time, emphasising the essential work that lifesavers do in keeping our beaches safe. At the same time, clubs are modernising and this is providing a range of new skill avenues that can be helpful in the job market. Membership of a life saving club can be an impressive item on a job application resume.
Hopefully, lifesaving clubs can turn things around. There are many beaches that lack a surf patrol and each year the number of people who drown in the surf increases. The last thing we need is for surf clubs to diminish the days they will patrol or limit the hours of attendance. That can only be prevented if more people take up the challenge - and join a fraternity that has served this country so well.
Monday 27 August 2012
Conviction - without proof
Many people would consider Lance Armstrong one of this world's top athletes. Despite fighting a life threatening bout of cancer, he won an amazing seven Tour de France titles and holds an Olympic bronze medal. Like all athletes, he has been consistently tested for the presence of performance enhancing drugs - and has never failed any of these tests.
It seems strange that the US Anti-Doping agency ( USADA ) has suddenly charged him with the use of illegal drugs and seems set to strip him of all his cycling titles and ban him from ever competing in any sports activities for the rest of his life - without being put before a court and convicted of these supposed charges.
It seems to be a matter of putting the cart before the horse. USADA is declaring Armstrong guilty and will proceed to impose title loss and a ban on competition, unless Armstrong takes action to prove himself innocent. That is a complete reversal of the usual legal process.
In recent years, blood and urine samples from anti-doping tests are retained and can be re-tested as anti-doping technology advances. USADA is not claiming that they now have laboratory proof of past drug involvement. Their claim seems to be entirely based on the testimony of Armstrong's competitors, some of whom now claim that they saw him using drugs. It seems that much of this is " hear say evidence ", and that is not admissible in court proceedings.
There is a suspicion that these claims of Armstrong's drug use may be tainted. It is usual for the authorities to offer concessions in exchange for evidence when they seek to prove a difficult case and perhaps these charges are part of a vendetta to bring down " a tall poppy ". The proper procedure would certainly be to put Armstrong before a court and secure a conviction before making any attempt to impose sanctions.
Lance Armstrong has indicated that he does not intend to waste his money and put himself to the stress of fighting these accusations. The authorities have seized on this as an admission of guilt, but perhaps Armstrong is sick and tired of the innuendo that seems to stick to all successful sports people. To take up this fight would involve months - and perhaps years - of litigation and he would need to hire a legal team with costs probably running into millions.
Armstrong is within his rights to make a statement declaring his innocence - and leave it at that. The ball is back in the USADA's court to go to trial and prove it's case, even though no accused in sitting in the dock. In such a case, it is possible that those with interests in sport may choose to present a legal team to test the evidence offered. The way this matter is being handled is a huge departure from the normal sporting disciplinary procedures.
Guilty or innocent - the facts need to be paraded before an impartial judge who will decide the outcome !
It seems strange that the US Anti-Doping agency ( USADA ) has suddenly charged him with the use of illegal drugs and seems set to strip him of all his cycling titles and ban him from ever competing in any sports activities for the rest of his life - without being put before a court and convicted of these supposed charges.
It seems to be a matter of putting the cart before the horse. USADA is declaring Armstrong guilty and will proceed to impose title loss and a ban on competition, unless Armstrong takes action to prove himself innocent. That is a complete reversal of the usual legal process.
In recent years, blood and urine samples from anti-doping tests are retained and can be re-tested as anti-doping technology advances. USADA is not claiming that they now have laboratory proof of past drug involvement. Their claim seems to be entirely based on the testimony of Armstrong's competitors, some of whom now claim that they saw him using drugs. It seems that much of this is " hear say evidence ", and that is not admissible in court proceedings.
There is a suspicion that these claims of Armstrong's drug use may be tainted. It is usual for the authorities to offer concessions in exchange for evidence when they seek to prove a difficult case and perhaps these charges are part of a vendetta to bring down " a tall poppy ". The proper procedure would certainly be to put Armstrong before a court and secure a conviction before making any attempt to impose sanctions.
Lance Armstrong has indicated that he does not intend to waste his money and put himself to the stress of fighting these accusations. The authorities have seized on this as an admission of guilt, but perhaps Armstrong is sick and tired of the innuendo that seems to stick to all successful sports people. To take up this fight would involve months - and perhaps years - of litigation and he would need to hire a legal team with costs probably running into millions.
Armstrong is within his rights to make a statement declaring his innocence - and leave it at that. The ball is back in the USADA's court to go to trial and prove it's case, even though no accused in sitting in the dock. In such a case, it is possible that those with interests in sport may choose to present a legal team to test the evidence offered. The way this matter is being handled is a huge departure from the normal sporting disciplinary procedures.
Guilty or innocent - the facts need to be paraded before an impartial judge who will decide the outcome !
Sunday 26 August 2012
Those ever shrinking penalties !
A century ago in Australia, a criminal convicted of murder faced the prospect of execution by hanging. Sometimes this was reduced to life in prison, but that depended on the circumstances of the crime. Remorse and exceptional circumstances could see such a prisoner eventually released back into society, but the courts upheld the principle of " a life for a life " in sentencing.
The last person in Australia executed for murder was Ronald Ryan, who stood on a trap door with a rope around his neck in Pentridge prison on February 3, 1967. Since then, the most severe punishment available to judges is a life sentence accompanied by the instruction " never to be released ". Unfortunately, this has no legal binding and may be overturned on appeal.
Many people will hear with utter amazement the sentence handed down to Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik. Breivik was sentenced to twenty-one years incarceration, with a minimum term of ten years. He is thirty three years old, hence at the most be will walk away a free man at the age of fifty-four, and at the least at the age of forty-three.
Surely Breivik's crime is at the extreme end of the punishment scale. He calmly and methodically planted a bomb in Oslo's government district that killed eight people and did millions of dollars of property damage. This was a ruse to cause panic while he quietly made his way to Utoya island where young people were attending a youth camp. Dressed in a police uniform and armed with a high powered rifle he methodically hunted down and caused the death of sixty nine people, delivering a death count of seventy-seven with many more wounded.
Breivik calmly surrendered when the police eventually arrived. At his trial he has shown absolutely no remorse and claims to be a hero for his efforts to save Norway from having it's Nordic traditions diluted by followers of Islam. It is clear that this outlook is still his belief, and yet the court has decided that he is not insane and must take full responsibility for his actions.
It seems that in Norway, that twenty-one year sentence is the maximum available to the judges presiding at his trial. Here in Australia, the death penalty has been taken off the books as a sentencing option, but in reality the maximum term for even a brutal murder is now twenty years. Of course, no prisoner expects to serve that full period. With good behaviour and remissions release in half that time would be usual.
The Norwegian justice system has options to withhold the release of a prisoner if that prisoner continues to be a threat to the public and that same situation exists in Australia. We have several people who have committed mass murder similar to Breivik who may never again go outside prison walls, but these are exceptions. In the minds of criminals considering murder, the expectation of prison time in Australia is far less than twenty years.
Some would say we live in a more humane age. Perhaps the erosion of punishment has been a natural process of attrition from the days when starving people were transported for stealing a loaf of bread and minor infringements of order resulted in a lashing with the " cat of nine tails ".
Sadly, for those who have lost a loved one to murder, it seems that the value of a human life has been heavily discounted when it comes to the balances imposed by the law. Just over three months behind bars for each life Breivik snuffed out seems grossly unfair !
The last person in Australia executed for murder was Ronald Ryan, who stood on a trap door with a rope around his neck in Pentridge prison on February 3, 1967. Since then, the most severe punishment available to judges is a life sentence accompanied by the instruction " never to be released ". Unfortunately, this has no legal binding and may be overturned on appeal.
Many people will hear with utter amazement the sentence handed down to Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik. Breivik was sentenced to twenty-one years incarceration, with a minimum term of ten years. He is thirty three years old, hence at the most be will walk away a free man at the age of fifty-four, and at the least at the age of forty-three.
Surely Breivik's crime is at the extreme end of the punishment scale. He calmly and methodically planted a bomb in Oslo's government district that killed eight people and did millions of dollars of property damage. This was a ruse to cause panic while he quietly made his way to Utoya island where young people were attending a youth camp. Dressed in a police uniform and armed with a high powered rifle he methodically hunted down and caused the death of sixty nine people, delivering a death count of seventy-seven with many more wounded.
Breivik calmly surrendered when the police eventually arrived. At his trial he has shown absolutely no remorse and claims to be a hero for his efforts to save Norway from having it's Nordic traditions diluted by followers of Islam. It is clear that this outlook is still his belief, and yet the court has decided that he is not insane and must take full responsibility for his actions.
It seems that in Norway, that twenty-one year sentence is the maximum available to the judges presiding at his trial. Here in Australia, the death penalty has been taken off the books as a sentencing option, but in reality the maximum term for even a brutal murder is now twenty years. Of course, no prisoner expects to serve that full period. With good behaviour and remissions release in half that time would be usual.
The Norwegian justice system has options to withhold the release of a prisoner if that prisoner continues to be a threat to the public and that same situation exists in Australia. We have several people who have committed mass murder similar to Breivik who may never again go outside prison walls, but these are exceptions. In the minds of criminals considering murder, the expectation of prison time in Australia is far less than twenty years.
Some would say we live in a more humane age. Perhaps the erosion of punishment has been a natural process of attrition from the days when starving people were transported for stealing a loaf of bread and minor infringements of order resulted in a lashing with the " cat of nine tails ".
Sadly, for those who have lost a loved one to murder, it seems that the value of a human life has been heavily discounted when it comes to the balances imposed by the law. Just over three months behind bars for each life Breivik snuffed out seems grossly unfair !
Saturday 25 August 2012
Flying the flag !
It seems that councils have a by-law for everything these days. Even something as basic as flying the Aussie flag as a point of pride in our country. The other amazing thing is the sort of fine they threaten to impose unless we tug the forelock and obey their instructions precisely.
A Shellharbour family was big on national pride. They had a flag pole and they raised the Australian flag on it every day. When her husband died, his widow maintained this custom and over recent times she has moved house three times without incident from her flag flying - but this third move has unusual results.
It provoked a visit from council inspectors. Someone who disliked flag flying had complained to council and the inspectors were there to hold an audit. They measured the flag pole and they measured it's distance from the nearest fence - and pronounced it illegal !
The law in Shellharbour requires flag poles not to exceed six metres in height, and this flag pole measured nine metres. They must be three metres from the nearest fence, and this flag pole fell short by just half a metre. The widow received a formal letter from the council ordering her to remove the flag pole - and threatened a fine of $ 1.1 million dollars if this action was not carried out within the required time frame - and an additional fine of $ 110,000 per day thereafter.
Ludicrous scare tactics. The council have no authority to impose such a fine. They can take the case before a court and a magistrate will consider all the aspects - and decide if a fine is warranted - and what that should be. It seems that councils prefer the heave handed approach.
The widow is quite happy to lower the height of her flag pole to what the council requires, and move it that half metre away from the fence, but this incident says a lot about the nit picking that passes for civil harmony these days. It seems to be a fact of life that flying the national flag will upset some other citizen, and it seems that councils need by-laws to cover every conceivable activity that their residents may engage in - and to cover themselves against criticism for not responding to complaints.
Whatever happened to the " Live and let live " era of yesteryear ?
A Shellharbour family was big on national pride. They had a flag pole and they raised the Australian flag on it every day. When her husband died, his widow maintained this custom and over recent times she has moved house three times without incident from her flag flying - but this third move has unusual results.
It provoked a visit from council inspectors. Someone who disliked flag flying had complained to council and the inspectors were there to hold an audit. They measured the flag pole and they measured it's distance from the nearest fence - and pronounced it illegal !
The law in Shellharbour requires flag poles not to exceed six metres in height, and this flag pole measured nine metres. They must be three metres from the nearest fence, and this flag pole fell short by just half a metre. The widow received a formal letter from the council ordering her to remove the flag pole - and threatened a fine of $ 1.1 million dollars if this action was not carried out within the required time frame - and an additional fine of $ 110,000 per day thereafter.
Ludicrous scare tactics. The council have no authority to impose such a fine. They can take the case before a court and a magistrate will consider all the aspects - and decide if a fine is warranted - and what that should be. It seems that councils prefer the heave handed approach.
The widow is quite happy to lower the height of her flag pole to what the council requires, and move it that half metre away from the fence, but this incident says a lot about the nit picking that passes for civil harmony these days. It seems to be a fact of life that flying the national flag will upset some other citizen, and it seems that councils need by-laws to cover every conceivable activity that their residents may engage in - and to cover themselves against criticism for not responding to complaints.
Whatever happened to the " Live and let live " era of yesteryear ?
Friday 24 August 2012
" Bed Block " !
Here we go again ! Illawarra ambulance paramedics are now experiencing " bed block " when they bring patients to Wollongong's primary hospital. One crew was stuck in the car park for eleven hours waiting for the triage system to clear and in that time ambulances were being diverted to the Illawarra from southern Sydney and Shoalhaven because local ambulances were stuck in the queue at Wollongong hospital.
Money has been spent to enlarge the number of treatment bays in the emergency department to relieve this situation. Now the problem is lack of beds to allow patient flow from the emergency department into the wards. As a result, diverting ambulances from other areas is bringing in drivers unfamiliar with this city - and robbing other areas of the vehicles needed for a quick response to their needs.
Wollongong hospital blames the incidence of winter flu on increased numbers of patients presenting for treatment, but the answer to this problem is staring the health department in the face. We have a perfectly good hospital sitting idle just a few miles away at Bulli. It has an emergency department, but ambulances are forbidden to take patients there - and it often is totally closed to the public.
The reason Wollongong hospital has bed block is because it holds patients who could be moved to regional hospitals such as Bulli for their recovery phase. The reason this does not happen - is political. It is all a matter of money. The previous Labor government undertook a deliberate campaign to downgrade Bulli hospital with the aim of closing it completely. The present state government seems to have adopted an identical approach. Bulli is starved for funds and it's facilities under used to maintain the illusion that is it no longer needed. It sits on valuable northern suburbs land and this is seen as a source of future funds to be injected into the health system.
A little common sense could easily solve the bed flow problems at Wollongong hospital. Keep the Bulli emergency department open for minor cases, and use the skills of the paramedics to triage those patients that need minor attention - such as stitches to close a cut - and remove that load from the main emergency room at Wollongong's primary hospital.
The other obvious need is to transfer those patients in their final recovery mode to Bulli, thus freeing up ward beds to allow the patient flow from Wollongong's emergency department to be cleared, easing the incidence of " bed block " and allowing the ambulance paramedics to get on with the job of attending emergencies.
It is obvious why this is not being done. Closing Bulli is still a high priority wish on the mind of the health department, and nothing will be done to alter the image of Bulli as a fading institution, and to bring idle beds at Bulli into service would require money - which the health department lacks.
So - beds lay idle at Bulli while Wollongong has a space problem, and the meat in the sandwich are the paramedics - who spend hours attending to the patients that the emergency department can not speedily clear.
That sounds like a script from that excellent comedy - " Yes Minister ! "
Money has been spent to enlarge the number of treatment bays in the emergency department to relieve this situation. Now the problem is lack of beds to allow patient flow from the emergency department into the wards. As a result, diverting ambulances from other areas is bringing in drivers unfamiliar with this city - and robbing other areas of the vehicles needed for a quick response to their needs.
Wollongong hospital blames the incidence of winter flu on increased numbers of patients presenting for treatment, but the answer to this problem is staring the health department in the face. We have a perfectly good hospital sitting idle just a few miles away at Bulli. It has an emergency department, but ambulances are forbidden to take patients there - and it often is totally closed to the public.
The reason Wollongong hospital has bed block is because it holds patients who could be moved to regional hospitals such as Bulli for their recovery phase. The reason this does not happen - is political. It is all a matter of money. The previous Labor government undertook a deliberate campaign to downgrade Bulli hospital with the aim of closing it completely. The present state government seems to have adopted an identical approach. Bulli is starved for funds and it's facilities under used to maintain the illusion that is it no longer needed. It sits on valuable northern suburbs land and this is seen as a source of future funds to be injected into the health system.
A little common sense could easily solve the bed flow problems at Wollongong hospital. Keep the Bulli emergency department open for minor cases, and use the skills of the paramedics to triage those patients that need minor attention - such as stitches to close a cut - and remove that load from the main emergency room at Wollongong's primary hospital.
The other obvious need is to transfer those patients in their final recovery mode to Bulli, thus freeing up ward beds to allow the patient flow from Wollongong's emergency department to be cleared, easing the incidence of " bed block " and allowing the ambulance paramedics to get on with the job of attending emergencies.
It is obvious why this is not being done. Closing Bulli is still a high priority wish on the mind of the health department, and nothing will be done to alter the image of Bulli as a fading institution, and to bring idle beds at Bulli into service would require money - which the health department lacks.
So - beds lay idle at Bulli while Wollongong has a space problem, and the meat in the sandwich are the paramedics - who spend hours attending to the patients that the emergency department can not speedily clear.
That sounds like a script from that excellent comedy - " Yes Minister ! "
Thursday 23 August 2012
Graffiti law change !
Prior to the last New South Wales state election, Barry O'Farrell promised a harsh crackdown on those who deface public property with graffiti. He proposed to enact legislation to strip offenders of their drivers license in the hope that the fear of license loss would have a sobering effect on the urge to deface property.
Fortunately, the Shooter's Party gained the balance of power in the upper house and this legislation has been amended to drop the license loss provision, and that is likely to be replaced with a provision to extend the period under which " P " plate rules will apply as a graffiti punishment.
The problem with the license loss option was the probability that we would see a sharp increase of unlicensed young drivers using our roads, and that would have severe legal consequences in the event that they were involved in an accident. Insurers insist that the cover they provide applies only if the vehicle is legally registered and has third party greenslip insurance - and the driver holds a legal driving license.
The people who use graffiti are usually young and impetuous. They are unlikely to think through the consequences of license loss - until after it happens, and then it is too late. This same impetuous outlook is then liable to put them behind the wheel of a vehicle - unlicensed - and that can have massive financial consequences for other motorists.
We have a legal system that cancels driving licenses for dangerous driving practices. It is a long leap of faith to extend driving license bans for other than driving offences because the two are not related. Once that line has been crossed, how many other matters before a civil court will end up delivering a driving license ban as punishment ?
Cancelling a driving license is not something to be taken lightly. In many cases, loss of a license automatically means loss of employment and given the limitations of the public transport system, it can become a reason children do not attend school. The society we have created is built around the car as a means of transport, and if that fails it can deliver a devastating life change to any suburban family. The consequences of license loss is something magistrates need to ponder deeply to avoid creating a new reason for the same offenders to reappear before the court system.
Those encouraging license loss as a punishment for graffiti are reliant on the newly introduced number plate recognition technology to weed out unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles, but we already have an example of how law changes fail as a deterrent. " Skye's Law " was introduced to penalise those who deliberately cause a high speed police chase when they refuse to stop when ordered. Very little has changed. Trying to escape is an impulsive action. Regrets usually come only after the offender is cuffed and on his or her way to a police charge room.
This graffiti punishment law has had a forced amendment because of the hold on power by a minor party. The change will irritate some offenders by extending the time they will have the restrictions required by " P " plates, but it will not unleash a new wave of unlicensed drivers and the legal mayhem that would deliver to ordinary road users.
Let us hope that magistrates abide by the issues involved when they are considering traffic matters !
Fortunately, the Shooter's Party gained the balance of power in the upper house and this legislation has been amended to drop the license loss provision, and that is likely to be replaced with a provision to extend the period under which " P " plate rules will apply as a graffiti punishment.
The problem with the license loss option was the probability that we would see a sharp increase of unlicensed young drivers using our roads, and that would have severe legal consequences in the event that they were involved in an accident. Insurers insist that the cover they provide applies only if the vehicle is legally registered and has third party greenslip insurance - and the driver holds a legal driving license.
The people who use graffiti are usually young and impetuous. They are unlikely to think through the consequences of license loss - until after it happens, and then it is too late. This same impetuous outlook is then liable to put them behind the wheel of a vehicle - unlicensed - and that can have massive financial consequences for other motorists.
We have a legal system that cancels driving licenses for dangerous driving practices. It is a long leap of faith to extend driving license bans for other than driving offences because the two are not related. Once that line has been crossed, how many other matters before a civil court will end up delivering a driving license ban as punishment ?
Cancelling a driving license is not something to be taken lightly. In many cases, loss of a license automatically means loss of employment and given the limitations of the public transport system, it can become a reason children do not attend school. The society we have created is built around the car as a means of transport, and if that fails it can deliver a devastating life change to any suburban family. The consequences of license loss is something magistrates need to ponder deeply to avoid creating a new reason for the same offenders to reappear before the court system.
Those encouraging license loss as a punishment for graffiti are reliant on the newly introduced number plate recognition technology to weed out unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles, but we already have an example of how law changes fail as a deterrent. " Skye's Law " was introduced to penalise those who deliberately cause a high speed police chase when they refuse to stop when ordered. Very little has changed. Trying to escape is an impulsive action. Regrets usually come only after the offender is cuffed and on his or her way to a police charge room.
This graffiti punishment law has had a forced amendment because of the hold on power by a minor party. The change will irritate some offenders by extending the time they will have the restrictions required by " P " plates, but it will not unleash a new wave of unlicensed drivers and the legal mayhem that would deliver to ordinary road users.
Let us hope that magistrates abide by the issues involved when they are considering traffic matters !
Wednesday 22 August 2012
Muzzling the press !
The " Craig Thomson " affair did a lot of damage to the credibility of the Australian Labor party. The unions are an integral part of the Labor machine and the fact that union leaders were playing fast and loose with members funds did not go down well with Labor supporters. To make the matter worse, the usual faction fighting had events surrounding the matter leaking like a sieve - and now there are moves to strap an iron muzzle on all sections of the media.
A Labor enquiry has recommended that sanctions be imposed on journalists who publish leaked information from parliamentary enquiries. It is suggested that these " leaks " be referred to the Privileges committee to deliver a verdict of " contempt " if evidence before any enquiry is published.
The suggested penalty would be the denial of access to parliament house for those found guilty of contempt, and this would apply not only to the Parliamentary press gallery, but to external members of the journalistic profession. In other words, a complete lock down on any writer who dares reveal the inner workings of an Australian government.
It completely ignores the notion of a " free press " whose job it is to inform the nation of events within and without the houses of parliament. The basic function of such a free press is to ferret out the dirty little secrets that politicians seek to keep from the public - and air this " dirty linen " in a public place.
We live in a world where a free press is a sign of an " open society ". Many nations control their media with an iron fist and any journalist who gets out of line can see the inside of a gaol cell - or perhaps suffers an unfortunate " accident " on the way to work that results in an early death.
It seems that the suggestions from this enquiry accept that it is impossible to muzzle the whistle blowers who leak information to journalists. People of conscience will not stay silent when attempts are made to mislead the public and so the vulnerable target is now those who process this information and share it with the world.
It is a defence that is doomed to failure. All that will be achieved is a new transmission path - along which that leaked information travels. We have seen the consternation that Wikileaks achieved when it published matter that governments wanted to be kept secret. Muzzling journalists will not stop the information flow. It will simply redirect it to the Internet and from there local journalists will be free to publish without the question of from whence it was obtained. The Internet will provide the anonymity that separates the " giver " from the " receiver ".
Whenever there is a call to stifle investigative journalism, it rings alarm bells that more bad news is in the pipeline. The release of unflattering commentary about the inner wheels of government is a normal hazard of politics. The rising level of discomfort is directly geared to the future damage levels that those in the know can see emerging.
It is a pity that more effort is not spent cleaning up the emerging problems rather than simply trying to hide the facts from the public. History tells us that despite the best efforts of some rather ruthless regimes, in the end the truth always finds a way to emerge !
A Labor enquiry has recommended that sanctions be imposed on journalists who publish leaked information from parliamentary enquiries. It is suggested that these " leaks " be referred to the Privileges committee to deliver a verdict of " contempt " if evidence before any enquiry is published.
The suggested penalty would be the denial of access to parliament house for those found guilty of contempt, and this would apply not only to the Parliamentary press gallery, but to external members of the journalistic profession. In other words, a complete lock down on any writer who dares reveal the inner workings of an Australian government.
It completely ignores the notion of a " free press " whose job it is to inform the nation of events within and without the houses of parliament. The basic function of such a free press is to ferret out the dirty little secrets that politicians seek to keep from the public - and air this " dirty linen " in a public place.
We live in a world where a free press is a sign of an " open society ". Many nations control their media with an iron fist and any journalist who gets out of line can see the inside of a gaol cell - or perhaps suffers an unfortunate " accident " on the way to work that results in an early death.
It seems that the suggestions from this enquiry accept that it is impossible to muzzle the whistle blowers who leak information to journalists. People of conscience will not stay silent when attempts are made to mislead the public and so the vulnerable target is now those who process this information and share it with the world.
It is a defence that is doomed to failure. All that will be achieved is a new transmission path - along which that leaked information travels. We have seen the consternation that Wikileaks achieved when it published matter that governments wanted to be kept secret. Muzzling journalists will not stop the information flow. It will simply redirect it to the Internet and from there local journalists will be free to publish without the question of from whence it was obtained. The Internet will provide the anonymity that separates the " giver " from the " receiver ".
Whenever there is a call to stifle investigative journalism, it rings alarm bells that more bad news is in the pipeline. The release of unflattering commentary about the inner wheels of government is a normal hazard of politics. The rising level of discomfort is directly geared to the future damage levels that those in the know can see emerging.
It is a pity that more effort is not spent cleaning up the emerging problems rather than simply trying to hide the facts from the public. History tells us that despite the best efforts of some rather ruthless regimes, in the end the truth always finds a way to emerge !
Tuesday 21 August 2012
A speck in the ocean !
A pearl starts it's life as an annoying grain of sand that somehow manages to get insider an oyster's shell. It so irritates the oyster that is tries to dislodge it and over years that grain of sand becomes coated with matter that hardens and gains lustre. Eventually, it becomes an item of great beauty, destined to be a valued gem in a world where jewellery adorns the rich and famous.
In the south China sea, an archipelago of rocky outcrops is providing irritants to a number of adjoining countries. In particular, Japan and China are feuding over islands that Japan calls Senkaku and China calls Diaoyu. Both regard these outcrops as part of their national territory, and both are engaged in a ritual of citizens trying to raise their national flags on the islands as proof of claim.
The danger is that when push comes to shove, the respective navies will become involved. At present, the argument is mainly verbal and tactical, a gathering of support within the United Nations, with private citizens keeping the issue prominent by private landings and flag waving.
To most people, these islands are irrelevant. They can not support residents because they are bare rocks rising out of the sea, without drinking water, soil or even flat land for housing. In fact, neither country has plans to create a permanent residency. The entire striving for recognition of sovereignty is to gain the mineral rights encompassed within the laws of the United Nations.
All countries have a twelve mile nautical zone of exclusive rights surrounding the coastline of national territory, plus a variety of fishing, mineral exploration and air space rights that are catered for by various United Nations charters. This can confer the right of a nation owning a mere speck of rock rising from the sea to a vast surrounding area to explore for oil and minerals. Should a discovery eventuate, it would be within that country's exclusive right to develop - and gain the financial rewards.
No one can be sure whether oil and minerals are present in the South China sea, but exploration technology is ever expanding, and the value of the earth's minerals to economic prosperity is tending to exceed manufacturing. As a result, gaining national sovereignty of even a small speck in a vast ocean is a matter of increasing importance.
This look like bringing the aspirations of Vietnam, The Philippines, China and Japan into collision. Not only does China regard it's old island of Formosa - now called Taiwan - as a renegade prefecture, but Japan also has an issue with Russia over home islands seized at the end of the second world war. There are even claims in China that the Philippines was originally Chinese territory.
It seems certain that ever expanding population growth and the need for more industry in Asia will create pressures that could lead to conflict over conflicting territorial claims. It is ominous that China has stated that the expansion of it's armed forces is required to " win local wars in our area of the world ".
To many, that can only mean using force when peaceful means fail !
In the south China sea, an archipelago of rocky outcrops is providing irritants to a number of adjoining countries. In particular, Japan and China are feuding over islands that Japan calls Senkaku and China calls Diaoyu. Both regard these outcrops as part of their national territory, and both are engaged in a ritual of citizens trying to raise their national flags on the islands as proof of claim.
The danger is that when push comes to shove, the respective navies will become involved. At present, the argument is mainly verbal and tactical, a gathering of support within the United Nations, with private citizens keeping the issue prominent by private landings and flag waving.
To most people, these islands are irrelevant. They can not support residents because they are bare rocks rising out of the sea, without drinking water, soil or even flat land for housing. In fact, neither country has plans to create a permanent residency. The entire striving for recognition of sovereignty is to gain the mineral rights encompassed within the laws of the United Nations.
All countries have a twelve mile nautical zone of exclusive rights surrounding the coastline of national territory, plus a variety of fishing, mineral exploration and air space rights that are catered for by various United Nations charters. This can confer the right of a nation owning a mere speck of rock rising from the sea to a vast surrounding area to explore for oil and minerals. Should a discovery eventuate, it would be within that country's exclusive right to develop - and gain the financial rewards.
No one can be sure whether oil and minerals are present in the South China sea, but exploration technology is ever expanding, and the value of the earth's minerals to economic prosperity is tending to exceed manufacturing. As a result, gaining national sovereignty of even a small speck in a vast ocean is a matter of increasing importance.
This look like bringing the aspirations of Vietnam, The Philippines, China and Japan into collision. Not only does China regard it's old island of Formosa - now called Taiwan - as a renegade prefecture, but Japan also has an issue with Russia over home islands seized at the end of the second world war. There are even claims in China that the Philippines was originally Chinese territory.
It seems certain that ever expanding population growth and the need for more industry in Asia will create pressures that could lead to conflict over conflicting territorial claims. It is ominous that China has stated that the expansion of it's armed forces is required to " win local wars in our area of the world ".
To many, that can only mean using force when peaceful means fail !
Sunday 19 August 2012
The " Pussy Riot " threat to Putin.
Vladimir Putin is the new Czar of Russia. This is a country that has long existed under authoritarian rule. The Communist revolution merely replaced an old dictator with a new face and Russian citizens are used to harsh repression and unfair courts. Josef Stalin ruled with an iron fist and during the years of the " cold war " it was prudent to keep silent on any ideas of revolt for fear of a term of imprisonment in the Gulags.
There was a brief interlude of light and freedom. Mikhail Gorbachov introduced " perestroika " as the Soviet system crumbled and later Boris Yeltsin presided over an era when state assets were sold at fire sale prices to entrepeneurs. and a new wealthy class emerged with oil, gas and media interests. No longer encircled by an "iron curtain ", Russians travelled abroad. A new era was dawning.
It was not to be. " Vlad - the Impaler " emerged from the ranks of the old KGB with the skills to manipulate his way to power. He certainly showed skill in taking back state assets that had passed into private hands, but the methods used were brutal. Any person who stood in Putin's way found trumped up charges laid and faced a court that obeyed Putin's orders. Convicted of dubious crimes, their assets were seized and they received long terms in the Russian prison system. Putin emerged as a man to be feared.
Russia has just had an election that was laced with suspicious vote rigging. Putin is firmly in the driver's seat, but for the first time there is an upswell of opposition to his rule and the Russian people have had the courage to mass in the streets at anti-Putin demonstrations. The police and the courts are firmly under Putin's control, but - uneasy lays the head which wears a crown. As the history books show, the seeds of revolution start in unexpected places, and right now events in Russia are developing what could become the focal point of change.
A group of young women with the improbable name of " Pussy Riot " invaded one of Moscow's cathedrals and staged a song and dance act calling for the church to oppose Putin's rule. From a legal point of view it was a misdemeanour but the authorities reacted by arresting three of the young women and holding them in prison for five months before the case came before a court. There were threats that a seven year prison sentence could be imposed and Putin tried to mollify outrage by expressing the hope that the judges would be more merciful. They have since handed down a two year sentence.
"Pussy Riot" has caught the public imagination. Around the world, demonstrations have been held calling for their release and the trial has lit a match to gunpowder in Russia. The more Putin and the authorities try to hose down this opposition, the more it is likely to grow, and it could become the nucleus of a groundswell that is impossible to control.
The future is unclear. Putin may use guns, batons and fire hoses to cower the mob and emerge the winner - but it is also worth noting that the " Arab Spring " arose from a simple incident when a vegetable seller immolated because of despair with the system. Half a dozen countries erupted into civil war from that incident, and in Russia the actions of several comely young women now hang in the balance.
The history books will reveal the end of this story !
There was a brief interlude of light and freedom. Mikhail Gorbachov introduced " perestroika " as the Soviet system crumbled and later Boris Yeltsin presided over an era when state assets were sold at fire sale prices to entrepeneurs. and a new wealthy class emerged with oil, gas and media interests. No longer encircled by an "iron curtain ", Russians travelled abroad. A new era was dawning.
It was not to be. " Vlad - the Impaler " emerged from the ranks of the old KGB with the skills to manipulate his way to power. He certainly showed skill in taking back state assets that had passed into private hands, but the methods used were brutal. Any person who stood in Putin's way found trumped up charges laid and faced a court that obeyed Putin's orders. Convicted of dubious crimes, their assets were seized and they received long terms in the Russian prison system. Putin emerged as a man to be feared.
Russia has just had an election that was laced with suspicious vote rigging. Putin is firmly in the driver's seat, but for the first time there is an upswell of opposition to his rule and the Russian people have had the courage to mass in the streets at anti-Putin demonstrations. The police and the courts are firmly under Putin's control, but - uneasy lays the head which wears a crown. As the history books show, the seeds of revolution start in unexpected places, and right now events in Russia are developing what could become the focal point of change.
A group of young women with the improbable name of " Pussy Riot " invaded one of Moscow's cathedrals and staged a song and dance act calling for the church to oppose Putin's rule. From a legal point of view it was a misdemeanour but the authorities reacted by arresting three of the young women and holding them in prison for five months before the case came before a court. There were threats that a seven year prison sentence could be imposed and Putin tried to mollify outrage by expressing the hope that the judges would be more merciful. They have since handed down a two year sentence.
"Pussy Riot" has caught the public imagination. Around the world, demonstrations have been held calling for their release and the trial has lit a match to gunpowder in Russia. The more Putin and the authorities try to hose down this opposition, the more it is likely to grow, and it could become the nucleus of a groundswell that is impossible to control.
The future is unclear. Putin may use guns, batons and fire hoses to cower the mob and emerge the winner - but it is also worth noting that the " Arab Spring " arose from a simple incident when a vegetable seller immolated because of despair with the system. Half a dozen countries erupted into civil war from that incident, and in Russia the actions of several comely young women now hang in the balance.
The history books will reveal the end of this story !
An end to diplomatic immunity ?
Events in Europe are showing just how terrified governments have become since Australian Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, successfully hacked United States computers and revealed state secrets that severely embarrassed it's administration. It seems that the governments of America, Britain and Sweden have joined in a trumped up plot to deport Assange to Sweden where he would be vulnerable to a US arrest warrant - and deportation to the United States where he could face the death penalty.
Assange had fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has been granted political asylum. Amazingly, Britain is now threatening to withdraw that embassy's political accreditation and have the police storm the building and arrest Assange.. This could be the most savage attack on the principles of diplomatic immunity since the protocol was established centuries earlier.
Of all countries to lead the charge to dump political immunity, the least likely would seem to be Britain. This was the country that gave the world the tenets of democracy by way of " Magna Carta " and " Habeas Corpus ". It was the British Empire that imposed it's judicial system on half the world and that system of justice is now the foundation of law in most of those former colonies. It seems ludicrous that the attack on diplomatic immunity is condoned by that other great champion of the democratic process, the United States of America. During the " cold war " years, America upheld the principle of diplomatic immunity in the face of impossible odds.
Older folks may remember the time when Catholic Cardinal Josef Mindszenky spent fifteen years holed up in the US embassy in Budapest. The Cardinal had spoken out about the excesses of the Stalinist regime in Hungary and was facing a life sentence in a Communist gaol. The Americans gave him refuge despite long and constant aggravation from the Warsaw block which saw their embassy constantly surrounded and harassed by police.
The British seemed to have had a different outlook on diplomatic immunity back in 1984 when policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was on duty holding back a protest mob outside the Libyan embassy in London. A shot from within the embassy caused her death and there were calls for the murderer to face justice. Britain upheld the sanctity of immunity that protected the embassy and all those inside were allowed to leave the country unmolested. They travelled across London to the airport in embassy cars - which enjoyed the same diplomatic protection as the embassy buildings - and boarded a plane for Tripoli. It is interesting to note that Britain is now refusing that same protection to allow Assange to leave the country for Ecuador.
If Britain withdraws diplomatic immunity from the Ecuadoran embassy or allows the police to storm the building it will bring on a world change of monumental proportions. The sanctity of diplomatic immunity has already suffered damage following the 1981 storming of the United States embassy in Iran. That could be partly justified because the attackers were an enraged civilian mob, but the fact that the country's incoming leader - Ayatollah Khomeini held diplomats as captive pawns for 444 days served to make Iran a political outlaw from which it has yet to recover. It is still regarded by many as an outlaw regime.
Perhaps the present British change of direction can be dismissed as simply " a rush of blood " and sanity will return and common sense prevail. It seems that many world leaders are so frightened of Julian Assange and his capacity to penetrate their security and release secrets to the world that they are prepared to condone the dismantling of an institution that has served the world well.
Without diplomatic immunity the opportunity to exchange views will be lessened - and the world we live in will become an even more dangerous place !
Assange had fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has been granted political asylum. Amazingly, Britain is now threatening to withdraw that embassy's political accreditation and have the police storm the building and arrest Assange.. This could be the most savage attack on the principles of diplomatic immunity since the protocol was established centuries earlier.
Of all countries to lead the charge to dump political immunity, the least likely would seem to be Britain. This was the country that gave the world the tenets of democracy by way of " Magna Carta " and " Habeas Corpus ". It was the British Empire that imposed it's judicial system on half the world and that system of justice is now the foundation of law in most of those former colonies. It seems ludicrous that the attack on diplomatic immunity is condoned by that other great champion of the democratic process, the United States of America. During the " cold war " years, America upheld the principle of diplomatic immunity in the face of impossible odds.
Older folks may remember the time when Catholic Cardinal Josef Mindszenky spent fifteen years holed up in the US embassy in Budapest. The Cardinal had spoken out about the excesses of the Stalinist regime in Hungary and was facing a life sentence in a Communist gaol. The Americans gave him refuge despite long and constant aggravation from the Warsaw block which saw their embassy constantly surrounded and harassed by police.
The British seemed to have had a different outlook on diplomatic immunity back in 1984 when policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was on duty holding back a protest mob outside the Libyan embassy in London. A shot from within the embassy caused her death and there were calls for the murderer to face justice. Britain upheld the sanctity of immunity that protected the embassy and all those inside were allowed to leave the country unmolested. They travelled across London to the airport in embassy cars - which enjoyed the same diplomatic protection as the embassy buildings - and boarded a plane for Tripoli. It is interesting to note that Britain is now refusing that same protection to allow Assange to leave the country for Ecuador.
If Britain withdraws diplomatic immunity from the Ecuadoran embassy or allows the police to storm the building it will bring on a world change of monumental proportions. The sanctity of diplomatic immunity has already suffered damage following the 1981 storming of the United States embassy in Iran. That could be partly justified because the attackers were an enraged civilian mob, but the fact that the country's incoming leader - Ayatollah Khomeini held diplomats as captive pawns for 444 days served to make Iran a political outlaw from which it has yet to recover. It is still regarded by many as an outlaw regime.
Perhaps the present British change of direction can be dismissed as simply " a rush of blood " and sanity will return and common sense prevail. It seems that many world leaders are so frightened of Julian Assange and his capacity to penetrate their security and release secrets to the world that they are prepared to condone the dismantling of an institution that has served the world well.
Without diplomatic immunity the opportunity to exchange views will be lessened - and the world we live in will become an even more dangerous place !
Saturday 18 August 2012
A timely call !
In November last year we were shocked by graphic pictures on television showing the damage when fire swept through a Quakers Hill nursing home. Several patients were killed in their beds and others died days later from smoke inhalation. The final death count was eleven deaths and it seems that this fire was a deliberate act of arson.
The New South Wales parliament has bitten the bullet and passed legislation requiring automatic fire sprinkler systems to be installed in all nursing homes - with an eighteen month deadline. There are special provisions to give those institutions facing finance problems a three year period of grace, but it is evident that without the Federal government providing financial assistance, some nursing homes will simply close their doors.
We are already desperately short of nursing home beds. We have an ageing population and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease is steadily rising, requiring more and more high care beds to treat those afflicted. This requirement to install fire sprinkler systems is timely. The people less able to quickly respond to a fire alarm or any other type of emergency are those in either a hospital or nursing home bed. Hospital sprinkler systems have long been mandatory. Their extension to nursing homes is overdue.
There is no doubt that this legislation will hit the nursing home industry financially. Nursing home stock is a mix of government owned facilities, big not-for-profit groups with multiple campuses, and large numbers of private facilities delivering a financial return to their owners. It is this latter group that will be hardest hit finding the finance to install sprinklers and costs are predicted to run to about $ 170 million.
What we are likely to see is a re-think of the terms which apply to smaller nursing homes. If installing sprinkler systems is financially out of the question, the only option would be to cease providing nursing home services and restructure the facility as a pre-nursing home group living facility. Something of a "missing link " for those having difficulty in maintaining a decent living standard in their own homes, and yet not needing the facilities provided by a nursing home. The danger is that the margins will become blurred, and as these residents age and need nursing home care, the facilities will not be available and the " self care " facility will simply morph into a de-facto nursing home - without sprinklers.
It seems that the only way to maintain standards and not lose nursing home beds will require some sort of financial arrangement between the industry and both the Federal and state governments. This comes at a time when all tiers of government are strapped for money, but providing fire safety is not negotiable and if the private sector of nursing home availability withers away, the cost of restoration will eventually rest on government shoulders. A little help now may defer a much bigger bill later.
This is timely legislation. The Quakers Hill fire illustrated how vulnerable are those residing in nursing homes and this was just one of several fatal fires that have occurred - with tragic results. Now it is just a matter of sorting out how to pay for what is an absolute necessity !
The New South Wales parliament has bitten the bullet and passed legislation requiring automatic fire sprinkler systems to be installed in all nursing homes - with an eighteen month deadline. There are special provisions to give those institutions facing finance problems a three year period of grace, but it is evident that without the Federal government providing financial assistance, some nursing homes will simply close their doors.
We are already desperately short of nursing home beds. We have an ageing population and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease is steadily rising, requiring more and more high care beds to treat those afflicted. This requirement to install fire sprinkler systems is timely. The people less able to quickly respond to a fire alarm or any other type of emergency are those in either a hospital or nursing home bed. Hospital sprinkler systems have long been mandatory. Their extension to nursing homes is overdue.
There is no doubt that this legislation will hit the nursing home industry financially. Nursing home stock is a mix of government owned facilities, big not-for-profit groups with multiple campuses, and large numbers of private facilities delivering a financial return to their owners. It is this latter group that will be hardest hit finding the finance to install sprinklers and costs are predicted to run to about $ 170 million.
What we are likely to see is a re-think of the terms which apply to smaller nursing homes. If installing sprinkler systems is financially out of the question, the only option would be to cease providing nursing home services and restructure the facility as a pre-nursing home group living facility. Something of a "missing link " for those having difficulty in maintaining a decent living standard in their own homes, and yet not needing the facilities provided by a nursing home. The danger is that the margins will become blurred, and as these residents age and need nursing home care, the facilities will not be available and the " self care " facility will simply morph into a de-facto nursing home - without sprinklers.
It seems that the only way to maintain standards and not lose nursing home beds will require some sort of financial arrangement between the industry and both the Federal and state governments. This comes at a time when all tiers of government are strapped for money, but providing fire safety is not negotiable and if the private sector of nursing home availability withers away, the cost of restoration will eventually rest on government shoulders. A little help now may defer a much bigger bill later.
This is timely legislation. The Quakers Hill fire illustrated how vulnerable are those residing in nursing homes and this was just one of several fatal fires that have occurred - with tragic results. Now it is just a matter of sorting out how to pay for what is an absolute necessity !
Friday 17 August 2012
Walking a thin line !
There is something Quixotic about that High Court decision requiring tobacco to be sold in " plain packaging ". Even that terminology is a misnomer ! The packaging will be far from " plain ". It will be deliberately designed to be repulsive and it will feature lurid pictures of human diseases, said to be caused by the use of nicotine. It is openly stated that the aim of this new packaging requirement is to influence smokers to cease the habit !
Where this new law walks a thin line is the inescapable truth that tobacco remains a legal product ! The same government that wishes to deter smokers from buying cigarettes seems unconcerned that the farming of tobacco leaf is a major cash crop in both New South Wales and Queensland, and the Federal budget happily collects a huge tax bonanza from the excise on tobacco. There seems to be no plans to substitute other crops for tobacco and the government is saying that if big Tobacco drops the price of cigarettes, it will immediately increase the tobacco tax to keep the product expensive - and of course that would simply add to the amount of tax going into government coffers.
The big question is whether the withdrawal of popular branding and it's replacement by disease illustrations will convince people to stop buying - and using - the product !
Smoking statistics have been dropping for years. There seems little doubt that nicotine injures the heath of those who smoke and that tobacco is the cause of many early deaths. It is an addictive product, but then so is marijuana, cocaine, heroin and various other " social drugs " which are subjected to draconian laws. All these are deemed to be illegal and getting caught trading them can result in serious gaol time. Why not simply add tobacco - and make it another illegal product ?
That question brings a deathly silence. No side of politics - including the fanatical Greens - seems inclined to take a world first and face the wrath of those addicted to a product that will most likely trim years off their life span. There is no chance that making tobacco illegal would stop the flow of nicotine to those who desire it. The huge efforts that have gone into drug eradication have failed miserably. Anybody seeking marijuana, cocaine or heroin has no problem finding a pusher. If tobacco was illegal, it would simply join the trade making the drug barons rich.
Some tobacco users would probably feel relief if tobacco became illegal. It would be the pivot point to supply the incentive to kick the habit. There is a big difference in going into a shop and buying a product over the counter - and seeking out a criminal and committing a punishable offence. We have taken a world first with this packaging legislation and it is likely that many other countries will follow in our footsteps. Would taking a step further and imposing a total tobacco ban not be logical ?
Perhaps that is a decision for some time in the future. The necessity for politics to determine choices seems to favour incremental steps rather than giant strides. There is the loss of farming votes to be considered if a major crop is outlawed and the Treasurer would pale at the thought of a huge budget hole if tobacco excise ceases.
The parliament should be congratulated on having the nerve to take an expensive roll of the dice and survive a High Court challenge. Unfortunately, the next courageous step may be a long time coming !
Where this new law walks a thin line is the inescapable truth that tobacco remains a legal product ! The same government that wishes to deter smokers from buying cigarettes seems unconcerned that the farming of tobacco leaf is a major cash crop in both New South Wales and Queensland, and the Federal budget happily collects a huge tax bonanza from the excise on tobacco. There seems to be no plans to substitute other crops for tobacco and the government is saying that if big Tobacco drops the price of cigarettes, it will immediately increase the tobacco tax to keep the product expensive - and of course that would simply add to the amount of tax going into government coffers.
The big question is whether the withdrawal of popular branding and it's replacement by disease illustrations will convince people to stop buying - and using - the product !
Smoking statistics have been dropping for years. There seems little doubt that nicotine injures the heath of those who smoke and that tobacco is the cause of many early deaths. It is an addictive product, but then so is marijuana, cocaine, heroin and various other " social drugs " which are subjected to draconian laws. All these are deemed to be illegal and getting caught trading them can result in serious gaol time. Why not simply add tobacco - and make it another illegal product ?
That question brings a deathly silence. No side of politics - including the fanatical Greens - seems inclined to take a world first and face the wrath of those addicted to a product that will most likely trim years off their life span. There is no chance that making tobacco illegal would stop the flow of nicotine to those who desire it. The huge efforts that have gone into drug eradication have failed miserably. Anybody seeking marijuana, cocaine or heroin has no problem finding a pusher. If tobacco was illegal, it would simply join the trade making the drug barons rich.
Some tobacco users would probably feel relief if tobacco became illegal. It would be the pivot point to supply the incentive to kick the habit. There is a big difference in going into a shop and buying a product over the counter - and seeking out a criminal and committing a punishable offence. We have taken a world first with this packaging legislation and it is likely that many other countries will follow in our footsteps. Would taking a step further and imposing a total tobacco ban not be logical ?
Perhaps that is a decision for some time in the future. The necessity for politics to determine choices seems to favour incremental steps rather than giant strides. There is the loss of farming votes to be considered if a major crop is outlawed and the Treasurer would pale at the thought of a huge budget hole if tobacco excise ceases.
The parliament should be congratulated on having the nerve to take an expensive roll of the dice and survive a High Court challenge. Unfortunately, the next courageous step may be a long time coming !
Thursday 16 August 2012
Ghosts from a distant era !
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon is trying to reform workplace laws to dump double time pay rates for weekend work. Many of today's young people must find them peculiar. They would most certainly have no idea of the strange world of commerce we lived in fifty or sixty years ago.
That was an era when governments, employers, unions and the churches had this quaint notion that all forms of business should only be conducted between the hours of nine am and six pm, five days a week. It reluctantly permitted some small shops to open before the morning starting time and after the evening close to service the need for items such as a pint of milk or a loaf of bread, but this was frowned upon and subjected to strict controls.
Saturday morning trading was a continuing battle in many areas. Some councils permitted shops to open from nine am to noon, but other areas insisted on a five day shopping week. The one thing that was universally imposed - was a complete trading ban on Sunday. The pubs were not permitted to trade. The movie theatres did not trade. About the only establishment that opened it's doors on a Sunday - were the churches.
Gradually, pressure built to provide service outside these restricted hours, and so commenced a vast system of penalties to keep opening hours under control. Wages rate were required to be paid at time and a half or double time for employees required to work weekends or evenings - and this system is still with us in these more enlightened times.
We are now a twenty-four hour, seven day society. There are few laws restricting the hours in which service can be provided. That is a matter for the proprietor, and if there is demand for a service - then it will be provided if it delivers a profitable outcome. This huge expansion of shopping hours is the reason for the vast array of jobs offering - in comparison to the restricted market of half a century ago.
Unfortunately, retaining penalty rates for businesses opening outside that ancient nine to six culture is the reason many establishments choose to close their doors on weekends and in the evenings. That impost makes a profit marginal and it is simply not worth the effort, As a result, many job opportunities that would help lower the unemployment rate go begging !
Nick Xenophon wants people to accept that getting a job means working a shift somewhere in that 24/7 culture that is our modern working world. The hours required need to be a balance negotiated according to where the work is available, and this will suit the lifestyle of different types of people. Many people with a surf culture would welcome a night shift that allows them the freedom to ride the waves during the day. Others may prefer weekend work in preference to day shifts if they are studying to improve their professional skills. The need for penalty rates of pay is no longer applicable.
Some will see this proposal as a radical idea, but if it succeeds it will certainly encourage many businesses to extend their trading hours, and that means an extension of the job market. Penalty rates belonged to a time when society sought to restrict the hours of trade. That is no longer the thinking in this booming twenty-first century !
That was an era when governments, employers, unions and the churches had this quaint notion that all forms of business should only be conducted between the hours of nine am and six pm, five days a week. It reluctantly permitted some small shops to open before the morning starting time and after the evening close to service the need for items such as a pint of milk or a loaf of bread, but this was frowned upon and subjected to strict controls.
Saturday morning trading was a continuing battle in many areas. Some councils permitted shops to open from nine am to noon, but other areas insisted on a five day shopping week. The one thing that was universally imposed - was a complete trading ban on Sunday. The pubs were not permitted to trade. The movie theatres did not trade. About the only establishment that opened it's doors on a Sunday - were the churches.
Gradually, pressure built to provide service outside these restricted hours, and so commenced a vast system of penalties to keep opening hours under control. Wages rate were required to be paid at time and a half or double time for employees required to work weekends or evenings - and this system is still with us in these more enlightened times.
We are now a twenty-four hour, seven day society. There are few laws restricting the hours in which service can be provided. That is a matter for the proprietor, and if there is demand for a service - then it will be provided if it delivers a profitable outcome. This huge expansion of shopping hours is the reason for the vast array of jobs offering - in comparison to the restricted market of half a century ago.
Unfortunately, retaining penalty rates for businesses opening outside that ancient nine to six culture is the reason many establishments choose to close their doors on weekends and in the evenings. That impost makes a profit marginal and it is simply not worth the effort, As a result, many job opportunities that would help lower the unemployment rate go begging !
Nick Xenophon wants people to accept that getting a job means working a shift somewhere in that 24/7 culture that is our modern working world. The hours required need to be a balance negotiated according to where the work is available, and this will suit the lifestyle of different types of people. Many people with a surf culture would welcome a night shift that allows them the freedom to ride the waves during the day. Others may prefer weekend work in preference to day shifts if they are studying to improve their professional skills. The need for penalty rates of pay is no longer applicable.
Some will see this proposal as a radical idea, but if it succeeds it will certainly encourage many businesses to extend their trading hours, and that means an extension of the job market. Penalty rates belonged to a time when society sought to restrict the hours of trade. That is no longer the thinking in this booming twenty-first century !
Wednesday 15 August 2012
A historical lesson !
It is said that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat those same mistakes. That seems to be the case with the call by the Australian Council of Social Services ( ACOSS ) for the repeal of negative gearing legislation.
The Hawke government in the 1980's did just that - and investors fled the rental housing market. It was quickly reinstated and housing rental stocks began to climb. The industry is adamant that without negative gearing to provide tax relief the present parlous housing start situation would deteriorated further.
The ACOSS argument seems to be aimed at closing that tax loophole to generate more tax revenue to be used to alleviate homelessness and mental health, which tends to acerbate domestic violence and sexual assault. This seems to be a call to create a bigger tax dividend and use that for an increase in public housing paid for from the public purse.
Many economists would shudder at the thought of the government becoming the primary source of rental accommodation. In comparison to the cost of doing business, comparing the government with private enterprise is like entering an elephant in this years Melbourne cup. The elephant is certainly big and powerful, but it moves slowly and it tends to do a great deal of damage to everything in it's path.
We had a price bubble affecting housing generally just prior to the 2008 meltdown. The government treasury is facing an awkward dilemma in trying to balance the needs of existing home owners with those who are yet to enter the market. Many first home buyers ended up with a mortgage far in excess of what their property is now worth, and current prices are too high to allow new first home buyers to get on the first rung of the ownership ladder. Market forces are weeding out those who were granted impossible loans in relation to incomes by way of foreclosures and generally the situation is stabilising.
The biggest hurdle to affordable house prices is the cost of land. There is certainly a land shortage adjacent to the big cities, but the same price surge has also occurred in country towns and villages, where vacant land is plentiful. The way to drive down home prices is fairly simple. Increase land releases for housing in such a quantity that availability influences pricing.
It will be a tricky balancing act. Relief by way of stamp duty suspensions and conveyancing costs can sway buyers to new housing in preference to the existing homes market, but it is essential that existing homes hold their value. Most people have a big proportion of their wealth invested in the home they own and should this crash badly the flow-on would be catastrophic.
ACOSS should understand that if land prices are allowed to continue upward, then many existing homes will be demolished to provide a site for a newer and bigger home - and consequently the opportunity to increase the rental market will be lost. Each new home built on a greenfield lot releases an existing home - and many of these will be snapped up by investors for leasing - provided negative gearing supplies the tax incentive.
Ending negative gearing and throwing the entire public housing need onto the government would be similar to backing that elephant to win the Melbourne cup !
The Hawke government in the 1980's did just that - and investors fled the rental housing market. It was quickly reinstated and housing rental stocks began to climb. The industry is adamant that without negative gearing to provide tax relief the present parlous housing start situation would deteriorated further.
The ACOSS argument seems to be aimed at closing that tax loophole to generate more tax revenue to be used to alleviate homelessness and mental health, which tends to acerbate domestic violence and sexual assault. This seems to be a call to create a bigger tax dividend and use that for an increase in public housing paid for from the public purse.
Many economists would shudder at the thought of the government becoming the primary source of rental accommodation. In comparison to the cost of doing business, comparing the government with private enterprise is like entering an elephant in this years Melbourne cup. The elephant is certainly big and powerful, but it moves slowly and it tends to do a great deal of damage to everything in it's path.
We had a price bubble affecting housing generally just prior to the 2008 meltdown. The government treasury is facing an awkward dilemma in trying to balance the needs of existing home owners with those who are yet to enter the market. Many first home buyers ended up with a mortgage far in excess of what their property is now worth, and current prices are too high to allow new first home buyers to get on the first rung of the ownership ladder. Market forces are weeding out those who were granted impossible loans in relation to incomes by way of foreclosures and generally the situation is stabilising.
The biggest hurdle to affordable house prices is the cost of land. There is certainly a land shortage adjacent to the big cities, but the same price surge has also occurred in country towns and villages, where vacant land is plentiful. The way to drive down home prices is fairly simple. Increase land releases for housing in such a quantity that availability influences pricing.
It will be a tricky balancing act. Relief by way of stamp duty suspensions and conveyancing costs can sway buyers to new housing in preference to the existing homes market, but it is essential that existing homes hold their value. Most people have a big proportion of their wealth invested in the home they own and should this crash badly the flow-on would be catastrophic.
ACOSS should understand that if land prices are allowed to continue upward, then many existing homes will be demolished to provide a site for a newer and bigger home - and consequently the opportunity to increase the rental market will be lost. Each new home built on a greenfield lot releases an existing home - and many of these will be snapped up by investors for leasing - provided negative gearing supplies the tax incentive.
Ending negative gearing and throwing the entire public housing need onto the government would be similar to backing that elephant to win the Melbourne cup !
Tuesday 14 August 2012
The coming fire season !
This past weekend, Mother Nature gave Wollongong a taste of what the future holds. In the last month of winter, a lightning strike and the usual August wind storms saw 1600 hectares around Darkes Forest reduced to cinders. The F-6 was closed in both directions and many rural properties were threatened.
The Illawarra is blessed with the escarpment as a backdrop to the city. It forms a natural amphitheatre and this vast panorama of trees absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen to cleanse our atmosphere. Some would call it " the lungs of the area ", but it also poses an enormous fire threat when summer temperatures arrive.
The escarpment last burned in 1968 - and hence another visit by fire is long overdue. When that last happened we were a much smaller city. It's steady expansion has drawn people to build homes further into the tree line and in fact nestling amongst the trees has become a feature of combining that rural aspect with the glorious sea views from elevated positions.
We have been lucky in past decades. This state has had disastrous fires, but the Illawarra has been spared. We will not always be so lucky and one glaring possible disaster is waiting in the stretch of Lawrence Hargreave drive from Thirroul to Stanwell Park.
On this stretch of the coast the combination of housing and trees is served by a single entry and exit road, and both ends have natural bottle necks that would ensure disaster in a fire emergency. Sooner or later a combination of events will coincide - and that disaster will visit the Illawarra.
We need a fire plan drummed into the heads of residents to ensure that when a fire does pose a danger they know how to safely react. The most disastrous decision would be to try and flee the area by car. The road could not cope - as we have observed when a sudden thunderstorm saw people jump in their cars and try and exit the beaches, only to become involved in a traffic jam that lasted for hours.
The residential strip on Lawrence Hargreave drive is both long and narrow. The beaches and foreshore are within easy reach of the residents and that is the natural safety point. We need to promote a fire safety plan to ensure when - rather than if - a major fire event occurs in this region the residents are trained to respond in a way that saves lives.
That does not seem to have priority at present - and unfortunately we are seeing incidents of arson increasing with each years fire season. All if takes is for some careless person to drop a match when the conditions are right, and we would have an overwhelming disaster rip through the escarpment backdrop destroying many homes.
It may not be possible to save those homes, but with a good fire plan, lives may not be lost !
The Illawarra is blessed with the escarpment as a backdrop to the city. It forms a natural amphitheatre and this vast panorama of trees absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen to cleanse our atmosphere. Some would call it " the lungs of the area ", but it also poses an enormous fire threat when summer temperatures arrive.
The escarpment last burned in 1968 - and hence another visit by fire is long overdue. When that last happened we were a much smaller city. It's steady expansion has drawn people to build homes further into the tree line and in fact nestling amongst the trees has become a feature of combining that rural aspect with the glorious sea views from elevated positions.
We have been lucky in past decades. This state has had disastrous fires, but the Illawarra has been spared. We will not always be so lucky and one glaring possible disaster is waiting in the stretch of Lawrence Hargreave drive from Thirroul to Stanwell Park.
On this stretch of the coast the combination of housing and trees is served by a single entry and exit road, and both ends have natural bottle necks that would ensure disaster in a fire emergency. Sooner or later a combination of events will coincide - and that disaster will visit the Illawarra.
We need a fire plan drummed into the heads of residents to ensure that when a fire does pose a danger they know how to safely react. The most disastrous decision would be to try and flee the area by car. The road could not cope - as we have observed when a sudden thunderstorm saw people jump in their cars and try and exit the beaches, only to become involved in a traffic jam that lasted for hours.
The residential strip on Lawrence Hargreave drive is both long and narrow. The beaches and foreshore are within easy reach of the residents and that is the natural safety point. We need to promote a fire safety plan to ensure when - rather than if - a major fire event occurs in this region the residents are trained to respond in a way that saves lives.
That does not seem to have priority at present - and unfortunately we are seeing incidents of arson increasing with each years fire season. All if takes is for some careless person to drop a match when the conditions are right, and we would have an overwhelming disaster rip through the escarpment backdrop destroying many homes.
It may not be possible to save those homes, but with a good fire plan, lives may not be lost !
Monday 13 August 2012
A " Great Idea " bungled !
It sounded so Utopian ! To make use of the storage capacity of computers to collect our entire medical history so that it is available in the emergency room or to any treating doctor at the click of a mouse. What was termed " E-Health " commenced on July I with a takeup target of attracting 500,000 participants. This has fallen far short of target with just 5029 people signing on so far.
It is early days, but there are glaring weaknesses that spring to mind. So far GP's lack the software to enable them to access this E-Health system and progress so far has cost $ 466 million, and that works out at $ 92,662 per head for each of those who have signed up.
The main weakness seems to be the need for each individual to make the effort to present their entire medical history to Medicare for inclusion. Surely the best place to collect accurate medical information would be from the files of the doctor who regularly treats us as patients, and who has referred us to various specialists and ordered tests. Can we really expect individuals to be able to accurately remember all the relevant health details ranging over their entire lifetime ?
E-Health has been set a budget of 6.8 million patient details over four years, but this relies on individuals signing on and going to the trouble of contacting Medicare with their medical information. So far, 89% of those who have made the effort have done so online. Others have done so by phone, letter or a personal visit to a Medicare office.
It looks like E-Health will be just another good idea that failed because of poor planning. Even if the numbers signing on increase, the quality of the information gathered will probably be deficient. To have any hope of success the plan will need to be revised to put the gathering content back into the hands of the medical profession. All that should be required from the patient is his or her agreement to be included in E-Health - and the names and addresses of all those doctors that have treated them.
E-Health would then require each of those doctors to supply the details in their patient file, plus the names of any specialist to which the patient has been referred, and then a similar information check would be made from that source. In this way, the entire life history of each person named on E-Health rolls would be gathered, including information on any hospital treatment that has occurred.
The sticking point would be - cost. Doctors can not be expected to collate information from their files and do the necessary paperwork for nothing. E-Health would need to negotiate a consultation fee to cover the time and staff needed to prepare each patients health portfolio, and this would include all the necessary medication prescribed. It may also need a law change to validate the release of personal information and require the medical profession to comply.
This E-Health concept is a marvellous tool to health management - provided the information collected is accurate - and wide ranging. Simply recording whatever the patient can remember is unlikely to meet that standard. In particular, medical information provided from those with age related illnesses such as Dementia could be expected to be deficient.
Getting this concept to work properly is going to cost a lot of money. It all depends on whether the government is prepared to meet that cost, or whether E-Health will be short changed to the point where whatever information is gathered is ignored by the medical profession as being worthless.
A point to ponder. Can we accurately remember what prescriptions we were taking five years ago - and for what ailments ?
It is early days, but there are glaring weaknesses that spring to mind. So far GP's lack the software to enable them to access this E-Health system and progress so far has cost $ 466 million, and that works out at $ 92,662 per head for each of those who have signed up.
The main weakness seems to be the need for each individual to make the effort to present their entire medical history to Medicare for inclusion. Surely the best place to collect accurate medical information would be from the files of the doctor who regularly treats us as patients, and who has referred us to various specialists and ordered tests. Can we really expect individuals to be able to accurately remember all the relevant health details ranging over their entire lifetime ?
E-Health has been set a budget of 6.8 million patient details over four years, but this relies on individuals signing on and going to the trouble of contacting Medicare with their medical information. So far, 89% of those who have made the effort have done so online. Others have done so by phone, letter or a personal visit to a Medicare office.
It looks like E-Health will be just another good idea that failed because of poor planning. Even if the numbers signing on increase, the quality of the information gathered will probably be deficient. To have any hope of success the plan will need to be revised to put the gathering content back into the hands of the medical profession. All that should be required from the patient is his or her agreement to be included in E-Health - and the names and addresses of all those doctors that have treated them.
E-Health would then require each of those doctors to supply the details in their patient file, plus the names of any specialist to which the patient has been referred, and then a similar information check would be made from that source. In this way, the entire life history of each person named on E-Health rolls would be gathered, including information on any hospital treatment that has occurred.
The sticking point would be - cost. Doctors can not be expected to collate information from their files and do the necessary paperwork for nothing. E-Health would need to negotiate a consultation fee to cover the time and staff needed to prepare each patients health portfolio, and this would include all the necessary medication prescribed. It may also need a law change to validate the release of personal information and require the medical profession to comply.
This E-Health concept is a marvellous tool to health management - provided the information collected is accurate - and wide ranging. Simply recording whatever the patient can remember is unlikely to meet that standard. In particular, medical information provided from those with age related illnesses such as Dementia could be expected to be deficient.
Getting this concept to work properly is going to cost a lot of money. It all depends on whether the government is prepared to meet that cost, or whether E-Health will be short changed to the point where whatever information is gathered is ignored by the medical profession as being worthless.
A point to ponder. Can we accurately remember what prescriptions we were taking five years ago - and for what ailments ?
Sunday 12 August 2012
The doctor " shortage " !
It seems to be an inescapable fact of life. The more wealthy and socially advanced a city suburb, the more general practitioners and medical specialists can be found there - caring for the health of the residents. At the other end of the health spectrum, there are literally hundreds of small Australian country towns lacking even a single local doctor.
The University of Melbourne recently conducted an interesting survey. They asked four thousand general practitioners in city practices what it would take to convince them to move to a country town of less than 5,000 citizens ? The answer was an overwhelming " No " ! It seems that no amount of incentive will coax doctors away from a city way of life and pleasant workload.
That does not surprise many local mayors who have become desperate to attract a doctor to their district. In some cases both a free home and modern consulting rooms have been part of the inducement, but even this has produced no result. In some cases a few city doctors have had a speculative look at the situation, but been put off by the poor social interaction offered by the district, coupled with a workload far greater than experienced in a city position.
It all comes back to the first rule of commerce - supply and demand ! When the supply is far less than what demand needs, the lesser end of the spectrum misses out. Put simply, we are not training enough new doctors to reverse that situation. If we had a glut of doctors, those country positions would be quickly filled by young medical people trying to get established in their own practices.
It seems to be a conspiracy between the medical profession and the government. The medical profession has sufficient clout with the political establishment to ensure that university places in medicine do not produce a doctor excess, and the various medical specialities carefully control the annual number of new trainees to their discipline that they enrol. In this way, doctor numbers are controlled and as a consequence, most new doctors settle into a comfortable city practice.
University medical studies also contain a quota of doctors in training from third world emerging countries, and many of these remain in Australia when they become qualified. Once again, this " lifestyle " choice robs their home countries of the medical people they so desperately need because they choose a higher income balanced against a lower workload by meeting our contrived doctor shortage.
Its time medicine lost the status of a " protected profession " and faced the realities of competition, just as engineers, architects and a whole host of other professions are facing today. All it takes is an expansion of medical training numbers and we will be churning out the people who will not only service this entire country, but also look for jobs overseas when they exceed demand here.
This is a contrived doctor shortage. There is no shortage of eligible entrants - if the course numbers were not artificially restricted !
The University of Melbourne recently conducted an interesting survey. They asked four thousand general practitioners in city practices what it would take to convince them to move to a country town of less than 5,000 citizens ? The answer was an overwhelming " No " ! It seems that no amount of incentive will coax doctors away from a city way of life and pleasant workload.
That does not surprise many local mayors who have become desperate to attract a doctor to their district. In some cases both a free home and modern consulting rooms have been part of the inducement, but even this has produced no result. In some cases a few city doctors have had a speculative look at the situation, but been put off by the poor social interaction offered by the district, coupled with a workload far greater than experienced in a city position.
It all comes back to the first rule of commerce - supply and demand ! When the supply is far less than what demand needs, the lesser end of the spectrum misses out. Put simply, we are not training enough new doctors to reverse that situation. If we had a glut of doctors, those country positions would be quickly filled by young medical people trying to get established in their own practices.
It seems to be a conspiracy between the medical profession and the government. The medical profession has sufficient clout with the political establishment to ensure that university places in medicine do not produce a doctor excess, and the various medical specialities carefully control the annual number of new trainees to their discipline that they enrol. In this way, doctor numbers are controlled and as a consequence, most new doctors settle into a comfortable city practice.
University medical studies also contain a quota of doctors in training from third world emerging countries, and many of these remain in Australia when they become qualified. Once again, this " lifestyle " choice robs their home countries of the medical people they so desperately need because they choose a higher income balanced against a lower workload by meeting our contrived doctor shortage.
Its time medicine lost the status of a " protected profession " and faced the realities of competition, just as engineers, architects and a whole host of other professions are facing today. All it takes is an expansion of medical training numbers and we will be churning out the people who will not only service this entire country, but also look for jobs overseas when they exceed demand here.
This is a contrived doctor shortage. There is no shortage of eligible entrants - if the course numbers were not artificially restricted !
Saturday 11 August 2012
Fear in high places !
From 1880 to 2008 the Bulletin was Australia's " serious news " magazine. It ceased publication in January 2008, and shortly thereafter a new serious news magazine appeared on the news stands. It was simply called " The Monthly " and it provided in depth coverage of Australian and world events.
The August issue contains an essay by Robert Manne entitled " Dark Victory ". In essence, it explains the world lack of action on climate science and it's replacement by " phony " science, the gathering of those intellectuals with a propensity to be stubborn and express a " denial " philosophy. It is suggested that world energy interests - namely, coal and gas - conspired to use the tactics successfully used by big Tobacco to create confusion in the minds of the public over the health risks of using tobacco.
It is a well written essay containing many points of logic, but there is perhaps a tendency to blame conspirators intent on serving their own interests when this lack of real action may be the result of world leaders recoiling from the predicted consequences of seriously tackling global warming.
The Greens and the science establishment are clear on what needs to be done. We need to switch from burning fossil fuels to other forms of renewable energy and that has to happen on a wide front. Of immediate impact to every man, woman and child in the western world would be the change to electricity generation. If we stop burning coal to produce electricity, the price of the product soars. Higher energy prices make our manufacturing less competitive and it sheds jobs. We face the dual dangers of higher living costs and expanding unemployment.
A tentative beginning to global warming action was starting to take hold prior to the 2008 economic meltdown. Kevin Rudd was Australia's prime minister and he seemed genuinely prepared to grasp the nettle and enact legislation. The sudden collapse of world finance caused him to back away, and that cost him a degree of popularity - and ultimately his job.
A pure accident of politics then too charge of the situation. The replacement prime minister failed to gain public approval and when the nation went to the polls it delivered a hung parliament. Coalition with the Greens was the only way to retain power, and part of the price for that support was the introduction of a watered down carbon tax. It is clear that this tax is still vastly unpopular and that it will not deliver any meaningful change to the world carbon position.
It is equally clear that the world has divided into two opposing camps. The Scandinavian countries, plus Australia and a few others have taken limited action, but the big polluters have dug their heels in and are resisting taking any meaningful action., Without at least the United States of America, China and India reducing carbon output, the world carbon crisis will continue to worsen.
" Dark Victory " delivers one reason why it's writer thinks we face an impasse, but perhaps the leaders of those three great nations have another compelling fear that causes them to resist taking even a timid first step
The history books deliver chilling accounts of what happens when the broad public rises in rebellion. At the time Australia was settled the people of France began sending their king and members of the aristocracy to the guillotine. In the last century, the people of Russia overthrew and murdered the Czar and his family, and the blight of Communism swept fear into every corner of the world.
The " Arab Spring " started in Tunisia, when a vegetable seller had his cart seized by the police, preventing him making even a tenuous living. His immolation lit a match that has swept through a swathe of countries, deposing leaders and sending some of them to a brutal death. We watch the nightly news as this wave of rebellion causes more death and destruction across Syria.
It seems likely that the leaders of the big polluting countries are convinced that the results of global warming will need to become more apparent - and very much more urgent - before the broad masses will accept the sort of privation that will be necessary to reduce carbon dioxide. Perhaps the real reason for this strange avoidance of any sort of action plan - is sheer self preservation !
It seems that the changes to our way of living arising from global warming are less frightening than the social upheaval that could be unleashed if we take the drastic steps necessary to restore the carbon balance !
The August issue contains an essay by Robert Manne entitled " Dark Victory ". In essence, it explains the world lack of action on climate science and it's replacement by " phony " science, the gathering of those intellectuals with a propensity to be stubborn and express a " denial " philosophy. It is suggested that world energy interests - namely, coal and gas - conspired to use the tactics successfully used by big Tobacco to create confusion in the minds of the public over the health risks of using tobacco.
It is a well written essay containing many points of logic, but there is perhaps a tendency to blame conspirators intent on serving their own interests when this lack of real action may be the result of world leaders recoiling from the predicted consequences of seriously tackling global warming.
The Greens and the science establishment are clear on what needs to be done. We need to switch from burning fossil fuels to other forms of renewable energy and that has to happen on a wide front. Of immediate impact to every man, woman and child in the western world would be the change to electricity generation. If we stop burning coal to produce electricity, the price of the product soars. Higher energy prices make our manufacturing less competitive and it sheds jobs. We face the dual dangers of higher living costs and expanding unemployment.
A tentative beginning to global warming action was starting to take hold prior to the 2008 economic meltdown. Kevin Rudd was Australia's prime minister and he seemed genuinely prepared to grasp the nettle and enact legislation. The sudden collapse of world finance caused him to back away, and that cost him a degree of popularity - and ultimately his job.
A pure accident of politics then too charge of the situation. The replacement prime minister failed to gain public approval and when the nation went to the polls it delivered a hung parliament. Coalition with the Greens was the only way to retain power, and part of the price for that support was the introduction of a watered down carbon tax. It is clear that this tax is still vastly unpopular and that it will not deliver any meaningful change to the world carbon position.
It is equally clear that the world has divided into two opposing camps. The Scandinavian countries, plus Australia and a few others have taken limited action, but the big polluters have dug their heels in and are resisting taking any meaningful action., Without at least the United States of America, China and India reducing carbon output, the world carbon crisis will continue to worsen.
" Dark Victory " delivers one reason why it's writer thinks we face an impasse, but perhaps the leaders of those three great nations have another compelling fear that causes them to resist taking even a timid first step
The history books deliver chilling accounts of what happens when the broad public rises in rebellion. At the time Australia was settled the people of France began sending their king and members of the aristocracy to the guillotine. In the last century, the people of Russia overthrew and murdered the Czar and his family, and the blight of Communism swept fear into every corner of the world.
The " Arab Spring " started in Tunisia, when a vegetable seller had his cart seized by the police, preventing him making even a tenuous living. His immolation lit a match that has swept through a swathe of countries, deposing leaders and sending some of them to a brutal death. We watch the nightly news as this wave of rebellion causes more death and destruction across Syria.
It seems likely that the leaders of the big polluting countries are convinced that the results of global warming will need to become more apparent - and very much more urgent - before the broad masses will accept the sort of privation that will be necessary to reduce carbon dioxide. Perhaps the real reason for this strange avoidance of any sort of action plan - is sheer self preservation !
It seems that the changes to our way of living arising from global warming are less frightening than the social upheaval that could be unleashed if we take the drastic steps necessary to restore the carbon balance !
Friday 10 August 2012
Crime - and punishment !
It is comforting to know that the people at the core of the riots that saw arson and mayhem descend on London a year ago are now being handed down gaol terms. Television beamed around the world an almost unbelievable scenario of young men aged between sixteen and twenty-four on a rampage of looting, vicious assaults and the deliberate arson of shops and restaurants This went far beyond hooliganism. Unrest delivered opportunity to organised gangs to go on the rampage and deliberately rob ordinary people of things like their wallets - and even intimate items like wedding bands - on the threat of a severe beating for any signs of opposition.
There has been an assumption that they got away with it. After the riots, the police promised vengeance, but it is only now that the chickens are coming home to roost for these thugs. The investigators have been carefully putting together evidence from cctv cameras, witness accounts - and in many cases self incrimination posted on social media - to prove their case and bring the offenders to justice. All this hard work is delivering gaol terms ranging from three and four year terms for lesser people, to nine years hard labour for the ringleaders.
We are now getting the rewards for the supposed invasion of personal privacy imposed by the growing networks of cctv cameras which watch the street scene in all parts of the world. Here in Australia that was demonstrated when a young man was senselessly bashed in King's Cross. It happened in an area not covered by these cameras, but the police were able to view the street scenes in all the immediate vicinities, and by extraordinary use of the evidence available - tracked down the person responsible for this young man's death.
Unfortunately, the cctv network only helps to clear up crimes that have already occurred. The criminals seem to act first and think later. Such was the case in London. The citizens were aware of the cctv network, but the lure of easy money and the chance to wreak retribution for perceived injustices was just too great to miss. Now - after several deaths and multi million dollar damage has been done - they are paying the price for their greed and stupidity.
If nothing else, the evidence of an advanced cleanup rate should be a decisive factor when the public consider the bleatings of the " civil liberties " people who oppose any extension to the cctv network.
It may not stop you being mugged in the street - but it certainly improves the chances that the mugger will see the inside of a court as a result !
There has been an assumption that they got away with it. After the riots, the police promised vengeance, but it is only now that the chickens are coming home to roost for these thugs. The investigators have been carefully putting together evidence from cctv cameras, witness accounts - and in many cases self incrimination posted on social media - to prove their case and bring the offenders to justice. All this hard work is delivering gaol terms ranging from three and four year terms for lesser people, to nine years hard labour for the ringleaders.
We are now getting the rewards for the supposed invasion of personal privacy imposed by the growing networks of cctv cameras which watch the street scene in all parts of the world. Here in Australia that was demonstrated when a young man was senselessly bashed in King's Cross. It happened in an area not covered by these cameras, but the police were able to view the street scenes in all the immediate vicinities, and by extraordinary use of the evidence available - tracked down the person responsible for this young man's death.
Unfortunately, the cctv network only helps to clear up crimes that have already occurred. The criminals seem to act first and think later. Such was the case in London. The citizens were aware of the cctv network, but the lure of easy money and the chance to wreak retribution for perceived injustices was just too great to miss. Now - after several deaths and multi million dollar damage has been done - they are paying the price for their greed and stupidity.
If nothing else, the evidence of an advanced cleanup rate should be a decisive factor when the public consider the bleatings of the " civil liberties " people who oppose any extension to the cctv network.
It may not stop you being mugged in the street - but it certainly improves the chances that the mugger will see the inside of a court as a result !
Thursday 9 August 2012
War - and politics !
There are many similarities in the tactics used when nations go to war - and when political parties are fighting for the high ground in voter's minds. Ambush is one of those tactics and both sides use deception to mask their real intent. So it is with the fall out from the carbon tax that affected all Australian households on July 1.
Energy prices have risen forty-eight percent across the board in the past four years. There is consternation that there will be similar increases in the next four year period and the Prime Minister is trying to shift the blame onto the head of the Conservative state governments. She highlights the increases that have taken place in the Conservative ruled states, and totally ignores those same increases in the states governed by Labor regimes.
Of course, there is always a grain of truth on which to build an accusation. Every state had a backlog of work needed to bring it's electricity distribution system up to scratch and the carbon tax presented a golden opportunity to sheet home the cost blame to Canberra - and that opportunity was gleefully accepted by both sides of state politics.
All the state governments brought forward there " poles and wires " renewal plans because this work needed to be done and would otherwise become a major issue after the carbon tax issue had died down - and when that happened the blame would rest on each of the state administrations. By bringing it forward to coincide with the imposition of the carbon tax the states masked the poles and wires component and deftly shifted the blame to Canberra.
The Prime Minister is threatening to give new powers to the Energy Regulator and Consumer Commission, but this is not a problem that can be legislated away, nor can a commission delay the work needed to keep the lights on without consequences. What is needed is acceptance that we require the tools to manage our power usage and a pricing system that allows us to select the most favourable time frame to turn on the switches.
The first consideration would be to replace the existing electric meters with " smart meters " that feed instant information to the power user. We need to know how much power we are using and what we can do to lower the power bill, and that should happen within a cost structure that varies according to the time of day.
Under such a regime, a working family may elect to set the washing machine to take care of the family laundry needs at a time when the charging rate is lowest because it is a time of low demand. A smart meter allows a family to " manage " their energy needs and make informed decisions when buying appliances. At present, the only choice seems to be an off-peak hot water heater. All other needs are at a uniform rate, with no discount for off-peak use.
Higher energy costs are a fact of life. The only way to control energy bills is to put the decision making process back into the hands of the user !
Energy prices have risen forty-eight percent across the board in the past four years. There is consternation that there will be similar increases in the next four year period and the Prime Minister is trying to shift the blame onto the head of the Conservative state governments. She highlights the increases that have taken place in the Conservative ruled states, and totally ignores those same increases in the states governed by Labor regimes.
Of course, there is always a grain of truth on which to build an accusation. Every state had a backlog of work needed to bring it's electricity distribution system up to scratch and the carbon tax presented a golden opportunity to sheet home the cost blame to Canberra - and that opportunity was gleefully accepted by both sides of state politics.
All the state governments brought forward there " poles and wires " renewal plans because this work needed to be done and would otherwise become a major issue after the carbon tax issue had died down - and when that happened the blame would rest on each of the state administrations. By bringing it forward to coincide with the imposition of the carbon tax the states masked the poles and wires component and deftly shifted the blame to Canberra.
The Prime Minister is threatening to give new powers to the Energy Regulator and Consumer Commission, but this is not a problem that can be legislated away, nor can a commission delay the work needed to keep the lights on without consequences. What is needed is acceptance that we require the tools to manage our power usage and a pricing system that allows us to select the most favourable time frame to turn on the switches.
The first consideration would be to replace the existing electric meters with " smart meters " that feed instant information to the power user. We need to know how much power we are using and what we can do to lower the power bill, and that should happen within a cost structure that varies according to the time of day.
Under such a regime, a working family may elect to set the washing machine to take care of the family laundry needs at a time when the charging rate is lowest because it is a time of low demand. A smart meter allows a family to " manage " their energy needs and make informed decisions when buying appliances. At present, the only choice seems to be an off-peak hot water heater. All other needs are at a uniform rate, with no discount for off-peak use.
Higher energy costs are a fact of life. The only way to control energy bills is to put the decision making process back into the hands of the user !
Wednesday 8 August 2012
The law - and our right of access !
We are very proud of our law system because it applies evenly to everyone. Nobody is supposedly above the law and every citizen has access to the courts to get justice. A situation developing in Wollongong is putting that supposition at risk.
A Green community group has launched a Land and Environment Court action against a local coal mining company. The coal company has asked the court to require this litigant to provide a $ 75,000 surety in case they lose the action and costs are awarded against them. The community group can not raise that $ 75,000 and there is a chance that as a consequence the action will not proceed.
This is where the complexity of the law comes into conflict with the reality of life. On the one hand, access to the law process is supposed to apply to all, not just those who can afford to have a matter settled in court. On the other hand, the law is supposed to protect against what some would call " vexatious litigants " who use the court process for spite and to cause delay and damage. Costs awarded against them can not be recovered because of their inability to pay.
This particular case raises an interesting point. If the litigant is unable to provide a $ 75,000 surety, it would seem unlikely that in the event of a loss and award of damages, the coal company would be able to recover it's legal costs. Yet if that becomes the basis for the action being dropped, it would seem to be a case of rich man versus poor man, with justice denied solely on the basis of money.
It seems that the court will be asked to consider the " public interest " aspect of this case - and once again this opens an interesting can of worms. What is " public interest " ? Interesting to whom ? And what parameters apply ?
Some people will contend that if a matter evokes sufficient public interest across the broad spectrum, it will result in donations to fund a court challenge or bring political pressure to have the politicians change the law. It seems impossible to satisfy everybody concerned because of the contrasting opinions involved.
Perhaps the best way to try to resolve these conflicts of interest would be to oblige both parties to attend a conciliation court. All forms of legal representation would be barred and the deciding panel would be three citizens carefully selected from non legal sources. The objective of this court would be to apply " common sense " and achieve an amicable outcome.
Perhaps the most decisive weapon of a conciliation court would be publication of it's decision. If consensus could not be reached because one of the parties was stubborn, legalistic and unwilling to compromise - at the least the matter would have achieve some resolve in " the court of public opinion " !
A Green community group has launched a Land and Environment Court action against a local coal mining company. The coal company has asked the court to require this litigant to provide a $ 75,000 surety in case they lose the action and costs are awarded against them. The community group can not raise that $ 75,000 and there is a chance that as a consequence the action will not proceed.
This is where the complexity of the law comes into conflict with the reality of life. On the one hand, access to the law process is supposed to apply to all, not just those who can afford to have a matter settled in court. On the other hand, the law is supposed to protect against what some would call " vexatious litigants " who use the court process for spite and to cause delay and damage. Costs awarded against them can not be recovered because of their inability to pay.
This particular case raises an interesting point. If the litigant is unable to provide a $ 75,000 surety, it would seem unlikely that in the event of a loss and award of damages, the coal company would be able to recover it's legal costs. Yet if that becomes the basis for the action being dropped, it would seem to be a case of rich man versus poor man, with justice denied solely on the basis of money.
It seems that the court will be asked to consider the " public interest " aspect of this case - and once again this opens an interesting can of worms. What is " public interest " ? Interesting to whom ? And what parameters apply ?
Some people will contend that if a matter evokes sufficient public interest across the broad spectrum, it will result in donations to fund a court challenge or bring political pressure to have the politicians change the law. It seems impossible to satisfy everybody concerned because of the contrasting opinions involved.
Perhaps the best way to try to resolve these conflicts of interest would be to oblige both parties to attend a conciliation court. All forms of legal representation would be barred and the deciding panel would be three citizens carefully selected from non legal sources. The objective of this court would be to apply " common sense " and achieve an amicable outcome.
Perhaps the most decisive weapon of a conciliation court would be publication of it's decision. If consensus could not be reached because one of the parties was stubborn, legalistic and unwilling to compromise - at the least the matter would have achieve some resolve in " the court of public opinion " !
Tuesday 7 August 2012
So - what actually changes ?
Premier Lara Giddings is proposing that Tasmania be the first state to go it alone and make gay marriage legal. If this legislation makes it through both houses of the Tasmanian parliament, it will still face the hurdle of intervention from Canberra. That will depend on whether Prime Minister Julia Gillard launches a challenge in the High Court on the basis that this legislation conflicts with Commonwealth law.
The " Gay Marriage " issue has become a moral battleground world wide. The strange part is that all the fuss is over just one simple word - and that word is " marriage ". There are plenty of laws in place that recognise a union between two same sex people under various descriptions, but the sticking point is the desire to have the union officially appended as a " marriage ".
That gets all the churches thumping the " sin " drums and it seems to offend many of the older generation who were brought up to expect the rite of passage that precedes the bearing of children to include a ceremony in a church in which the woman wears a stunning white gown. We now live in a different age. Fewer formal marriages take place in churches and many are performed by a " celebrant " who holds no religious office.
Vast numbers of people now dodge the marriage ceremony completely, and this is perfectly legal. You do not need a marriage license to bring children into this world and when all is said and done - if gay people are given the right to call their union a marriage - what actually changes ?
Tasmania is probably being courageous in taking the lead and dragging this issue - kicking and screaming - into legislative action. It is inevitable that it will have to be faced sooner or later, and our smallest state had a strange history of trying to adjust to the " gay " era. It was the last state to retain laws that made male homosexuality a criminal offence on it's law books, and only repealed that legislation in 1997, and yet during that same period it repeatedly renewed the term of office of an openly gay Tasmanian Senator to the national parliament.
If this marriage legislation gets the vote in the Tasmanian parliament and survives a repeal from Canberra - in a short space of time " marriage " will be an unremarkable term applied to the union of people - without regard to their sexuality.
The " Gay Marriage " issue has become a moral battleground world wide. The strange part is that all the fuss is over just one simple word - and that word is " marriage ". There are plenty of laws in place that recognise a union between two same sex people under various descriptions, but the sticking point is the desire to have the union officially appended as a " marriage ".
That gets all the churches thumping the " sin " drums and it seems to offend many of the older generation who were brought up to expect the rite of passage that precedes the bearing of children to include a ceremony in a church in which the woman wears a stunning white gown. We now live in a different age. Fewer formal marriages take place in churches and many are performed by a " celebrant " who holds no religious office.
Vast numbers of people now dodge the marriage ceremony completely, and this is perfectly legal. You do not need a marriage license to bring children into this world and when all is said and done - if gay people are given the right to call their union a marriage - what actually changes ?
Tasmania is probably being courageous in taking the lead and dragging this issue - kicking and screaming - into legislative action. It is inevitable that it will have to be faced sooner or later, and our smallest state had a strange history of trying to adjust to the " gay " era. It was the last state to retain laws that made male homosexuality a criminal offence on it's law books, and only repealed that legislation in 1997, and yet during that same period it repeatedly renewed the term of office of an openly gay Tasmanian Senator to the national parliament.
If this marriage legislation gets the vote in the Tasmanian parliament and survives a repeal from Canberra - in a short space of time " marriage " will be an unremarkable term applied to the union of people - without regard to their sexuality.
Sunday 5 August 2012
The " Detritus " of war !
Governments of all political persuasions are quick to make extravagant promises when they need " cannon fodder " in times of war. There are usually plans to make life sweet for returning veterans. Plentiful housing is one of those promises and the mantra of " They will be rewarded for their sacrifices " is common. When the war ends, amnesia seems to be a disability that affects most politicians.
Such is the situation now prevailing in Afghanistan. That war is coming to an end and soon our troops will be returning home. Fortunately the numbers involved were much smaller than in most other wars and it is possible that these numbers can be accommodated within the defence rehabilitation framework. The experience of war can scar minds. It will take time and effort to readjust to peace.
The war in Afghanistan involved troops from a consortium of countries. They served under the umbrella of the International Security Assistance Force ( ISAF ) and their work would have been almost impossible without the Afghan recruits that served with them as interpreters . Patrols usually included at least one Afghan tasked with bridging the gap with Afghan civilians - and this was risky for the men involved. The Taliban regarded them as traitors and for that reason they masked their faces to avoid instant recognition.
It would be an extravagant claim to declare that this Afghan was has been " won ". At best, the enemy has been neutralised to the extent that a compromise has been reached. We will be leaving behind a weak government in Kabul and it is likely that the country will again be the domain of some warlords - and Taliban remnants. The fate of those people who enlisted to our side for a paltry pay of about $ 600 a month will be uncertain.
Once again " amnesia " seems to taking hold on the many governments involved in the Afghan war. We wonder what promises were made to enlist our Afghan comrades to join our ranks. They put themselves and their families at risk and it would be reasonable to expect that we would repay that trust.
We are currently seeing incoming boat loads of young Afghan men arriving at Christmas island, the by-product of " people smugglers " making a living by enabling those who have lost confidence in an Afghan future to migrate to what they consider to be a " land of milk and honey ". Surely we owe it to the small number of interpreters who worked with our people in ISAF to offer them and their families repatriation through official channels, rather than risking their lives to escape intimidation and death.
Irrespective of what other governments do to help their Afghan allies, it would be the honourable thing for Australia to accept repatriation to safety as our obligation of faith.
Such is the situation now prevailing in Afghanistan. That war is coming to an end and soon our troops will be returning home. Fortunately the numbers involved were much smaller than in most other wars and it is possible that these numbers can be accommodated within the defence rehabilitation framework. The experience of war can scar minds. It will take time and effort to readjust to peace.
The war in Afghanistan involved troops from a consortium of countries. They served under the umbrella of the International Security Assistance Force ( ISAF ) and their work would have been almost impossible without the Afghan recruits that served with them as interpreters . Patrols usually included at least one Afghan tasked with bridging the gap with Afghan civilians - and this was risky for the men involved. The Taliban regarded them as traitors and for that reason they masked their faces to avoid instant recognition.
It would be an extravagant claim to declare that this Afghan was has been " won ". At best, the enemy has been neutralised to the extent that a compromise has been reached. We will be leaving behind a weak government in Kabul and it is likely that the country will again be the domain of some warlords - and Taliban remnants. The fate of those people who enlisted to our side for a paltry pay of about $ 600 a month will be uncertain.
Once again " amnesia " seems to taking hold on the many governments involved in the Afghan war. We wonder what promises were made to enlist our Afghan comrades to join our ranks. They put themselves and their families at risk and it would be reasonable to expect that we would repay that trust.
We are currently seeing incoming boat loads of young Afghan men arriving at Christmas island, the by-product of " people smugglers " making a living by enabling those who have lost confidence in an Afghan future to migrate to what they consider to be a " land of milk and honey ". Surely we owe it to the small number of interpreters who worked with our people in ISAF to offer them and their families repatriation through official channels, rather than risking their lives to escape intimidation and death.
Irrespective of what other governments do to help their Afghan allies, it would be the honourable thing for Australia to accept repatriation to safety as our obligation of faith.
A two edged sword !
Immigration minister Chris Bowen is drafting new laws to provide draconian " evidence gathering powers " to be used against companies that illegally hire foreign workers who lack the proper credentials. This will open up the opportunity for immigration officers to serve search warrants and enter employers premises to look for the necessary proof to enable $ 50,000 fines to be issued against these companies.
There is no doubt that those who overstay holiday visas and others who enter this country illegally are taking work that should be available to Australian citizens, and in many cases the employing company is making a financial bonanza by paying dodgy labour at rates way below national awards.
The problem is that once this tougher law goes on the legal books it applies to all comers, and that may not be in the best interests of the Australian economy. The main target seems to be the building industry and this is concentrated in two places - in major cities and in the fast expanding new mineral export industries in Western Australia and Queensland.
We could see a situation where these new mines are crippled because the only people prepared to rough it and put up with the long distance fly in-fly out commute necessary in these early stages of development are those with no other commitments - and no work papers to satisfy immigration. Such people also suit the mining companies because they are not as fussy as most Australians and will put up with very substandard accommodation - provided their pay packet is heavy enough,
In the agricultural centres we have the problem of some crops being left unpicked - because of a chronic labour shortage. Many farmers know that most of the pickers that descend on their district at harvest time are undocumented, and yet those same districts have people drawing unemployment benefits from Centrelink - because they claim they can not find work !
If this new law drives away the very people who make the farm industry sustainable and at the same time start fining the farmers who have no other source of labour, then we will have decidedly shot ourselves in the foot when it comes to good intentions.
We need to shape our labour needs into a realistic scenario. For a start, we need to get tough with those unemployed who are not actually seeking work. If there are jobs going begging in the agricultural sector those declining that work need a very good reason to avoid cessation of the dole.
Where there is a genuine labour shortage we should be prepared to offer an amnesty to the illegals. Not only would the provision of legality for a given period of time remove the fear of arrest and swift deportation, it would ensure these workers get paid at the proper rate - and contribute the appropriate tax. If these folk demonstrate needed skills it could become a half way house in creating dialogue with immigration, leading to some illegals reverting to the methods that result in legal acceptance as migrants.
As things stand, illegals are simply criminals one step ahead of arrest and deportation. By offering them an opportunity to come forward and make a new, legal start we would be both helping to solve our labour shortage problems, and reducing the number illegally calling Australia home.
Compromise offers a reasonable solution to both problems !
There is no doubt that those who overstay holiday visas and others who enter this country illegally are taking work that should be available to Australian citizens, and in many cases the employing company is making a financial bonanza by paying dodgy labour at rates way below national awards.
The problem is that once this tougher law goes on the legal books it applies to all comers, and that may not be in the best interests of the Australian economy. The main target seems to be the building industry and this is concentrated in two places - in major cities and in the fast expanding new mineral export industries in Western Australia and Queensland.
We could see a situation where these new mines are crippled because the only people prepared to rough it and put up with the long distance fly in-fly out commute necessary in these early stages of development are those with no other commitments - and no work papers to satisfy immigration. Such people also suit the mining companies because they are not as fussy as most Australians and will put up with very substandard accommodation - provided their pay packet is heavy enough,
In the agricultural centres we have the problem of some crops being left unpicked - because of a chronic labour shortage. Many farmers know that most of the pickers that descend on their district at harvest time are undocumented, and yet those same districts have people drawing unemployment benefits from Centrelink - because they claim they can not find work !
If this new law drives away the very people who make the farm industry sustainable and at the same time start fining the farmers who have no other source of labour, then we will have decidedly shot ourselves in the foot when it comes to good intentions.
We need to shape our labour needs into a realistic scenario. For a start, we need to get tough with those unemployed who are not actually seeking work. If there are jobs going begging in the agricultural sector those declining that work need a very good reason to avoid cessation of the dole.
Where there is a genuine labour shortage we should be prepared to offer an amnesty to the illegals. Not only would the provision of legality for a given period of time remove the fear of arrest and swift deportation, it would ensure these workers get paid at the proper rate - and contribute the appropriate tax. If these folk demonstrate needed skills it could become a half way house in creating dialogue with immigration, leading to some illegals reverting to the methods that result in legal acceptance as migrants.
As things stand, illegals are simply criminals one step ahead of arrest and deportation. By offering them an opportunity to come forward and make a new, legal start we would be both helping to solve our labour shortage problems, and reducing the number illegally calling Australia home.
Compromise offers a reasonable solution to both problems !
Saturday 4 August 2012
Need for a fast response !
Have you ever wondered why we seem to have a fire station in just about every suburb ? A speedy response is the critical requirement in dealing with a fire emergency. Most fires can be contained if the brigade arrives in the early stages, but once again stretched budgets are proposing changes that may alter that situation.
At present, when a member of a fire crew calls in sick, an off-duty officer is called in and this adds to the overtime bill. Budget restraints require economies and it is proposed to take the fire station off line for the day when manning drops below a critical level. Presumably, the remaining crew would then be available to complete the roster at other stations depleted by sick calls.
The sticking point is the loss of a suburban fire station and it's capacity to quickly arrive and deal with a fire emergency. A city like Wollongong has a big central fire station with many appliances and multiple crews, but the quickest response will usually come from the nearest suburban fire station, with a single appliance and a small, dedicated crew. Response time will be governed by multiple factors. The distance involved. The time of day and the traffic situation. The inclination of other road users to slow down, pull over and give the fire appliance right of way.
Until now, we have lived with the assurance that our local fire stations are always manned and able to respond to a 000 fire call. If the plan to stand down stations proceeds, that may not be the case in the future. Many northern suburbs residents may remember a horror incident when the fastest possible response by many fire stations was unable to save the life of a young woman innocently driving to university in the morning traffic peak.
She was waiting for a green light at an intersection in Fairy Meadow when she was rear-ended by a car at high speed whose driver was suffering a seizure. The impact shunted her car into a petrol station and it ended up on it's side against the fuel pumps. The young woman was hopelessly trapped. The fuel tank was leaking - and the vehicle caught fire.
Petrol stations are well equipped with fire extinguishers and the staff responded, snuffing out the flames, but they quickly reignited. Severed electrical wires were shorting and it was impossible to get to the car battery to isolate the circuits. The 000 line was still open and fire crews were being informed of the developing crisis.
Staff from another petrol station across the road grabbed their fire extinguishers and joined the fight. It was a matter of containing the situation until the big appliances arrived with their foam tanks and higher capacity.
Appliances were coming from many directions. Their sirens could be heard and their flashing lights could be seen in the far distance, but this was morning peak traffic and the accident had the roads at a standstill. The hand held extinguishers were starting to run dry. The situation was becoming desperate. Firemen were jumping off their stalled appliances and running through the traffic with equipment, but it was all too late. The last extinguisher spluttered dry - and the car exploded, incinerating the young woman.
The 000 emergency line is a great comfort to most people. The three things we will most likely need in any sort of emergency will come from trained medics, armed police or skilled fire fighters. It gives us peace of mind to believe that these three services can be relied upon to provide a quick response to our call.
Keeping that response as near to " immediate " as possible is a matter of priorities. The money situation in the state budget is often tight, but when it comes to priorities the average person would cheerfully accept that the necessary economies be directed just about anywhere other than on these three services. After all , these are the three that we need when an emergency that is threatened to end our lives is occurring.
Can there be any priority more deserving than that ?
At present, when a member of a fire crew calls in sick, an off-duty officer is called in and this adds to the overtime bill. Budget restraints require economies and it is proposed to take the fire station off line for the day when manning drops below a critical level. Presumably, the remaining crew would then be available to complete the roster at other stations depleted by sick calls.
The sticking point is the loss of a suburban fire station and it's capacity to quickly arrive and deal with a fire emergency. A city like Wollongong has a big central fire station with many appliances and multiple crews, but the quickest response will usually come from the nearest suburban fire station, with a single appliance and a small, dedicated crew. Response time will be governed by multiple factors. The distance involved. The time of day and the traffic situation. The inclination of other road users to slow down, pull over and give the fire appliance right of way.
Until now, we have lived with the assurance that our local fire stations are always manned and able to respond to a 000 fire call. If the plan to stand down stations proceeds, that may not be the case in the future. Many northern suburbs residents may remember a horror incident when the fastest possible response by many fire stations was unable to save the life of a young woman innocently driving to university in the morning traffic peak.
She was waiting for a green light at an intersection in Fairy Meadow when she was rear-ended by a car at high speed whose driver was suffering a seizure. The impact shunted her car into a petrol station and it ended up on it's side against the fuel pumps. The young woman was hopelessly trapped. The fuel tank was leaking - and the vehicle caught fire.
Petrol stations are well equipped with fire extinguishers and the staff responded, snuffing out the flames, but they quickly reignited. Severed electrical wires were shorting and it was impossible to get to the car battery to isolate the circuits. The 000 line was still open and fire crews were being informed of the developing crisis.
Staff from another petrol station across the road grabbed their fire extinguishers and joined the fight. It was a matter of containing the situation until the big appliances arrived with their foam tanks and higher capacity.
Appliances were coming from many directions. Their sirens could be heard and their flashing lights could be seen in the far distance, but this was morning peak traffic and the accident had the roads at a standstill. The hand held extinguishers were starting to run dry. The situation was becoming desperate. Firemen were jumping off their stalled appliances and running through the traffic with equipment, but it was all too late. The last extinguisher spluttered dry - and the car exploded, incinerating the young woman.
The 000 emergency line is a great comfort to most people. The three things we will most likely need in any sort of emergency will come from trained medics, armed police or skilled fire fighters. It gives us peace of mind to believe that these three services can be relied upon to provide a quick response to our call.
Keeping that response as near to " immediate " as possible is a matter of priorities. The money situation in the state budget is often tight, but when it comes to priorities the average person would cheerfully accept that the necessary economies be directed just about anywhere other than on these three services. After all , these are the three that we need when an emergency that is threatened to end our lives is occurring.
Can there be any priority more deserving than that ?
Friday 3 August 2012
A possible defence " Bonanza " !
The United States has developed a new defence outlook that will see it bringing forces presently stationed in Europe into our part of the world. This has resulted in rumours that the US may be quietly negotiating with Australia to base a carrier battle group at West Australia's HMAS Stirling.
As part of the US troop buildup we are now sharing training facilities with US Marines in the Northern Territory. The prospect of a carrier battled group calling HMAS Stirling it's home port would be the equivalent to bringing a new industry to Australia, generating more trade money than the existing car manufacturing and steel production in this country - combined.
The presence of a carrier battle group would involve the stationing of at least one of the US Navy's twelve nuclear powered aircraft carriers in Australia, with nine squadrons of attack aircraft and support from at least two missile cruisers, numerous destroyers and frigates - and attack class submarines. Such a battle group would comprise men and women in uniform in numbers consistent with those of a new city.
It would not be without costs to the Australian taxpayer. It would require a huge expansion of HMAS Stirling and we would be called upon to virtually build a new city to house our visitors, but playing host to the US Navy would be a big boost to the Australian economy. It would be ongoing, and it would more than compensate for the nine billion dollars such a plan is expected to incur in development costs.
If this rumour progresses to a definite proposal, it will stir conflicting passions in this country. There is a distinct left wing anti-American slant present in some Australian minds and those people already resent any form of cooperation with the Americans. Against that, our defence capacity would gain an amazing lift. We have a defence treaty with the US that insists on a mutual defence pact, but the presence of a naval battle group would certainly make any potential aggressor think long and hard.
The anti-American lobby will protest that hosting a US battle group will make us a nuclear target in the event of an Asian war. It is also inevitable that those people violently opposed to nuclear reactors will be horrified at the prospect of nuclear propelled naval vessels, equipped with nuclear weapons - being welcomed into Australian waters. Then there is the matter of politics. The various political parties will need to look at the voting intentions of their supporters before they commit either way to such a proposal - if it eventuates.
We live in uncertain economic times. The Euro countries are facing massive fiscal shortfalls and their long term fate is uncertain. We are experiencing a minerals boom, but we are also losing manufacturing industries to low labour cost countries. The prospect of a housing boom to accommodate the US fleet and the massive building programme to expand HMAS Stirling would be a huge shot in the arm for the Australian economy - and it would progress for at least a decade.
If rumour progresses to fact, we would be wise to give it at least careful consideration. Weigh up all the pros and cons - and keep in mind that old adage that warns us " to be careful abut what we wish for ! "
As part of the US troop buildup we are now sharing training facilities with US Marines in the Northern Territory. The prospect of a carrier battled group calling HMAS Stirling it's home port would be the equivalent to bringing a new industry to Australia, generating more trade money than the existing car manufacturing and steel production in this country - combined.
The presence of a carrier battle group would involve the stationing of at least one of the US Navy's twelve nuclear powered aircraft carriers in Australia, with nine squadrons of attack aircraft and support from at least two missile cruisers, numerous destroyers and frigates - and attack class submarines. Such a battle group would comprise men and women in uniform in numbers consistent with those of a new city.
It would not be without costs to the Australian taxpayer. It would require a huge expansion of HMAS Stirling and we would be called upon to virtually build a new city to house our visitors, but playing host to the US Navy would be a big boost to the Australian economy. It would be ongoing, and it would more than compensate for the nine billion dollars such a plan is expected to incur in development costs.
If this rumour progresses to a definite proposal, it will stir conflicting passions in this country. There is a distinct left wing anti-American slant present in some Australian minds and those people already resent any form of cooperation with the Americans. Against that, our defence capacity would gain an amazing lift. We have a defence treaty with the US that insists on a mutual defence pact, but the presence of a naval battle group would certainly make any potential aggressor think long and hard.
The anti-American lobby will protest that hosting a US battle group will make us a nuclear target in the event of an Asian war. It is also inevitable that those people violently opposed to nuclear reactors will be horrified at the prospect of nuclear propelled naval vessels, equipped with nuclear weapons - being welcomed into Australian waters. Then there is the matter of politics. The various political parties will need to look at the voting intentions of their supporters before they commit either way to such a proposal - if it eventuates.
We live in uncertain economic times. The Euro countries are facing massive fiscal shortfalls and their long term fate is uncertain. We are experiencing a minerals boom, but we are also losing manufacturing industries to low labour cost countries. The prospect of a housing boom to accommodate the US fleet and the massive building programme to expand HMAS Stirling would be a huge shot in the arm for the Australian economy - and it would progress for at least a decade.
If rumour progresses to fact, we would be wise to give it at least careful consideration. Weigh up all the pros and cons - and keep in mind that old adage that warns us " to be careful abut what we wish for ! "
Thursday 2 August 2012
Legal recognition of the " Dowry ".
The word " Dowry " means different things to different people. In some countries it refers to a financial consideration a groom pays to the parents of his bride for their acceptance of the marriage. In the west, some wealthy parents settled an amount of money as part of a daughter's inheritance when she married. Now the New South Wales Supreme court has recognised the legality of " Morkharsadak " - as a dowry is called under Sharia law - as it applies to the end of an Islamic marriage.
A wife applied to the Supreme court to require her husband to pay $ 50,000 owing under a signed agreement. They married under Islamic law in 2004 and in 2005 legally signed a Morkharsadak which stipulated that the husband would pay this money in the event of a marriage breakdown initiated by him. Under Sharia law, this was a form of compensation when he was no longer liable to provide for the needs of his wife because of the dissolved marriage.
Australian law is a matter of precedent - and there was nothing in the law books on which to base such a decision until a kind Associate Justice grasped the nettle - and made a ruling. Precedent has now been struck . From that point forward this decision becomes a navigation point to influence future Dowry decisions and it will be open to appeal, as is every aspect of the law.
The differences between Islamic law and Australian law on marriage was a grey area. A well developed legal system provides clarity when it comes to financial matters under Australian law, but an Islamic couple who marry under Sharia law do not automatically come under that umbrella. - unless they also have an Australian law ceremony.
There is still a long way to go before the two systems are integrated. Sharia law and Australian law have very different protocols in ending a marriage. Once again, it will probably take the action of a courageous Associate Justice to break new ground and make a ruling that brings some sort of solution into the law books.
It seems that the word " Dowry " is about to gain a new life in the twenty-first century. This ruling will make it popular with Islamic couples intending to marry - as the new legal way of ensuring financial protection when marriages fail !
A wife applied to the Supreme court to require her husband to pay $ 50,000 owing under a signed agreement. They married under Islamic law in 2004 and in 2005 legally signed a Morkharsadak which stipulated that the husband would pay this money in the event of a marriage breakdown initiated by him. Under Sharia law, this was a form of compensation when he was no longer liable to provide for the needs of his wife because of the dissolved marriage.
Australian law is a matter of precedent - and there was nothing in the law books on which to base such a decision until a kind Associate Justice grasped the nettle - and made a ruling. Precedent has now been struck . From that point forward this decision becomes a navigation point to influence future Dowry decisions and it will be open to appeal, as is every aspect of the law.
The differences between Islamic law and Australian law on marriage was a grey area. A well developed legal system provides clarity when it comes to financial matters under Australian law, but an Islamic couple who marry under Sharia law do not automatically come under that umbrella. - unless they also have an Australian law ceremony.
There is still a long way to go before the two systems are integrated. Sharia law and Australian law have very different protocols in ending a marriage. Once again, it will probably take the action of a courageous Associate Justice to break new ground and make a ruling that brings some sort of solution into the law books.
It seems that the word " Dowry " is about to gain a new life in the twenty-first century. This ruling will make it popular with Islamic couples intending to marry - as the new legal way of ensuring financial protection when marriages fail !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)