Anti Hoon laws !

The New South Wales parliament was jubilant back in July, 2012 when it passed anti hoon laws that seemed certain to curb the worst and most dangerous driving practices that were putting other drivers at risk.  The police were equipped with new powers to confiscate cars or seize number plates for a variety of offences. These included driving at more than forty-five kilometres an hour over the posted speed limit,  using a car in an illegal street race, causing a police pursuit - or doing " burnouts " !

Police statistics released this week reveal a very different story.   The police have caught 4,500 drivers in excess of that 45 kph offence, 1233 police pursuits - using lights and sirens - have occurred and 367 drivers were detected in street drag races or doing burnouts.   Just 167 cars were confiscated and impounded - and 117 sets of number plates were seized.

It seems that 3381 drivers got away with their crime - because they were not the owner of the car involved.

When this law was framed the politicians were leery about seizing Mum or Dad's pride and joy loaned to one of the kids for an outing, or a company vehicle owned by a young drivers employer.   It failed to recognise that in today's wired world of social media ideas spread through cyber space in the twinkling of an eye.   Street cred quickly found a way around this new law - and it became the custom to register vehicles in the name of Grandma or Grandpa - and thus avoid the anti hoon law.

Back to the drawing board !    Parliament obviously has the option of a law change to make the ownership of such vehicles immaterial when an offence is committed, or they can play a " wait and see " game.  Putting a vehicle in another persons name makes that person responsible for fines that many hoons fail to pay - and eventually unpaid fines become the responsibility of the state debt collection office.

Grandma or Grandpa may not appreciate a visit from the Sheriff to seize their big screen television or other goods to meet an unpaid speed camera fine or other traffic violations.   There is also the risk of the vehicle being driven by an unlicensed driver - or unregistered and uninsured - and causing damage to other property or causing injury to a person.   In that case, the Green Slip insurance cover no longer applies and any third party insurance is void.   The legally registered owner of that vehicle is solely responsible for any damage claim that arises from an accident.

Accepting this responsibility by allowing a vehicle to be registered in their name delivers the risk of financial catastrophe on those who do not understand the risk they are taking.   All it will take is one lurid case of an unsuspecting elderly Grandma facing total financial ruin to run on the social media scene for panic to arise - and that would seem to be an eventual inevitability.

Newton's law comes to mind.  To each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction !

Emerging crime tactics !

A recent shooting on a Sydney street is a warning that criminals have developed a new tactic to combine social media, anonymous mobile phones and the lure of a supposed bargain to set a crime scene that is heavily to their advantage.

They set the scene by advertising a Smartphone for sale on social media with the contact point being a mobile phone number.   The asking price was very attractive and the criminals suggested that the exchange take place at night in a very public place - the site of a McDonald's restaurant at a time selected.

When that time arrived with no seller present the buyer received a further phone call - with an excuse for the delay.  Possibly a claim that a car malfunction had stranded the seller several blocks away and the request that the buyer come to that site.  Certainly, not an unreasonable request.

There would be no reason for the buyer to become uneasy.  This new site would be a very normal street of very normal houses, but on arrival the situation quickly changed.  A Smartphone is a costly item and this sort of deal is usually conducted on a cash basis.  The buyer will therefore have an amount of cash on his or her person - and be highly vulnerable to an armed robbery.

In this case the robbery turned deadly.   Shots were fired and the buyer was hit several times and a householder - alarmed by the commotion - opened his door and was promptly shot in the chest. The gunmen left the scene, police and ambulances were called - and this is now an ongoing crime investigation with one man arrested and several others sought.

This has given a clear warning to the public that new crime tactics now apply.  Social media and the Internet provide a huge anonymous market place for goods that formerly traded in the classified columns of newspapers.   Deals between strangers usually involve a cash transfer and the fact that communication between buyer and seller is mostly  by mobile phone leaves no evidence trail to be followed.  A cheap - anonymous mobile bought for cash is usually dumped immediately after a successful heist.

Buyers have a new need to be very suspicious of offers that involve much sought after items such as Smartphones, tablets and high end photographic equipment, all of which are small - and portable.  It would be a very good idea for the buyer to select the meeting place - and if this is refused by the seller - to cancel the deal, and allow no last minute change of venue - no matter what supposed reason is given.

The criminal fraternity are very good at using social change to their advantage. The public need to be equally adept at creating the necessary safeguards !

That " Provocation " defence !

Nothing is certain when it comes to interpreting the law and the actual framing of charges rests in the hands of the Department of Public Prosecutions ( DPP ).  In many cases, an offender goes to court charged with a lesser crime than public expectations and consequently may only attract the penalty for that diminished offence if found guilty.

Two recent criminal cases in New South Wales courts have thrown the spotlight on the defence of " provocation " in what many would consider should be trials for murder.   In each of these, the DPP has agreed to reduce the charge faced - to " manslaughter ".

In one case it involved a much older man attacking his young wife with a knife and inflicting fourteen wounds, resulting in a fatality.  He claimed he was provoked because his wife " questioned his manhood ".   This seems to verge into the arena of " honour killings ", but the court had no option other than to conduct the trial for a manslaughter verdict because that was the only charge offered by the DPP.

In another case the offender claimed that his wife " provoked him into losing self control " when she threatened to leave the marriage.  Once again, the decision of what charge to lay rested with the DPP and did not allow the court to decide whether this action constituted murder or manslaughter.

" Provocation " certainly should be an issue that a court can consider where a death has occurred but it seems that this decision is being made in the offices of the prosecution.   The courts can only conduct a trial according to the charge laid and there has been public pressure for the " provocation " issue to be clarified and the matter of murder or manslaughter returned to the court to be decided.

When an offender is charged with murder, the court has the power to disagree and return a verdict of not guilty to murder, but guilty of manslaughter.   When the charge is only manslaughter, that power of decision is removed and a decision can only be made on the lesser charge.

Any change to the law requires navel gazing to determine what unforeseen outcomes may arise and this matter has lingered in the New South Wales parliament for some time.  Pressure is building to restore the decisive power of the courts to take account of the entire circumstances of any action before the courts rather than the narrow version presented by the prosecution.

Anything less seems a strange perversion of - justice !

A new beginning !

The winning margin in any Australian Federal election is decided by the small number of " swinging voters " who alternate their allegiance between the two major political parties.  This is in contrast to the vast majority who are rock solid in their support of either Labor or the Conservatives and never change their voting pattern, unless extreme dissatisfaction with a particular policy forces them to support an independent - or lodge an " informal " vote.

Bill Shorten thinks that the Australian Labor party needs to open it's branches and attract Labor supporters to take a hands on approach to formulating Labor policies.  Standing in the way of this objective is the rule that to be a branch member a person must also be a member of a trade union, and as a result the number of those officially enrolled in the party branches is just forty-five thousand.

Many Labor branches turn a blind eye to this rule, but it provides ammunition to critics who contend that the Labor party is " run by the unions " - and that is anathema to many possible recruits.   Shorten has his eye on the coming Royal Commission into union malpractice and needs to space the party from it's union membership because of coming revelations - and the sad litany of corruption and personal banditry that has smeared Labor politicians and union leaders in recent times.

The unions were once a mighty force in Australia and industry was virtually a " closed shop ".   No Union ticket - no job !    Today, union numbers are a mere shadow of their former glory but they still play a big part in formulating Labor's policies and their collective treasuries are critical to funding the party's election expenses.   Consequently, their voting power and decision making balance is way out of step with their numbers.

Shorten has a vision of  " New Labor " !     A party with an expanded branch structure open to those from all walks of life and not dominated by rules that give the union movement a virtual veto on policies they reject.   It is a risky proposal - and there is a chance that it could split the party and send the extreme left wing and the unions to form the polling disaster that grew from the formulation of the " Democratic Labor party " of many years ago.

The problem is that to reform the Labor party will require some people to relinquish power - and power is a very seductive force.  The union movement has created dynasties and the good life for those at the top of the pyramid and unfortunately the flow of union funds contains few checks and balances - and this has led to corruption.  Any loss of power would be anathema if it involved a diminished personal lifestyle for those in a leading role.

Shorten appears to be " flying a kite " - and waiting for a response to determine the reaction.  The decisive loss of support at the last election is a warning that change is needed.   Whether that is possible within the present structure of the party is the unknown factor !

Restoration of Imperial honours !

The suggestion that Australia may readopt the honorary titles of " Sir " and " Dame " will certainly send the Socialist set into a frenzy.   Imperial honours were scrapped when Gough Whitlam swept Labor into office in 1972 after decades in the wilderness - and before a cabinet was even selected - governed by edict in implementing a socialist agenda.

The argument at that time was that Australia deserved it's own form of recognition for exemplary public service.  Imperial honours were replaced with the Order of Australia and this set four levels of recognition, with each having restrictions on the number that could be awarded each year.

The top " Gong " was the "Companion of the Order of Australia", signified by the initials " AC " and  limited to twenty-five in one year.  The next level was "Officer of the Order of Australia," " AO " with a one hundred limit.   Then the" Member of the Order of Australia " - " AM " with a two hundred and twenty five quota limit - and finally the  " Medal of the Order of Australia " - " OAM " which carried no number restrictions.

Over four decades later very little has changed.  The annual announcement of the award of honours is eagerly awaited by recipients and is sprinkled through all sections of society, just as it had been under the Imperial system.   Few receive the top " AC " to accompany their name, just as the addition of " Sir " or " Dame " was dispensed sparingly in the Imperial honours era.

The suggestion being considered is not to replace the Order of Australia, but to add to it with what is really a " Knighthood " becoming an exceptional award for the very few whose service merits a special distinction, probably limited to the extent that no award will be forthcoming in some years.

The very idea will scandalize our true blue socialist element but it would be a handy addition to those Australians of merit who are tasked with representing us in the councils of the world.    The title " Sir " or " Dame " has recognition overseas that even " AC " lacks in public recognition.   It simply allows an Australian representative to hold their own when titles become a hallmark of status.

No doubt this proposal will divide along political lines.  The issue of Knighthoods has been an ongoing battle of abandonment and restoration as the government numbers have changed hands.  It's return as an issue will probably draw flak in the parliament - but be treated with indifference in the public arena.

Few expect to have " Sir " precede their given name !

A new look at an old job !

One interesting thought to come out of the Royal Commission on sex abuse by the clergy is the suggestion that the Catholic Church should be run like a corporation - and that priests should carry their own insurance cover against sexual transgression.

The abuse of children by those in authority is not confined to the Catholic Church.  All denominations have skeletons rattling away in their cupboards and perhaps this is a good time to review the responsibilities that go with clerical orders.   The law bestows rights and privileges on the holders of office and yet their position in the legal framework is murky !

Appointment as representatives of various religions is at the sole discretion of the head of that order.  Under the civil code that applies, this person is then entitled to perform marriage ceremonies, burials and receive monetary offerings from parishioners.  There are no rules governing the disbursement of what could then be called " public money "  and it's tax treatment usually falls into the category of " exempt " !

A priest, minister - or whatever title goes with the job - is a public figure who is not subjected to the rules and regulations that apply to public office.   A Real Estate agent needs to qualify and hold a license and maintain a trust account to guard client's funds - and have insurance cover against misuse.   Similar provisions apply to lawyers and a huge raft of professions - including the entire medical fraternity - must ply their trade within a tight regulatory framework.      This is something that is entirely missing where religion is concerned.

Even the recognition of what constitutes a religion is obscure.   Anyone can declare their own opinion as a revelation that spawns a new religion and if enough people become followers the state usually gives it it's blessing - and confers the right to hold property without paying taxes.

As the " Ellis Defence " has illustrated, it is possible to structure a religion to shield it from legal assault and exempt it's practitioners as servants under it's employ.   Perhaps the time has come when those undertaking clerical duties need to be granted an appropriate license - and that license require similar insurance cover against a range of legal transgressions.

The one thing this Royal Commission has achieved is to drag the legal liability of the churches into the public arena - kicking and screaming - and insisting that they have some sort of mystical protection from the laws and responsibilities that apply to us other mere mortals.

If the Royal Commission delivers checks and balances on the conduct of the churches it will have dispersed the fog that has enshrouded religion since the " Dark Ages " !

An ever present threat !

Just hearing the word " Ebola " sends a chill through the mind of most people.  This disease has been the story content of several books and at least one film and it's method of killing people is particularly horrifying.  It is also called the " bleeding disease " and once a person is infected all the organs of the body start hemorrhaging, leading to a near universal death toll.

The other horror aspect is the ease of infection that can be passed to others.  Basically, any physical contact with a person infected with Ebola will almost certainly transmit the disease and that includes, sweat, tears and of course any bodily fluids a carer may come into contact with.   This high danger persists until the Ebola virus is positively identified - and for many that will come too late.

The news that Ebola is raging in the west African country of Guinea will be of great concern to both the medical world - and to those concerned with national security in western countries.  Little is know about the origin of Ebola except that it is thought to have evolved amongst the Apes of Africa and it's passage to humans involved the use of " bush meat " for human consumption.

In recent times it has lain dormant with sporadic outbreaks that are quickly isolated by World Health medical teams.   The danger is that it will draw the attention of the terrorist movements and become a weapon of mass destruction in western society.

Those with the intention of delivering harm to sections of the human race would consider Ebola their dream weapon.  By sacrificing a few in the same tradition as " suicide bombers " it would be possible for operatives to deliberately infect themselves with Ebola and spread the infection at " choke points " such as airports and rail stations.   A careful selection of infection points such as ticket terminals, hand rails and on door furniture would ensure the disease was widely spread - very quickly.

Fortunately, capturing this virus and storing it safely is not easily accomplished and world health authorities are aware of the danger.   Unfortunately, world terrorism suffers no shortage of funds and should this become a terrorist target it is likely that recruits could be found within the medical community to supply the needed know-how !

Every Ebola outbreak that is reported in the news could be forming a plan in the minds of those tasked with spreading terror across this planet.    The disease spectrum is a weapon that has not been exploited by those seeking mass carnage.   Perhaps one day the good luck that has spared us so far - will run out !

Emergency Room Overload !

Visit the emergency room in any public hospital and you will most likely find a room full of people awaiting treatment.  Shortly after arrival you will be interviewed by a triage nurse and the severity of your condition will determine what happens next.  Should you have extreme bleeding or be suffering chest pains you will probably be put on a gurney and immediately taken for treatment.  Life threatening symptoms go to the head of the queue - and severity tapers downward from there.

That is exactly the way an emergency room is supposed to work, and yet we have overload because a lot of people choose to use this facility for injuries that could be treated by their general practitioner or by the local chemist.   Numerous surveys have examined ways to reduce the load, but in the end this overuse of emergency rooms comes back to a single factor.   This is a free service - and that is the prime motivation for most people.

It is estimated that non urgent use of emergency rooms involves about 300,000 visits a year in Australia and this costs the government at least a billion dollars.   At one stage there was a plan to create medical clinics near hospitals which offered bulk billing and operated 24/7.  Some of these were actually built, but very little changed in the volume of patients visiting the local ER for treatment.

The sticking point is the cost factor.   If a patient is directed to a GP - and even if that GP bulk bills - the most likely outcome is that a script gets written and the patient takes that to a chemist and has it filled - and there is a cost involved.   If that same patient endures a long wait at the ER and is finally treated, the medication needed comes from the hospital pharmacy - and is free !

We are faced with a dilemma.   In some countries the medical system depends entirely on the patient being able to pay the bill.   If the patient has no money - then no treatment is provided and in extreme cases this is a death sentence.   In Australia, our public hospitals are a public service - and nobody is turned away for lack of money.  The vast majority of Australians would be loath to see that abandoned.

In most respects, our present system is still the best option available.  The facilities exist at hospitals to treat  emergencies and these are the focal point of the ambulance service. Priority of treatment is determined on a triage basis, leaving those with minor presentations at the end of a very long queue.  They have the option of continuing that wait - or leaving and seeking other treatment for their ailment.

Probably the best answer to ER overload would be a digital notice board offering an estimated wait for service for those about to present to the triage nurse.   Faced with reality, many will re-evaluate whether they are prepared to undertake this amount of waiting time and many will make other arrangements.

It seems that most past efforts have been attempts to fix the unfixable !    Emergency rooms are for emergencies but we preserve the right of citizens to access free treatment - provided they are prepared to wait in direct relation to the severity of their problem.   Imposing a fee for service may shorten the queue, but it will be at the expense of denying treatment to the destitute - and that would be considered un-Australian.

It seems to be a case of enhancing that old adage:   " If it 'aint broke - don't fix it ".    The ER system is doing just fine in treating genuine emergencies.  It just needs a more efficient filter to stem the patient flow !

Thin end of a wedge !

The Fair Work Commission has decreed that the age differential on pay between workers aged twenty and twenty-one will be scrapped from July, 2015.  In delivering it's finding, it said there is  " little difference in the work or duties of those 20 or 21 ".    Of course, that same argument could equally apply to the age difference between twenty and nineteen.

This ruling will require the employee to have served at least six months with the same employer for it to apply, but it seems to be sounding the death knell to the entire pay in relation to age structure that has applied for centuries.   We seem to be heading into an era where any job carries a universal rate of pay, irrespective of whether the employee is male or female - and irrespective of age.

In the early twentieth century many young people left school at age fifteen and gained an apprenticeship to learn a trade.  They were expected to gain skills by a combination of tuition from their employer and attending night classes at what was known in those days as a Technical College.   They usually lived at home and had family support to offset the low pay they earned - and in their early years they contributed little profit to the business of their employer.

Today, many teens have left the family nest and are living independently a long way before their twentieth birthday.   If they are an apprentice, they attend TAFE several days a week - at their employers expense and therefore contribute little profitability in their early years.   If their pay is elevated to an adult wage it will be a positive disincentive for employers to even consider hiring and training apprentices.   It seems that the " social standards " people are ignoring the increasing value that added skills bring with age.

We already have a huge problem with young unemployed.  Finding that first job is difficult in a society  where unskilled labour is steadily being replaced by degrees of automation.  The job of " checkout chicks " in supermarkets is being eroded by customer scanning stations and the days when attendants rushed to fill the tank at petrol stations are long gone.   If equal pay - irrespective of age - applies in hiring it is inevitable that those with maturity will have the advantage.

It is easy to be seduced by the argument that whatever the job, the same rate of pay should apply to what work is to be carried out rather than the gender or age of the person who will do that work.   That could probably apply if the function is to simply thread a nut and a bolt to hold two widgets together - but if the job requires problem solving skills and the ability to make decisions between various courses of action, then the maturity and skill that comes with age enters the equation.  The less skilled are not worth the same money as the highly skilled.

This decision by the Fair Work Commission has opened a Pandora's box.    Pay differentials by age that have been long accepted will now be challenged and removing the loading between twenty and twenty-one will be seen as the thin edge of the wedge.   It will not help the young unemployed find their first job !

Surveillance !

By next month, the Opal card will be operating at all stations on the New South Wales train network - and another step will lock into place in the personal surveillance of New South Wales citizens.  When we " tap and ride " the central computers know precisely who we are, where we have been and in what time frame.  To some people, that is an invasion of privacy.

Of course, privacy is now considered archaic !   Our Smartphone provider knows exactly where we are twenty-four/seven.   That clever piece of machinery emits a signal that is " read " by the company computers and by triangulating between transmitter towers it can accurately place us anywhere on planet earth.  That could be quite handy if we are ever kidnapped - or manage to get lost in the bush.

These days Big Brother keeps a sharp eye on where we travel in our cars.   Sydney folk need a toll road transponder and that tracks each vehicle through the toll sections to record our bill.  Then there are the Safe-T-Road cameras that screen every highway.  Number plate recognition technology can scan to find an individual vehicle and track it's progress from journey start to finish.

Every time we access the Internet on our computers or Smartphones that download is recorded against our allowance by the computer company providing our service.   We are also probably being scooped up by various spying agencies around the world and recorded at a central date base.

We probably get photographed hundreds of times a day.  Every time we enter a store or supermarket security cameras provide a record and the street scene is now covered by the cctv network.  Walking through the CBD exposes us to hundreds of hidden security cameras trained on the entrance to shops from vantage points.  In the event of a robbery, the police are very interested in the preceding pedestrian traffic.

Now it is proposed to install fingerprint security to reduce school truancy.  The kids will need to clock in and out by pressing a pressure pad - and in the event of a no show - automatic notification to parents or guardians.  No doubt some kids will compare that to the reporting regime required of prisoners granted bail..

The civil liberties people will holler long and loud, but the Facebook age has brought new thinking on how we live our lives - and we now do that openly.  An amazing amount of very personal information is published on the net for all to see - and some of it may come back in the years ahead to haunt the indiscreet.

There is also a reverse benefit with all this surveillance.  If we are every falsely accused of a crime the average person should have no trouble in establishing a proven alibi !

Money talks louder than justice !

Cynics will not be surprised at the outcome of a scandal that smeared the safety reputation of Toyota, the world's biggest auto maker.   In 2009 the world was shocked when owners started to experience power surges and inability to stop their cars, leading to numerous crashes - some of which were fatal. Toyota initially dismissed the complaints but the carnage continued and eventually it was found that a manufacturing fault caused accelerators to stick and decline to decelerate - and ill fitting car mats could  interfere with the pedals travel range.  There were also brake problems in some models.

This led to the world's biggest safety recall - and over ten million Toyota cars received remedial work to restore safety.  Toyota's reputation took a hit - and it is only now recovery from the resulting sales slump.

This scandal has been brought to a close with the US government imposing a $ 1.2 billion fine on Toyota, but in the terms of this settlement, not a single person will face charges for allowing cars with a known fault to remain on the road and continue to main and kill their owners because the cause was kept hidden by the vehicles manufacturer.   This could be construed - as manslaughter !

This case sends the wrong message to the captains of industry.  Safety should be the first consideration when a fault is discovered that could bring harm to the owners of a product.   To deliberately refuse to acknowledge these facts to protect the profitability and reputation of the manufacturer while the fault continues to harm victims is nothing short of criminal negligence.

Toyota will continue to be pursued in the courts by the relatives of those killed and this will continue for many years, but it is galling to think that the very people who allowed this to happen because they valued company profitability over the lives of their customers remain drawing big salaries - and retaining their positions of power and prestige.

The terms of the settlement with Toyota clearly abandoned the victims rights and the opportunity to send a clear message on the responsibilities that go with management when it comes to safety - and disclosure.  It delivers smug reassurance to the boardrooms of the world that when disaster threatens - money will protect the individual who implements profit protection from the consequences of that action.

Imposing just a fine leaves a lot of dead people consigned to " indifference " !

Coming crisis point !

Prior to 1989 the United States and it's NATO allies kept a huge standing army in Europe in case the Soviet Union sent it's tank armies through the Fulda gap and invaded the Democratic countries of the west.  This threat never materialised - and when the Soviet Union suffered economic collapse it seemed that a kinder, gentler Russia was emerging.  The west claimed a " peace dividend " - and NATO forces reduced to a mere shadow of their former self.

Vladimir Putin is determined to recreate this former Russian empire and he has invaded and annexed the Crimea from Ukraine.   This has been rejected by most of the rest of the world, but the one thing that is conspicuously missing from the threats of retribution - is the use of military force.   It is clear that Russian military strength now outweighs that of NATO countries and with the US downsizing it's forces, military intervention is not an option.

We are now entering a new tactical situation that may play out in many ways.   The Russian economy is reliant on selling it's huge reserves of oil and natural gas to western European countries - and they have been reluctant to impose heavy sanctions because Putin controls the flow spigots.  It is likely that Europe will seek to diversify it's reliance on Russian energy, and if that succeeds it will strike a crippling blow to the Russian economic cash flow.

Putin is trying to create an economic union to rival the EU with Russia's old satellite regime countries and given the success of his Crimean adventure, he may use similar tactics of claiming to support Russian speaking citizens in surrounding regimes.   Latvia, Estonia and other now independent countries will be very nervous and it is quite possible that Russia will extend it's invasion under this pretext to absorb the entire Ukraine - if he thinks he can safely get away with it.

We should remember that Putin was on shaky ground in his home country.  Vast numbers of Russian citizens rejected his authoritarian stance and this culminated in street demonstrations.  He is now stoking the fires of nationalism and the Russian people are loudly supporting his annexation of Crimea.  It is possible he will use this strategy in the way Adolph Hitler seduced the German people with his forays into the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia and Austria.

Democracy is fast fading as the regime of Russia.   Putin is an operative of the old KGB and he has surrounded his administration with similar people.   Basically, it is morphing into a dictatorship along Soviet lines with Russia emerging as the prime military power in Europe.  It is quite possible that the future will see the world divided between two super powers - Russia and China.

We are now at a very dangerous crossroads.   If the west can summon sufficient unity and purpose it can deflect Putin from further military adventures and probably curtail the Russian economy if it diversifies it's energy needs.   Unfortunately, achieving that end pits a number of individual leaders to the task of creating solid uniformity - and that is something rarely attained amongst democracies.   In this case, it depends if the rule of democracy that we hold so dear can survive !

Ducking for cover !

It is almost hilarious to see the scramble for cover by the legal profession and the church in the aftermath of the " Ellis Defence " fiasco.  There seems to be uncertainty about who actually gave the instruction to claim that John Ellis was not abused by a priest, despite an internal church report accepting that this had happened.  It also raised the question of whether an " ethical standard " had been breached by those legal figures taking that stance in court.

It should be quite clear that the entire legal profession has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of delivering justice.   The system is based on an " adversarial " concept and how the law is administered depends on which side of the divide an individual is employed.  They are either in the realms of " prosecution " - or  " Defence ".

The legal people don't really give a tinker's curse whether the accused is innocent or guilty.  They simply have a job to do - and their reputation and income depends heavily on achieving success at that job.  A prosecutor who delivers too many " not guilty " verdicts is soon out of a job and a defence attorney with a poor success rate finds it hard to attract clients.

They hone their legal skills at law school and when they go into court they must abide by a set of rules - much in the same way as a football team must obey the ruling of the umpire.   In a law court, the " umpire " is the judge or the magistrate who rules on what is and what is not permitted under whatever law applies.

The people who prosecute or defend in court usually have nothing to do with the decision to send the case to court.   They are the mere instruments of a well oiled machine that is supposed to give the illusion of justice.   The actual decision is made in a murky world of legal precedent, politics - and often commercial interests which include staggering amounts of money.    In law - there is no certainty !  

In today's world - the media is the new ringmaster.   If a case has the right mix of contention, public interest, interesting people - and it helps if a little lurid sex is somewhere in the mix - it will feature in the six o'clock news.   The spin doctors are adept at presenting it in a sensational way - and with the right treatment it can morph into people in the streets waving placards and demanding a verdict that suits their views.

It was Shakespeare that said " all the world's a stage " !    Getting caught up in the legal system is a nightmare to be avoided at all costs..   The chance of receiving justice is remote - and mounting a decent defence will cost a pot of money.

The lucky ones are those who can morph their experience into a fee for interview from the media - and the really lucky ones are those who hit the jackpot of a book deal or television rights. !

House of notoriety !

Many people must be bemused at the regular appearance on news channels of a house in Sydney's prime suburb of Bondi.  It would be fair to describe it as a " House of notoriety " !

This modest suburban home almost disappears behind a wall of shoulder high rubbish.  It is piled high on the verandah, covers all the garden area and towers over the front fence - and on a hot summer day the smell is powerful from the rotting food and vegetation in the mix.  Rueful neighbours claim that it harbours vermin such as rats, fleas and cockroaches - and it simply defies logic !

Over the years this scene has attracted the media on many occasions when the council has served clean-up orders - and sent in their troops to load the rubbish on trucks and clear it away.  So far, this has cost the council over $ 340,000 in charges - and there is no end in sight.

The house is owned by a woman and her two daughters, and the moment the area is clear they commence to collect rubbish and rebuild the pile.  They are simply hoarders - and there is no distinction in the type of rubbish they collect. It is a matter of all and any - and some would consider that this is a medical compulsion rather than a choice of habit.

There is no doubt that this is a health risk and it clearly falls within the powers of council to order it's removal. This time action will be delayed because the women have taken the matter to the Supreme court and are challenging the validity of the serving of the clean-up order, but eventually the work will proceed - and the cost tally will again mount even higher.

The council has bent over backwards to be compassionate and try and mitigate a situation that must be oppressive to other residents of the entire street - and which must have a detrimental effect on house prices. It is evident that this relentless collecting of rubbish will continue because the pattern has been set. Other people will expect that the council will use it's powers to find a permanent remedy.

The logical course of action would be for council to seek to recover past clean-up costs by way of court action - which would probably result in the home being auctioned.   This unsightly mess and danger to health has existed for many years.   It requires hard decisions and prompt action to bring it to an end !

Brain drain !

The Gonski report was supposed to overhaul the nation's education system and create a better educated work force earning higher salaries and improving living standards.  One of the objectives was to increase the ratio of skilled students with tertiary qualifications to make this the " Clever Country ".

It comes as something of a shock to learn that one out of every five students who enrol in the nation's universities drops out before finishing their course.   This is a huge waste of resources and indicates that we need to look deeper into the selection criteria for course acceptance.

The gateway at present is the HSC - the " Higher School Certificate ".   The level of HSC attainment required is the entry point for individual courses and only the highly talented will qualify to study medicine and law, the most sought after disciplines.  There has been a tendency in recent times for the entry requirement for less popular courses to be set lower to attract course numbers.

Many decades ago a university education was restricted to the privileged.  A family needed wealth to pay a son or daughter's university tuition and a gifted child from a poor family needed to win a scholarship to gain university selection.  The introduction of HECS made universities open to all with the advent of student loans that could be repaid when the recipient reached a salary level commensurate with the qualification gained.
Unfortunately, this also contained what some saw as an " escape clause ".   Those that failed to qualify or who took lesser work than their qualification and thus did not reach the required salary level for required repayment of their loan - walked away free of debt.

Today, a university education is seen as a " right " rather than a " privilege ".  Many career paths such as teaching and nursing require a minimum university qualification for entry and this is expected to widen in coming years.   Unfortunately, the fact that it is now easier to gain a place at a university has devalued it's worth in the eyes of many people.

One of the problems is that young people leaving school may make unwise career choice decisions and as a result feel that they must start a university course.    Once into that course, they realise the mistake - and drop out.  It seems obvious that we need better pre-career evaluation and training in the final years of high school to get those decisions right if we are not to waste public money on failed university courses.

The other university incentive is the tight job market.   High youth unemployment increases family pressure to go for higher education and in some cases the young person is more suited to a trade career, but that requires an apprenticeship - which is also not available.   University then becomes a choice, despite it being a " square peg in a round hole " answer to that persons needs.   A wrong decision simply wastes precious education resources and delivers no gain to the student.

The drop our rate is a clear indication that university selection criteria needs work.  Skill is needed to guide each university applicant through the thinking process that applies to the years ahead and there needs to be an acceptable alternative such as TAFE available with entry numbers to accommodate those better suited to a different career level.

Simply using the HSC as the entrance barrier will ensure that this drop out rate continues !

The crime of the century !

It seems almost unbelievable that a wide bodied jet plane with two hundred and thirty nine people aboard should commence a routine flight from Kuala Lumpar in Malaysia to Bejing in China - and simply disappear. For over a week, ships and planed have searched it's flight path while confusing details have been released - and often retracted - to deepen the mystery.

Now a clearer picture has emerged.  Malaysian Airlines flight MH 370 disappeared from air traffic  radar when it's transponder was switched off and it's radio communication systems shut down.  It was still visible to the Malaysian defence systems military radar and they now reveal that when the plane was between two national air traffic control boundaries it changed course - and headed towards the Indian ocean.

This aircraft is fitted with a separate " pinger " which radios regular reports on the aircraft's mechanical functions to the manufacturer and these were received for six hours after the flight disappeared.  It is also reported that passengers Smartphones continued to deliver ringing tones for many hours, indicating that they were still in working condition.

The assumption that the plane crashed into the sea is contradicted by these known facts and it now appears that the aircraft could have reached India, China or Kazakhstan, or may have made another turn over the Indian ocean and headed for Western Australia.   No claims have been received from terrorist sources and the only logical explanation seems to be a hi-jacking - but the situation remains unclear.

The fact that the majority of passengers were Chinese nationals with a small sprinkling from other nations points the finger at a terrorist involvement.   The Eighur people seeking a separate homeland have recently commenced terrorist raids in China and their involvement will certainly be a cause of deep suspicion.

The puzzling factor is the final destination of Flight MH 370.   It is evident that someone with technical knowledge was needed to switch off the planes transponder and communication systems and the fact that it continued it's journey for six more hours indicates that there must have been a motive planned.   It seems illogical that the plane continued until it's fuel ran out - and then crashed into the sea.

A jet plane of that nature needs a runway at least a mile long to safely land, and such military airfields exist in many countries within the reach of this flight.   It seems inconceivable that a crime of this magnitude has been covered up somewhere for political gain - and Flight 370 will remain unexplained.

There is suspicion that getting the known facts into the public arena is like pulling teeth as far as the Malaysian authorities are concerned.   Details were slow to emerge and were often promptly retracted.  It was days before the involvement of Malaysian military radar in tracking the aircraft was finally acknowledged.   Only now does the Malaysian government seem to be fully cooperating.

This is a mystery that has the attention of the entire world.  It is impossible for that plane to crash into the sea without clearly identifiable wreckage rising to the surface and eventually that will attract attention.  The search - involving untold millions of dollars - has been extended and involves aircraft, ships and satellites. No effort will be spared to solve what is clearly " the crime of the century "!

Super Bugs !

The human race has waged an unending war against infections.   History is littered with horror tales of death cutting a great swathe through medieval society which the healers were powerless to prevent.  Bubonic Plague - which was known as the " Black Death " - ravaged Europe from 1340 until 1400, and in 1919 - at the end of the first world war - what became known as " Spanish Flu " swept the entire world.

A medical breakthrough occurred in 1928 when a Scottish scientist, Alexander Fleming discovered a wonder drug called Penicillin.  For the first time, the medical profession had a tool that could banish most forms of infection and the wide use of Penicillin saved many lives from the ravages of the second world war.  It seemed that the golden age of medicine had arrived and further research expanded the range of drugs that were called " antibiotics ".

Unfortunately, they were not wisely used.  Many patients believed that they cured the common cold, which is a virus unconnected to antibiotics and many doctors supplied scripts to placate demanding patients.  Whenever a patient failed to take the full course of antibiotic treatment this weakened the powers of the drug.   The infection got a taste of the ingredient involved, but survived and developed against it's harmful effect.  The medical profession was forced to increase the dose and over time the infection became virtually immunised against the healing power of the drug.

Worse was to follow.  The agricultural industries discovered that antibiotics could be used to improve farming output and soon vast quantities were being used commercially, further weakening it's resistance to infection as it's powers were diluted.   It became common for human patients to require a full exposure to the expanding range of antibiotics to deal with infections that had previously been simple to suppress.

In the 1980's the western world faced death at the hands of an infection called " Golden Staph ".  This was the first of what became known as the " Super Bugs " and it ravaged hospitals.   It was possible to die from an infection that followed the simplest and safest medical procedure, because this " bug " was resistant to most antibiotics and spread rapidly due to the slightest lapse of medical hygiene.

We are now facing a new threat.   The arsenal of antibiotics has shrunk to  almost zero and at the same time infections have morphed upward to deliver a new menace called " Gram Negative " bacteria.   This promises to be an infection against which we have no defences.    Even the slightest cut can provide an entry point that allows a steady deterioration - and an inevitable death.

The damage has been done and this new form of Gram Negative bacteria is now with us.   We badly need a new medical breakthrough as happened when Penicillin became the wonder drug.   Medical science is aware of the risk and huge sums are being spent on research - but success is elusive.

Hopefully, a bright mind may be our salvation and save us from a medical retreat to the dark ages, but if that happens we will need to not repeat the same situation that got us into this mess.  The use of drugs needs to be restricted to preserve their medicinal value.   Whether we can apply the discipline needed is another question that remains to be answered !

" Nationalism " !

The fires of " Nationalism " are being stoked in Ukraine to justify what is in every aspect a military invasion of that country.   The Russian speaking sectors of Crimea are describing the residents of Kiev as " fascists " and pandering to Vladimir Putin's claim to be offering them " protection ".

Ukrainian history is not kind to Russia as a benevolent neighbour.  It was forcibly invaded in the days of the Soviet Union and under Stalin it's productive farms were collectivized and it's farming families decimated.  A politically contrived famine killed millions - and when the German army invaded in the early years of the second world war - many Ukrainians greeted them as saviours.

The spectre of nationalism is always lurking in the background across the countries that makeup the European map.   It is not a European custom for people to adopt the nationality of the country in which they live - if their background is from another European region.

It is not unusual for a family that has lived for many generations in another country to still retain the nationality of their original country and still speak that language and observe the customs and holiday festivities that apply in their old homeland.   This seems to be a European peculiarity - which the rest of the world finds puzzling.

It is certainly not a custom that prevails in either America or Australia.   The great waves of migrants that settled in both countries originally clung together for mutual support, but their children quickly adopted the lifestyle of their new country and by the time of grandchildren - they were fully assimilated.  Both America and Australia are " migrant " nations.   The vast majority of their citizens came from elsewhere and their numbers far exceed the original indigenous inhabitants.

It seems that what some call the " tyranny of distance " worked in favour of breaking down old nationalities. Both America and Australia are a long way from Europe and this removes the distraction of having a former country just a short distance away.   Europeans are served by a steady overlap of television, newspaper and travel links that make it easy to retain close contact with an old homeland - and hence national bonds remained strong.

In past centuries, Europe was notorious as a place of constant wars and these were the clash of both nationalities and religion.   It seems that little has really changed, despite the hope of Jacues DeLors, one of the originators of the European Union, that a common market embracing all of the countries of the region would enhance prosperity through trade and banish war.

The citizens of Europe still cling doggedly to their links to their old countries.   Ukraine remains a flash point between east and west - and it seems that the prospect of war remains a European reality !

The Post Office - Decision Time !

The Australian post office network has been a money spinner for the government for many decades.  Not only does it provide an essential service for the public but it delivered a handsome profit each year to bolster the government's bottom line.   It seems that those glory days are coming to a close.

The electronic media is fast replacing the bread and butter issue of people putting postage stamps on letters and having them delivered through the mail system.   It is inevitable that this flow will continue to decline - and with it the profitability of the post offices.   From a practical point of view, change is necessary.

Some countries have reduced costs by changing from a daily mail delivery to a schedule of delivery only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.    This underscores the changed priority accorded to mail items in this different age and it may be extended to the Australian mail system.

Britain has privatised it's post offices on the basis that private industry is more efficient than the public service in achieving profitability.   Putting a price on such a sale will always be contentious and many believe that the government sold the postal service too cheaply.  It's shareholding is now trading at a peak seventy percent higher than it's issue price.

Australians will be very conscious of the disparity between the asking price for government assets and their true value.  When our Commonwealth Bank was privatised it's share offering was at just $ 5.40.   Today, those same shares are listed on the stock exchange around the $ 75 mark.

The biggest headache for the government in taking the privatisation road with the post office system - will be job losses.   The post offices are part of the public service and are subject to the rules that apply to government employment.  It is inevitable that private enterprise will achieve a " do more with less " philosophy - and that means a leaner, meaner work force.

Perhaps our existing network of post offices offers " opportunity " if we apply innovative thinking.  We have in place a desireable network of sales outlets that are well situated to be available to the entire population of the country.    We also have in place a banking system that has been steadily contracting in size until it now is known as " the big four " - and it moves in lockstep with the services it offers.

Could the existing post office system morph into a new savings bank available to the people now that the banks have closed most of their suburban branches, and could those branches also offer services such as insurance, car registration, Medicare refunds - and the assortment of needs now scattered widely ?

The mind numbing equation - is how to achieve that ?   It would probably be impossible under the public service umbrella, but is there any reason why the government could not be - simply a major shareholder with money invested in a public company run under entrepeneureal management ?  Is it not possible to retain a financial interest with no greater management role than other ordinary members of the public who buy shares and expect a return by way of dividends ?   Is it necessary to fully privatise a public asset ?

In this twenty-first century, it seems that all levels of society needs to learn to think outside the proverbial " nine dots " !

The futility of the AVO !

Several days ago an incident of unparallelled ferocity happened in inner city Sydney.  Someone deliberately threw inflammable liquid over a young woman - and set her on fire. Residents came to her aid, tried to extinguish the fire - and called police and ambulances, but she is now in a critical condition in the burns unit of a Sydney hospital.

A police investigation has resulted in the arrest of her assailant - who also suffered burns in what was clearly a murder attempt.   The young woman suffered burns to forty percent of her body and if she survives, she will be scarred for life.

Piercing together the details of this attack reveals a scenario of love that went sour.  It is alleged that the attacker was a former boyfriend who refused to accept that their rift was permanent.   That led to confrontations and violence that caused his former partner to take out an " Apprehended Violence Order " - commonly known as an " AVO ".

An AVO is a court order that usually requires the person named to refrain from approaching the person seeking it's protection.  In some cases, it nominates that persons place of work and residence, and applies a perimeter that must not be breached.   Breaking the conditions of an AVO is an offence that could result in the offender being arrested by police and charged.

The problem is that AVO's only serve a purpose if the person subjected to the order is a civilized member of society who obeys the law - and in the vast majority of cases - that it not so.   In many cases the intent of the person named in an AVO is a form of revenge and this can be further fuelled by drugs or alcohol - and in some instances - mental instability.

Unfortunately, they are the only form of protection  society offers those who are being stalked in instances that suggest the outcome will be violent.  A depressing number of murder cases also involve an ignored AVO - and yet the police are unable to act until a law has actually been breached.

Perhaps the scope of AVO's needs a judicial review.  In instances where there has been a proven record of violence and high risk, the parameters could be widened.   CCTV and face recognition technology cover wide areas and should AVO's stipulate an entire suburb that a person was prohibited from entering the breach risk factor would increase sharply.   Obviously, the penalty for such a breach would need to include a period of incarceration.

As things stand, the AVO is an exercise in futility.  It needs teeth if it is to provide a degree of real protection !

A change of thinking !

Cardinal George Pell has abruptly changed course on the liability of the Roman Catholic church for sexual abuse by it's priests.  He now says :   " My own view is that the church in Australia should be able to be sued in cases of this kind ".    It was Bishop Pell who directed the church's lawyers to refuse a compensation claim for $ 100,000 from John Ellis for abuse by a priest and spend $ 1.5 million of the church's money to win what became known as " the Ellis defence " !

The NSW Court of Appeal found that the church was so structured that it could not be sued as an entity and it could not be liable for priest's abuses.   The church has relentlessly used this defence to thwart legal action by the victims of priests, but in recent times it has doled out compensation in return for non disclosure pledges.

Absolutely nothing changes unless the church legally changes the structure which hides it's property and  cash behind a wall of trusts that give effect to the Ellis defence.   The fact that it is now dispensing compensation limits the amount involved to whatever the church decides to offer.  That is something that should be decided by a court, deciding the matter at arms length and with total impartiality from those involved.

Critics of the Catholic church will be waiting to see if action is taken to restructure the legal basis on which the church stands to remove this " Ellis Defence " and return the compensation issue to the court system. Unless this is done, Cardinal Pell's change of direction will simply be the musings of a church elder.

Another issue that remains cloaked in ambiguity - is the legal requirement that the church will report all matters of priestly sexual abuse to the police.    In the past, the church simply covered up illicit sexual activity and in many cases moved the priest to a new parish - where further offences often occurred.

It seems to be a battle between the church and state.  Quite clearly, a law breach by any citizen of Australia must be reported to police and the matter resolved in a court.   The church seems to think that priestly discipline remains a church matter and in most cases declines to hand the matter to police for investigation - and outcome !

This requires an edict from the church in which the position is crystal clear.   It is the duty of the church to obey the laws of Australia - and that must be an instruction from the Vatican.   At the same time, Australian legal authorities must insist that whenever a crime is not reported to the police, those guilty of this omission will be charged and feel the full effect of the law.

We are now hearing the right words, but nothing changes unless action follows !

The " Under-Insured " enigma !

The subject of " insurance " usually  provokes a storm of unhappy people with grievances about claim experience.   Most policies have exclusions in the fine print and there is always controversy about the legal difference between a " flood " and a " severe rain event " !

Australia has experienced a more violent weather pattern in recent years and as a result, insurance premiums have risen sharply.   The average renewal premium on house and contents insurance has increased 110% in the past five years - and more people are simply not renewing because insurance has become unaffordable.

The insurance industry would like to see a hundred percent of homes covered by insurance and they are looking at how to lower premiums to make them more attractive - and to win back former customers.   High on the list seems to be increasing the excesses that apply.   This excess was low in the past, usually somewhere between one hundred and five hundred dollars which the policyholder paid on a claim before the insurance cover kicked in.  Many have increased to $ 1,000 - and a basic excess of $ 5,000 is being suggested.

This throws the spotlight on another vagary of the insurance industry.  An insistence that the policyholder must be fully insured.   If the contents of a house are insured for $ 50,000, but their actual value is $ 100,000 the insurance company can claim that they were under-insured - and pay just 50% of the claim.

This denies the policyholder the right to buy whatever level of cover his or her budget can pay for.  Obviously, the premium for $ 100,000 cover will be more than for $ 50,000 and what the customer is doing by under insuring is taking on a portion of the risk.    Looking at this from an insurance angle, the customer is buying a certain return - irrespective of the higher value of the insured - if total loss is incurred at a premium that is acceptable to both parties.

This is exactly the principle that applies when life insurance is involved.   The customer insures his or her life for an agreed sum of money in return for a premium required by the insurance company.   If a higher cover is required, it costs more for this by a higher premium.    There seems no reason why a similar arrangement could not apply to general household insurance.

The insurance industry has long dictated that insurance cover must not be over or under insured.   There seems no reason why an intermediate risk level could not be acceptable.   People on a very tight budget might decide that while their household goods were worth $ 50,000, they would buy cover of just $ 10,000 on the basis that the premium for that was within their capacity to pay.   They would know that total loss would be a financial catastrophe, but that at least they could make a new start with $ 10,000 to cover basics.
The insurer would be accepting a known risk - a payout of $ 10,000 - against the premium it's actuaries deemed appropriate for that risk.     That seems a perfectly normal commercial transaction !

The problem seems to be that insurance company thinking is still stalled a century or so back in time.   To be relevant today, it needs a new approach to the relationship between risk and premium !

We were all black - once !

Skin colour has had a huge influence on how we lived our lives for centuries.  In most cases it delivered an informal type of caste system.   The whiter a persons skin, the higher he or she ranked on the social chain.  Why people have different skin colours was the stuff of interesting legend - and it was often artfully crafted into religious theology.

Charles Darwin, ( 1809 - 1882 ) the great English naturalist created a furore with his theory of evolution.  Since then, science has probed deeper and it seems a proven fact that homo sapiens made the crossing from our less developed ancestors in the Rift Valley of Africa - many thousands of years ago.  It would seem a reasonable conclusion that they were probably black skinned.   It is certainly a fact of life that the people living in the equatorial belt around the centre of planet earth are dark skinned.

Our early ancestors were mainly hunter/gatherers - and they began to explore planet earth.   In the early days they were few in numbers and it took centuries to break free of Africa and now science has a very reasonable explanation as to why we have such a range of colour diversity across this world.

One of the needs for humans to stay alive is for their body to absorb Vitamin D  from sunlight.  Vitamin D is essential to allow us to synthesize the Melanin in our skin to strengthen bones and maintain a healthy skeleton.   Unfortunately, exposure to strong sunlight also leads to various skin cancers and a black skin acts as a filter, regulating the balance and blocking excess.   We know that the lighter a persons skin, the more they are prone to skin cancer, ranging from basal-cell cancers to deadly carcinomas.

It also seems that Darwin was right in concluding that the evolutionary process brings necessary change where it is needed - and this happens over a long period of time.    As the human race moved to northern areas of the planet it experienced colder climes - and much weaker sunshine. The need for covering to shelter from the cold limited the amount of skin exposed for Vitamin D collection.  Our black skin then became a handicap.   It was filtering out too much of the weak sunshine and disrupting the Vitamin D effect.   Evolutionary need kicked in - and out skin colour lightened.

From there - it is pure history.    It was the dominant tribes of cold, weak sunshine Europe who mastered the art of creating sailing ships and invading the rest of the world.   Now we have entered the twenty-first century with a mix of skin colours across every part of this world - and with mixed mating of the world's tribes - it seems possible that sometime in the far future the common world skin colour will be a light brown !

If that eventually happens, it will remove racism from contention - but human nature being what it is - we will surely find another subject to continue the argument !

The " Web " - and the courts !

Rebellious teenagers are an item in many families.   The cause of the disharmony usually revolves around issues such as house rules, curfews and culture clashes but an eighteen year old named Rachel in New Jersey has broken new ground by taking her parents to court to demand they pay her $ 700 a month " tuition fees ".

In addition to the court action, she has also established a Facebook fan page under the heading " Education for Rachel " and is fast attracting a following.  It certainly opens a new front in the communication wars.  We hear many lurid accounts of bullying on the Internet, but usually the victims are young people or the worldly famous.  In this instance, it seems to be a teenager seeking to bully her parents.  The parents have now established a Facebook page - to tell their side of the story.

The judge hearing the case appears less than impressed with Rachel.  His finding that she is foul mouthed and disrespectful is hardly sympathetic and the fact that she has run away from home indicates that she has " abandoned " her parents.   She is now living with the family of a school friend and this raises the question of whether - at eighteen - she has any claim on her parents for support.

Like many American parents, it seems that Rachel's Mum and Dad established a College fund when she was a baby.  This seems to be what she is after.   She says she wants to continue her education, but the court action involves the " ownership " of this college fund.  It was established for a purpose and is something that Rachel made no contribution.

It is evident that Rachel is a worldly wise young woman who knows how to pull the social levers to attain her aims.   That Facebook page seeks to enlist an army of supporters to harass her parents, but it will also raise the spectre of kids suing their parents for their unmet desires.   It could be the first step on a very slippery slope.

The legal aspect will no doubt reach conclusion in an American court, but the use of social media to gain one's aim is fast evolving into a vicious weapon that requires a set of rules.   It is unclear what legalities apply to cyber space and it seems most users are free to make claims without penalties.

Like all other new phenomenon - the Internet needs to be included in the legal framework in which we live !

Redevelopment logic !

The Sydney harbourside suburb of Millers Point has been the site of public housing for over a century.   Many of these homes are well past their prime and they contain 219 residents who pay just twenty-five percent of their welfare payments in rent - and they enjoy some of the best water views in Sydney.

Plans to redevelop this suburb are drawing flak and this opposition does not make commercial sense.   Home sites at Millers Point can be expected to sell for $ 2.5 million each and this would finance a ratio of four new public housing dwellings to each existing old home.   We have a waiting list for public housing that is 57,000 applications in length.

It makes good commercial sense to redevelop.   The old homes lack modern amenities and are a drag on maintenance costs.  It makes perfectly good sense to free up money and use it to expand the stock of public housing to accommodate more people who have unmet needs.    The sticking point seems to be that existing residents don't want to move - and don't want to lose their marvellous water views.

This argument is fast heading into " entitlement " thinking  !     Existing public housing tenants claim they have a " right " to those water views simply because they had the luck to be awarded housing there when their number came up on the waiting list.    This ignores the fact that they are tying up public money that could be used to house more people and alleviate distress.    Obviously, establishing new public housing will be far removed from the most sought after areas of Sydney because the housing authorities will need to make the most use of the funds released and establish new homes on cheaper land.

This  " entitlement "  claim seeks to elevate the status of public housing clients above those of ordinary people who pay rent.   A building owner has the right to refuse to renew rental agreements if a building needs to be demolished and replaced with a bigger, better source of apartments.  Private people in the rental market face this uncertainty and are well aware that they do not have " rights " to remain.   That only becomes pertinent if the building owners want to demolish while a tenancy agreement still has time to run.

There are many inequities in the running of public housing in this state.   The needs of the average person change several times over their lifetime.  It is expected that public housing tenants will need to move several times to suit these needs, but in many cases they refuse and this causes imbalances.    We often have a single person living in a multi-bedroom house - because the family have grown up and moved on.

Better managed public housing could accommodate more people and it needs to be made clear that the provision of homes is on a " needs " basis.   If a public housing tenant refuses to comply with periodic rehousing to accommodate their changed status, eviction will follow and their name will be removed from the public housing list.

" Mutual obligations " clearly apply in making public housing work !

The Qantas enigma !

Our iconic national airline is in deep trouble and anticipates that it will make a loss of up to three hundred million dollars in the first half of this calendar year.   That is unsustainable and Qantas is planning to shed five thousand jobs and cut two billion dollars from it's overhead expenses to return to profitability.

Unfortunately, solving an airline problem is now mired in politics, and there is every chance that political stone walling will make rescue impossible - and that would be a disaster for Australia.   Qantas is one of the world's oldest airlines and has an outstanding safety record.   If it were to close it's doors and cease to exist - a vast array of jobs would vanish with it and the " Flying Kangaroo " logo would no longer signify Australia to the world.

One rescue proposal proposed that the Federal government go guarantor for the company's debts - and this has rightly been rejected.  Qantas is a public company listed on the stock exchange and signing a blank cheque for it's debts could run to billions of dollars.   The precedent this would set would be the sort of thing resorted to by banana republics. 

Another request requires changing the " Australian content " rules that require Qantas to be fifty-one percent Australian owned.    It is competing against competitors who are owned by other national governments and there is a plan to split domestic and overseas services into separate companies - with the overseas form of Qantas Australian owned and foreign ownership permitted in the domestic arena.

This has been totally rejected by Labor, the Greens and the PUP.   On ideological grounds they insist on retaining majority Australian ownership and the unions have taken a hard stance on job shedding.  They are talking strike action - and that is the last thing an ailing airline needs when it is fighting for sheer survival.

There is no doubt that the Qantas problem is caused by bad management decisions.   In recent times, Air New Zealand was a similar basket case, but a brutal restructure has returned it to profitability - and Qantas can have a similar result if all concerned bite the bullet and go with the changes that are necessary.

The management of Qantas is a matter for it's shareholders.   It is a " for profit " company and the people who own it have the right to accept or dismiss the board and management team.    It is they who will decide what the future holds and the role of the Federal government will be to make any changes to legislation that is necessary to achieve a recovery plan.

Unfortunately, that looks uncertain.   The days when political parties legislated for the public good seem to have long passed.  Pure, dogmatic political opposition to one another now holds sway and point scoring is valued way above the issues confronting the country.

It seems that Qantas may become a victim of the political impasse !

Onus of proof !

Most people would applaud moves to strip drug lords of their flashy cars and opulent lifestyles and put them behind bars for a very long time.  The " Proceeds of crime " law is the weapon that makes this happen - but first the culprit must be convicted of a crime.   Only then can the police swoop and start confiscating assets - and some clever criminals manage to evade a successful prosecution.

A new law is passing through Federal parliament to replace existing Commonwealth laws and strengthen police powers.  It is titled the " Unexplained wealth and other measures " bill and it is aimed at suspected national crime figures living on " dirty money ".

When this becomes law, the police will be able to seize accounting records,bank statements, pay slips and whatever computer hard drives that apply and prevent money from being transferred overseas and out of reach of Australian law.    The sticking point is that the accused will not have to first been convicted of some sort of crime for seizure to apply.

It reverses the " Onus of proof " that is the basis of our law system, alongside the tenet that we are " innocent until proven guilty ".  Obviously, there is the assumption that this will only be applied to notorious crime figures but a law that allows the police to proceed purely on " the suspicion " of unexplained wealth opens a wide door to abuse.

It legitimizes what are referred to as " fishing expeditions " - where police invent a reason to go through a suspects records in the hope of uncovering evidence of a crime.   Basically, it requires every Australian citizen to be fully accountable for every dollar in their possession and every item in their home - and to explain that accountability with relevant records when required by the police.

That is a blunt instrument that can be used as a financial weapon.   Not only is it time consuming, but assembling the records to prove innocence drags the matter into the public domain.  The finger of suspicion is pointed when others are called to testify and support the collation of evidence that assets were legally obtained - and bought with money that was legally earned.

It has the capability of being used as a " smear " to damage reputations and this could be used to devastating effect in both the business and political worlds.   The accused is required to provide the necessary explanations for wealth, but the police are not required to provide a valid reason for demanding that information.

It opens the door for " unintended consequences. " !     Granting any sort of new power in a legal sense is a balance of outcome.    Blunting the use of technology by criminals to evade the law is an essential role of law enforcement, but when it creates an avenue to harass ordinary citizens without legal recourse it takes Australian law into the realms of the dreaded " police state " from which many flee to this country as asylum seekers.

Framing this law needs careful use of checks and balances !

Trial - by Television !

The decision by the government of South Africa to allow parts of the Oscar Pistorius trial to be shown live on television  opens an interesting can of worms involving the impartiality of the justice system.  Many people will remember events from twenty years ago, when American O.J.Simpson faced court on murder charges and his trial was televised in it's entirety.

There is a similarity here.   Both O.J.Simpson and Oscar Pistorius achieved fame on the sporting field, and Pistorius has added fame in the medical sense because he is known as the " Blade Runner ".   Both went on trial for murder - and the events surrounding the alleged killings are controversial and widely open to public speculation.

The O.J.Simpson trial at times descended into farce over the fit of a glove. It led to acquittal, but then an " economic " trial followed and Simpson was stripped of his assets when that court delivered a different verdict.   It is likely that the trial of Oscar Pistorius will attract a world wide following.

Many people will contend that a murder trial has no place being played out like a television sit-com for the entertainment of the masses.   Simpson faced a judge and jury while Pistorius will be tried by a judge alone, but media hoopla will bring public expectations - and this will put pressure on everybody connected to the trial.   There will be a tendency for barristers to " ham it up " to burnish their public image.

Whatever happened to the calming influence of a courtroom where strict rules of evidence applied ?  A decision was supposed to be made on the evidence alone and any form of theatrics was frowned upon. When a trial is conducted in the public domain the media attitude will influence public thinking and it is quite possible that this will result in people demonstrating in the streets to try and achieve their preferred outcome.

The trial may even intrude into the political arena.   This is a " gun death " and the anti gun lobby may use the publicity to enhance their " ban the gun " message.   Allowing the trial to be televised is a step into the unknown.  A lot will depend on how the television industry reacts and whether this develops into a race for ratings between various channels.  If that happens, you can be certain that " breaking news " tactics will be employed to sensationalize events as news items.

This televising decision also sets a precedent.   In future there will be pressure for high profile trials to be accorded similar treatment.  If nothing else, that will make witnesses reluctant to appear and face the public examination that may reveal factors of their personal lives that they would prefer to keep secret.

The world should have learned a lesson from the O.J.Simpson debacle.    Nothing good can come of putting justice into the category of entertainment !

Pension Reform !

It is suggested that the family home now be included in the asset test to determine eligibility for the aged pension.  Under the present guidelines, a couple may have assets to the value of $ 279,000 and a single person to $ 196,750 for the full pension, but a part pension will be granted with assets measuring $ 1,110,500 for a couple and $ 748,250 for a single person.

It is a fact of life that many people are asset rich - and cash poor.  Including the family home in the asset test would bring the vast majority of home owners into conflict with eligibility.   At today's values, few homes would be under that $ 279,000 mark and their owners would therefore be denied the full aged pension.

This draconian suggestion has socialist implications.   The socialist movement opposes any form of inheritance.   People enter this world with nothing - and the true socialist believer thinks they should exit it in the same state.   Most families get comfort from the fact that when their life ends they may give their children a start in life when they inherit items such as the family home.

Over the length of time that Australia has been a self governing country, the family home has  occupied a cherished form of protection.   Home ownership has been the goal of most young couples and in their early years they usually scrimp and save to put together a deposit.   Owning ones own home is probably the apex of financial security.

Obviously, the government is concerned at the ever growing outlay on aged pensions and needs to reform pension laws, but do we really want to force the aged to sell their homes and live on the proceeds - until this dwindling asset base reduces to pension eligibility ?

 This is a conflict between reasonable asset limits applied to non home owners - and the extraordinary increase in value that has applied to all forms of housing in the past few decades.    The ratio of the value of the average home to the rate of average income has widened to sharply increase the asset holdings of those who do - against  those who do not - own some sort of dwelling.    If the family home is included in pension eligibility - this gap widens further.

No doubt the bean counters will shuffle figures to try and find a solution, and the obvious answer will probably be an upper limit at which the family home becomes included in the pension asset test.   The danger here is that whatever limit applies now, if it is not constantly reviewed it will get out of kilter with reality. Housing prices are subject to price " bubbles " - and in some instances can suffer rapid devaluation, as happened in 2008.

The dilemma for government is that " happenance " has divided Australia into a split money culture.   The phenomenon of rising home prices has created paper wealth for those owning their own home and a vast disparity with others.   To include homes in the asset test is to " punish " those who made the sacrifices necessary to achieve home ownership - and they will be unrelenting in their political fury.

This is a suggestion that only the brave - or the very foolish - will undertake lightly !

A " Homeless " reprieve !

Each state crafts it's own laws to regulate the use of public space and deter backpackers or the homeless from camping in parks or on beaches.  A prosecution that wound it's way from the local court to the Supreme court has delivered a verdict that will prove a major headache for councils.

A homeless man who had lived rough on the streets of Sydney since 1992 was charged under a " No Camping " law with bedding down for the night in Martin Place.    The police observed him in a sleeping bag and it seemed to be a very predictable outcome.   The magistrate found him guilty and imposed a fine of $ 550, but this man engaged a clever lawyer - and the case went on to the Supreme court.

It seems that the court had problems with the definition of  " camping ".    While it was agreed that he had spent some time in a sleeping bag, it was also proven that he had walked to a nearby Salvation Army facility to have a  cup of coffee and transact some arrangement over a blanket.   There was also some doubt over his clothing.   He was seen in the same clothes over several days, but witnesses also remembered him wearing a red raincoat on some occasions.   The Supreme court decided that these discrepancies cast sufficient doubt for the " camping " charge to be dismissed.

The law system in Australia is based on precedent.   The findings of a lower court can be overturned by appeal to a superior court and now every council in New South Wales will need to rethink the statutes they apply to regulate camping - or whatever other use the public may find to do - in public places.   It also opens a can of worms if past convictions for this offence become subject to appeal.

For the homeless, it is a timely reprieve.   Civic authorities generally like to keep those down on their luck well out of sight.   The laws are used with discretion, moving those sleeping rough from the more public parts of the city to areas considered less salubrious.   Unfortunately, this creates a greater danger factor from those who prey on the defenceless.

The main benefit from this Supreme court decision is the likelihood that the number of homeless people will be much more apparent to the public - and that will persuade the politicians and the civic authorities to pay more attention to the problem.   The vast majority of the homeless are not there by choice.   It is not a problem to be ignored !

Heart transplant breakthrough !

Australia's low number of heart transplants is not entirely due to lack of donors.   When a donor heart does become available a desperate race against the clock will decide if a life can be saved.   Firstly, pathology must match up the suitability of the donor heart with the genetics of the person who will receive that organ - and that person must be available for immediate surgery.   In most cases - all that must happen within just four hours.

Compatibility is critically important to any organ transplant, hence this limits the availability to a distance circle between where the donation occurs and which patients are immediately available.    Those on the waiting list are required to have a mobile phone and be ready for an instant dash to the hospital.  This four hour factor precludes the matching of patients and donor when one is in Sydney and the other in Perth.   Even when both are in the same state,  meeting the deadline is not always possible.

It is a tragedy when a donor heart can not save a life because of the time factor limitations.  It is good news that the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute has made a breakthrough in extending this transplant time window.   They have successfully trialed a cocktail of drugs that has extended the viability of donor hearts from four - to fourteen hours.

This promises to greatly improve successful transplants and lower the chances of rejection.   It gives more time for the genetic matching and extends the range of distance.   Getting the right organ into the right patient's body will now be much easier to achieve.

Heart research and breast cancer top the list of medical donations from the public and it is these sort of breakthroughs that keep the money flowing.   Eventually, science may perfect an artificial heart that makes donor hearts unnecessary, but in today's world the number of people living a useful and happy life with a donor heart beating in their chest is the pinnacle of success in medical progress.

That is the sort of news that impels more people to sign on to be a heart donor !

A logical solution !

When hard times strike a family it becomes necessary to take unpleasant measures to survive.  Some family treasures usually have to be sacrificed to solve the cash crisis.   This often involves down sizing of cars and houses.   The pragmatic accept that hard decisions are necessary - and take them !

Ukraine now has a dangerous crisis on it's hands.   Government bungling has drained it's treasury and it is close to defaulting on it's international debt.   A popular uprising in the capital has displaced a corrupt president and a new government is being formed.   This is far from unanimity because the east of the country is Russian speaking and leans to that country while the western majority wishes to assimilate with Europe.

The Russian president is conducting war games at Ukraine's border and the eastern state of Crimea hosts the port for the Russian Black Sea fleet.   Russian history contains a tendency for invasion where countries it regards as satellites stray from the Russian embrace.   Russia and the rest of the world gaze across a diplomatic abyss.

This is precisely the reason why the world formed the United Nations.   The world body is supposed to step in and resolve such tensions.  Resolution usually means " give and take " with all parties having to accept some unpleasant realities for the common good.   The Ukraine situation could be resolved with some hard bargaining.

Russia is unlikely to agree to giving up it's port for the Black Sea fleet and it's Russian speaking east wish to remain " Russian ".    The United Nations should negotiate a territory for cash swop - similar to the " Louisiana Purchase " that saw part of America purchased from France - in exchange for the billions that Ukraine needs to refinance it's economy.   Selling the Crimea to Russia resolves the two outstanding issues.

That is certainly hard medicine for the people of Ukraine.   They are giving up part of their country, but exchanging that which does not wish to be a part of their Federation for an injection of funds that will restore the good life for a newly minted Ukraine.   Russia has long desired to own the Crimea, hence such an arrangement would solve both problems.

No doubt losing Crimea would stick in the craw of many Ukranian's, but solving problems always comes at a price.   The alternative is long years of grinding austerity as the country tries to extract itself from debt and the huge injection of funds would refinance a rejuvenated Ukraine to take it's place as a European country.

What is needed now is quick action, before events deteriorate further and slip past the point of no return.