It is probably impossible to accurately determine the number of children who are being brought up and cared for by their grandparents - because they have been abandoned by their parents or drugs, alcoholism or mental illness have destroyed a caring family relationship. In many cases the grandparents quietly take control without a fanfare - and often this imposes a crippling cost on retirement incomes.
Sadly, such misfortune is now common in the society in which we live, and yet the financial rules that bestow entitlements for the benefit of children continue to award this money to the actual parents. A government enquiry may result in a major rules change to channel the money to the carers actually having the children in their care.
It is certainly unfair for those who step into a family breach and deliver regular meals, a clean, warm bed and a hospitable family atmosphere to the child victims of family neglect to be forced below the poverty line to meet the costs involved. If money legislated to assist with the upbringing of children is being misdirected to those not providing this function, a law change is needed to correct that anomaly.
In many instances grandparents step in because they see actual danger threatening their grandchildren. The social welfare people are grossly overworked and the facilities to take children into care are stretched thinly. Many cases slip through the cracks, and when tragedy strikes the result is lurid headlines in the media. There is also a huge difference in the loving care provided by Nanna and Pop - in comparison with the "institutional " atmosphere of child refuges.
The problem is that a change in the "parenting pattern" often goes unnoticed. Behavioural problems within a family are sometimes thought to be temporary and often the grandchildren move into their grandparents home with the intention of a short break restoring order. The children continue to attend their usual school - and family "problems " are treated with a degree of discretion. They are not discussed openly.
The fact that this is a growing problem needs a rethink of the rules that apply. Certainly the redirection of child entitlements should head the list, but the actions of grandparents rescuing their grandchildren from the need for institutional care is actually saving the government a mint of money. It would take much less dollars to add a little compensation for the costs of caring in the family home as opposed to the huge cost of maintaining government care facilities, and easing that burden would be an important tool in the hands of the welfare people in improving child safety.
The grandparent network is a huge asset in a troubled world. It is probably the next best thing to Mum and Dad when it comes to child care. A little judicious spending to ease the cost burden would be the best decision a government could make !
Friday 31 October 2014
Thursday 30 October 2014
Tightening the Screws !
The car manufacturing industry is proposing to withhold both technical information and the vital software that allows independent motor mechanics to "talk "to the onboard computers in cars and follow the makers servicing tolerances. The aim seems to be to restrict car servicing to the workshops operated by their licensed dealers and force the use of only the "genuine spare parts " provided by the car manufacturers. Now they are going after the huge smash repair industry.
Six in every seven smash repair shops are independents. As each new model reaches the market they need vital servicing information to understand the changes that have been made from the past model and they are reliant on the brand dealer network for "reinitialisation " codes to complete the repair. It seems that this new policy is intended to force the industry to only use the highly priced branded parts carrying the car manufacturers logo - in exchange for the information that allows them to repair that brand of car.
It seems to be a new profit strategy with car manufacturers trying to back away from just the initial profit when a new car is sold to a customer. Now they are trying to lock in the profit flow by dictating the repair and servicing of their product - for the entire life of the vehicle. They are seeking to restrict the numbers who can repair and service their brand of vehicle - and ensure that the vast array of generic parts are blocked and only their own branded products have a monopoly in the car service industry.
The sticking point for car owners - is increased cost. If the numbers offering car services are reduced that usually means that prices rise because of decreased competition. The car insurance industry will certainly be very interested in the outcome because it will affect the premiums they must charge, and any big price hike will inevitably means more uninsured vehicles on this nation's roads.
Then there is the safety factor. The car manufacturers claim that their spare parts are manufactured to exactly the same tolerance as those used when the car came down the assembly line. In many cases, an independent supplier sells an identical component to several car manufacturers - and yet when these appear in the parts shop under individual logos - the prices vary widely. It all depends on the markup each manufacturer decides to apply.
The Australian generic industry is a big employer of labour and it produces items of high standards. Usually negotiations in a repair shop include this generic question, and the job is priced accordingly. It seems that the intent is to remove that option under the guise of maintaining safety standards - and to preserve the manufacturers profits over whatever period of years the car remains in service.
Obviously, if this proposal comes into force it will not immediately reduce the number of mechanics servicing cars, nor the number of smash repair shops doing repairs. It will simply block them from the new models coming onto the market, and restrict their work to existing models. As the years progress, their share of the market will steadily decline.
This certainly raises the question of what ownership rights are conferred to an owner when it applies to the purchase of a new vehicle. It seems that manufacturers are now claiming a residual right to control those who work on that vehicle by way of licensing agreements and determine the nature of replacement parts that may be needed to maintain vehicle serviceability. This seems to break new ground, and diverge sharply from the terms that apply to all other areas of consumer goods.
The legality of imposing after sale control is a journey into ambiguity !
Six in every seven smash repair shops are independents. As each new model reaches the market they need vital servicing information to understand the changes that have been made from the past model and they are reliant on the brand dealer network for "reinitialisation " codes to complete the repair. It seems that this new policy is intended to force the industry to only use the highly priced branded parts carrying the car manufacturers logo - in exchange for the information that allows them to repair that brand of car.
It seems to be a new profit strategy with car manufacturers trying to back away from just the initial profit when a new car is sold to a customer. Now they are trying to lock in the profit flow by dictating the repair and servicing of their product - for the entire life of the vehicle. They are seeking to restrict the numbers who can repair and service their brand of vehicle - and ensure that the vast array of generic parts are blocked and only their own branded products have a monopoly in the car service industry.
The sticking point for car owners - is increased cost. If the numbers offering car services are reduced that usually means that prices rise because of decreased competition. The car insurance industry will certainly be very interested in the outcome because it will affect the premiums they must charge, and any big price hike will inevitably means more uninsured vehicles on this nation's roads.
Then there is the safety factor. The car manufacturers claim that their spare parts are manufactured to exactly the same tolerance as those used when the car came down the assembly line. In many cases, an independent supplier sells an identical component to several car manufacturers - and yet when these appear in the parts shop under individual logos - the prices vary widely. It all depends on the markup each manufacturer decides to apply.
The Australian generic industry is a big employer of labour and it produces items of high standards. Usually negotiations in a repair shop include this generic question, and the job is priced accordingly. It seems that the intent is to remove that option under the guise of maintaining safety standards - and to preserve the manufacturers profits over whatever period of years the car remains in service.
Obviously, if this proposal comes into force it will not immediately reduce the number of mechanics servicing cars, nor the number of smash repair shops doing repairs. It will simply block them from the new models coming onto the market, and restrict their work to existing models. As the years progress, their share of the market will steadily decline.
This certainly raises the question of what ownership rights are conferred to an owner when it applies to the purchase of a new vehicle. It seems that manufacturers are now claiming a residual right to control those who work on that vehicle by way of licensing agreements and determine the nature of replacement parts that may be needed to maintain vehicle serviceability. This seems to break new ground, and diverge sharply from the terms that apply to all other areas of consumer goods.
The legality of imposing after sale control is a journey into ambiguity !
Wednesday 29 October 2014
Seeking a "Policy " change !
Visitors to Australia's Federal parliament were treated to "theatre " as three protesters sought to enter the parliamentary building wearing controversial clothing. They were all men, and one had his face covered with a motorcycle helmet, another was clad in the totally enveloping uniform favoured by America's Ku Klux Klan - and the third was wearing what is often called a burqa or a niquab, a garment worn by Islamic women that only reveals the eyes.
It was a publicity seeking test of the rules that apply to face covering and the long suffering parliamentary attendants explained that both the motorcycle helmet and the KKK hood would have to be removed, and the burqa wearer would need to be identified privately to gain entrance.
Obviously, events in Canada draw attention to the threats that Islamic extremists pose and there is a noticeable increase in armed patrols guarding public places in the national capital. Having made their point - and gained considerable publicity from all sections of the media - the demonstrators peacefully dispersed.
Another curious event of "theatre "occurred when Labor's Immigration spokesman, Richard Marles, openly admitted that the government's "turn back the boats "policy had successfully stemmed the flow of asylum seeker vessels and that the opposition would probably adopt similar measures - provided this could be successfully agreed with the Indonesians.
That was like tossing a hand grenade into a dark cellar where the myriad factions of the Labor party dwell. Everyone seemed to have an opinion - and the one consensus that emerged was that there would be no policy change.
Bill Shorten has the job of trying to cobble together a credible alternative government and have it waiting in the wings to contest the next election. It does not help to garner public confidence when a critical issue that is high on the agenda of Australian voters languishes in a policy vacuum.
Labor governments seem prone to excess when they finally achieve office. Many will remember how Kevin Rudd rushed to put Socialist dogma ahead of practicability when he erased the previous government's immigration safeguards - and unleashed the "people smuggler "invasion that he then was powerless to stop.
As things stand, should Labor unexpectedly suddenly gain office, there is every chance that they would make the same mistakes again. The fact that they still have the same policy that failed so spectacularly the last time around is hardly a vote of confidence in an alternative government !
It also raises the question of why some people join a political party when their thrust of politics runs at variance to the party manifesto. Labor has always been a wide gathering of factions, but surely many would be more closely attuned with the Greens, the various Communist ideologies - or the vast spectrum of single issue fringe parties. Yet they tenaciously cling to Labor with the avowed intention of turning the party direction to their view.
Unfortunately, the casualty is most cases is party loyalty. When this government won office it implemented a policy with which many Australians disagreed and which certainly angered the Indonesian government. They persisted in the face of harsh criticism - and achieved outstanding success. The flow of undocumented arrivals on our shores ceased - and good relations with Indonesia have been restored.
This stands as a prime example of adopting a policy and requiring party loyalty to give it the backing to run it's course. Few would now disagree that the objective has been achieved, and even the opposition spokesman bows to the inevitable - but the fractious factions within the opposition are still prepared to fight on and force their political party to stick with a policy that delivered unmitigated failure - and the death at sea of many people.
It is not a hopeful sign that the opposition is finally getting it's act together !
It was a publicity seeking test of the rules that apply to face covering and the long suffering parliamentary attendants explained that both the motorcycle helmet and the KKK hood would have to be removed, and the burqa wearer would need to be identified privately to gain entrance.
Obviously, events in Canada draw attention to the threats that Islamic extremists pose and there is a noticeable increase in armed patrols guarding public places in the national capital. Having made their point - and gained considerable publicity from all sections of the media - the demonstrators peacefully dispersed.
Another curious event of "theatre "occurred when Labor's Immigration spokesman, Richard Marles, openly admitted that the government's "turn back the boats "policy had successfully stemmed the flow of asylum seeker vessels and that the opposition would probably adopt similar measures - provided this could be successfully agreed with the Indonesians.
That was like tossing a hand grenade into a dark cellar where the myriad factions of the Labor party dwell. Everyone seemed to have an opinion - and the one consensus that emerged was that there would be no policy change.
Bill Shorten has the job of trying to cobble together a credible alternative government and have it waiting in the wings to contest the next election. It does not help to garner public confidence when a critical issue that is high on the agenda of Australian voters languishes in a policy vacuum.
Labor governments seem prone to excess when they finally achieve office. Many will remember how Kevin Rudd rushed to put Socialist dogma ahead of practicability when he erased the previous government's immigration safeguards - and unleashed the "people smuggler "invasion that he then was powerless to stop.
As things stand, should Labor unexpectedly suddenly gain office, there is every chance that they would make the same mistakes again. The fact that they still have the same policy that failed so spectacularly the last time around is hardly a vote of confidence in an alternative government !
It also raises the question of why some people join a political party when their thrust of politics runs at variance to the party manifesto. Labor has always been a wide gathering of factions, but surely many would be more closely attuned with the Greens, the various Communist ideologies - or the vast spectrum of single issue fringe parties. Yet they tenaciously cling to Labor with the avowed intention of turning the party direction to their view.
Unfortunately, the casualty is most cases is party loyalty. When this government won office it implemented a policy with which many Australians disagreed and which certainly angered the Indonesian government. They persisted in the face of harsh criticism - and achieved outstanding success. The flow of undocumented arrivals on our shores ceased - and good relations with Indonesia have been restored.
This stands as a prime example of adopting a policy and requiring party loyalty to give it the backing to run it's course. Few would now disagree that the objective has been achieved, and even the opposition spokesman bows to the inevitable - but the fractious factions within the opposition are still prepared to fight on and force their political party to stick with a policy that delivered unmitigated failure - and the death at sea of many people.
It is not a hopeful sign that the opposition is finally getting it's act together !
Tuesday 28 October 2014
This " Electronic " Age !
It seems to be becoming an almost "inevitability "that the average driver will receive a speeding fine in the post. Travel just a fraction above the posted limit and you will fall victim to one of the mobile speed cameras that are hidden amongst the cars parked at the kerb. Avoiding a fine requires a driver to be meticulously checking what the speedo has to say about the rate of travel, and mentally adjusting that to the ever changing posted speed limits. Many consider this in itself as a huge risk as it takes driver's eyes off observing road and traffic conditions.
The number of fixed and mobile speed cameras - and their impact on "revenue raising "- is hotly debated by all the factors contributing to road safety, but in recent times one change has gone unnoticed. The operating hours of mobile speed cameras in New South Wales increased from 930 hours per month - to 7,000 hours, and consequently there has been a 42% increase in traffic speed fine revenue since July 1 of this year.
It has not been a matter of an increasing number of new speed cameras. The times they operate have been extended in a deliberate move to increase revenue under the guise of making our roads safer - and that certainly can be challenged on a variety of different grounds. In peak hours the posted speed limit is usually something only possible as a utopian dream, but when the traffic is flowing the rate is dictated by what could be called a "herd mentality ". Any driver who consistently falls below the flow speed is a constant irritant, making lane changes and overtaking necessary to go with the flow.
Then there are the ever present "Road Work "signs with a consequent speed reduction - that seem to go on forever - and in many cases remain for days or even weeks without any sign of either workmen or machinery present. In particular, a return to normal road speed sign is often entirely missing where these occur in the country road system.
Each new car model from the car manufacturers seem to take a quantum leap in the benefits both the computer and the electronic age deliver to road safety. Reversing cameras seem about to become a necessity on all new cars and self parking is fast taking hold. The cost of an electronic navigation instrument has dropped to the point that they are automatically included in even the lowest base priced car - and yet the ultimate safety option - remaining within the speed limit is only available as a driver optional device to be constantly reset to correspond with the ever changing posted limits.
We are assured that the "driverless "car is an emerging marvel, and yet it would seem technology already exists that could automatically adjust the maximum speed of every vehicle on every road and street in this country to the legal speed required by law. Technically, it would be impossible to exceed the speed limit.
The combination of an electronic "reader "in each car receiving a signal from a coder which signified each change of the legal limit that applies to govern the vehicle speed would not be a huge challenge to the electronics industry, but it would deprive the government of a vital source of revenue - and it would probably make the task of driving a car a matter of sheer misery for each driver.
Take away the "control factor " and the joy of driving evaporates. We have this strange "love "and "hate " relationships with our vehicles. We hate the conditions which impose "stop and start " crawling speeds to get to our destination - and we love the thrill of being in control of an exhilarating machine when the conditions allow us to indulge our whims. Unfortunately, we are also risk takers - and this is reflected in road safety statistics.
It seems that those unexpected speeding fines arriving in the post - are just part of the price we pay for our love of the automobile !
The number of fixed and mobile speed cameras - and their impact on "revenue raising "- is hotly debated by all the factors contributing to road safety, but in recent times one change has gone unnoticed. The operating hours of mobile speed cameras in New South Wales increased from 930 hours per month - to 7,000 hours, and consequently there has been a 42% increase in traffic speed fine revenue since July 1 of this year.
It has not been a matter of an increasing number of new speed cameras. The times they operate have been extended in a deliberate move to increase revenue under the guise of making our roads safer - and that certainly can be challenged on a variety of different grounds. In peak hours the posted speed limit is usually something only possible as a utopian dream, but when the traffic is flowing the rate is dictated by what could be called a "herd mentality ". Any driver who consistently falls below the flow speed is a constant irritant, making lane changes and overtaking necessary to go with the flow.
Then there are the ever present "Road Work "signs with a consequent speed reduction - that seem to go on forever - and in many cases remain for days or even weeks without any sign of either workmen or machinery present. In particular, a return to normal road speed sign is often entirely missing where these occur in the country road system.
Each new car model from the car manufacturers seem to take a quantum leap in the benefits both the computer and the electronic age deliver to road safety. Reversing cameras seem about to become a necessity on all new cars and self parking is fast taking hold. The cost of an electronic navigation instrument has dropped to the point that they are automatically included in even the lowest base priced car - and yet the ultimate safety option - remaining within the speed limit is only available as a driver optional device to be constantly reset to correspond with the ever changing posted limits.
We are assured that the "driverless "car is an emerging marvel, and yet it would seem technology already exists that could automatically adjust the maximum speed of every vehicle on every road and street in this country to the legal speed required by law. Technically, it would be impossible to exceed the speed limit.
The combination of an electronic "reader "in each car receiving a signal from a coder which signified each change of the legal limit that applies to govern the vehicle speed would not be a huge challenge to the electronics industry, but it would deprive the government of a vital source of revenue - and it would probably make the task of driving a car a matter of sheer misery for each driver.
Take away the "control factor " and the joy of driving evaporates. We have this strange "love "and "hate " relationships with our vehicles. We hate the conditions which impose "stop and start " crawling speeds to get to our destination - and we love the thrill of being in control of an exhilarating machine when the conditions allow us to indulge our whims. Unfortunately, we are also risk takers - and this is reflected in road safety statistics.
It seems that those unexpected speeding fines arriving in the post - are just part of the price we pay for our love of the automobile !
Monday 27 October 2014
Our Gambling Millions !
A whopping Twenty-six billion dollars changes hands each year in Australia as we indulge our passion for gambling on horses and sport. That amounts to twelve hundred dollars for each man, woman and child in the Australian population, and the highlight of this spending occurs during the Spring racing carnival.
It is estimated that at least $300 million will be wagered on this years Melbourne Cup and the NRL grand final saw $ 15 million decided by the tussle between two teams, and 42% will pass through the hands of the TAB.
The "Wowser element "frowns on gambling but to most people it is a form of entertainment. A large section of the population only has an annual "flutter "on the Melbourne Cup and on the first Tuesday in November the streets are deserted when the race is showing on big screen television in clubs and pubs.
A lot of "serious money " passes through the hands of bookmakers by interested parties who closely follow the training and preparation of horses and consider wagering a form of business. But the average punter bets on a horse because either the name appeals or something about the connections give rise to loyalty - and sometimes a horse just stands out head and shoulders from the field.
Remember Black Caviar ? The wonder horse that retired unbeaten - and quickly became unbackable because it was considered a "certainty "- with odds to match ? Old timers come to mind and the names "Phar Lap and "Bernborough " are legend in Australia.
This phenomenon brings a horse to public attention from time to time, and this years Cox Plate saw an entrant from Tasmania whet the appetite of many. It is unusual for a runner from Australia's smallest state to be competitive in the races of the Spring carnival and yet "The Cleaner "had that special "something " that produces an army of loyal supporters. Perhaps it was his trainer - Mick Burles - who was certainly a "character " and a "battler " that many would love to see beat all the odds and come out on top.
Everything about The Cleaner was "different ". Most interstate horses travel as special cargo in airplanes, but Mick Burles just hitched the horse float to his car and the horse made the overnight crossing of Bass Strait in the hold of the passenger ferry. His departure from the training stables at Longford was with a police escort - and local school children lined the route to wish him well.
There certainly would have been a sharp "blip " in Tasmanian support for this runner and when the race was run he came ninth - but it was a bold showing and his followers were well satisfied.
There is no doubt that horse racing appeals to the emotional aspect in most people and the industry has just won a pivotal battle in New South Wales. Our best horse breeding studs are located in a rural setting that is also a rich source of coal and it was proposed to exploit this mineral with a new open cut mine. This mine would be cheek and jowl with the studs and the dust and pollution would be immense - and probably fatal to the future of horse breeding in that area.
A court decision found in favour of the horses - and the mine will not proceed. The motor car has replaced the horse as a means of transport - but it still is a favourite animal when Australians get the urge to gamble !
It is estimated that at least $300 million will be wagered on this years Melbourne Cup and the NRL grand final saw $ 15 million decided by the tussle between two teams, and 42% will pass through the hands of the TAB.
The "Wowser element "frowns on gambling but to most people it is a form of entertainment. A large section of the population only has an annual "flutter "on the Melbourne Cup and on the first Tuesday in November the streets are deserted when the race is showing on big screen television in clubs and pubs.
A lot of "serious money " passes through the hands of bookmakers by interested parties who closely follow the training and preparation of horses and consider wagering a form of business. But the average punter bets on a horse because either the name appeals or something about the connections give rise to loyalty - and sometimes a horse just stands out head and shoulders from the field.
Remember Black Caviar ? The wonder horse that retired unbeaten - and quickly became unbackable because it was considered a "certainty "- with odds to match ? Old timers come to mind and the names "Phar Lap and "Bernborough " are legend in Australia.
This phenomenon brings a horse to public attention from time to time, and this years Cox Plate saw an entrant from Tasmania whet the appetite of many. It is unusual for a runner from Australia's smallest state to be competitive in the races of the Spring carnival and yet "The Cleaner "had that special "something " that produces an army of loyal supporters. Perhaps it was his trainer - Mick Burles - who was certainly a "character " and a "battler " that many would love to see beat all the odds and come out on top.
Everything about The Cleaner was "different ". Most interstate horses travel as special cargo in airplanes, but Mick Burles just hitched the horse float to his car and the horse made the overnight crossing of Bass Strait in the hold of the passenger ferry. His departure from the training stables at Longford was with a police escort - and local school children lined the route to wish him well.
There certainly would have been a sharp "blip " in Tasmanian support for this runner and when the race was run he came ninth - but it was a bold showing and his followers were well satisfied.
There is no doubt that horse racing appeals to the emotional aspect in most people and the industry has just won a pivotal battle in New South Wales. Our best horse breeding studs are located in a rural setting that is also a rich source of coal and it was proposed to exploit this mineral with a new open cut mine. This mine would be cheek and jowl with the studs and the dust and pollution would be immense - and probably fatal to the future of horse breeding in that area.
A court decision found in favour of the horses - and the mine will not proceed. The motor car has replaced the horse as a means of transport - but it still is a favourite animal when Australians get the urge to gamble !
Sunday 26 October 2014
Portable Pensions !
Centrelink has just had a decision reversed that will have vast future implications and which throws the spotlight once again on the Disability Support Pension ( DSP ). The intention of the DSP was to provide for those suffering from either a medical condition or resulting from an accident during the period that they are unable to work and earn a living. There is the expectation that eventual recovery will return them to the workforce. Consequently, one of the requirements that apply to this pension is the right of Centrelink to periodically have progress towards that goal measured.
It is within the rules applying to all pensions that recipients may take overseas holidays but Centrelink must be made aware of these absences. It seems that one person receiving the DSP was in the habit of living mainly in Macedonia - and consequently Centrelink ruled that this breached the rules - and cancelled payments.
An appeal was launched with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and when it delivered it's findings it found for the DSP holder. It seems that this pension is now "portable "and there is no restriction on the recipient abandoning Australia and living almost permanently overseas - and still be funded by an Australian disability pension.
It is not hard to contemplate the opportunity this ruling will deliver to some of our new citizens whose former homes were in countries where a vast majority of the population lives on two dollars a day. Should they have the misfortune to suffer a work accident in Australia that qualifies them for the DSP, the generosity of their Australian pension would allow them to live like kings should they elect to return to their former home.
Setting the level of the DSP is entirely relevant to the cost of living in Australia. It is hardly fair that this Australian pension should apply when the pensioner moves to a place with a vastly cheaper standard of living - and this difference is being exploited. It seems that a pension loophole has been opened - and for some that will signal "opportunity ".
Many Australians have reservations about the conditions that apply to gaining Australian citizenship. Many applicants claim they are seeking asylum from persecution in their former country, and yet soon after citizenship has been granted they are taking a holiday back to their former country, apparently immune from past dangers because of the protection given by their new passport.
It seems that the rules that apply to all forms of pensions have evolved rather than work to a predetermined plan. Rulings from bodies such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal get tacked on by way of amendments - and in many cases they have unintended consequences. Perhaps a year or so from now we will find that this DSP decision has resulted in a flood of people taking advantage of the ruling and creating an imbalance in the Australian economy.
After all, if gaining the right to hold an Australian passport is worth chancing life and limb by coming here in a leaky boat, surely it would be a reasonable expectation that the successful would continue to live in this country !
It is within the rules applying to all pensions that recipients may take overseas holidays but Centrelink must be made aware of these absences. It seems that one person receiving the DSP was in the habit of living mainly in Macedonia - and consequently Centrelink ruled that this breached the rules - and cancelled payments.
An appeal was launched with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and when it delivered it's findings it found for the DSP holder. It seems that this pension is now "portable "and there is no restriction on the recipient abandoning Australia and living almost permanently overseas - and still be funded by an Australian disability pension.
It is not hard to contemplate the opportunity this ruling will deliver to some of our new citizens whose former homes were in countries where a vast majority of the population lives on two dollars a day. Should they have the misfortune to suffer a work accident in Australia that qualifies them for the DSP, the generosity of their Australian pension would allow them to live like kings should they elect to return to their former home.
Setting the level of the DSP is entirely relevant to the cost of living in Australia. It is hardly fair that this Australian pension should apply when the pensioner moves to a place with a vastly cheaper standard of living - and this difference is being exploited. It seems that a pension loophole has been opened - and for some that will signal "opportunity ".
Many Australians have reservations about the conditions that apply to gaining Australian citizenship. Many applicants claim they are seeking asylum from persecution in their former country, and yet soon after citizenship has been granted they are taking a holiday back to their former country, apparently immune from past dangers because of the protection given by their new passport.
It seems that the rules that apply to all forms of pensions have evolved rather than work to a predetermined plan. Rulings from bodies such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal get tacked on by way of amendments - and in many cases they have unintended consequences. Perhaps a year or so from now we will find that this DSP decision has resulted in a flood of people taking advantage of the ruling and creating an imbalance in the Australian economy.
After all, if gaining the right to hold an Australian passport is worth chancing life and limb by coming here in a leaky boat, surely it would be a reasonable expectation that the successful would continue to live in this country !
Saturday 25 October 2014
Reality of the "Meat " Trade !
Australian television viewers were this week confronted with graphic scenes of animals being slaughtered in preparation for religious festivals in Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait and Malaysia. This video was shot by the activist group "Animals Australia " and the scenes depicted were termed "atrocities ".
They probably were - in the imagination of people who have never set foot in an abattoir. Australian's of today select their meat from the refrigerated display in supermarkets, where the product is trimmed and tastefully presented on a plastic tray and covered with a polythene film. The actual "butchering "is done well out of sight.
Back before the supermarket era we got our meat from the local butcher's shop. We were used to seeing sides of beef, pork and lamb hanging from hooks and we waited while the butcher cut our order from these carcases, trimmed the fat and put the meat on the scales. The actual slaughter of the animals took place in a distant abattoir and those carcases arrived at the butcher's shop in a refrigerated truck.
Any Australian abattoir is not a nice place to visit. The squeamish would be horrified at the blood and gore. but it is nice to know that the animals receives a stunning electrical shock to render them unconscious - before their throats are cut ! Yes ! It is necessary to cut an animals throat to bleed it before the meat is processed, and our animals do not enjoy this prelude to death. The animals marshalled in the yard - waiting their turn - are well aware of the smell of death in the air. They roll their eyes and shake in fear.
If someone filmed the process of slaughtering animals in an Australian abattoir in this same confronting way many viewers would be outraged - and some would probably become vegetarian. Welcome to the real world ! It is the custom in many countries for families to buy an animal at the markets and slaughter it at home. It is normal to convey a sheep in the boot of a car for this purpose - and it is normal to put a large animal in the back of a truck with it's head over the tailboard - the better to drain the blood into the gutter when it's throat is cut.
No doubt we will be exhorted to petition the Australian government to order the end of the live sheep and cattle export trade. We tried that a year or so back - when a similar film showing caused the stopping of live exports to Indonesia. That nearly wrecked the Northern Territory cattle industry, put a lot of people out of work, caused a serious disruption to our good relations with our near neighbour - and achieved absolutely nothing !
Live cattle and sheep from other places replaced our exports and the Indonesians ordered their meat processors to tidy up procedures, but lack of refrigeration and the customs that prevail make the killing and consumption of meat fit within a short time frame in most third world countries. We should certainly petition to end handling that constitutes cruelty, but we need to keep in mind that reality means that the customs that prevail in other parts of the world are unlikely to change.
Animal liberation seems to be a theme that drives some people to excess. Egg farming by way of caged birds is by far the most economical way to farm hens, but it is not pleasant for the birds and it seems that many are prepared to pay a bit more to see the chooks released to be in the sun and scratch in the dirt. The practice of confining hogs in small cubicles has been outlawed in most states. We are constantly improving our farm practices - and we put pressure on overseas customers to adopt more humane handling methods.
But - there are limits to what we can achieve and the call to simply ban the live export of sheep and cattle is not realistic. The only consolation would be that the animals processed in the overseas markets we condemn would come from other places - and the "purists "would have the satisfaction that they are not Australian animals.
There is little sense in killing a valuable Australian export industry, if nothing is gained - and we simply hand a valuable export to other suppliers !
They probably were - in the imagination of people who have never set foot in an abattoir. Australian's of today select their meat from the refrigerated display in supermarkets, where the product is trimmed and tastefully presented on a plastic tray and covered with a polythene film. The actual "butchering "is done well out of sight.
Back before the supermarket era we got our meat from the local butcher's shop. We were used to seeing sides of beef, pork and lamb hanging from hooks and we waited while the butcher cut our order from these carcases, trimmed the fat and put the meat on the scales. The actual slaughter of the animals took place in a distant abattoir and those carcases arrived at the butcher's shop in a refrigerated truck.
Any Australian abattoir is not a nice place to visit. The squeamish would be horrified at the blood and gore. but it is nice to know that the animals receives a stunning electrical shock to render them unconscious - before their throats are cut ! Yes ! It is necessary to cut an animals throat to bleed it before the meat is processed, and our animals do not enjoy this prelude to death. The animals marshalled in the yard - waiting their turn - are well aware of the smell of death in the air. They roll their eyes and shake in fear.
If someone filmed the process of slaughtering animals in an Australian abattoir in this same confronting way many viewers would be outraged - and some would probably become vegetarian. Welcome to the real world ! It is the custom in many countries for families to buy an animal at the markets and slaughter it at home. It is normal to convey a sheep in the boot of a car for this purpose - and it is normal to put a large animal in the back of a truck with it's head over the tailboard - the better to drain the blood into the gutter when it's throat is cut.
No doubt we will be exhorted to petition the Australian government to order the end of the live sheep and cattle export trade. We tried that a year or so back - when a similar film showing caused the stopping of live exports to Indonesia. That nearly wrecked the Northern Territory cattle industry, put a lot of people out of work, caused a serious disruption to our good relations with our near neighbour - and achieved absolutely nothing !
Live cattle and sheep from other places replaced our exports and the Indonesians ordered their meat processors to tidy up procedures, but lack of refrigeration and the customs that prevail make the killing and consumption of meat fit within a short time frame in most third world countries. We should certainly petition to end handling that constitutes cruelty, but we need to keep in mind that reality means that the customs that prevail in other parts of the world are unlikely to change.
Animal liberation seems to be a theme that drives some people to excess. Egg farming by way of caged birds is by far the most economical way to farm hens, but it is not pleasant for the birds and it seems that many are prepared to pay a bit more to see the chooks released to be in the sun and scratch in the dirt. The practice of confining hogs in small cubicles has been outlawed in most states. We are constantly improving our farm practices - and we put pressure on overseas customers to adopt more humane handling methods.
But - there are limits to what we can achieve and the call to simply ban the live export of sheep and cattle is not realistic. The only consolation would be that the animals processed in the overseas markets we condemn would come from other places - and the "purists "would have the satisfaction that they are not Australian animals.
There is little sense in killing a valuable Australian export industry, if nothing is gained - and we simply hand a valuable export to other suppliers !
Friday 24 October 2014
Zoe's Law
Over a year ago a drug affected man got behind the wheel of a car and joined the traffic flow on the streets of Wollongong.. This driver lost control of his car at speed and it crossed to the wrong side of the road and crashed into another car containing a thirty-two week pregnant women. This woman was rushed to Liverpool hospital and emergency surgery was performed - but her baby girl did not survive. The damage from the crash also made it certain that she will be childless for the rest of her life.
There was huge public anger when it was revealed that under the existing law this drug affected driver could not be charged with the death of this child. The little girl would not be recognised as a human being until she took her first breath of life. It was a legal technicality that too often lets a criminal escape a charge of either murder or manslaughter - and walk away from criminal actions with a mere slap on the wrist.
This groundswell of public reaction forced the politicians to act. Work was well underway on drafting what was to be called "Zoe's Law " - which would mandate a seven year prison term for the offence of "extinguishing the life of an infant ". This was in response to a similar baby death much earlier and sought to recognise a foetus as a person at twenty weeks in the womb. That law finally passed the lower house of the New South Wales parliament - but it is still hung up in the upper house - and has yet to become law in this state.
It seems that the passage of legal responsibility for the life of an unborn is causing disquiet in the minds of some parliamentarians. Some wonder if such a law may end up being manipulated to apply to abortion. Whenever a new law passes into being it is certain to be interpreted by a lower court judge - and that decision appealed in a higher court. There is every chance that a matter of such gravity could eventually end up being decided by the Justices of the Australian High Court.
Abortion is a matter of contention that has politicians wary. The polls show that the majority of Australians agree that women should have control over their fertility, but this is rejected by powerful church interests - and by a significant percent of the population. The subject arouses passionate debate and there is no doubt that the anti movement would fund a case to try and use this new law to apply to abortion - and make it illegal.
No doubt legal minds are being concentrated on solving this problem. The actual wording of the bill would need careful thought to achieve clarity - and once again that would still be subject to interpretation by other legal minds - whose decisions could be shattering to life as we know it in this state.
The danger is that Zoe's Law may end up back in the "too hard "basket. The upper house may decide that it should lapse rather than create legal uncertainty - and once again criminal acts that result in the death of unborn children will remain unpunished.
Most ordinary people can see no problem in framing an effective law. Abortion is a simple medical procedure and as such should have the protection of the law. In fact, Zoe's Law would apply to any unqualified backyard abortionist as much as to any criminal act that results in the death of an unborn child, because such a law stipulates that it does not apply to either surgery or medication performed by a qualified and registered member of the medical fraternity.
The public clearly wants this law enacted. If the final interpretation by the courts is unsatisfactory, then it is the job of the parliament to pass another law to clear up the problem !
There was huge public anger when it was revealed that under the existing law this drug affected driver could not be charged with the death of this child. The little girl would not be recognised as a human being until she took her first breath of life. It was a legal technicality that too often lets a criminal escape a charge of either murder or manslaughter - and walk away from criminal actions with a mere slap on the wrist.
This groundswell of public reaction forced the politicians to act. Work was well underway on drafting what was to be called "Zoe's Law " - which would mandate a seven year prison term for the offence of "extinguishing the life of an infant ". This was in response to a similar baby death much earlier and sought to recognise a foetus as a person at twenty weeks in the womb. That law finally passed the lower house of the New South Wales parliament - but it is still hung up in the upper house - and has yet to become law in this state.
It seems that the passage of legal responsibility for the life of an unborn is causing disquiet in the minds of some parliamentarians. Some wonder if such a law may end up being manipulated to apply to abortion. Whenever a new law passes into being it is certain to be interpreted by a lower court judge - and that decision appealed in a higher court. There is every chance that a matter of such gravity could eventually end up being decided by the Justices of the Australian High Court.
Abortion is a matter of contention that has politicians wary. The polls show that the majority of Australians agree that women should have control over their fertility, but this is rejected by powerful church interests - and by a significant percent of the population. The subject arouses passionate debate and there is no doubt that the anti movement would fund a case to try and use this new law to apply to abortion - and make it illegal.
No doubt legal minds are being concentrated on solving this problem. The actual wording of the bill would need careful thought to achieve clarity - and once again that would still be subject to interpretation by other legal minds - whose decisions could be shattering to life as we know it in this state.
The danger is that Zoe's Law may end up back in the "too hard "basket. The upper house may decide that it should lapse rather than create legal uncertainty - and once again criminal acts that result in the death of unborn children will remain unpunished.
Most ordinary people can see no problem in framing an effective law. Abortion is a simple medical procedure and as such should have the protection of the law. In fact, Zoe's Law would apply to any unqualified backyard abortionist as much as to any criminal act that results in the death of an unborn child, because such a law stipulates that it does not apply to either surgery or medication performed by a qualified and registered member of the medical fraternity.
The public clearly wants this law enacted. If the final interpretation by the courts is unsatisfactory, then it is the job of the parliament to pass another law to clear up the problem !
Thursday 23 October 2014
Anti Discrimination Law Limits !
Just suppose an Australian was setting up a business in the Korean city of Seoul which aimed to attract Australian tourist customers visiting that country. It would be a good idea to have staff that spoke English and even better if they were from Australia and able to chat about Australian events to make the customers feel more at home.
A beauty boutique in Sydney created a huge kerfuffle when they placed a sign in the window with the wording " Korean Staff Wanted ". Apparently, this breaches our anti discrimination act, but the shop owner was quick to claim that all she wanted was people fluent in the Korean language - which is reasonable if this boutique was hoping to attract Koreans visiting this city.
There are often compelling reasons for seeking staff with special attributes and the anti discrimination act does make exceptions. Some nursing homes for the elderly are focussed on the needs of individual ethnic residents and it is desirable to have staff that not only speak that language, but follow the customs that are peculiar to that national identity. The aim is to make the residents feel at home by serving traditional food, following ethnic custom and even celebrating the national days of their former home country. This is allowable under the act.
Unfortunately these anti discrimination laws do little to combat the hidden forms of discrimination that are practised across a wide swathe of society - and one of these is age discrimination. It is the hiring policy of many businesses to totally exclude applicants above a certain age barrier, although this is never stated in job advertisements. As a result, people with industry experience and ability waste a lot of time preparing applications - and live in false hope of the end of a long job search. It is fast becoming legend that anyone over fifty is "unemployable "!
We have an ageing population and perhaps the work situation needs a new approach from the opposite ends of the age spectrum to create more employment. We already accept that those seeking their first job will lack experience and need tuition to become competent employees - and this is covered by a wage scale geared to age. Pay increases each year - until that person becomes an adult.
Perhaps we need to consider a similar wage reduction for older applicants seeking work. While they may have years of experience to offer, it is a fact of life that vim and vigour decrease with age and in many cases there would be value in having casuals able to iron out business peaks. It seems that "casual "employment is fast replacing "permanency " and the availability of a "floating" pool of labour has the ability to match the varying needs of business peaks and troughs. Making the employment of older people more attractive to employers could be a combination of a small wage discount for the loss of speed and agility caused by ageing, together with making their hiring free of payroll tax. A variety of other government tax incentives could sweeten the deal !
That can not be achieved without the review of our present labour laws. Rigidity must give way to flexibility if we are to open an avenue of employment for those seeking work - who are prepared to accept that the old "nine to five "era is finished and we now live in a 24/7 society. Many mature people are less choosey about the hours of work - than their more entertainment prone younger counterparts.
It is actually a form of discrimination if the same laws and conditions are equally applied to employees of all age groups. Those of mature age need an "edge "to be considered when an employer is considering filling a vacancy - and at present no such incentive exists. Cutting the elderly a little slack to get them back into the workforce not only helps the Australian economy, it restores hope and dignity to those whose working life has been artificially shortened.
Unfortunately, creating favourable conditions will probably generate political opposition and any such change will be vigorously opposed by the unions. If we are to remain "the clever country "we need to mesh need and demand and bring it together with the right legislation to make it work.
Not an impossible equation - provided common sense applies !
A beauty boutique in Sydney created a huge kerfuffle when they placed a sign in the window with the wording " Korean Staff Wanted ". Apparently, this breaches our anti discrimination act, but the shop owner was quick to claim that all she wanted was people fluent in the Korean language - which is reasonable if this boutique was hoping to attract Koreans visiting this city.
There are often compelling reasons for seeking staff with special attributes and the anti discrimination act does make exceptions. Some nursing homes for the elderly are focussed on the needs of individual ethnic residents and it is desirable to have staff that not only speak that language, but follow the customs that are peculiar to that national identity. The aim is to make the residents feel at home by serving traditional food, following ethnic custom and even celebrating the national days of their former home country. This is allowable under the act.
Unfortunately these anti discrimination laws do little to combat the hidden forms of discrimination that are practised across a wide swathe of society - and one of these is age discrimination. It is the hiring policy of many businesses to totally exclude applicants above a certain age barrier, although this is never stated in job advertisements. As a result, people with industry experience and ability waste a lot of time preparing applications - and live in false hope of the end of a long job search. It is fast becoming legend that anyone over fifty is "unemployable "!
We have an ageing population and perhaps the work situation needs a new approach from the opposite ends of the age spectrum to create more employment. We already accept that those seeking their first job will lack experience and need tuition to become competent employees - and this is covered by a wage scale geared to age. Pay increases each year - until that person becomes an adult.
Perhaps we need to consider a similar wage reduction for older applicants seeking work. While they may have years of experience to offer, it is a fact of life that vim and vigour decrease with age and in many cases there would be value in having casuals able to iron out business peaks. It seems that "casual "employment is fast replacing "permanency " and the availability of a "floating" pool of labour has the ability to match the varying needs of business peaks and troughs. Making the employment of older people more attractive to employers could be a combination of a small wage discount for the loss of speed and agility caused by ageing, together with making their hiring free of payroll tax. A variety of other government tax incentives could sweeten the deal !
That can not be achieved without the review of our present labour laws. Rigidity must give way to flexibility if we are to open an avenue of employment for those seeking work - who are prepared to accept that the old "nine to five "era is finished and we now live in a 24/7 society. Many mature people are less choosey about the hours of work - than their more entertainment prone younger counterparts.
It is actually a form of discrimination if the same laws and conditions are equally applied to employees of all age groups. Those of mature age need an "edge "to be considered when an employer is considering filling a vacancy - and at present no such incentive exists. Cutting the elderly a little slack to get them back into the workforce not only helps the Australian economy, it restores hope and dignity to those whose working life has been artificially shortened.
Unfortunately, creating favourable conditions will probably generate political opposition and any such change will be vigorously opposed by the unions. If we are to remain "the clever country "we need to mesh need and demand and bring it together with the right legislation to make it work.
Not an impossible equation - provided common sense applies !
Wednesday 22 October 2014
Our Right to have an Opinion !
The recent suspension of Professor Barry Spurr from Sydney University opens an interesting can of worms. Just what privacy rights do we mere mortals have in the emails, letters and phone conversations we have with family and friends ?
The University took offence when a website published emails said to have originated from the Professor which described Nelson Mandela as a "Darkie "and accused Prime Minister Tony Abbott of being an "Abo Lover ". In the "politically correct " era of today, that was sufficient to have students screaming protests outside his office and for calls for his tenure to be terminated.
It seems that a "legal letter "has been served on the website that published these emails and there is the suggestion that this matter may have breached the Commonwealth Criminal code. The Professor claims that his email account has been hacked - and matter stolen.
This certainly raises the question of whether we have the right to a personal opinion. When we make a public statement, write a letter to a newspaper under our own name - or take part in a public forum we stand by the opinion we express and that it legitimately open to criticism. The more important a position we hold in public affairs, the more interest our thoughts will generate.
But surely we have the right to privacy within the sanctity of our communication with family and friends to make satirical comments that may verge on racism to some thin skinned people, or express views on subjects that may be regarded as contentious ? There are laws in place to prosecute those who maliciously hack to gain nude photos of ordinary people and publish them on the web to create dismay and humiliation. Surely similar protection should be afforded to communications that were not intended for the public domain ?
Cyber warfare has entered the lexicon as having the capacity to deliver a knock out blow in a future world war, but it is fast becoming a weapon of character assassination in all aspects of public life. A skilled hacker can amass a fortune delving into the personal affairs of "important people "- and selling that information to the news hungry media world. The "political machines "that are generated by political parties are ever ready to do damage to an opponent - if they can find material that will generate controversy.
We are all vulnerable - if we come to public attention - to having received a racist joke circulating on the Internet or making an "off colour "joke to a friend about something that is featured in the news. It seems that the only way to be perfectly safe is to adopt a puritanical attitude - and instantly delete any material that could possibly be considered even mildly offensive - and adopt a neutrality of opinion - which would probably make us the most boring conversationalist on the planet !
Fortunately, we are perfectly safe as long as we merge in the common herd - and never stick our head above the parapet. We are entitled to have personal opinions. We are entitled to share those opinions with others - just so long as we don't do it too openly - and in a public place.
It seems that all the "interesting people "of this world need to adopt a bunker mentality. Such is the price of even minor fame !
The University took offence when a website published emails said to have originated from the Professor which described Nelson Mandela as a "Darkie "and accused Prime Minister Tony Abbott of being an "Abo Lover ". In the "politically correct " era of today, that was sufficient to have students screaming protests outside his office and for calls for his tenure to be terminated.
It seems that a "legal letter "has been served on the website that published these emails and there is the suggestion that this matter may have breached the Commonwealth Criminal code. The Professor claims that his email account has been hacked - and matter stolen.
This certainly raises the question of whether we have the right to a personal opinion. When we make a public statement, write a letter to a newspaper under our own name - or take part in a public forum we stand by the opinion we express and that it legitimately open to criticism. The more important a position we hold in public affairs, the more interest our thoughts will generate.
But surely we have the right to privacy within the sanctity of our communication with family and friends to make satirical comments that may verge on racism to some thin skinned people, or express views on subjects that may be regarded as contentious ? There are laws in place to prosecute those who maliciously hack to gain nude photos of ordinary people and publish them on the web to create dismay and humiliation. Surely similar protection should be afforded to communications that were not intended for the public domain ?
Cyber warfare has entered the lexicon as having the capacity to deliver a knock out blow in a future world war, but it is fast becoming a weapon of character assassination in all aspects of public life. A skilled hacker can amass a fortune delving into the personal affairs of "important people "- and selling that information to the news hungry media world. The "political machines "that are generated by political parties are ever ready to do damage to an opponent - if they can find material that will generate controversy.
We are all vulnerable - if we come to public attention - to having received a racist joke circulating on the Internet or making an "off colour "joke to a friend about something that is featured in the news. It seems that the only way to be perfectly safe is to adopt a puritanical attitude - and instantly delete any material that could possibly be considered even mildly offensive - and adopt a neutrality of opinion - which would probably make us the most boring conversationalist on the planet !
Fortunately, we are perfectly safe as long as we merge in the common herd - and never stick our head above the parapet. We are entitled to have personal opinions. We are entitled to share those opinions with others - just so long as we don't do it too openly - and in a public place.
It seems that all the "interesting people "of this world need to adopt a bunker mentality. Such is the price of even minor fame !
Tuesday 21 October 2014
The end of "Competition " !
The world car companies have decided to close ranks and add car servicing to the profit chain that surrounds the auto industry. No longer will they provide independent mechanics with the critical technical information necessary to understand the modern automobile engine and the vital software that enables a servicing mechanic's computer to "talk "to the onboard computer in the car will only be available to mechanics in the dealer network.
The car manufacturers claim that the technical aspects of their engines have progressed far beyond the ability of independents to service them and they insist that this complexity needs the "factory trained "skills that will only be available in future to those dealers licensed to provide them. It also forces the "closed shop " aspect on car owners and herds them into dealer's workshops - where price charged on work performed will not be subjected to competition.
It is true that cars have become "computers on wheels " and this move seems to be aimed squarely as the small mechanic who in a previous era ran the workshop attached to most petrol stations. Those were the days when the local "service station "not only provided fuel, oil, water and air, but could fix a flat tyre, do a "grease and lube "service - and often at a rate far lower than charged by a big city car dealer's workshop.
Today, those facilities no longer exist. The "service station "has morphed into a seven eleven convenience store - that also sells petrol - and nothing else even remotely involved with the car. Mechanical repairs outside the ranks of the car dealerships have evolved into a much smaller number of well equipped - and technically trained - mechanics who have invested a lot of money into the equipment needed to service and repair the car engine of today. They are not "cheap " - but they usually shade the prices charged in the big dealer workshops.
These mechanics get their skills from the TAFE network and many served their apprenticeship in a car dealers workshop. Many car owners have a favourite mechanic and leave the care of their car entirely in that persons hands. This seems to be an attempt to force motorists to comply with the wishes of the car industry in adding servicing to the "after sales "profitability already enjoyed in artificially high prices charged for "genuine "spare parts and accessories. Profits are to be made corralling car owners into workshops which will only fit these overpriced replacements and ignore the generic equivalents - which sell at a fraction of what the car makers charge.
This move is a game changer. Competition has shaved the profit margins that car manufacturers once enjoyed and they are now turning to the profitability chain that exists over the lifetime of the product they produce. Our laws enable a licensed motor mechanic to provide service without voiding warranties - and the car manufacturers see withholding enabling information as a way to end that. It is an end run to put the independent industry out of business - and reap the rewards from virtually making car service and repairs a controlled monopoly.
This will probably end up in the courts. Arbitrarily withdrawing information and the software necessary to run computers and making that only available to in-house technicians could be seen as a restriction of trade - and deemed illegal. It seems certain that the vast number of independents who make their living servicing cars will try and protect their industry.
For the ordinary motorist, the cost of running a car is in the hands of the judiciary - who decide these things !
The car manufacturers claim that the technical aspects of their engines have progressed far beyond the ability of independents to service them and they insist that this complexity needs the "factory trained "skills that will only be available in future to those dealers licensed to provide them. It also forces the "closed shop " aspect on car owners and herds them into dealer's workshops - where price charged on work performed will not be subjected to competition.
It is true that cars have become "computers on wheels " and this move seems to be aimed squarely as the small mechanic who in a previous era ran the workshop attached to most petrol stations. Those were the days when the local "service station "not only provided fuel, oil, water and air, but could fix a flat tyre, do a "grease and lube "service - and often at a rate far lower than charged by a big city car dealer's workshop.
Today, those facilities no longer exist. The "service station "has morphed into a seven eleven convenience store - that also sells petrol - and nothing else even remotely involved with the car. Mechanical repairs outside the ranks of the car dealerships have evolved into a much smaller number of well equipped - and technically trained - mechanics who have invested a lot of money into the equipment needed to service and repair the car engine of today. They are not "cheap " - but they usually shade the prices charged in the big dealer workshops.
These mechanics get their skills from the TAFE network and many served their apprenticeship in a car dealers workshop. Many car owners have a favourite mechanic and leave the care of their car entirely in that persons hands. This seems to be an attempt to force motorists to comply with the wishes of the car industry in adding servicing to the "after sales "profitability already enjoyed in artificially high prices charged for "genuine "spare parts and accessories. Profits are to be made corralling car owners into workshops which will only fit these overpriced replacements and ignore the generic equivalents - which sell at a fraction of what the car makers charge.
This move is a game changer. Competition has shaved the profit margins that car manufacturers once enjoyed and they are now turning to the profitability chain that exists over the lifetime of the product they produce. Our laws enable a licensed motor mechanic to provide service without voiding warranties - and the car manufacturers see withholding enabling information as a way to end that. It is an end run to put the independent industry out of business - and reap the rewards from virtually making car service and repairs a controlled monopoly.
This will probably end up in the courts. Arbitrarily withdrawing information and the software necessary to run computers and making that only available to in-house technicians could be seen as a restriction of trade - and deemed illegal. It seems certain that the vast number of independents who make their living servicing cars will try and protect their industry.
For the ordinary motorist, the cost of running a car is in the hands of the judiciary - who decide these things !
Monday 20 October 2014
In The Eye Of The Beholder !
"Art" is tricky business ! What one person sees as artistically beautiful, another may see as a piece of junk ! Art on public display always brings a very mixed reaction - and Sydney now has a problem that many other cities would envy.
Philanthropist Basil Sellers is proposing to donate a one million dollar sculpture by award winning artist Terrance Plowright - who designed the "Dancing Brolgas "fountain at Cockle Bay - to the city of Sydney. It is titled "Uniting a City "- and it is not exactly small. This sculpture stands over four story's heigh - and weighs 4.5 tonnes. It will take a massive crane to put it in place - once a site has been selected.
That's where things have gone awry. It seems that that the original offer was agreed by way of a handshake between Mr Sellers and then Arts Minister George Souris. At that time, the location was not fixed but it was assumed that it would be prominently displayed in a public area, such as the forecourt of the Museum of Contemporary Art, or the Royal Botanic Gardens.
George Souris is no longer Arts minister - and the state government is having second thoughts about accepting this gift. The sticking point seems to be - the location. The very different views of what constitutes art is making consensus difficult in government ranks and as work on this sculpture is rapidly nearing completion - a decision is urgently required.
Many will remember that old adage about "looking a gift horse in the mouth " and question the hesitation when it involves a very valuable item of great generosity. It is not every day that a philanthropist chooses to spend a million dollars to enhance the beauty of the "Harbour City "- and the work in question is the product of a renowned artist.
Art is supposed to be controversial. When the Eiffel Tower was erected in Paris as a "temporary "building to showcase the 1889 Exposition, the people of that city hated it and demanded that it be torn down. It quickly became the icon that sprang to mind whenever people thought of Paris, just as our harbour bridge depicts Sydney on the world stage - and now Paris would be unthinkable without it's silhouette dominating the city skyline.
"Uniting a City "may not attract the fame that either the harbour bridge nor the Opera House achieves in creating a mental image of Sydney, but it will certainly join a host of other icons that tourist visit and include in the photo menage they show to others when they return from their Australian holiday. The fact that some will applaud it - and other criticise - is the very nature of "art ", and it is strange how something revilled by some eventually finds favour and becomes some sort of "national treasure ".
True art lovers will be incensed that a bunch of politicians have the temerity to try and impose their individual opinions on judging whether a high value artistic gift deserves a place in our city. It is their job to be gracious - accept the gift - and let the people decide.
Philanthropist Basil Sellers is proposing to donate a one million dollar sculpture by award winning artist Terrance Plowright - who designed the "Dancing Brolgas "fountain at Cockle Bay - to the city of Sydney. It is titled "Uniting a City "- and it is not exactly small. This sculpture stands over four story's heigh - and weighs 4.5 tonnes. It will take a massive crane to put it in place - once a site has been selected.
That's where things have gone awry. It seems that that the original offer was agreed by way of a handshake between Mr Sellers and then Arts Minister George Souris. At that time, the location was not fixed but it was assumed that it would be prominently displayed in a public area, such as the forecourt of the Museum of Contemporary Art, or the Royal Botanic Gardens.
George Souris is no longer Arts minister - and the state government is having second thoughts about accepting this gift. The sticking point seems to be - the location. The very different views of what constitutes art is making consensus difficult in government ranks and as work on this sculpture is rapidly nearing completion - a decision is urgently required.
Many will remember that old adage about "looking a gift horse in the mouth " and question the hesitation when it involves a very valuable item of great generosity. It is not every day that a philanthropist chooses to spend a million dollars to enhance the beauty of the "Harbour City "- and the work in question is the product of a renowned artist.
Art is supposed to be controversial. When the Eiffel Tower was erected in Paris as a "temporary "building to showcase the 1889 Exposition, the people of that city hated it and demanded that it be torn down. It quickly became the icon that sprang to mind whenever people thought of Paris, just as our harbour bridge depicts Sydney on the world stage - and now Paris would be unthinkable without it's silhouette dominating the city skyline.
"Uniting a City "may not attract the fame that either the harbour bridge nor the Opera House achieves in creating a mental image of Sydney, but it will certainly join a host of other icons that tourist visit and include in the photo menage they show to others when they return from their Australian holiday. The fact that some will applaud it - and other criticise - is the very nature of "art ", and it is strange how something revilled by some eventually finds favour and becomes some sort of "national treasure ".
True art lovers will be incensed that a bunch of politicians have the temerity to try and impose their individual opinions on judging whether a high value artistic gift deserves a place in our city. It is their job to be gracious - accept the gift - and let the people decide.
Sunday 19 October 2014
Politically Incorrect !
Poetry Professor Barry Spurr has been suspended from his job and barred from entering the grounds of Sydney University because his language has been deemed "politically incorrect " in emails he sent to other people. It seems that he referred to Nelson Mandela as "a Darkie "and accused Prime Minister Tony Abbott of being an "Abo lover "!
This sensitivity to all references of skin colour seems to be ever tightening. In Victoria, the children's nursery rhyme - "Baa Baa Black Sheep " has undergone the metamorphosis to "Rainbow "replacing "Black ". It seems that in many people's minds there is a need to banish the word "black " from the English language.
It is certainly true that "black " conjours up a negative impression in many people's minds. We talk of slow payment incurring a "black mark "on people's credit ratings and the government is always trying to reign in the "black economy ", but there seems no such resentment to use of the opposite description to "black ". We blithely refer to the early days as the time of "White Australia" and our Indigenous brethren often refer to the law as "Whitey's law ".
The new obstacle to accurately describing a person seems to hinge on both colour - and race. There seems to be growing opposition to describing a person sought by the police as "of Middle Eastern appearance " and a similar sensitivity applies to "Asian ". Yet both are a valid way of describing the appearance of the person sought. The media now seem uncomfortable using "Indigenous "or "Aboriginal " when putting together a news story.
That ugly word "Racism "seems to rear it's head now on the sporting field. Barracking from the sidelines has seen offenders who shout a slur against a players ancestry or sexual preference marched from the stand and ejected from the stadium. On field remarks between players often results in a brawl and all the sporting codes now have a code of conduct that delivers punishment for racial infringements.
There seems to be an ever widening chasm between the language of what occurs between ordinary people - and the lexicon used by anyone holding higher office. Professor Barry Spurr crossed that dividing line because of his position at the University - and while his remarks may have been made in jest to a friend - the fact that he said them has brought his tenure into question.
The same applies in politics. Every politician chooses his words carefully. Political enemies are ever ready to pounce on any slip of the tongue, and even remarks made decades earlier - in a more forgiving age - can come back to haunt them at reelection time.
Now there are tendencies to bring anything that may cause offense to another person within the scope of the law. This runs counter to our cherished notion of "Freedom of Speech " and opens the can of worms of trying to codify precisely what terms are legal - and precisely which may see us hauled before a court and punished.
The politicians would be well advised to leave that alone. The reaction of public opinion is a far better judge of what is - and what is not acceptable - and it quickly delivers it's verdict by the way it reacts to anything it finds offensive. The offender gets the message - and that message is commensurate with the level of the offense.
There are some things that are better left in the hands of ordinary people to sort out - and this is one of them !
This sensitivity to all references of skin colour seems to be ever tightening. In Victoria, the children's nursery rhyme - "Baa Baa Black Sheep " has undergone the metamorphosis to "Rainbow "replacing "Black ". It seems that in many people's minds there is a need to banish the word "black " from the English language.
It is certainly true that "black " conjours up a negative impression in many people's minds. We talk of slow payment incurring a "black mark "on people's credit ratings and the government is always trying to reign in the "black economy ", but there seems no such resentment to use of the opposite description to "black ". We blithely refer to the early days as the time of "White Australia" and our Indigenous brethren often refer to the law as "Whitey's law ".
The new obstacle to accurately describing a person seems to hinge on both colour - and race. There seems to be growing opposition to describing a person sought by the police as "of Middle Eastern appearance " and a similar sensitivity applies to "Asian ". Yet both are a valid way of describing the appearance of the person sought. The media now seem uncomfortable using "Indigenous "or "Aboriginal " when putting together a news story.
That ugly word "Racism "seems to rear it's head now on the sporting field. Barracking from the sidelines has seen offenders who shout a slur against a players ancestry or sexual preference marched from the stand and ejected from the stadium. On field remarks between players often results in a brawl and all the sporting codes now have a code of conduct that delivers punishment for racial infringements.
There seems to be an ever widening chasm between the language of what occurs between ordinary people - and the lexicon used by anyone holding higher office. Professor Barry Spurr crossed that dividing line because of his position at the University - and while his remarks may have been made in jest to a friend - the fact that he said them has brought his tenure into question.
The same applies in politics. Every politician chooses his words carefully. Political enemies are ever ready to pounce on any slip of the tongue, and even remarks made decades earlier - in a more forgiving age - can come back to haunt them at reelection time.
Now there are tendencies to bring anything that may cause offense to another person within the scope of the law. This runs counter to our cherished notion of "Freedom of Speech " and opens the can of worms of trying to codify precisely what terms are legal - and precisely which may see us hauled before a court and punished.
The politicians would be well advised to leave that alone. The reaction of public opinion is a far better judge of what is - and what is not acceptable - and it quickly delivers it's verdict by the way it reacts to anything it finds offensive. The offender gets the message - and that message is commensurate with the level of the offense.
There are some things that are better left in the hands of ordinary people to sort out - and this is one of them !
Saturday 18 October 2014
Because they can !
When two giant trading companies have about eighty percent of grocery sales in Australia they wield enormous power when it comes to negotiations with the manufacturers of the products they sell. Doing a "deal " with either company is a vastly involved trade-off of expectations, each of which is expected to be honoured - with failure involving a penalty. Coles has come under fire with complaints from smaller companies that it is ruthless in screwing them with ever increasing rules and penalties - and that getting shelf space for their products requires the manufacturer to "jump through hoops "!
In particular, they claim that Coles sets sales expectations that - if unmet - results in "fines "for waste and markdowns. If the supplier refuses, further business may be subjected to "commercially detrimental " conditions. In many cases, the viability of a product may rest on it's ability to claim a place on the shelves of the duopoly - and failure will see it disappear from the market place.
The grocery trade is indeed complex. In many cases, the decision to stock a product relies on what level of supporting advertising will be provided by the manufacturer and a special and lower price will be required to offset the "special "retail price offered in store for a given period of time. Then there are "credits " that apply where that product is displayed at eye height, rather than in a less appealing shelf position to attract sales.
The duopoly has mastered the art of negotiating the best terms to not only improve their own profitability, but also present their pricing to keep the customers rolling through their doors - and that is precisely what is required of a successful merchant in this day and age. The only question is - how ethically is this power balanced.
In both the political and military sense, the maxim that "Power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely " seems to be a fact of life. There needs to be limits on power, but the moment well intended rules come into play they tend to stifle the creativity and ingenuity that enable an organization to rise above the level of the common herd. We live in an age where new ideas and new methods are constantly shouldering out the less competitive - and creating fortunes for those with the insight and determination to take calculated risks.
That is the enigma faced by the various levels of government. At one stage the duopoly was deliberately selling under costs to drive competitors out of business and secure a sales monopoly in shopping malls. The government implanted a code of conduct which the duopoly accepted voluntarily - under threat that refusal would see draconian legislation enacted. That seems to have been scrupulously obeyed - and there is peace in that business sector.
A similar arrangement may be possible to protect small suppliers from the rapacious tendencies of the duopoly. It would probably need some sort of independent ombudsman to be constantly monitoring the stock acquisition policies - and it would need to avoid having those affected lodge a formal complaint. Few would be comfortable with that, knowing that future relations with their biggest customer would be adversely affected. An astute ombudsman could weed out unfair buying practices by voluntary agreement - with the muscle of legislation as the fall back position if required.
The important thing is to recognise that there is a problem - and not implement some ham fisted solution that produces unintended consequences. The iron fist in a velvet glove can be far more affective that beating an opponent about the ears with a club. This problem seems to call for the " softly - softly "approach !
In particular, they claim that Coles sets sales expectations that - if unmet - results in "fines "for waste and markdowns. If the supplier refuses, further business may be subjected to "commercially detrimental " conditions. In many cases, the viability of a product may rest on it's ability to claim a place on the shelves of the duopoly - and failure will see it disappear from the market place.
The grocery trade is indeed complex. In many cases, the decision to stock a product relies on what level of supporting advertising will be provided by the manufacturer and a special and lower price will be required to offset the "special "retail price offered in store for a given period of time. Then there are "credits " that apply where that product is displayed at eye height, rather than in a less appealing shelf position to attract sales.
The duopoly has mastered the art of negotiating the best terms to not only improve their own profitability, but also present their pricing to keep the customers rolling through their doors - and that is precisely what is required of a successful merchant in this day and age. The only question is - how ethically is this power balanced.
In both the political and military sense, the maxim that "Power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely " seems to be a fact of life. There needs to be limits on power, but the moment well intended rules come into play they tend to stifle the creativity and ingenuity that enable an organization to rise above the level of the common herd. We live in an age where new ideas and new methods are constantly shouldering out the less competitive - and creating fortunes for those with the insight and determination to take calculated risks.
That is the enigma faced by the various levels of government. At one stage the duopoly was deliberately selling under costs to drive competitors out of business and secure a sales monopoly in shopping malls. The government implanted a code of conduct which the duopoly accepted voluntarily - under threat that refusal would see draconian legislation enacted. That seems to have been scrupulously obeyed - and there is peace in that business sector.
A similar arrangement may be possible to protect small suppliers from the rapacious tendencies of the duopoly. It would probably need some sort of independent ombudsman to be constantly monitoring the stock acquisition policies - and it would need to avoid having those affected lodge a formal complaint. Few would be comfortable with that, knowing that future relations with their biggest customer would be adversely affected. An astute ombudsman could weed out unfair buying practices by voluntary agreement - with the muscle of legislation as the fall back position if required.
The important thing is to recognise that there is a problem - and not implement some ham fisted solution that produces unintended consequences. The iron fist in a velvet glove can be far more affective that beating an opponent about the ears with a club. This problem seems to call for the " softly - softly "approach !
Friday 17 October 2014
Australian born - but unwanted !
A Brisbane Federal Circuit judge certainly threw the cat amongst the pigeons with a ruling that an eleven month old child born in a Brisbane hospital is not eligible for a protection visa. His pregnant mother arrived amongst the "boat people " and was promptly removed to Nauru, but difficulties with her pregnancy required the services of a big city hospital - and hence her child was legally born on Australian soil.
This ruling enters new territory. Despite the Australian birth the child is described as an "Unauthorised Maritime Arrival " and as such will never be allowed permanent residency within Australia - but it does not specify his position if he applies for Australian citizenship - which is a totally different issue.
There is also every likelihood that this court ruling will go for a final determination in the High Court of Australia and by that stage the issue of Australian citizenship will also need to be resolved, and that is an issue that will certainly draw the attention of the United Nations.
It has long been the protocol that children born in any country are legally entitled to the citizenship of that country, but not all nations agree with that ruling. In particular, the United States has an ongoing problem with asylum seekers from south of the Rio Grande and many who were actually born in the United States are still not recognised as legal citizens.
The problem here is purely political. One side of politics foolishly relaxed immigration laws and created an opportunity for people smugglers to make their fortune by cramming asylum seekers into leaky boats. This only stopped when the other side of politics enacted tough new laws and demonstrated that new arrivals would be sent to less hospitable camps offshore - and never allowed permanent settlement in Australia.
For a while, the people smugglers continued their trade in the belief that the government would capitulate, but the removal of new arrivals offshore soon sapped the confidence of their clients - and the flow slackened - and finally ceased. Those asylum seekers that fell into that unfortunate category are now awaiting settlement somewhere other than in Australia and it looks like most will probably end up in Cambodia. The government is unable to show mercy - because any act of clemency would be interpreted by the people smugglers as the signal to re-start their very profitable trade and send boats to Christmas Island.
This eleven month old child will probably become a feature of this nation's history books. He will be the applicant in the type of court action that changes history, just as Eddie Mabo's name has become synonymous with Aboriginal land rights.
Whether he gets to actually live in Australia will decide the future of many with aspirations to be citizens of this country !
This ruling enters new territory. Despite the Australian birth the child is described as an "Unauthorised Maritime Arrival " and as such will never be allowed permanent residency within Australia - but it does not specify his position if he applies for Australian citizenship - which is a totally different issue.
There is also every likelihood that this court ruling will go for a final determination in the High Court of Australia and by that stage the issue of Australian citizenship will also need to be resolved, and that is an issue that will certainly draw the attention of the United Nations.
It has long been the protocol that children born in any country are legally entitled to the citizenship of that country, but not all nations agree with that ruling. In particular, the United States has an ongoing problem with asylum seekers from south of the Rio Grande and many who were actually born in the United States are still not recognised as legal citizens.
The problem here is purely political. One side of politics foolishly relaxed immigration laws and created an opportunity for people smugglers to make their fortune by cramming asylum seekers into leaky boats. This only stopped when the other side of politics enacted tough new laws and demonstrated that new arrivals would be sent to less hospitable camps offshore - and never allowed permanent settlement in Australia.
For a while, the people smugglers continued their trade in the belief that the government would capitulate, but the removal of new arrivals offshore soon sapped the confidence of their clients - and the flow slackened - and finally ceased. Those asylum seekers that fell into that unfortunate category are now awaiting settlement somewhere other than in Australia and it looks like most will probably end up in Cambodia. The government is unable to show mercy - because any act of clemency would be interpreted by the people smugglers as the signal to re-start their very profitable trade and send boats to Christmas Island.
This eleven month old child will probably become a feature of this nation's history books. He will be the applicant in the type of court action that changes history, just as Eddie Mabo's name has become synonymous with Aboriginal land rights.
Whether he gets to actually live in Australia will decide the future of many with aspirations to be citizens of this country !
Thursday 16 October 2014
Stopping the "Cringe " !
Many of the citizens of this country are going to be hopping mad this morning. It seems that Woolworths has pulled a popular T shirt from their shelves after tweets that describe it as a "racist singlet ". It simply featured the Australian flag - and the slogan "If you don't love it - leave ".
There seems to be a concentrated campaign from the far left of politics to denigrate the Australian flag and everything that is an emblem of the type of people we are - and what makes the Australian lifestyle unique. We seem to be encouraged to adopt some sort of "cringe " to avoid offending the sensibilities of newcomers to this country. Any sort of criticism is eagerly promoted on social media and the fact that what many would describe as a "wholesome message "was a big feature of it's withdrawal from sale on a Greens Facebook page.
Christmas is fast approaching, and once again there will be calls for Christmas decorations to be muted. Kindergartens are discouraged from having nativity displays for fear of offending those of other religions. The playing of Christmas carols in shopping centres is now frowned upon and it is notable that there are some attempts to actually rename "Christmas " as some sort of summer holiday event.
Many true blue Australians were offended to hear that a body corporate had banned the flying of an Australian flag at an apartment block. It was thought to be "controversial "- and could offend others and attract some sort of physical retribution. This body corporate was within the legality of it's charter, but what a message to send. We are too afraid of offending others to display our own national flag.
Perhaps the ultimate insult was the order to Australian servicemen and servicewomen not to wear this country's uniform when off base. It was thought that the sight of an Australian uniform could so upset the sensibilities of those who supported overseas terrorism that it might provoke a physical attack. Even school cadets were banned from wearing their uniforms in public.
It seems that we have the farcical situation of Australia being the preferred destination for vast numbers of the world's dispossessed who were prepared to risk death in leaky boats to reach our shores, and yet when they reach here and gain sanctuary - they immediately demand we change our way of life and adopt their customs. The solemn pledge they make to gain their citizenship certificate is instantly dismissed - and those of our political left support their demands.
Perhaps the problem is simply that we Australians are bending over backwards to be sociable - and paying far too much attention to the endless criticism coming from that strange mix of Greenies, Anarchists, lapsed Communists - and the general range of loonies who make up the raving mix from the far left of politics.
One of the bogies they have contrived is a fear of Islam. They seem to have convinced us that the entire Muslim population of Australia is about to launch anarchy and mayhem on the rest of Australia - and the only way to prevent the onslaught is to cave in to their demands. Reality presents a very different story. The vast majority of Muslims living here are happy to practice their religion and dread the small minority in their midst making all the noise and constantly harping on the very reasons they fled their original countries.
There is no doubt that this group contains some very dangerous people, and it is likely that some will resort to violence at the urging of overseas terror leaders. Two police officers were attacked by just such a jihadist - and that is a price we will have to pay because of the nature of the revolt that is fracturing the Islamic world. A power struggle within the Muslim world is being enacted on the world stage and it is inevitable that some in our Islamic community will choose to fight that battle here.
It is frightening when we see a screaming mob of protesters waving placards and smashing cars and shop windows as they progress through city streets, but their numbers are small in comparison with the Australian Muslim community - and many in that group are unwilling participants under pressure from jihadists to put in an appearance - or face retribution from hostile Imams preaching at their mosque.
It's time to stop the cringe. It's time to stop being over sensitive and caving in to every bleat from the apologists of left wing politics. It's time that T shirt went back on the shelves at Woolworths - and it's time we wore it with pride.
We need laws in place to assist the security services to control the zealots intending to break our laws and we need to accept the consequences that those laws will impose on our convenience and way of life. This is a fight the jihadists are determined to bring to our shores and it will not be avoided by a policy of non-confrontation. The more we back down - the greater will be the demands - and the threats that go with them.
It is time we recognised the Australian flag - as our battle ensign !
There seems to be a concentrated campaign from the far left of politics to denigrate the Australian flag and everything that is an emblem of the type of people we are - and what makes the Australian lifestyle unique. We seem to be encouraged to adopt some sort of "cringe " to avoid offending the sensibilities of newcomers to this country. Any sort of criticism is eagerly promoted on social media and the fact that what many would describe as a "wholesome message "was a big feature of it's withdrawal from sale on a Greens Facebook page.
Christmas is fast approaching, and once again there will be calls for Christmas decorations to be muted. Kindergartens are discouraged from having nativity displays for fear of offending those of other religions. The playing of Christmas carols in shopping centres is now frowned upon and it is notable that there are some attempts to actually rename "Christmas " as some sort of summer holiday event.
Many true blue Australians were offended to hear that a body corporate had banned the flying of an Australian flag at an apartment block. It was thought to be "controversial "- and could offend others and attract some sort of physical retribution. This body corporate was within the legality of it's charter, but what a message to send. We are too afraid of offending others to display our own national flag.
Perhaps the ultimate insult was the order to Australian servicemen and servicewomen not to wear this country's uniform when off base. It was thought that the sight of an Australian uniform could so upset the sensibilities of those who supported overseas terrorism that it might provoke a physical attack. Even school cadets were banned from wearing their uniforms in public.
It seems that we have the farcical situation of Australia being the preferred destination for vast numbers of the world's dispossessed who were prepared to risk death in leaky boats to reach our shores, and yet when they reach here and gain sanctuary - they immediately demand we change our way of life and adopt their customs. The solemn pledge they make to gain their citizenship certificate is instantly dismissed - and those of our political left support their demands.
Perhaps the problem is simply that we Australians are bending over backwards to be sociable - and paying far too much attention to the endless criticism coming from that strange mix of Greenies, Anarchists, lapsed Communists - and the general range of loonies who make up the raving mix from the far left of politics.
One of the bogies they have contrived is a fear of Islam. They seem to have convinced us that the entire Muslim population of Australia is about to launch anarchy and mayhem on the rest of Australia - and the only way to prevent the onslaught is to cave in to their demands. Reality presents a very different story. The vast majority of Muslims living here are happy to practice their religion and dread the small minority in their midst making all the noise and constantly harping on the very reasons they fled their original countries.
There is no doubt that this group contains some very dangerous people, and it is likely that some will resort to violence at the urging of overseas terror leaders. Two police officers were attacked by just such a jihadist - and that is a price we will have to pay because of the nature of the revolt that is fracturing the Islamic world. A power struggle within the Muslim world is being enacted on the world stage and it is inevitable that some in our Islamic community will choose to fight that battle here.
It is frightening when we see a screaming mob of protesters waving placards and smashing cars and shop windows as they progress through city streets, but their numbers are small in comparison with the Australian Muslim community - and many in that group are unwilling participants under pressure from jihadists to put in an appearance - or face retribution from hostile Imams preaching at their mosque.
It's time to stop the cringe. It's time to stop being over sensitive and caving in to every bleat from the apologists of left wing politics. It's time that T shirt went back on the shelves at Woolworths - and it's time we wore it with pride.
We need laws in place to assist the security services to control the zealots intending to break our laws and we need to accept the consequences that those laws will impose on our convenience and way of life. This is a fight the jihadists are determined to bring to our shores and it will not be avoided by a policy of non-confrontation. The more we back down - the greater will be the demands - and the threats that go with them.
It is time we recognised the Australian flag - as our battle ensign !
Wednesday 15 October 2014
An " Uglier " Australia !
Drinking at the pub and a bit of "biffo " have been a hallmark of Australian life ever since the days of the first fleet. Alcohol loosens the inhibitions and we are an argumentative lot - prepared to have our say about politics, religion, football, horse racing - you name it and someone will certainly have a different opinion !
The big difference seems to be that the rules have changed. The typical pub fight of the past usually started with two people yelling at each other - and that progressed to punches thrown - and when one copped a black eye or a bloody nose - that was the end of it. The combatants walked away - and the next week they were probably back in the same bar, sharing a beer together.
That is not the scene today. We have the phenomenon of a perfect stranger being suddenly assaulted with what the media term "a king hit ". Without warning, someone delivers a punch that sends the victim crashing to the ground - and in many cases - head contact with both the fist and the concrete delivers serious brain injury. Permanent injury and even death is not an unusual result.
But it doesn't stop there. In many instances once the victim has been rendered unconscious, the attacker maintains the rage and delivers vicious kicks to the prone body - and in many instances - specifically at that persons head. It is also not unusual for fellow drinking mates to join in the attack. This is often captured by the street network of cctv cameras - and it is a sickening sight to watch on the TV news.
Those same cctv cameras do a great job of helping the police identify the attacker and when that person faces court they often claim they were so drunk that they do not remember the incident. In some cases, they also admit that they were under the influence of drugs as well as alcohol, and very often the drug in question is "Ice "!
We have seen a law change to specifically deliver a severe penalty to those delivering unprovoked attacks - and yet nothing has changed. Week after week the Sunday papers tell the same news of mayhem on our streets and we follow the progress of victims who are so often placed in a coma and spend weeks in the intensive care ward as they battle to recover from a near death experience.
Sadly, the "monster " who cause this type of carnage morphs back into a usually pleasant young man - once the drugs and alcohol have worn off - and he is standing in the dock and facing charges for his actions. He is also at a loss to explain " why " he decided to unleash his fury at a totally unknown member of the public - and it seems that those skilled in psychiatry are no closer to giving us an answer to that same question.
Somehow the combination of mind altering alcohol and mind altering drugs come together in a deadly cocktail that produces mindless aggression. This manifests itself in vicious attacks on paramedics trying to resuscitate the victims. Today's ambulance crews face a virtual battlefield when they take their vehicle on nightly patrol.
The politicians wrestle with this problem and there are demands to "lock them up "from the public.
Predictably, as the prison population grows, sentence lengths shorten - and even a brief sojurn in gaol usually means the end of the prisoner's employment and adds difficulty in finding work again on release. It seems to be a vicious cycle, from which many return to alcohol and drugs for relief.
Unfortunately there is no sure fire answer. This is not just a "Sydney "problem. It is a world wide phenomenon and at best we can mitigate it by fine tuning our drinking hours and cracking down on the drug trade. Perhaps the best defence lays in the hands of every member of the public.
Be aware that this problem exists - and be very careful where you choose to spend your leisure time. Expect - the unexpected. And keep in mind that old adage about there being "safety in numbers "!
The big difference seems to be that the rules have changed. The typical pub fight of the past usually started with two people yelling at each other - and that progressed to punches thrown - and when one copped a black eye or a bloody nose - that was the end of it. The combatants walked away - and the next week they were probably back in the same bar, sharing a beer together.
That is not the scene today. We have the phenomenon of a perfect stranger being suddenly assaulted with what the media term "a king hit ". Without warning, someone delivers a punch that sends the victim crashing to the ground - and in many cases - head contact with both the fist and the concrete delivers serious brain injury. Permanent injury and even death is not an unusual result.
But it doesn't stop there. In many instances once the victim has been rendered unconscious, the attacker maintains the rage and delivers vicious kicks to the prone body - and in many instances - specifically at that persons head. It is also not unusual for fellow drinking mates to join in the attack. This is often captured by the street network of cctv cameras - and it is a sickening sight to watch on the TV news.
Those same cctv cameras do a great job of helping the police identify the attacker and when that person faces court they often claim they were so drunk that they do not remember the incident. In some cases, they also admit that they were under the influence of drugs as well as alcohol, and very often the drug in question is "Ice "!
We have seen a law change to specifically deliver a severe penalty to those delivering unprovoked attacks - and yet nothing has changed. Week after week the Sunday papers tell the same news of mayhem on our streets and we follow the progress of victims who are so often placed in a coma and spend weeks in the intensive care ward as they battle to recover from a near death experience.
Sadly, the "monster " who cause this type of carnage morphs back into a usually pleasant young man - once the drugs and alcohol have worn off - and he is standing in the dock and facing charges for his actions. He is also at a loss to explain " why " he decided to unleash his fury at a totally unknown member of the public - and it seems that those skilled in psychiatry are no closer to giving us an answer to that same question.
Somehow the combination of mind altering alcohol and mind altering drugs come together in a deadly cocktail that produces mindless aggression. This manifests itself in vicious attacks on paramedics trying to resuscitate the victims. Today's ambulance crews face a virtual battlefield when they take their vehicle on nightly patrol.
The politicians wrestle with this problem and there are demands to "lock them up "from the public.
Predictably, as the prison population grows, sentence lengths shorten - and even a brief sojurn in gaol usually means the end of the prisoner's employment and adds difficulty in finding work again on release. It seems to be a vicious cycle, from which many return to alcohol and drugs for relief.
Unfortunately there is no sure fire answer. This is not just a "Sydney "problem. It is a world wide phenomenon and at best we can mitigate it by fine tuning our drinking hours and cracking down on the drug trade. Perhaps the best defence lays in the hands of every member of the public.
Be aware that this problem exists - and be very careful where you choose to spend your leisure time. Expect - the unexpected. And keep in mind that old adage about there being "safety in numbers "!
Tuesday 14 October 2014
The " Mistakes " of War !
Forty-seven years ago an event happened on a far away battlefield and eleven innocent civilians lost their lives. Remarkably, this has now been resurrected from the archives and this is resulting in a near hysterical outcry from the left of Australian politics and the call for some sort of "enquiry "to rake over the coals - and apportion the blame !
In 1967 the Australian army was engaged in the Vietnam war and had a base at Nui Dat. This was protected by a four kilometre exclusion zone and all the surrounding villages had been air dropped with leaflets to make the civilian population aware of the dangers posed by entering what was termed a "kill zone ".
The Viet Cong had been active in the area and an officer and fifteen Australian soldiers set up an ambush as a protective measure. The Viet Cong infiltrated disguised as civilians and when eleven approaching people were observed the troops were immediately suspicious. One carried a long object on his shoulder - which was thought to be a rifle - and when this was waved at the soldiers the unit's machine gunner fired a burst. Four were killed immediately, six wounded and the body of another discovered later nearby.
It is now claimed that when the bodies were identified as "bamboo pickers " making their way to a nearby bamboo forest - and some were women and children - the officer who reported the mistake was reprimanded and told he should have ordered weapons to be placed on the bodies and the action reported as a successful intervention against enemy troops.
The critics of Australian military action in all it's forms are quick to denigrate any mistake that occurs in what is often termed "the fog of war "! Usually these critics have never served in any military capacity and have zero knowledge of the "kill or be killed "tension of active service. They are more comfortable nit picking with their nose in a history book, than criticising the real events that are happening in places like Iraq and Syria, Ukraine, Gaza, Libya, Nigeria, Yemen or dozens of remote battlefields where atrocities are taking place daily - and death is often a merciful release.
Vietnam was a long time ago and it is easy to question the reasons for that war, but that in no way diminishes the ferocity in which both sides engaged. Modern wars are also ideological wars and maintaining support on the home front requires a high degree of "grooming "of the war news - and the first casualty of that process is the "truth " !
There is absolutely no point in dragging this matter into the limelight and trying to sheet home the blame to individuals. Many of the troops involved are now dead - and the victims of that action so long ago are certainly deceased. The cover up of mistakes has been a feature of every war that has ever plagued the citizens of planet Earth - and you can be sure that it will remain a fact of life in whatever form of warfare we take with us into the future.
Screaming headlines simply bring comfort to the enemies of Australia. Perhaps a tactic of those with divisive political ambitions !
In 1967 the Australian army was engaged in the Vietnam war and had a base at Nui Dat. This was protected by a four kilometre exclusion zone and all the surrounding villages had been air dropped with leaflets to make the civilian population aware of the dangers posed by entering what was termed a "kill zone ".
The Viet Cong had been active in the area and an officer and fifteen Australian soldiers set up an ambush as a protective measure. The Viet Cong infiltrated disguised as civilians and when eleven approaching people were observed the troops were immediately suspicious. One carried a long object on his shoulder - which was thought to be a rifle - and when this was waved at the soldiers the unit's machine gunner fired a burst. Four were killed immediately, six wounded and the body of another discovered later nearby.
It is now claimed that when the bodies were identified as "bamboo pickers " making their way to a nearby bamboo forest - and some were women and children - the officer who reported the mistake was reprimanded and told he should have ordered weapons to be placed on the bodies and the action reported as a successful intervention against enemy troops.
The critics of Australian military action in all it's forms are quick to denigrate any mistake that occurs in what is often termed "the fog of war "! Usually these critics have never served in any military capacity and have zero knowledge of the "kill or be killed "tension of active service. They are more comfortable nit picking with their nose in a history book, than criticising the real events that are happening in places like Iraq and Syria, Ukraine, Gaza, Libya, Nigeria, Yemen or dozens of remote battlefields where atrocities are taking place daily - and death is often a merciful release.
Vietnam was a long time ago and it is easy to question the reasons for that war, but that in no way diminishes the ferocity in which both sides engaged. Modern wars are also ideological wars and maintaining support on the home front requires a high degree of "grooming "of the war news - and the first casualty of that process is the "truth " !
There is absolutely no point in dragging this matter into the limelight and trying to sheet home the blame to individuals. Many of the troops involved are now dead - and the victims of that action so long ago are certainly deceased. The cover up of mistakes has been a feature of every war that has ever plagued the citizens of planet Earth - and you can be sure that it will remain a fact of life in whatever form of warfare we take with us into the future.
Screaming headlines simply bring comfort to the enemies of Australia. Perhaps a tactic of those with divisive political ambitions !
Monday 13 October 2014
Borrowing Money !
News that the Federal government is about to license some new players into the credit card industry brings the hope of a drop in interest rates. At the moment, this is firmly in the grasp of the big four banks and they offer either Mastercard or Visa cards at an interest rate of about twenty percent.
It is likely that companies such as Apple, Coles and Woolworths may be the new players, but the problem seems to be the risk factor of offering unsecured credit to a wide public spectrum - with the consequent inevitability of some of these loans becoming "noncollectable ". The frugal people who pay on time are lumped in with those who don't !
Half a century ago obtaining credit was a very different matter. It was only available to "people of substance "- and that meant those who had sufficient equity in the home they lived in or other assets that satisfied their bank manager to grant them a loan - at a very reasonable rate of interest, because it was "secured "! That was called an " overdraft " !
Then came the age of "Bankcard ". Suddenly the public was inundated by the unsolicited arrival in the post of a "credit card "and a letter detailing the borrowing limit that had been allocated to each customer. The spending boom was under way - and a raft of credit card companies quickly followed at interest rates that delivered the big end of town healthy profits.
Since then the public has been inundated with temptation. When sales are slow, the car manufacturers offer their product at either low interest rates - or interest free - but with the security of the car itself to back the loan. People who fail to pay have it repossessed. Harvey Norman and the discounting groups offer goods on the basis of no deposit and a long period interest free - but that is only available on big ticket items from their store and draconian terms apply if the eventual repayment is not followed explicitly.
In more recent times, the "Pay Day "loan industry has flourished openly and offers bridging loans for short periods - at extortionate interest rates. This is aimed at "desperate "people and comes with a heavy handed enforcement of the repayment cycle. We are also seeing a return of the days of the "pawnbrokers "- who loaned against the surrender of valuables on a short term basis.
Credit has become a problem for the average person needing a loan for a specific purpose. These days the banks seem disinterested in offering overdrafts and usually fob off such requests with the offer of a credit card - at high interest rates. A death in the family and the urgent need for several thousand dollars for a funeral usually ends that way - and this is at a time when the base national interest rate is at an all time low.
Hopefully, if the granting of new licensees in the credit industry broadens the credit market it may sharpen the interest of credit providers in those who have the assets to "secure " a loan - and thus gain a more reasonable interest rate. The fact that at present the entire credit industry is based on "unsecured "loans makes high interest inevitable to cover the risks of loans that go bad.
The four big banks are "fat and sassy " and disinterested in changing the status quo. If customers are offered a wider choice we may see a more selective approach to approving credit and the decline of the "shotgun " method of showering plastic across a broad spectrum and simply hiking interest rates to even out the highs and lows of repayments.
People who can - and do - pay their bills on time have had a raw deal when it comes to the rate of interest charged. A canny credit provider would see the wisdom of selective customer selection to narrow the field of problem loans - and more appropriate interest rates would certainly ensure applications from quality customers.
It's certainly time that common sense was applied to the field of credit provision !
It is likely that companies such as Apple, Coles and Woolworths may be the new players, but the problem seems to be the risk factor of offering unsecured credit to a wide public spectrum - with the consequent inevitability of some of these loans becoming "noncollectable ". The frugal people who pay on time are lumped in with those who don't !
Half a century ago obtaining credit was a very different matter. It was only available to "people of substance "- and that meant those who had sufficient equity in the home they lived in or other assets that satisfied their bank manager to grant them a loan - at a very reasonable rate of interest, because it was "secured "! That was called an " overdraft " !
Then came the age of "Bankcard ". Suddenly the public was inundated by the unsolicited arrival in the post of a "credit card "and a letter detailing the borrowing limit that had been allocated to each customer. The spending boom was under way - and a raft of credit card companies quickly followed at interest rates that delivered the big end of town healthy profits.
Since then the public has been inundated with temptation. When sales are slow, the car manufacturers offer their product at either low interest rates - or interest free - but with the security of the car itself to back the loan. People who fail to pay have it repossessed. Harvey Norman and the discounting groups offer goods on the basis of no deposit and a long period interest free - but that is only available on big ticket items from their store and draconian terms apply if the eventual repayment is not followed explicitly.
In more recent times, the "Pay Day "loan industry has flourished openly and offers bridging loans for short periods - at extortionate interest rates. This is aimed at "desperate "people and comes with a heavy handed enforcement of the repayment cycle. We are also seeing a return of the days of the "pawnbrokers "- who loaned against the surrender of valuables on a short term basis.
Credit has become a problem for the average person needing a loan for a specific purpose. These days the banks seem disinterested in offering overdrafts and usually fob off such requests with the offer of a credit card - at high interest rates. A death in the family and the urgent need for several thousand dollars for a funeral usually ends that way - and this is at a time when the base national interest rate is at an all time low.
Hopefully, if the granting of new licensees in the credit industry broadens the credit market it may sharpen the interest of credit providers in those who have the assets to "secure " a loan - and thus gain a more reasonable interest rate. The fact that at present the entire credit industry is based on "unsecured "loans makes high interest inevitable to cover the risks of loans that go bad.
The four big banks are "fat and sassy " and disinterested in changing the status quo. If customers are offered a wider choice we may see a more selective approach to approving credit and the decline of the "shotgun " method of showering plastic across a broad spectrum and simply hiking interest rates to even out the highs and lows of repayments.
People who can - and do - pay their bills on time have had a raw deal when it comes to the rate of interest charged. A canny credit provider would see the wisdom of selective customer selection to narrow the field of problem loans - and more appropriate interest rates would certainly ensure applications from quality customers.
It's certainly time that common sense was applied to the field of credit provision !
Sunday 12 October 2014
Rise of the Village " Shaman " !
It was probably inevitable that Australia's chemists would seek to rectify a profit drop now that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ( PBS ) is being amended to stop their industry pocketing the price difference between patented and generic drugs because of an anomaly in the previous Community Pharmacy Agreement with the Federal government.
It is now being suggested that the vast pharmacy network become a sort of filter between the overworked emergency room in hospitals and the network of general practitioners who either bulk bill or charge a standard fee for consultations. Chemists feel that their pool of medical knowledge qualifies them to do more than just stick labels on drugs prescribed by doctors. They want to be licensed to charge a fee for giving advice and doing tests that are within the range of the qualifications for which they have studied to obtain their license.
This suggestion would require a law change, but they are proposing that chemists be allowed to provide vaccinations, conduct tests for blood pressure and diabetes, prepare weight management programmes, give contraception advice to women and manage anti smoking medication.
No doubt this will be vigorously opposed by the medical profession on the grounds that chemists will lack the expertise to diagnose serious health risks and there is the danger that it could morph into another tier of medicine - not quite to the level of a registered GP, but somewhere in the area of a "Village Shaman " - wise in the ways of medicine, but with limitations !
It is also a grab for a fee for what the chemist shops now dispense freely - good advice. When we have a cold or a minor ailment we usually ask the friendly local chemist to suggest a stock remedy.
It is doubtful that many women customers would appreciate being given advice on the various brands of contraceptives available within earshot of other customers and hence it is likely that chemist shops would quickly develop private "consultation " areas. It is not hard to imagine this trend developing into a state of the art medical facility - with the requirement that patients "book "for an appointment.
It is a bold step that could quickly develop beyond expectations. It would actually put chemists into competition with general practitioners in the " reputation " stakes. A friendly, personable chemist known to give good advice could seem a more reasonable choice, particularly so if the proposed $15 co-payment for a consultation ever becomes reality.
There is logic in both sides of this argument. The pharmacy industry employs 22,000 registered chemists in Australia and it's network of pharmacies operates on a seven day basis - and over a wide range of hours. The sticking point would seem to be control of what can be charged when a person asks a question - and that question becomes a " consultation " ? Most GP's do minor surgery in their rooms - and once again the area of jurisdiction arises. Faced with a cut that requires local anaesthetic and stitching - should this also enter the realm of the chemist ? Creating a legal dividing line could become a nightmare !
Wise heads in government will approach this suggestion with caution. We certainly have a need to reign in the costs of our health system and yet the provision of medical services is under pressure. Emergency rooms are struggling to meet demand and many rural areas are failing to attract even a single GP to take up residence. The pharmacy industry certainly could plug a gap, but at the cost of lowering standards. We would not want to see medicine revert to third world standards and health care become the province of "witch doctors "!
It would also be a retrograde step if asking a simple question at the local chemist shop - attracted a demand for a fee !
It is now being suggested that the vast pharmacy network become a sort of filter between the overworked emergency room in hospitals and the network of general practitioners who either bulk bill or charge a standard fee for consultations. Chemists feel that their pool of medical knowledge qualifies them to do more than just stick labels on drugs prescribed by doctors. They want to be licensed to charge a fee for giving advice and doing tests that are within the range of the qualifications for which they have studied to obtain their license.
This suggestion would require a law change, but they are proposing that chemists be allowed to provide vaccinations, conduct tests for blood pressure and diabetes, prepare weight management programmes, give contraception advice to women and manage anti smoking medication.
No doubt this will be vigorously opposed by the medical profession on the grounds that chemists will lack the expertise to diagnose serious health risks and there is the danger that it could morph into another tier of medicine - not quite to the level of a registered GP, but somewhere in the area of a "Village Shaman " - wise in the ways of medicine, but with limitations !
It is also a grab for a fee for what the chemist shops now dispense freely - good advice. When we have a cold or a minor ailment we usually ask the friendly local chemist to suggest a stock remedy.
It is doubtful that many women customers would appreciate being given advice on the various brands of contraceptives available within earshot of other customers and hence it is likely that chemist shops would quickly develop private "consultation " areas. It is not hard to imagine this trend developing into a state of the art medical facility - with the requirement that patients "book "for an appointment.
It is a bold step that could quickly develop beyond expectations. It would actually put chemists into competition with general practitioners in the " reputation " stakes. A friendly, personable chemist known to give good advice could seem a more reasonable choice, particularly so if the proposed $15 co-payment for a consultation ever becomes reality.
There is logic in both sides of this argument. The pharmacy industry employs 22,000 registered chemists in Australia and it's network of pharmacies operates on a seven day basis - and over a wide range of hours. The sticking point would seem to be control of what can be charged when a person asks a question - and that question becomes a " consultation " ? Most GP's do minor surgery in their rooms - and once again the area of jurisdiction arises. Faced with a cut that requires local anaesthetic and stitching - should this also enter the realm of the chemist ? Creating a legal dividing line could become a nightmare !
Wise heads in government will approach this suggestion with caution. We certainly have a need to reign in the costs of our health system and yet the provision of medical services is under pressure. Emergency rooms are struggling to meet demand and many rural areas are failing to attract even a single GP to take up residence. The pharmacy industry certainly could plug a gap, but at the cost of lowering standards. We would not want to see medicine revert to third world standards and health care become the province of "witch doctors "!
It would also be a retrograde step if asking a simple question at the local chemist shop - attracted a demand for a fee !
Saturday 11 October 2014
The Second Oldest Profession !
The "Second oldest profession " shares the same end result with the former. It exchanges money for a desired outcome ! Ever since the first recorded days of human activity on planet Earth it has been the custom to grease the palm of a person in power to facilitate the granting of a favour. In modern day parlance - that is described as a "bribe "!
Sadly, the business of "Politics" delivers such power and prestige that it has become the pinnacle of human endeavour. Becoming one of the few who control the levers of power that dictate the terms under which we mere mortals live becomes an obsession that sweeps away all moral considerations - and getting elected takes great amounts of money !
We have seen the ingenuity that has been applied to keeping political donations secret. There are laws in place to stop the more blatant "interested parties "from using their power of money to influence political decisions. It seems that the old maxim of "Where there is a will - there is a way " is then applied to that conundrum. Illicit donations in the political sphere are a continuing way of life.
Dr Kerry Schott, former head of Sydney Water heads a panel tasked with forming new rules and regulations to apply to New South Wales political donations. That is a daunting task and for any outcome to be effective - it will have to pass the scrutiny of the very people whose vote is needed to pass it into law. That means a political law - that applies to the very politicians who have demonstrated that they lack the will to act within the limits imposed by moral laws !
The first suggestion involves the extension of time limits. The present law imposes a three year limit on prosecutions for breach of the existing code of donation restrictions and in most cases when a accusation arises, it leads to a lengthy investigation. When this delivers a finding it is usually past the limit when the offender can face court and become accountable for his or her illegal actions - and accordingly be punished. If the severity of the breach is so severe that there is a very adverse public reaction, the member usually resigns from parliament, collects a considerable lifetime parliamentary pension - and completely avoids any possibility of incarceration. It is proposed that this limit be increased to ten years.
The second suggestion arising from this panel - is to impose a ten year prison sentence on any politician convicted of such a law breach. Of course, this is a maximum sentence that is subjected to the discretion of the presiding judge hearing the case, but it elevates the charge from a misdemeanour to a serious level - and automatically expels a convicted felon from remaining a member of parliament.
It seems that Dr Schott's panel is faced with the dilemma of trying to create a set of rules that bring two powerful human emotions into conflict. Most politicians adhere to the adage that applies to all "things in love and war " - and include politics as a fair description of "war ". Whatever the outcome, the urge to fund a successful political campaign and win election will take precedence over any and all restraints designed to prevent the flow of funds for that purpose.
For the centuries that human civilization has existed, all the power of the churches, the parliaments, the police and moral crusaders have failed miserably to curb the oldest profession. This attempt to bring order to the "second oldest profession "seems doomed to suffer a similar fate !
Sadly, the business of "Politics" delivers such power and prestige that it has become the pinnacle of human endeavour. Becoming one of the few who control the levers of power that dictate the terms under which we mere mortals live becomes an obsession that sweeps away all moral considerations - and getting elected takes great amounts of money !
We have seen the ingenuity that has been applied to keeping political donations secret. There are laws in place to stop the more blatant "interested parties "from using their power of money to influence political decisions. It seems that the old maxim of "Where there is a will - there is a way " is then applied to that conundrum. Illicit donations in the political sphere are a continuing way of life.
Dr Kerry Schott, former head of Sydney Water heads a panel tasked with forming new rules and regulations to apply to New South Wales political donations. That is a daunting task and for any outcome to be effective - it will have to pass the scrutiny of the very people whose vote is needed to pass it into law. That means a political law - that applies to the very politicians who have demonstrated that they lack the will to act within the limits imposed by moral laws !
The first suggestion involves the extension of time limits. The present law imposes a three year limit on prosecutions for breach of the existing code of donation restrictions and in most cases when a accusation arises, it leads to a lengthy investigation. When this delivers a finding it is usually past the limit when the offender can face court and become accountable for his or her illegal actions - and accordingly be punished. If the severity of the breach is so severe that there is a very adverse public reaction, the member usually resigns from parliament, collects a considerable lifetime parliamentary pension - and completely avoids any possibility of incarceration. It is proposed that this limit be increased to ten years.
The second suggestion arising from this panel - is to impose a ten year prison sentence on any politician convicted of such a law breach. Of course, this is a maximum sentence that is subjected to the discretion of the presiding judge hearing the case, but it elevates the charge from a misdemeanour to a serious level - and automatically expels a convicted felon from remaining a member of parliament.
It seems that Dr Schott's panel is faced with the dilemma of trying to create a set of rules that bring two powerful human emotions into conflict. Most politicians adhere to the adage that applies to all "things in love and war " - and include politics as a fair description of "war ". Whatever the outcome, the urge to fund a successful political campaign and win election will take precedence over any and all restraints designed to prevent the flow of funds for that purpose.
For the centuries that human civilization has existed, all the power of the churches, the parliaments, the police and moral crusaders have failed miserably to curb the oldest profession. This attempt to bring order to the "second oldest profession "seems doomed to suffer a similar fate !
Friday 10 October 2014
Plea Bargaining !
There are some very disturbing statistics coming out of the United States and they relate to how the justice system arrives at the sentencing of offenders - and a similar situation seems to be developing here !
Ninety-five percent of convictions in the US are the result of "plea bargaining ". The offender and the prosecutor negotiate a "deal "and when the matter goes to court it is a mere formality for the magistrate or judge to give approval. It also probably helps to explain why the United States has nearly the world's highest proportion of citizens under lock and key - and our own gaol system is bulging at the seams.
Some people think plea bargaining is a great idea because it speeds up the justice system and does away with many long and costly court trials, but all the cards are in the prosecutor's hands and it is a system that is open to abuse. For a start, the decision of precisely which charge to lay is entirely at the prosecutor's discretion. The exact wording can have a greater or lesser outcome on the penalty that applies - and perhaps the greatest example is the difference between "murder "and "manslaughter ". In some cases, the charge may be dropped to the lesser in exchange for a guilty plea - and a mutually agreed prison sentence.
Then there is the matter of obtaining evidence from an accomplice. Once again the prosecutor holds all the aces. Inducement can be legally offered by way of either all charges dropped or lesser charges faced in exchange for incriminating the accused, and loyalty to a mate is not one of the better aspects of the criminal fraternity. Many will fabricate whatever the prosecutor wants to hear - to avoid their own stint of incarceration.
The tricks of the trade - are many and varied. Doing a "deal "may involve a selection of evidence presentation. A criminal caught with both heroin and Marijuana could face different outcomes from the disparity of of sentencing between these two drugs. Part of the deal may involve a plea bargain of guilty to Marijuana possession - and no mention of the heroin - to settle the case and avoid a costly trial.
An accused person faces an impossible situation when a prosecutor suggests a "plea bargain "to settle a case. There is the threat that multiple charges will be presented in court and the probability of a long prison sentence if a "not guilty "plea fails. Against that is the prospect of a far lesser penalty - in exchange for caving in and pleading guilty. The wise usually accept the softer option.
Unfortunately, the way our justice system works delivers rewards to prosecutors who have a successful track record of obtaining convictions. Wins and losses are the base on which promotions are decided and this can colour the decisions an ambitious prosecutor makes to present a track record of high merit. In some cases, that can be at the cost of actually dispensing "justice ".
Our law system is based on the notion of each case being given due consideration by a wise person sitting in judgement - who considers all the facts and takes into account the nuances that fit the crime. A system of "assembly line " convictions that bypass this filter cheapens the rule of law - and delivers neither justice or due outcome to the world of crime !
Ninety-five percent of convictions in the US are the result of "plea bargaining ". The offender and the prosecutor negotiate a "deal "and when the matter goes to court it is a mere formality for the magistrate or judge to give approval. It also probably helps to explain why the United States has nearly the world's highest proportion of citizens under lock and key - and our own gaol system is bulging at the seams.
Some people think plea bargaining is a great idea because it speeds up the justice system and does away with many long and costly court trials, but all the cards are in the prosecutor's hands and it is a system that is open to abuse. For a start, the decision of precisely which charge to lay is entirely at the prosecutor's discretion. The exact wording can have a greater or lesser outcome on the penalty that applies - and perhaps the greatest example is the difference between "murder "and "manslaughter ". In some cases, the charge may be dropped to the lesser in exchange for a guilty plea - and a mutually agreed prison sentence.
Then there is the matter of obtaining evidence from an accomplice. Once again the prosecutor holds all the aces. Inducement can be legally offered by way of either all charges dropped or lesser charges faced in exchange for incriminating the accused, and loyalty to a mate is not one of the better aspects of the criminal fraternity. Many will fabricate whatever the prosecutor wants to hear - to avoid their own stint of incarceration.
The tricks of the trade - are many and varied. Doing a "deal "may involve a selection of evidence presentation. A criminal caught with both heroin and Marijuana could face different outcomes from the disparity of of sentencing between these two drugs. Part of the deal may involve a plea bargain of guilty to Marijuana possession - and no mention of the heroin - to settle the case and avoid a costly trial.
An accused person faces an impossible situation when a prosecutor suggests a "plea bargain "to settle a case. There is the threat that multiple charges will be presented in court and the probability of a long prison sentence if a "not guilty "plea fails. Against that is the prospect of a far lesser penalty - in exchange for caving in and pleading guilty. The wise usually accept the softer option.
Unfortunately, the way our justice system works delivers rewards to prosecutors who have a successful track record of obtaining convictions. Wins and losses are the base on which promotions are decided and this can colour the decisions an ambitious prosecutor makes to present a track record of high merit. In some cases, that can be at the cost of actually dispensing "justice ".
Our law system is based on the notion of each case being given due consideration by a wise person sitting in judgement - who considers all the facts and takes into account the nuances that fit the crime. A system of "assembly line " convictions that bypass this filter cheapens the rule of law - and delivers neither justice or due outcome to the world of crime !
Thursday 9 October 2014
Sending Road Builders " Batty " !
The "North Connex " is the most expensive and the most important road programme ever envisaged in Sydney. It promises to deliver a motorway linking Sydney's vast western suburbs with the city CBD and end the misery of commuters travelling at snail's pace on our present narrow and congested road system - and now a new threat has emerged.
The Environment movement is warning that the link between the M1 and M2 sections of this vital artery crosses terrain - where bats may be breeding. In particular, road work would disrupt the breeding cycle of the Eastern Bentwing bat - and probably the larger Pied bat. Bats traditionally breed in caves, but there being no caves in this area they have adapted to taking over culverts and similar cover - and they are considered an "endangered species ".
To many cynics, this seems a very familiar story from the "anti progress "people. Bats are a migratory animal and they tend to locate to where food is plentiful. It doesn't seem to occur to the environmentalists that if conditions become unpleasant, they will most likely take off to some place more pleasant - which is exactly what we humans do in similar circumstances.
The implication seems to be that work must stop on this $ 3 billion project to allow the bats to mate and nurture their young through the lactation period - which lasts for the months of spring and summer. It also ignores the fact that when a wild native animal chooses to live within a city it quickly adapts to the noise and activity that goes with a change from country living. This area between the M1 and the M2 would be perhaps the most solidly developed part of the city. These bats are already living cheek and jowl with humans - and the noise they make !
There is something fascinating about how the announcement of any sort of new endeavour seems to draw a " nay sayer " out of the woodwork. Invariably, this is someone with an objection based on the presence of some rare form of plant life or the possibility that a last remnant of an extinct animal may still be lurking in the area to be developed. Many will remember the projects held up for years because of fear that work would disturb the mating habits of a creature called the "Golden Bell Frog "!
There is absolutely no possibility that building the North Connex will bring about the annihilation of this bat colony. It may slow the breeding rate for the time construction is under way - and it may cause the colony to disperse to new areas, but that is the price we have to pay for progress - and what nature has to pay because it shares the earth with humans.
By all means make sure that the road builders do not unnecessarily disturb the bats, but also keep in mind that bats carry the Lyssavirus threat. They pose a health risk when they breed in close association with humans and people are well advised to avoid contact with dead bats - and to be very careful tending injured ones. That is best left to those trained in veterinary science.
If this develops into street protests and people carrying "Save the Bats "signs, don't expect long suffering western suburbs motorists to be prominent amongst the numbers !
The Environment movement is warning that the link between the M1 and M2 sections of this vital artery crosses terrain - where bats may be breeding. In particular, road work would disrupt the breeding cycle of the Eastern Bentwing bat - and probably the larger Pied bat. Bats traditionally breed in caves, but there being no caves in this area they have adapted to taking over culverts and similar cover - and they are considered an "endangered species ".
To many cynics, this seems a very familiar story from the "anti progress "people. Bats are a migratory animal and they tend to locate to where food is plentiful. It doesn't seem to occur to the environmentalists that if conditions become unpleasant, they will most likely take off to some place more pleasant - which is exactly what we humans do in similar circumstances.
The implication seems to be that work must stop on this $ 3 billion project to allow the bats to mate and nurture their young through the lactation period - which lasts for the months of spring and summer. It also ignores the fact that when a wild native animal chooses to live within a city it quickly adapts to the noise and activity that goes with a change from country living. This area between the M1 and the M2 would be perhaps the most solidly developed part of the city. These bats are already living cheek and jowl with humans - and the noise they make !
There is something fascinating about how the announcement of any sort of new endeavour seems to draw a " nay sayer " out of the woodwork. Invariably, this is someone with an objection based on the presence of some rare form of plant life or the possibility that a last remnant of an extinct animal may still be lurking in the area to be developed. Many will remember the projects held up for years because of fear that work would disturb the mating habits of a creature called the "Golden Bell Frog "!
There is absolutely no possibility that building the North Connex will bring about the annihilation of this bat colony. It may slow the breeding rate for the time construction is under way - and it may cause the colony to disperse to new areas, but that is the price we have to pay for progress - and what nature has to pay because it shares the earth with humans.
By all means make sure that the road builders do not unnecessarily disturb the bats, but also keep in mind that bats carry the Lyssavirus threat. They pose a health risk when they breed in close association with humans and people are well advised to avoid contact with dead bats - and to be very careful tending injured ones. That is best left to those trained in veterinary science.
If this develops into street protests and people carrying "Save the Bats "signs, don't expect long suffering western suburbs motorists to be prominent amongst the numbers !
Wednesday 8 October 2014
A " Protected " Industry !
Australians have a wide choice of the Chemist shops they choose to supply their medical needs. It seems that they exist in great numbers - because they are a very profitable business. There is a very strange anomaly in the pricing structure of the drugs they sell.
Under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Subsidy scheme in place the government sets the price for each drug item by negotiation with the manufacturer. This is based on how that drug is protected by patent and the time left before that patent expires, meaning that the drug can only be manufactured and sold by the patent holder. Once established, this is the basis on which the chemist applies a dispensing margin and the end result is the retail price charged over the counter - or at which it is supplied to pensioners and others who receive the benefit of a price discount.
It seems that this anomaly concerns the pricing of what are termed "Generic "drugs ! Once the patent protection of a drug expires that exact formulae can be produced and sold by competitors under any new name they may choose to call their product. It is usual for the original manufacturer to also drop the price of the product now out of patent protection to continue to keep the sale trend going in the face of generic competition.
This anomaly is delivering a bonanza to the owners of chemist shops. As the retail and PBS prices are set in relation to the price negotiated by the government, they are free to buy the generic versions offered by the industry at greatly reduced prices - and pocket the huge savings to be made.
A recent study illustrated the difference prices applicable between the Australian and the British PBS systems. Astorvastatin - which many users would recognise as "Lipitor ", costs $ 10.50 in Australia and just $ 3.30 in the UK. Similarly, a widely used blood thinner - Clopidogral - has a price difference of $ 12,00 to $ 3.60.
The government is negotiating a new pharmacy deal to serve for a five year period and clearing up this anomaly may prune a whopping $ 15 billion off the PBS total, but of course any saving must come out of someone else's pocket - and it is estimated that the new deal will cost the average pharmacy a profit drop of $ 90,000 a year.
The chemist shop has always been a cherished and highly protected industry. They have fought long and hard to keep pharmaceuticals out of the hands of the big supermarket chains, but they have been under pressure from new industries offering discounted drugs and many of these are Internet based companies. They can not realistically expect the rorts that have seen their numbers flourish to continue unabated in this more competitive century.
Lower profits will certainly see a contraction in the number of pharmacies and there is every indication that the direct sale discounters are here to stay. It is also possible that the government may be persuaded that the plethora of grocery selling outlets and seven day operations with extended hours deserve a share of the drug business. The future filling of prescriptions is certainly under review - and it could be classified as "uncertain "!
One thing clearly emerges. All services that are under government control need to be closely monitored to determine that the conditions that apply are relevant. It seems that the anomaly between patented and generic drug prices slipped through the cracks - and cost the public purse a lot of money.
Hopefully, that is a lesson learned !
Under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Subsidy scheme in place the government sets the price for each drug item by negotiation with the manufacturer. This is based on how that drug is protected by patent and the time left before that patent expires, meaning that the drug can only be manufactured and sold by the patent holder. Once established, this is the basis on which the chemist applies a dispensing margin and the end result is the retail price charged over the counter - or at which it is supplied to pensioners and others who receive the benefit of a price discount.
It seems that this anomaly concerns the pricing of what are termed "Generic "drugs ! Once the patent protection of a drug expires that exact formulae can be produced and sold by competitors under any new name they may choose to call their product. It is usual for the original manufacturer to also drop the price of the product now out of patent protection to continue to keep the sale trend going in the face of generic competition.
This anomaly is delivering a bonanza to the owners of chemist shops. As the retail and PBS prices are set in relation to the price negotiated by the government, they are free to buy the generic versions offered by the industry at greatly reduced prices - and pocket the huge savings to be made.
A recent study illustrated the difference prices applicable between the Australian and the British PBS systems. Astorvastatin - which many users would recognise as "Lipitor ", costs $ 10.50 in Australia and just $ 3.30 in the UK. Similarly, a widely used blood thinner - Clopidogral - has a price difference of $ 12,00 to $ 3.60.
The government is negotiating a new pharmacy deal to serve for a five year period and clearing up this anomaly may prune a whopping $ 15 billion off the PBS total, but of course any saving must come out of someone else's pocket - and it is estimated that the new deal will cost the average pharmacy a profit drop of $ 90,000 a year.
The chemist shop has always been a cherished and highly protected industry. They have fought long and hard to keep pharmaceuticals out of the hands of the big supermarket chains, but they have been under pressure from new industries offering discounted drugs and many of these are Internet based companies. They can not realistically expect the rorts that have seen their numbers flourish to continue unabated in this more competitive century.
Lower profits will certainly see a contraction in the number of pharmacies and there is every indication that the direct sale discounters are here to stay. It is also possible that the government may be persuaded that the plethora of grocery selling outlets and seven day operations with extended hours deserve a share of the drug business. The future filling of prescriptions is certainly under review - and it could be classified as "uncertain "!
One thing clearly emerges. All services that are under government control need to be closely monitored to determine that the conditions that apply are relevant. It seems that the anomaly between patented and generic drug prices slipped through the cracks - and cost the public purse a lot of money.
Hopefully, that is a lesson learned !
Tuesday 7 October 2014
The Power - to Decimate !
It is often argued that the extent of power in the hands of the Woolworths/Coles duopoly is reaching a dangerous level. Their absolute control of the grocery market - and virtual takeover of the petrol and hardware industries - leaves the element of control at the whim of new "Masters of the Universe ".
A few years back parliamentary concern resulted in the passage of laws to try and regain a degree of protection for those trying to earn a living in competition with the duopoly. It was claimed that independent greengrocers and butchers were excluded from shopping precincts when the duopoly negotiated a lease as the head tenant - and where competition existed, prices were deliberately below cost to wage a price war - which inevitably saw the small operator go to the wall. Once the competition was extinguished, the duopolies prices reverted to the level charged across their range of stores.
There was wide dismay in the dairy industry when both of these behemoths decided to price milk at a dollar a litre. That put enormous pressure on the "farm gate "price of milk and saw a drop in the number of dairy herds. It is noticeable that the frantic Chinese search for safe child formula based on milk is concentrated on the New Zealand product, where a more normal price structure still exists.
The latest war front - is bread ! The duopoly has cut the price of a loaf of white bread from one dollar - to eighty five cents. In all probability, this is what is known as a "loss leader "tactic, the basic measure adopted in the early days of the supermarkets. By offering a basic essential at a below cost price level the customers are attracted and the supermarket more than makes up for this small loss by the margins on the other items purchased.
Bread moved out of the control of the big bread bakery companies after the fall of Saigon and the rush of Vietnamese asylum seekers to our shores. Their French training saw them establish family run "hot bread "shops that baked and sold seven days - and quickly that extinguished the fleets of bakery trucks going street to street, Monday to Friday - delivering bread to households. Now there are also a number of bread franchises offering speciality baking in most shopping malls.
This industry is adamant that the ingredients for a loaf of bread cost between 65 and 70 cents, and that it is impossible for a small bakery to make a living matching that duopoly price of 85 cents. It seems likely that the duopoly is again using it's power to dictate the price of what a consumer item reaches in the grocery market to attract customers to it's stores - and buy other items which compensate for the negligible margin on bread.
Customers battling to make ends meet will certainly welcome the return of very cheap bread, but if it decimates the rest of the baking industry it will inevitably come at a bitter price. Some nutritionists may wonder if price has downgraded bread quality - and when price is entirely in the hands of the duopoly - a price increase when the bakery industry has been decimated is simply a mouse click away across the chain's stores !
As a colourful politician once mused, the job of parliament is "to keep the bastards honest ! " The claim by the independent bread industry that an 85 cent loaf is unsustainable needs to be vigorously investigated. The duopoly publicly changed it's code of practice when it's method of dealing with competition became the subject of an enquiry and we obviously need an ongoing commission to have a look at situations where almost monopoly status delivers policies that are questionable.
It also raises the question - of when "big " becomes " too big " !
A few years back parliamentary concern resulted in the passage of laws to try and regain a degree of protection for those trying to earn a living in competition with the duopoly. It was claimed that independent greengrocers and butchers were excluded from shopping precincts when the duopoly negotiated a lease as the head tenant - and where competition existed, prices were deliberately below cost to wage a price war - which inevitably saw the small operator go to the wall. Once the competition was extinguished, the duopolies prices reverted to the level charged across their range of stores.
There was wide dismay in the dairy industry when both of these behemoths decided to price milk at a dollar a litre. That put enormous pressure on the "farm gate "price of milk and saw a drop in the number of dairy herds. It is noticeable that the frantic Chinese search for safe child formula based on milk is concentrated on the New Zealand product, where a more normal price structure still exists.
The latest war front - is bread ! The duopoly has cut the price of a loaf of white bread from one dollar - to eighty five cents. In all probability, this is what is known as a "loss leader "tactic, the basic measure adopted in the early days of the supermarkets. By offering a basic essential at a below cost price level the customers are attracted and the supermarket more than makes up for this small loss by the margins on the other items purchased.
Bread moved out of the control of the big bread bakery companies after the fall of Saigon and the rush of Vietnamese asylum seekers to our shores. Their French training saw them establish family run "hot bread "shops that baked and sold seven days - and quickly that extinguished the fleets of bakery trucks going street to street, Monday to Friday - delivering bread to households. Now there are also a number of bread franchises offering speciality baking in most shopping malls.
This industry is adamant that the ingredients for a loaf of bread cost between 65 and 70 cents, and that it is impossible for a small bakery to make a living matching that duopoly price of 85 cents. It seems likely that the duopoly is again using it's power to dictate the price of what a consumer item reaches in the grocery market to attract customers to it's stores - and buy other items which compensate for the negligible margin on bread.
Customers battling to make ends meet will certainly welcome the return of very cheap bread, but if it decimates the rest of the baking industry it will inevitably come at a bitter price. Some nutritionists may wonder if price has downgraded bread quality - and when price is entirely in the hands of the duopoly - a price increase when the bakery industry has been decimated is simply a mouse click away across the chain's stores !
As a colourful politician once mused, the job of parliament is "to keep the bastards honest ! " The claim by the independent bread industry that an 85 cent loaf is unsustainable needs to be vigorously investigated. The duopoly publicly changed it's code of practice when it's method of dealing with competition became the subject of an enquiry and we obviously need an ongoing commission to have a look at situations where almost monopoly status delivers policies that are questionable.
It also raises the question - of when "big " becomes " too big " !
Monday 6 October 2014
Professional " Mayors " !
How would the shareholders of Woolworths or Coles feel if the CEO's of those billion dollar businesses were simply appointed by a consensus vote of the various regional store managers ? Un fortunately, that is exactly how the Mayor of twenty-five of Sydney's thirty-eight councils are chosen - and usually for only a one year stint in office.
New South Wales is considering legislation to put electing the Mayor into the voters hands when the ballet for council elections are conducted. The present system is a leftover from the distant days when councils were mainly concerned with filling in pot holes in the roads, ensuring that there was a tip for residents rubbish - and arranging for the "night soil "to be removed in the days before sewerage. The Mayor - and other councillors - were unpaid. It was a badge of honour to be elected - and absolutely no qualifications were required.
In many instances, the "lucky dip "applies. In the interests of democracy - or more often when political wrangling makes consensus impossible - the names of all the newly elected councillors were put in a hat - and the one drawn became the Mayor.
Today's councils have morphed into billion dollar businesses employing many staff and are comparable with some of the biggest companies listed on the stock exchange. When the commercial world is looking for a new CEO the matter is usually put in the hands of a professional recruiting company - who may charge hundreds of thousands of dollars to cull applicants and prepare a short list for the director's decision.
The profits of that company - and the interests of the shareholders - is directly attributable to the skills of the person selected. Usually the appointment is for a nominated term - and the salary paid is commensurate with the level of seniority. Tenure of office is important because such companies are following a long term development plan and decision making continuity is essential.
There is a big difference between simply electing a "councillor "- and electing a "Mayor ". Those standing and seeking a Mayoral vote will have their business ability and past job record closely examined - and the job should have the salary involved as part of the election criteria. The voters are unlikely to put civic finances into the hands of someone who is seen as "a good bloke "- but not considered capable of running any sort of business.
This raises the question of whether the job of Mayor is capable of being adequately filled by public vote ? Chancing the finances of an entire city will depend entirely on the field of candidates who choose to stand and in many cases the voter's wisdom may be of the "none of these " variety. But if that is the legislated manner of choosing a Mayor - then a person lacking in voter confidence will be assured of the job.
Would we not be better putting the selection of Mayor into professional hands and recruiting from outside the ranks of elected councillors - who would serve as what is usually the board of directors for most public companies ? It seems that the responsibilities involved in running a city have evolved into the arena of "big business ", but the professionalism of ensuring wise management is still stuck in the dark ages.
When this legislation to apply to the role of Mayors is debated in parliament it may make some of our politicians nervous. Running the state is an even bigger venture than running a mere city - and yet the selection of the people we task with the job follows a similar process.
A very dangerous school of thought when "professional standards "start to apply to heigher office !
New South Wales is considering legislation to put electing the Mayor into the voters hands when the ballet for council elections are conducted. The present system is a leftover from the distant days when councils were mainly concerned with filling in pot holes in the roads, ensuring that there was a tip for residents rubbish - and arranging for the "night soil "to be removed in the days before sewerage. The Mayor - and other councillors - were unpaid. It was a badge of honour to be elected - and absolutely no qualifications were required.
In many instances, the "lucky dip "applies. In the interests of democracy - or more often when political wrangling makes consensus impossible - the names of all the newly elected councillors were put in a hat - and the one drawn became the Mayor.
Today's councils have morphed into billion dollar businesses employing many staff and are comparable with some of the biggest companies listed on the stock exchange. When the commercial world is looking for a new CEO the matter is usually put in the hands of a professional recruiting company - who may charge hundreds of thousands of dollars to cull applicants and prepare a short list for the director's decision.
The profits of that company - and the interests of the shareholders - is directly attributable to the skills of the person selected. Usually the appointment is for a nominated term - and the salary paid is commensurate with the level of seniority. Tenure of office is important because such companies are following a long term development plan and decision making continuity is essential.
There is a big difference between simply electing a "councillor "- and electing a "Mayor ". Those standing and seeking a Mayoral vote will have their business ability and past job record closely examined - and the job should have the salary involved as part of the election criteria. The voters are unlikely to put civic finances into the hands of someone who is seen as "a good bloke "- but not considered capable of running any sort of business.
This raises the question of whether the job of Mayor is capable of being adequately filled by public vote ? Chancing the finances of an entire city will depend entirely on the field of candidates who choose to stand and in many cases the voter's wisdom may be of the "none of these " variety. But if that is the legislated manner of choosing a Mayor - then a person lacking in voter confidence will be assured of the job.
Would we not be better putting the selection of Mayor into professional hands and recruiting from outside the ranks of elected councillors - who would serve as what is usually the board of directors for most public companies ? It seems that the responsibilities involved in running a city have evolved into the arena of "big business ", but the professionalism of ensuring wise management is still stuck in the dark ages.
When this legislation to apply to the role of Mayors is debated in parliament it may make some of our politicians nervous. Running the state is an even bigger venture than running a mere city - and yet the selection of the people we task with the job follows a similar process.
A very dangerous school of thought when "professional standards "start to apply to heigher office !
Sunday 5 October 2014
Killers in Waiting !
"Bush Meat "has been a staple in the diet of the tribes of Africa for centuries and only in the twentieth century did the Ebola virus make the leap to infect humans. Now we have an epidemic that may kill thousands and work is enhanced on developing a vaccine. Polio used to be the scourge of western society but now it has been nearly eradicated - with a few remaining hot spots where religious taboos are resulting in the murder of vaccine nurses.
Unfortunately Mother Nature seems to have her own laboratory developing new diseases to kill the human race. The US Centres for Disease Control has encountered several cases of what it terms "Enterovirus 68 "which has appeared in a few children in the United States and Canada.
The symptoms mimic those of the common cold - coughing - fever - runny nose and can be misdiagnosed as hand,foot and mouth disease, viral Meningitis or Encephalitis. When it runs it's course it often leaves limb weaknesses - and sometimes paralysis. In extreme cases, it infects the heart and this results in the need for a heart transplant.
It seems that there is a direct connection between the growth of new diseases - and the ever expanding world population that is encroaching human activity into both the plant and animal world. The teeming cities of Asia saw the development of what was called "Bird flu " and this was linked to the practice of Asian families following subsistence farming methods - and keeping hens and ducks in or adjacent to their living quarters.
The world waits with trepidation for one of these new diseases to make the break from it's present form of infection - to a form that would be unstoppable ! So far Ebola can only infect others who come into contact with an infected persons body fluids. Medical personnel can be protected by strict hygiene and the wearing of protective clothing, but if it morphed to air contact it could quickly become a world pandemic.
The last great Pandemic was "Spanish Flu "which scourged the world just after the end of the first world war. This was unfortunately timed because war's end saw hundreds of thousands of troops concentrated together on troop ships returning them to their home countries. Today, the development of air travel poses an even greater danger for wide distribution to occur.
Apart from new diseases being battled by medical science we also face danger from our evolving physical world. In recent times we have seen the rapid advance of communications. The humble telephone went mobile when electronic obstacles were overcome and initially the unit was about the size of a house brick. It rapidly shrunk, and now we have the Smartphone at a size that can fit into the palm of our hand - and bring us the whole range of personal communications that include the Internet. This - and a host of other developments - are powered by tiny Lithium batteries what are often no bigger than the fingernail on our forefinger.
What a great attraction that shiny little battery must appear to a small child - and what a huge danger it poses if swallowed. Emergency surgery to remove such items is a daily occurrence within the western hospital system and as human ingenuity finds more ways to sell it's products to the public this danger can only grow. Batteries are now a component of many toys - and even make an appearance in singing greeting cards. They are diabolically easy to dislodge.
It seems that the march of progress is assembling an army of potential killers in waiting. To avoid an early death in this twenty-first century we need two things - luck - and the ability to take reasonable precautions to see the new dangers that surround us !
Unfortunately Mother Nature seems to have her own laboratory developing new diseases to kill the human race. The US Centres for Disease Control has encountered several cases of what it terms "Enterovirus 68 "which has appeared in a few children in the United States and Canada.
The symptoms mimic those of the common cold - coughing - fever - runny nose and can be misdiagnosed as hand,foot and mouth disease, viral Meningitis or Encephalitis. When it runs it's course it often leaves limb weaknesses - and sometimes paralysis. In extreme cases, it infects the heart and this results in the need for a heart transplant.
It seems that there is a direct connection between the growth of new diseases - and the ever expanding world population that is encroaching human activity into both the plant and animal world. The teeming cities of Asia saw the development of what was called "Bird flu " and this was linked to the practice of Asian families following subsistence farming methods - and keeping hens and ducks in or adjacent to their living quarters.
The world waits with trepidation for one of these new diseases to make the break from it's present form of infection - to a form that would be unstoppable ! So far Ebola can only infect others who come into contact with an infected persons body fluids. Medical personnel can be protected by strict hygiene and the wearing of protective clothing, but if it morphed to air contact it could quickly become a world pandemic.
The last great Pandemic was "Spanish Flu "which scourged the world just after the end of the first world war. This was unfortunately timed because war's end saw hundreds of thousands of troops concentrated together on troop ships returning them to their home countries. Today, the development of air travel poses an even greater danger for wide distribution to occur.
Apart from new diseases being battled by medical science we also face danger from our evolving physical world. In recent times we have seen the rapid advance of communications. The humble telephone went mobile when electronic obstacles were overcome and initially the unit was about the size of a house brick. It rapidly shrunk, and now we have the Smartphone at a size that can fit into the palm of our hand - and bring us the whole range of personal communications that include the Internet. This - and a host of other developments - are powered by tiny Lithium batteries what are often no bigger than the fingernail on our forefinger.
What a great attraction that shiny little battery must appear to a small child - and what a huge danger it poses if swallowed. Emergency surgery to remove such items is a daily occurrence within the western hospital system and as human ingenuity finds more ways to sell it's products to the public this danger can only grow. Batteries are now a component of many toys - and even make an appearance in singing greeting cards. They are diabolically easy to dislodge.
It seems that the march of progress is assembling an army of potential killers in waiting. To avoid an early death in this twenty-first century we need two things - luck - and the ability to take reasonable precautions to see the new dangers that surround us !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)