Nuclear Nightmare !

Technically, North Korea is still at war with its democratic South Korean neighbour.  The two sides are separated by a heavily fortified demilitarized zone and South Korea is protected by an American alliance and a United Nations peace force that ensures stability.

North Korea is an enigma.  It really is a remnant leftover from the years of the cold war.  It is a hardline Communist state in a world where the Soviet Union has imploded and China morphed into a capitalist version economy run by a Communist dictatorship.  Unfortunately, North Koreas leadership revolves around a family hierarchy and the Kim's exhibit hostility and intolerance to the rest of the world from their heavily armed hermit kingdom.

North Korea shuns normal contact with other nations and it earns a living by arms sales, narcotic distribution and counterfeiting the banknotes of other countries. Its economy is totally reliant on China and its presence provides a buffer for that Communist state which fears the encroachment of hostile nations at its borders.

The North Koran military is one of the biggest standing armies in the world and absorbs the greatest share of the economy while the peasants endure hardship and starvation.  The world was shocked when North Korea detonated an atomic weapon and announced that it had joined the nuclear club. It has since conducted further nuclear test firings and is fast developing the technology to build a credible ICBM force.  It claims the ability to fire a nuclear warhead capable of decimating American cities.

America and the western world has deplored this nuclear development and imposed sanctions.  Clearly, that has failed to prevent  North Korean advancement and we face a stalemate.  We know North Korea has a small number of nuclear bombs similar to the bomb that demolished Hiroshima.  We doubt that they yet have the ability to miniaturize that to fit in an ICBM warhead, but reaching that stage of development seems imminent.  Their ICBM development is now advanced and they will shortly have an all world reach.

The big question is exactly what Kim Jong-Un intends to do with his nuclear arsenal.  He is bombastically threatening to annihilate America and Japan.  He has threatened the American island of Guam in the Pacific and a recent ICBM test firing crossed the Japanese mainland before falling into the ocean.  His mental state is unknown and if he is threatened by internal unrest he could create an imagined threat to North Korean sovereignty and take the country to war to consolidate his hold on power.

It is likely that the North Korean threat is basically bluff.   In a nuclear war North Korea could do a degree of damage that would cost millions their life, but the country would be wiped off the map and cease to exist.  It is unlikely that there would be nuclear war by intent, but the danger exists of war by miscalculation - or by a leader with an unhinged mind unleashing war with irrationality.

The world probably missed the opportunity to deal with North Korea when it exploded its first nuclear test explosion, just as the opportunity to deal with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime in the 1930's before it consolidated its armed strength.

That same question awaits an answer at the present time.  North Korea presently has the power to inflict limited damage.  If we hesitate, in a few more years the regime will have progressed to the hydrogen bomb and will have mastered multiple re-entry warheads and have missiles capable of delivering world devastation.

Can we live with a North Korea with Kim Jong-Un's finger on the nuclear trigger ?

Testing the Water !

Many people think the shenanigans in Federal parliament are little more than an entertaining circus but it becomes very serious when it results in bad government.   On the world scene, voters seem to be turning away from the old established political parties and voting in mavericks who represent special interest groups - or sometimes just themselves.

The next Federal election is expected in late 2018 or early 2019 and already an unlikely candidate is signalling an intention to stand.   The widow of notorious gangster Carl Williams, who was executed by a fellow inmate in prison may be a candidate for the Australian People's Party.  Her husband gained fame for running a huge drug empire and for arranging the spectacular murder of many of his competitors.  It seems that Roberta Williams - his wife - participated in these criminal activities and consequently was sentenced to a six month prison term,  She was also declared bankrupt, owing $ 300,000 unpaid tax to the taxation office.

Clearly, Roberta Williams is ineligible to sit as either a representative or a Senator in either house of the Australian parliament.  Section 44 of the Australian Constitution disqualifies anyone who has been declared bankrupt, sentenced to more than twelve months in prison or is a citizen of another country from attaining those elected offices.   We are at present awaiting a ruling by the High Court to determine the fate of  several elected politicians who have found to their astonishment that laws in force in other countries have bestowed citizenship of which they claim to be unaware.

What is amazing many people is that this restriction in the Australian Constitution will not stop Roberta Williams from legally standing as a candidate.  She plans to run against Opposition leader Bill Shorten in his  seat of Maribyrnong in Melbourne's west.   Should she win, it would be a matter for a rival candidate or a member of the public to challenge her nomination in the High Court and get an injunction to stop her taking her seat in parliament.

Of course, she has to actually win the vote for that to become an issue, but in recent times we have seen some strange outcomes where the voters have made very unanticipated choices.  When Donald Trump nominated for the American presidency most people though that was hilarious and bookmakers were giving ludicrous odds on his victory.  His candidacy took on  a life of its own and he is now the resident of the oval office.

Roberta Williams is a forty-eight year old attractive woman.   The factor that she is a convicted drug trafficker and a gangland widow may have appeal to some people and if she can present a convincing stump speech she could gather a following.  There is a very evident mood of discontent with many of the voting public and they seem to be ready to think outside of conventional lines when it comes to casting their votes.

Sadly, we seem destined to become an ungovernable nation if this follows the pattern of some European countries where the parliamentary assembly has dissolved into a cacophony of squabbling minor parties who are totally incapable of achieving consensus on important issues.   We follow that path at our peril !

The State - and Religion !

Both the Commonwealth of Australia and its states and territories keep a strict balance between the laws it enacts and individual religions, and yet religious dogma plays a very big part in the way we live our lives. That is about to come under pressure as three issues coming up for a legislative decision are roiling the balance between church and state.

We will shortly vote in a non binding plebiscite on whether to allow same sex marriage. Polling indicates that the vast majority approve but this is anathema to the teaching of some religious bodies. It is quite possible that politicians may defy the choice of the people and block this legislation even if the plebiscite delivers a clear mandate.

At the same time, a law is coming before the state parliament of New South Wales to give the terminally ill the right to end their lives with the help of medical assistance.  Private polling indicates that about seventy percent of Liberal voters and seventy-eight percent of Labor voters give this relief the nod - with just twelve percent undecided.  Once again, a few politicians defying the wishes of the public may doom this legislation to failure.

Another issue concerns the teaching of religion in public schools.  At present class time is set aside for a religious minister chosen by the headmaster to conduct a class but students are able to opt out with permission from their parents.  Those that opt out sit idle or do their homework and now vastly outnumber those undertaking these religious studies.
Pressure is building for a law change because the latest data reveals that forty percent of  this states 795,000 public school students do not claim any form of religion on their enrolment forms.  Each year the numbers disclaiming religion grows steadily, bringing the notion of religious instruction in schools into question.

Unfortunately, party politics and the religious affinity of individual politicians often result in issues with wide public approval being voted down.  Politicians are not legally bound to deliver the promises they make when running for office and perhaps the time is coming when major issues need to be taken out of their hands - and delivered to the voters.

That system was very successfully adopted by several American states and now contentious issues go to a public vote at the time state governments are voted into office - and that s a binding decision that is imposed on whichever party wins office.   It is the usual practice to require a substantial petition signed by supporting voters to get any issue on the agenda for a public vote.

Australia is fast becoming a less religious country and the power of the churches seems concentrated where it can dictate living standards.  We claim to live in a democracy, but much church thinking is far from democratic and often has its roots in the dark ages.  Our political system has failed us when it comes to decisions that are opposed by the churches.   Perhaps a time for restoring those important decisions back to the people !

" Kids " as a Weapon !

When " No Fault " divorce became the law in Australia it was intended to do away with messy trials in which a " guilty party " needed to be identified and publicly humiliated as the cause of the marital breakdown.  It was reasoned that generally there was some guilt on both sides and it would be more harmonious if both partners were free to walk away from the union without recrimination and get on with living their lives.

That was amazingly successful where both the partners were reasonable people and their finances were split evenly down the middle, but a problem arose where there were children of that union that the judge needed to take into account.   In many cases, a harmonious split changed to a turf battle as both sides fought to gain sole custody of the children.

Generally, the divorce court believed that the interests of children were best served by them having access to both separating parents.  As a result, one parent was granted the right to have the children live under their roof and the other had visiting rights.   This was usually at the discretion of the judge and it could vary - from the kids living week about with each of the former partners to set patterns that included annual holiday periods.   It was usual for the custodian parent to be granted child support payments paid by the non-custodial parent,

All that opened a complex can of worms, including the issue of either party taking the children overseas - and out of the jurisdiction of the court.  Generally, that required the permission of both parents and the International recognised Hague convention promised the return of any abducted children.  Unfortunately, some countries did not sign that accord and their courts issued rulings on strict religious grounds.

Unfortunately, no fault divorce is not delivering the harmony its contenders promised.  The matter of child support payments is ignored by some people and it now pursued through the taxation office.  When payment is final extracted it is often reason for the delinquent to direct bitter recriminations at the former partner and use the kids as a weapon.

We are now seeing child access used to indoctrinate the children to make them unmanageable for the partner providing them with residence.   The visiting party fills their heads with " children's rights " and decries rules on time for bed and need to do school homework to a schedule.   As the children grow in age and stature they can becoming intimidating and pose a physical threat to the parent providing shelter.  The courts seem reluctant to make any changes to the visiting arrangements despite appeals for relief.

It seems that a percentage of divorcing parents see their kids as personal property to do with as they please, and in many cases also regard their former partner in a similar light.  This had resulted in physical attacks - and in some cases murder.  In many cases the threat is well hidden and consequently the police are powerless to intervene.

There is no obvious answer to this problem.  The Family Court makes decisions from what it is able to observe and with the expectation that fair minded people will accept justice.  When someone has a partner that does not fit that mould it is inevitable that they have a personal problem that can only be attributed to a past bad choice.  Only luck will determine the final outcome.

Pension age - and Judges !

Along with the rest of the work force, judges retirement ages are under review and it is proposed that the present retirement age in New South Wales be lifted from seventy-two to seventy-five.  The reason is that becoming a judge is usually reserved for those who have long served the law and who have accumulated a vast experience of the law.  Preserving this service for a longer period of time will obviously deliver savings to the state.

At present, judges who have served for ten years and who retire voluntarily are entitled to a pension of sixty percent of their final salary.  As a result, Supreme court judges retiring are paid $441,940 per year.  Both the pension and retirement age differs between the states and territories and retirement age ranges from 65 to 72.

It is not unusual for a retiring judge to be reappointed as an acting judge for a limited time on an  hoc basis, but in New South Wales this has a final limit of age seventy-seven. Judges of the High Court and Federal Court must retire at seventy and cannot return as acting judges.   Very little uniformity applies to the judiciary.

This is an issue that may generate mixed feelings from those who serve the legal system.  The purpose of a judge seems to be based on conducting a trial strictly within the rules and regulations that apply to the law, and deciding the penalty that will apply to those found guilty.  It is the sentencing option that may cause some people to question the ages of judges in coming to an understanding of the changes in moral toning that have occurred in our society - and shaping the sentence to reflect that change.

Legal counsel are well known for " judge shopping " - using tactics to delay or speed up case preparation in the hope of selecting a judge of their choice.   They wish to avoid judges with a known prejudice against an issue that will be crucial in a coming trial.   The prejudices of individual judges quickly becomes widely known to both the defence and prosecution attorneys and often dictate the  tactics that will be used in the case presentation.

Few of the sentences handed down are the end of the matter.  Most are immediately appealed and reviewed in a court of appeal and very often that initial sentence is reduced, but on rare occasions it may be increased.  This reduction can be dramatic.  Terms of imprisonment are sometimes substituted by imposition of a mere good behaviour bond which often results in public disquiet. Generally, the public seem to favour harsher sentencing.

There is no guarantee that younger judges would be free of individual prejudices and by and large the system we have works very well.  The appeals system takes care of any glaring misjudgements and so far the imposition of mandatory sentencing has been kept to a minimum.   That admonition of " if it 'aint broke don't fix it " seems to apply.

Living with Fire Risk !

Memories of the disastrous Grenfell Tower fire in London are starting to fade and so is the urgency of identifying and removing similar fire hazards in high rise buildings in Australia.  It seems that the body corporate people responsible to some apartment owners are facing the conundrum that this is just too costly to fix - and too risky to leave unattended.

There are 300,00 strata buildings in Australia and the material that poses a risk has only been on the market for about ten years.  As a consequence, buildings that are more than ten years old should be risk free - unless they have had an external renovation.  Beware the older building that has had its apartments brought up to modern standards because the exterior may have been given a face lift to disguise its age, bringing it into this new risk category.

Many apartment dwellers are unsure of the exact nature of the risk.  The Grenfell Tower was suited out on its exterior with thermoplastic core cladding, polyurethane sandwiched between two layers of aluminium to give a fresh, modern look to the building.  This is usually fixed to the exterior leaving a small air gap between the cladding and the building facing, allowing a possible fire to spread rapidly.  It is perfectly safe if the " meat in the sandwich " is a non flammable core but it seems that in the interest of gaining market share by way of price reductions some manufacturers opted for a cheaper core by using a flammable material.

Even when this is in place, the risk to a building varies.  That depends on the height and type of building and the placement of inner fire rated walls.  Another factor is whether or not the building has a fire sprinkler system to contain the fire within individual apartments.   One of the tragedies of Grenfell Towers is that a simple unit fire got so completely our of control that it breached the unit containment and spread until the entire outer surface of the tower was a flaming torch.

The use of concrete floor slabs between levels is designed to stop fires progressing from floor to floor. Fire only becomes a danger factor when the type of material used allows fire to travel up the outer surface of the building, by-passing this control measure.  The Grenfell fire was a world wake-up call that gave warning of just what was possible if exterior surface control was not tightened.

NSW Fair Trading has completed an audit of the 178,000 properties at risk in this state and 1011 have ben identified as being potentially affected.  Owners have been notified by letter and urged to take the necessary measures to reduce the risk.   They would be wise to call in the necessary people with the knowledge to evaluate that risk and advise what measures are possible to lower it to an acceptable level.

Obviously, removing flammable material and replacing it with a safer product is one option, but it might be cheaper to install a sprinkler system if the design of the building has lower risk features, such as double glazing reducing the risk of fire escaping an apartment.  This is very much an individual appraisal, building by building to achieve risk reduction at an achievable price.

The other necessity is a reappraisal of the building code to make sure this lapse of judgement is never repeated.  The finger of blame will surely rest on more than one culprit and the potential for legal action for the cost of remedial action has yet to be determined, but fire safety laws on building materials needs to be tightened.   That is an essential necessity !

Australia Day !

There seems to be a degree of confusion about exactly what we are celebrating on the Twenty-sixth of January each year.  Is " Australia Day " a celebration of the arrival of the first fleet or are we celebrating when we shed colonial status and elected our first parliament and became an independent nation ?   Or is this a celebration of both wrapped up together to reflect the success of combining settlers from many different lands and this country's Indigenous people into a prosperous nation on the world stage ?

Some of our Indigenous citizens insist on calling it " invasion day " and in many ways that is perfectly true.  They were not asked for their permission when the early settlers landed and we did force our laws and customs on their way of life, but if they are being honest  they would agree that they were not a united people with a common language and their way of life roughly equated with what Europe would describe as the " Stone age ".  Many Indigenous people are now fully integrated and live a prosperous life.  There is no going back and this Australian nation has no other option than to trade and live in a dangerous world where survival is a matter of having adequate defence and strong relationships with allies.

Some Indigenous people choose not to celebrate Australia day - and that is their right, but the rest of Australia thinks it is appropriate to use that day to welcome new citizens with citizenship ceremonies.  There would be nothing disrespectful in a day paying homage to those who were the original residents in this great land and it has been proposed that the Queens holiday in June be converted to that purpose.  This existing holiday is not even on the Monarchs true birthday and to most Australian citizens it is a day without meaning - just a traditional day off to which few give much thought.

The down side of creating what would become an " Indigenous day " is to widen the " them and us " gulf that has been slowly closing as Aboriginal health improves and young people gain the advantages of education.  We can not change history and it is important to realise that in the distant past people lived by rules and customs that would be totally unacceptable in todays society.  We can not judge the past by the conditions that apply today and yet that is the argument put forward by some combative Indigenous groups of people.

We have lived together for two hundred and thirty nine years and the relationship between the two races has changed enormously - and it still has a long way to go.  Indigenous citizens still have a shorter life span and suffer a number of diseases less common in the general community - and there is still a big wealth gap.   It is a fact of life that this division can only be solved by further integration because that has been the experience in other cultures of the world in which we live.

It will not be easy - and it will not happen quickly - but somewhere in the distant future our Indigenous citizens will have blended in to society, recognisable by their characteristics but not considered unusual in the mainstream that makes up our society.  By all means create a day dedicated to our first settlers, but we need to celebrate the integration instead of what are seen as " differences ".   That old proverb about " First amongst equals " needs to apply !

Smoke and Mirrors !

This proposed welfare crackdown seems to rely on the assumption that those who are addicted to illicit drugs are able to cure their addiction voluntarily if the right incentive is applied.  It is big on punishment but light on efforts to provide drug rehabilitation.

Basically, five thousand young people who have recently been granted either Newstart or a Youth Allowance will be required to attend a Centrelink office where they will be tested for residual evidence that they have recently used ice, ecstasy or marijuana.   Those that fail the first test will be recalled for a second later testing and a second failure will see eighty percent of their welfare payments transferred to a quarantined welfare card which can only be used for rent or essentials such as groceries.  The aim seems to be to deprive them of money to buy drugs.

There is no doubt that this will identify chronic drug users whose habit makes them unfit for any type of employment but it will also sweep up the casual user who may pop an ecstasy pill on the weekend party scene or the thousands who use marijuana in the same moderation as they drink alcohol - and these days they merely get a caution for possession for their own use.

Those who work with young people sound a warning.  The deeply addicted are incapable of stopping  use " cold turkey " and they will turn to crime to fund their supply.  Expect an increase in " break, enter and steal " and other forms of street crime because this crackdown does nothing to help the users break their habit.  It is more a public relations exercise than a serious attempt to lower drug use.

The fact that the testing will be directed at suburbs such as Bankstown indicates that it is aimed at the lower end of the social scale where depressed income levels are common.  Drug use is now common across the wide social spectrum and its evidence is just as likely in what are termed the " better " suburbs than those with a solid working class reputation.

This drug crackdown seems to be a " one size fits all "  operation.  It does not differentiate between the chronic drug user and the casual imbiber, but once someone is on that restricted welfare listing the stain on their reputation is similar to that of a term of imprisonment.  Somehow those sort of things have a habit of becoming public knowledge.

Sadly, this initiative is unlikely to have any real impact on the drug scene.  We regularly learn of huge police busts where incoming drugs worth millions are seized, but the drug supply on the streets never diminishes.  Drug imports make their criminal handlers immensely wealthy.  The reward makes many accept the risk and the drug war is something that will never be won.

This crackdown is more a matter of smoke and mirrors designed to impress the public than a real attempt at drug control. Rehabilitation of the addicted usually means taking them into care for a period of time - and that is costly.  Unfortunately the most likely outcome from this initiative is strong resentment from those who have their spending controlled - and an increase in the crime rate.

A Chemical " Time Bomb " !

Last year the boffins created over ten thousand new chemicals which were notified to the regulator before they were released for industrial use or retail sale in Australia.  This chemical industry covers a wide field and ranges from the type of things we find on supermarket shelves for home cleaning to the industrial field where chemicals are used in both agriculture and heavy industry and may have toxic qualities.

The " gatekeeper " is the organization known as the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme  ( NICAS ) and it needs to be satisfied that what is proposed for market acceptance meets Australian standards and has an acceptable public risk rating.   It can impose handling and use restrictions on chemicals it determines may pose a hazard to the public.

Under a bill proceeding through parliament the chemical industry will be allowed to self-assess whether a new chemical is " low risk " and therefore exempt from referral to NICAS. It is thought that this would reduce the NICAS inspection rate from the present 3% of new chemical discoveries to somewhere in the vicinity of 0.75 percent.

This will provide a vast saving to the chemical industry.  Both the time and cost of complying with red tape to get approval is estimated at a saving of $ 23 million a year, but critics are concerned that this move will place the decision in the hands of the very people who have a financial interest in their new product gaining public approval.

The research laboratories are costly to maintain and evaluation of risk by a chemist is very different from that of the end user.  In particular, end users are notorious for not reading the warning labels or diluting the contents in the properly expected ratios.  In many cases, the regulator will allow the product to go to market, but at a reduced strength to the original proposal as a safety measure.

Where a new product is developed for a specific purpose there is always the risk that the public will adapt it for other purposes and produce an unintended risk factor.   That is something that the NICAS team takes into consideration when evaluating the product.  Their job is to be the impartial umpire that examines the total risk factor in allowing a new chemical to enter the marketplace.  It is their job to ensure that products with a danger factor are suitably presented in adequate packaging and with use restrictions that contain the risk to an acceptable level.

Transferring that decision to the people who have developed the chemical will be seen by many as a retrograde step.  There will be a temptation to disregard risk in the interest of profit and in some cases the harm may take years to emerge.  The long term effect of many chemicals on the human body only becomes clear when medical research discovers the link - and that is sometimes many decades after the contamination has occurred.

If the politicians pass this legislation they are creating a " time bomb " for the future !

Using " Faith " as a Weapon !

The Roman Catholic Church has fired a warning shot across the bow of the coming postal vote on same sex marriage.   The Archbishop of Melbourne has warned that if the legislation becomes legal in Australia  the church might dismiss employees who enter into marriages that run counter to church teachings.

This is obviously a scare tactic to try and influence the 180,000  Australians directly employed by the church to record a " no " vote in this postal plebiscite.  It is a thinly veiled inducement to vote in the interests of the church and its dogma or face job insecurity.  The main avenues of Catholic lay employment in Australia are in education and health.

The Archbishop went on to say that Catholic schools and parishes exist to teach the Catholic view of marriage and any words or actions that work contrary to that end would  be viewed  very seriously. This seems to be run contrary to the experience in overseas countries where same sex marriage is legal and employment is unchanged in Catholic institutions.

In its original form, Catholic schools and hospitals were staffed with Nuns and Priests who did not draw salaries.  Rapid expansion overwhelmed this source of labour and the church began employing members of the public - with preference for practising Catholics.  The sheer job volume and the need for qualified people has diluted the incidence of Catholics in that workforce and now many non Catholics serve in all levels of the command structure.

If same sex marriage advances to a parliamentary vote the form it will take is yet to be decided, and what exemptions may apply are as yet unknown, but it is certain that they will run in tandem with stringent anti discrimination rulings.  This Catholic workforce already includes homosexuals and many couples cohabitating without the vows of marriage and such lifestyles are discreetly ignored by the church.

There is probably an existing preferential promotional bias in Catholic employment.  In situations where two people are nominated for a higher posting - and one is Catholic and the other not - and their qualifications are similar, it is likely that preference will be given to the Catholic contender.
That may be exacerbated where a same sex couple hold a very public and media covered wedding and one is a prominent position holder in a Catholic institution.   Discretion may be wise so as to not offend the Catholic viewpoint.

It is unlikely that the Archbishops warning will cut much ice with many Catholics. The attitude of the church has been more conciliatory in recent times as it struggles to cope with a hard line attitude emerging in Africa and Asia and a sharp moderation of the dogma acceptable in western countries.  It has not changed its viewpoint, but it has learned to live with changing attitudes and ignore lifestyle changes that differ from its teachings.

The fact that this issue is coming to a public vote means the Catholic church must publicly voice its opposition to what is a fundamental rejection of its teachings.  Once that legislation becomes law it will still be opposed, but with a weary resignation that goes along with so much other lifestyle that runs contrary to its views.   After all, same sex marriage is only affixing an official name on what has been openly practised for many decades.

Piracy !

When some people think of piracy it brings memories of a Johnny Depp movie, but bandits in boats boarding ships on the high seas is still a maritime hazard in many parts of the world.  It is rife in the waters of the horn of Africa and in one of the most congested shipping highways to our north, the Malacca Strait.

That word - " Pirate "- also technically apples to thousands of Australian citizens who choose to watch Hollywood films and Australian film content without bothering to pay any sort of entrance fee or commission to the owners of the copyright.   They are aided and abetted by forty-two piracy sites which show this material on the Internet and allow viewers to download it onto their computers or television screens.

Many who watch movies on this Pirate network see it as a victimless crime, but the film  studios who make these movies spend multi-million dollars on their production and expect to realise a profit from the money people pay to buy a seat in a movie theatre to watch the shows.  It is becoming harder to attract the finance for new films while the profits are being constantly eroded by this pirate industry.

Watching top quality films for free seems a strange stroke of luck for most viewers.  They wonder how the pirate industry makes its money - and the answer to that conundrum is - advertising.  In exchange for that free movie the viewers are exposed to advertisements, and in this age of constant data it is possible to predetermine a lot about the type of people who watch pirated movies.  The advertisements often have a product with attraction to that type of audience.

At long last the laws is starting to catch up and those days of free movies are coming to an end.   The Federal Court has ordered a raft of pirate web sites to be blocked in Australia.  An action by Village Roadshow backed by Hollywood studios Warner Bros,  Paramount,  Universal, Disney, Twentieth Century Fox - and Foxtel has secured a major ruling to stop flagrant copyright infringement of the rights of copyright owners.

This ruling serves notice on Australian internet service providers - and that includes Telstra and TPG - that they are liable under the law unless they block this pirate material.  Foxtel will get relief because the order will block at least 150 domain names showing pirated content and probably many more because many operate under a variety of aliases.

This is an interesting tactical change.  Previously, the copyright owners were threatening to sue individual viewers of pirated material and using a few selected victims to serve as a court example.  An unsuspecting family might find themselves facing a fine which would bankrupt them and it was hoped that the publicity would make others wary of using pirate sites.  There was also the risk of a public relations backlash and the studios were reluctant to take that action.

The Federal Court has placed the blame precisely where it will have precise and immediate effect.  The Internet providers are knowingly and willingly allowing copyright infringement when they allow pirated content to be shown by providers who pay a fee for that privilege.  The onus is now back on these service providers to ensure that what they follow complies with the law.

Now the copyright people will turn their attention to the many forms of pirated material for sale in flea markets and which allow the buyer to download the contents onto their television screen.  Plugging that gap will not be so easy !

Erasing History !

When the second world war came to an end the symbol of Germany's National Socialist party - the Swastika - was torn down from buildings and destroyed.  It is illegal in that country to use the Swastika as a means of nostalgia in advertising displays or for any commercial purpose.  That rejection of the Nazi regime came both from the conquered German people and from the occupying forces of the country's victors.  Germans were eager to forget the horrors of the concentration camps and the Holocaust.

A century earlier the Americans fought a civil war and when it ended the Confederate states suffered a similar occupation.  That nation was divided into an industrial north and an agrarian south.  The difference was that the defeated south retained pride in their famous generals and preserved old battlefields.  The " Stars and Bars " - the flag of the Confederacy - proudly flew over state houses and statues that commemorate the war take pride of place in cities and towns throughout the region - and have done so until now without incident.

There were many grievances as the cause of that war but the pivot was clearly the issue of slavery. Cotton was underpinning the economy of the south and that depended on slaves to work the cotton fields.  Abraham Lincoln wanted America to be a slave free nation.  It took a war to force that decision on the south.

In todays world the focus has changed.  Many Americans now see that war as purely a matter of white supremacists fighting for their supremacy over people with a black skin.  Angry mobs are rioting in the streets and demanding that statues of Confederate generals be torn down and the Stars and Bars removed from state houses.  It seems that many want all reference to the civil war erased.

That seems to be a very selective objective.  The angst is directed solely at the years of the civil war and completely ignores the foundation of the American nation.   George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and most of the people they venerate were slave owners.  That was an era when Africa was exploited by many world nations and slavery was common in many sectors of what was then the great British Empire.

More to the point, Generals like Robert E Lee had the respect of northern commanders.  He was a brilliant tactician and he won many encounters.  The Confederacy fought a war that divided families and could have gone either way except for the industrial might of the north being able to arm and supply its forces while the south suffered a debilitating naval blockade.   It was a war fought with honour by both sides.

This rejection of the Confederacy is fast becoming a hysterical crusade to tar it with a white supremacy label.  The angry mobs are trying to rewrite history.  The rhetoric is now depicting those war years as a shameful event in the American psyche that should be deplored in similar manner to the Hitler era.

Some time in the future America will come to regret this carnage of statues and memorabilia.  It would be like Australia trying to suppress all memory of Ned Kelly.   He was a criminal who murdered three policemen and held up banks, but he was a part of our early history and we remember him with pride.

Compliance with the Law !

An emotive issue has arisen over a law change making its way through the New South Wales parliament.  A new native vegetation clearing code for farms is set to replace a rather draconian ordinance that refused the rights of farmers to cut down any trees in almost any circumstances.  This was leading to serious acrimony between farmers and the environment compliance officers tasked with policing it.

This came to a head on a property at Croppa Creek near Tamworth when a compliance officer confronted an elderly farmer who had been illegally clearing a part of his farm.  This animosity boiled over when the farmer produced a rifle and calmly and deliberately stalked and shot the compliance officer, causing his death.  The farmer was charged with murder and  convicted and sentenced to a thirty-five year prison sentence.  He died in custody the following year.

The family of the slain compliance officer have protested at this law change because it would make legal the action that farmer had taken in clearing his property.  The family feel that this disrespects the loss of life of the compliance officer in doing his duty and diminishes the value of his life.

Whilst being understandable, that is not a valid argument. Police and other officials tasked with upholding the law do so because that is the form of law and order we have chosen as our form of government.  In many cases, such officers may personally disagree with the law as it stands, but they are obliged to take action to force compliance with that law.   Law change is constant and all laws are subject to review and possible change.

The NSW parliament has seen fit to hand back to farmers the decision process on land clearing.  In many cases, existing farms comprise many acres under cultivation and a portion of timbered and uncleared land which is unproductive.  To increase farm income farmers wish to clear this land to plant more crops or to make it productive pasture to feed more sheep or cattle.   There is also value in selling the timber from the trees to a local sawmill.

This will certainly be controversial.  To slow global warming we need to reduce the amount of C02 in the air and trees are important in sequestering that gas.  But we are also facing a world food shortage as the world population heads towards ten billion.  Then there is the issue of protecting Australian wildlife and its habitat for future generations.  Getting the balance right is certain to annoy a lot of people on both sides of this argument.

What is not controversial is the right of all forms of compliance officers to safely do their job and that ranges to parking police slapping fines under the windscreens of cars to the myriad ordinance people who administer council by-laws - to the police who carry firearms.   We are a civilized society.  It would be a mistake to judge the action of the deranged as reason for refusing to change the law.  We have only to look to the distant past to see that the law is an ever changing thing !

Safety on Building Sites.

No doubt Safe-Work NSW will be having a look at the regulations covering work sites after a man was killed and two others seriously injured when a wind storm hit the city this week.  The weather bureau gave advance notice that very strong winds were expected and traditionally August is the windy month of the year.

There were the usual disruptions that can be expected on a windy day.  Tree branches breached power lines in some suburbs and traffic was disrupted when wheelie bins were propelled onto busy roads, but the mayhem proved deadly in Carlingford and Kellyville.

In Carlingford a recently erected brick wall on a duplex building site could not withstand the wind pressure and collapsed, burying two workers.  Colleagues called for assistance and began rescue work and retrieved one man alive.  When the other was recovered the ministrations of paramedics was unsuccessful - and he died at the scene.

On that same day another brick wall at Kellyville suffered a similar fate.  A nineteen year old worker was pulled unconscious from under the debris and treated for head and facial industries.  He is now in a critical condition in hospital.

There are strict building regulations covering work practices on building sites, and one of these requires brick walls to be braced to prevent them toppling under wind pressure.  In the main, this is ignored because of the time and money involved - and the fact that a collapse in windy weather is a very unusual event.  The industry gets away with unbraced brick walls for years on end and it is only in what some consider " freak " conditions that tragedies happen.

The other consideration is the time factor.  It is unusual for a free standing brick wall to be left unsupported for any length of time.  Usually, within hours it becomes part of the house structure and linked to other parts of the building which provide the resistance against wind pressure.  When the roofing is finally put in place the outer brick walls form part of a rigid structure that is proof against all but cyclonic winds.

One of the other problems is the fact that most building sites are unregulated.   The building industry consists of a huge number of small building firms where an entrepreneur who has completed the necessary apprenticeship hires others and goes into business as a " builder ".   It is highly competitive and the margin for profit on each job relies on luck and good fortune with the weather - and keeping unnecessary expenditure to the minimum.  Many such builders hesitate to brace a brick wall because they consider it an avoidable cost.

That is the difference between jobs involving national building firms - and little independent building companies.   In extreme windy conditions those big jobs shut down until the wind subsides and they are carefully watched over by both building unions and the Safe-Work people.  Independent builders are working on constructions and renovation work all over the city and only come to the attention of Safe-Work in response to someone lodging a work complaint.

There is every chance that nothing will change - and sometime in the future tragedy will strike another building site on an unusually windy day !

Jury Duty !

Part of living in a democracy like ours is the expectation that if we are ever charged with a very serious crime our fate will be decided by the deliberations of twelve of our peers sitting in judgement.  The jury system is the bedrock of the legal system that has served this country well.

Jury duty is an obligation that most people treat with dread.   Each year the Sheriffs office randomly picks a selection of people from the electoral roll and when a jury is required a number are notified to appear in court and face the selection process.  Legal counsel for both the prosecution and defence are allowed a number of " challenges "  to discharge members of the jury pool without giving a reason.

Sitting on a jury is both a challenge - and a vast lifestyle interruption.  Jurors usually go home each night, but in cases where intimidation is possible they may be sequestered in a hotel and denied outside contact.  They are paid for their attendance but jury duty takes precedence over employment and family obligations.  In some cases, trials may require the jury to sit for weeks or even months.

Getting called for jury duty can cause hardship. Many people ask to be excused - and few are granted. This random selection from the electoral roll means the jury pool is a mix of both genders with a varied range of ages and occupations.  That is supposed to be the fairness of the jury system.  It is the task of the prosecution and the defence to convince a jury of " ordinary " people to make a unanimous decision on the merits of the case before them.

The system recently saw a curious request for jury exemption denied.  A juror in a murder trial asked to be discharged from the jury on the grounds that his command of the English language was insufficient to continue deliberations.  In refusing the request, the court determined that the juror was of Asian descent and had entered this country at the age of fourteen.  He had completed the Higher School Certificate in Australia and gone on to University, where he graduated in a combined commerce/law degree.  The court noted that his education had been conducted in English when it denied his request.

This does raise a valid point about the jury system.  When an immigrant gains citizenship they are required to be recorded on the electoral roll for voting purposes.  This random selection for jury purposes could scoop up those with a very low understanding of English and who would struggle to understand the intricacies of legal argument presented to the jury.  The person on trial has an expectation that those deciding his or her fate were capable of making an informed decision on the evidence presented.

Judges have a high degree of discretion in their courtrooms.   They often stand down an obviously pregnant woman if they envisage a protracted trial and perhaps it would be a good idea for jurors to be questioned to determine their language skills during the empanelling process.   If for no other reason, as a means of removing a later reason for lodging an appeal.

A " Compensation " Reversal !

The retail fruit and vegetable industry will be cheered by a decision made in the court of appeal this week.  It overturned a District Court decision that awarded a woman $ 150,000 compensation and court costs after she slipped on a grape and fell in a Woolworths store.

What seemed to be the determining factor was evidence given that the mishap had been caused by just a single grape that somehow managed to escape the notice of staff tasked with patrolling to eliminate such hazards.  The justices specifically noted that customers have an obligation to maintain vigilance for hazards on the floor and found that in this case the supermarket had taken reasonable care to keep the area safe.

Modern merchandising poses hazards for both customers and the business community because the courts have become accustomed to handing out huge compensation judgements in borderline cases of responsibility.   In a past era there was a distinct barrier between the customers and the merchandise. Usually this took the form of a counter and the staff behind that counter  weighed and packed the product before handing it to the customer.

We now live in the " self serve " age.  The customer has access to the merchandise and when it comes to fruit and vegetables, handles the goods and selects whatever quantity they wish to pack and take to the checkout.  That introduces a high risk factor for accidents where careless handling allows slippery fruit or vegetable matter to contaminate the floor.

We also live in an age of litigation.  When someone has a fall that can possibly be attributed to a hazard on the floor it is very tempting to take the matter to court in the expectation of compensation for not only the injury, but pain and suffering and the loss of income while the sufferer is absent from work.  In many cases, the medical diagnosis can be vague and the aftermath may linger for months.

It is not unknown for accidents to be staged specifically to open the door for compensation litigation and often the  time chosen is when peak crowds are present and the staff are less likely to be able to maintain total floor cleanliness.   A quick photo taken with a mobile phone at that time provides conclusive evidence if customer selection of the merchandise has resulted in obvious floor contamination.

A shop that fails to maintain floor hygiene in its fruit and vegetable section deserves the attention of the courts but is now seems that they are leaning on the need for customers to take personal care when they approach an area where hazards can be anticipated.  In particular, if a customer is distracted by their mobile phone and not looking where they are treading the courts may in future not be so accommodating.

In this Woolworths incident, the court not only reversed the District court decision, it found the customer responsible to pay the supermarkets costs and that could run to a serious sum of money. It will certainly have cause for many people to stop and think before they rush to legal action now that the courts have stopped handing out fortunes  like Santa Claus.

Creating a " Favela " !

A few days ago the state government and the Sydney council reached an agreement in which a tent city of homeless people in Martin Place was dismantled and its residents dispersed.  At the time, it was claimed that alternative accommodation had been found for those so obviously conducting " street theatre " to bring the plight of the homeless to the public and create a political issue to motivate the politicians.

Many people greeted the arrival of council trucks to remove the campers with a sigh of relief.  Martin Place is the hallowed site of our war memorial and while the camp was scrupulously orderly it was an act of civil disobedience.  Shopkeepers who pay big rent and earn their living in Martin Place had traffic diverted and the public was prevented from using this thoroughfare as a normal part of the city.

Sadly, it seems that about a dozen of the sixty who set up camp in the city centre have reverted to sleeping rough in surrounding areas.  Individual reasons why they have left the temporary accommodation provided are varied but it is also a fact that every day there are newcomers without shelter either living in their cars or finding a spot in a doorway or under one of the road overpasses.

One of the reasons that tent city was so popular - was the safety aspect.   There is safety in numbers, both from the low life types who would think nothing of bashing or robbing the destitute, to the police who issue " move on " orders.   There is constant pressure from city merchants to have the police clear away those who use businesses closed at night as a refuge and sometimes leave unwelcome calling cards when it reopens in the morning.

The obvious answer is to set aside a venue where the homeless could set up camp with safety and which would allow charities to concentrate their efforts to provide relief - but that is anathema to the authorities.   There is the fear that it would quickly become " permanent " and form the base of a growing " Favela " !

In many parts of the world " Favela " is another word for what others call a " Slum ".   The homeless build crude shelters our of whatever they can find - tin, timber, cardboard - bits of plastic sheet - and over time this evolves into a permanent suburb of awesome dimensions.  Residents tap into stolen electricity and water supplies and usually it is crime ridden and ruled by gangs.

A Favela can take on a life of its own.  In some cities they are so well established that they are constantly modernized and have their own rules and ordinances, ruled over by criminal elements. They are " no go " areas for the police and often pose a huge fire risk for the residents.  They accumulate power and strike fear into the governments which lack the ability to bring them under control.

That is the situation facing the government of this state.   The homeless are scattered and disorganized - and the state prefers them to stay that way.   That tent city was a wakeup call. Obviously setting up camp in Martin Place was a temporary show of force, but what if they select a park or somewhere inconspicuous and defy efforts for removal ?

That is a manageable risk while the numbers are small, but should we encounter another economic downturn that swelled the housing crisis we could have a situation that quickly ran out of control. The government would be wise to take the homeless situation seriously.  If it is ignored it can quickly take on a life of its own !

Justice delayed - is Justice Denied !

A thousand people gathered on the shores of Lake Harriet in the city of Minneapolis in the American state of Minnesota to farewell an Australian woman who met her death as a result of an act of charity in that city.   Justine Damond heard cries for help that she thought sounded like someone being raped coming from an alley behind her house on July 15.   She rang the police emergency number and waited for the arrival of a patrol car.  She went outside dressed in her pyjamas to speak to the officers, and when she approached the car one of the police inexplicitly fired his weapon and killed her.

This was a rookie cop who happened to be the first Somali Muslim from a refugee background to be recruited and trained to become an active member of the Minneapolis police force.  The killing immediately sparked an investigation and the cop was suspended and sent on paid leave.  For a day or so the killing was a feature on the world news and many people were angered to learn that the man responsible was refusing to be interviewed and refusing to make any sort of statement to explain his action.  It seems that he was exercising his right under American law.

Almost a month has passed and little has changed.  That city's police chief has been dismissed from her job, but still no charge has been brought to have the killer face a court and answer for his action. The matter is still being " investigated " and many people feel that the might of the combined police union in America is being brought to stop the investigation reaching a conclusion that might see a cop face a criminal charge.

What is also astonishing is the silence from the " Black lives matter " people.   Had this been a black woman shot by a white policeman crowds would have been rioting in the streets and civil disorder would have gone on for days.  It seems that the reaction to a police shooting is conditional on what colour skin is involved.  When the colour is white - the outrage is muted.

It seems that America is a dangerous place to have any sort of contact with the police.   So far this year 540 people have died from a police bullet somewhere within that country and since the night  Justine died seventy more citizens have been killed by police gunfire.

Past history is not encouraging.   Even where police action is highly questionable it is rare for the cop responsible to face a judge and jury.  Usually that decision rests with a grand jury to decide the merit of the case and often the matter is moved to a remote district where the group empanelled will be both conservative and white.

Justine's father and fiancée have called for this matter to be expedited.  It has certainly attracted great interest here in Australia, but on the basis of similar cases the investigation will pass through many hands without reaching a conclusion, or the culprit will face the lesser charge of " negligence in handling a firearm " and given a mere slap on the wrist.

Justice delayed - is justice denied !

The " Rental " Crisis !

The " Tent City " that has just been demolished in Martin Place has drawn attention to the " homeless people " sleeping rough in the city.  It is true that some of them are hopeless alcoholics or drug addicts with out of control finances, but many are low income earners who simply can not find a rental property within their capacity to pay.  Some are the marginalized unemployed who have no hope of gaining a rental on the meagre " Newstart " allowance.

In a speech to the Property Council, the NSW Treasurer has indicated that the government is keen to develop a  " build to rent " sector of property development in this state.  About one third of Sydney residents live in rental accommodation, hence this is a stable market capable of delivering both capital safety and a reasonable return to investors.

Perhaps this is the ideal time to float such a scheme.  The interest most people are getting on money on term deposit with a bank or languishing in a small savings account is abysmal.  Even significant amounts are lucky to get a three percent return, and money below a five thousand dollar level mostly gets no interest at all.

There are an amazing number of self financed retirees who have taken their superannuation by way of a cash withdrawal and opt to manage their own finances.  In the present financial climate they would welcome a safe investment that paid a better return than the banks are offering.  What is required is clever thinking to put together a plan that takes advantage of the conditions now offering.

Ideally, this would be a partnership between the government and private enterprise, and as such should be free of stamp duty and similar costs in obtaining land.  Construction of the buildings would be put to public tender and it would be important to include a mix of high and low rental units to avoid the stigma of " public housing " that might otherwise become fixed to such a project.

Importantly, the management and the letting of units would be in the hands of the investors and not a government agency.  The normal rental rules would apply with the exception that the low rental units would only be available to tenants who satisfy that they are low income earners that meet the relevant criteria.  This would not be " crisis "  housing.  The aim would be to let to genuine low income families who would be expected to reside in this accommodation on a long term basis.

Investors would be free to sell their shareholding in the holding company, but the company articles would prevent the sale of units within the building or any change to the balance of high and low rent apartments.  It would be essential to maintain the integrity of the building as containing a mix of normal rental clientele.

Obviously the day will come when interest rates rise in the general market but there is no reason why such a scheme can not deliver a reasonable return.   Importantly, the opportunity exists while interest rates are low to get such a scheme up and running and at the same time provide those self funded retirees with a better return on their money.

An Australian Missile Shield ?

It is being seriously suggested that Australia should invest in some sort of missile shield to shoot down incoming ICBM'S and protect our major cities.  That raises the question of just who is likely to threaten this country with such a missile attack  ?

Without a doubt North Korea and its despotic leader, Kim Jong-Un becomes the only realistic suspect. He is certainly rapidly gaining the ability to build ICBM's capable of reaching the far parts of the world but his ire is concentrated on the United States of America.   Ever since the Korean war of the 1950's the hermit kingdom has seen the US as the power likely to invade its territory. It's rhetoric has been exclusively anti-American.

North Korea has now developed rocket science to the extent that it can field a missile capable of reaching the continental United States - and if headed in another direction - capable of bridging the gap to Australia.    We know that North Korea has test fired atom bombs and has the capability of creating nuclear weapons, but whether it has the technology to fit these to the entry part of an ICBM is questionable.   It would be fair to assume that will become reality in the immediate future even if it is lacking at present.

Unfortunately, the prospect of war between America and North Korea is heating up rapidly. North Korea has threatened to fire four Hwasong-12 missiles at the United States territory of Guam in the Pacific ocean.  Presumably these would not have nuclear war heads and would splash into the sea in close proximity to the island, but it would be something the US could not ignore.

The danger is that both North Korea and the United States of America have leaders who are prone to irrationality. If either miscalculates the results would be awful.  North Korea might destroy several US cities, but the US response would simple wipe North Korea and its people off the map.  North Korea has atomic weapons similar in strength to the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.  The hydrogen bomb makes that look like a fire cracker.

Putting an Australian missile shield in place makes absolutely no sense.  There is no threat to this country and because we have cities spread across an entire continent it would need to comprise multiple sites that would consume our entire defence budget.  The only available option would be to purchase such a system from the United States and the cost of keeping it relevant would be prohibitive.

Australia is a middling power with an adequate defence force to dissuade neighbours from thinking of intrusion.   It is not seeking to become a world military power and it has no plans to develop its own nuclear weapons.  It is not involved in this standoff between North Korea and the United States and there is no reason why North Korea should see us as a threat to their existence.

Missile shields are unproven technology.  The money is better spent on having conventional forces in place to deter aggression.

Vilifying the LGBTI !

Throwing the marriage equality question into the public arena by way of a postal vote to determine the wishes of the people will unleash the greatest misinformation tirade as the churches delve deep into the box of dirty tricks to try and deliver a " no " result.

It looks like what will pass for a " debate " will be an open slather to trot out as fact all the wild accusations that have been proven spurious but which cast doubt on how the LGBTI community treat children and interact with the social mores of this country.

The usual laws that apply to electoral matters will not apply because this vote will be supervised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and not the Australian Electoral Commission.  In such a short campaign period we can expect the economic power of the churches to magnify the use of " fake news " on social media to vilify the LGBTI with all sort of unproven claims and the wildest rhetoric that is presented without any proof of validity.

It is clear that the " No " case will be spear headed by Tony Abbott, a man who once trained to be a priest and has made it clear that he wishes the views of the Catholic church to be the same laws that apply to citizens of this country.  The unyielding views and dogma of the Catholic church bitterly oppose all and every aspect of LGBTI life and conduct.

It is too much to hope that both sides of this debate would present their case in a clear, concise and respectful manner and allow the public to make their decision.  The mix of politics and religion has prevented having the matter settled in the parliament and now it has been thrown into the public arena with a vote that will not be binding when it comes to the politicians casting their individual votes to legalise the matter - if it actually gets to take place.

This postal vote will be subjected to a high court challenge instigated by Independent Hobart MP Andrew Wilkie.  A postal vote is very different from a referendum and without the rules and scrutiny of the Australian Electoral Commission whatever verdict it delivers could be open to challenge.  The process will cost in excess of a hundred million dollars and probably more than that will be spent on advertising by the protagonists from both sides of the debate.

Australia is clearly out of step with the rest of the world.  Marriage equality is legal in many countries with a similar lifestyle and when it went to a referendum in Ireland, a country where the Catholic church holds sway over almost the entire population - it got the nod of approval despite that religious bodies implacable opposition.   The opposition to LGBTI in most of the world is concentrated where education has yet to penetrate and where the voodoo of religion has its strongest hold.

Sadly, the " hate " campaigns that are now inevitable are going to turn some people into bigots who make life miserable for emerging " Gays " who are struggling to find their place in our multicultural society.   We would be wise to look across the Tasman to New Zealand - where this matter reached a logical conclusion and no longer draws interest or attention.

An Asian Canal proposal !

Both the Suez and Panama canals are short cuts that save the shipping industry time and money by avoiding long journeys around continents.  They were costly to build, but the fees they earn have returned that capital expenditure many times over.

Now the Kra canal is on the drawing boards.  This is a proposal to link the Indian and Pacific oceans  with a 135 kilometre canal across Thailand, estimated to cost thirty-five billion dollars.  If it eventuates, it will probably be financed by China as part of its " Belt and Road " initiative to revive the old silk road trading empire that enriched the Middle Kingdom in biblical times.

There is another pressing reason to give this consideration.  At present the Malacca Strait is a dangerous choke point for all shipping on the Asian trade route.   This narrow waterway processes 84,000 ships a year and is fast reaching its capacity.  There is an ever present risk of collision with such congestion and the area is notorious for piracy.  The canal would replace it.

The Kra canal proposal calls for a 450 metre wide, 25 metre deep canal capable of handling the worlds biggest oil tankers, container ships and whatever size vessels that may become necessary in the future.  It will make a huge contribution to the Thai economy, but at the cost of splitting the country into two halves.  That could encourage the Muslim insurrection that is rampant in the border region adjoining Malaysia.

The economics are compelling.  It would cut the journey from Japan, China and other Asian nations with links to the Middle East, and markets in Europe, Africa and India by 1200 kilometres - or three days sailing. The prospect of shorter journeys would be very appealing to ship owners and would bring a benefit to world trade.

The loser would be Singapore.  It is estimated that the Kra canal would deprive Singapore of  thirty percent of its shipping trade and deplete the value of the city-state in the commercial world. The fact that the Kra canal would involve fees may make some shipping accept the reduced risk of the Malacca Strait's lower traffic and continue to use Singapore's harbour.  It seems inevitable that sea traffic will increase as the world population rises.

From a technical point of view construction of this canal would present few problems.  Suez and Panama were built in an earlier age using manual labour and diseases imposed a high death rate.  The machinery of today would speed this work and the existing canals have proven the design of the locks and waterways that will be necessary to move ships between world oceans.  While this will be a big job it is expected to proceed smoothly.

What remains is sorting out the politics.  If Kra becomes a reality it will change the Chess board of Asia with new realities.

A New Sea Menace !

It sounds like the script for a new horror movie.  A sixteen year old boy was in the habit of paddling about in the sea to relieve the ache in his feet from playing a hard football game in the afternoon.    This was just after sundown and the venue was the bay in the city of Melbourne.

He comments that his feet felt " itchy " but he thought nothing of it, until he emerged from the water and noticed that his feet and lower legs were covered in blood - and he left a bloody trail as he crossed the beach.  What was alarming was that this bleeding continued unabated and his family rushed him to hospital.

The medical staff found that he had been bitten by a host of tiny creatures which were evidently carnivores.  They ranged in size from half a centimetre to one centimetre long and it appears that their bite injects some sort of anti coagulant into their victim, with the result that the bleeding continues long after biting ceases.   It is somewhat similar to the actions of a leech in drawing blood.

The immediate diagnosis was that these were sea lice, but the scientific community has quickly discounted that opinion with the revelation that these are sea fleas.   They are common in most Australian waters and the only unusual aspect is that they were present in huge numbers when this unfortunate boy encountered them.

Sea fleas are scavengers which play an important role in cleaning the sea floor.  They prey on the carcass of any dead creature that sinks to the ocean bottom and they are particularly prevalent at night, to avoid fish predators.   They adapt to both cold and warm water temperatures and no reason could be given for the intensity of their numbers on this particular occasion, beyond the possibility that they might have been feeding on some form of dead animal and the boy disturbed them by passing nearby.

No doubt some people will have visions of the South American Piranha fish that goes into a feeding frenzy when it tastes blood in the water.  Vast schools of these fish have been known to reduce an animal as big as a horse to bare bones in a matter of minutes.  Humans have been known to swim safely amongst them - provided they have no cuts or injuries that may leak the slightest trace of blood.  It is possible that the Melbourne boy may have had a small scratch from his football game that instigated this attack.

The curious may investigate sea fleas by immersing a piece of raw steak in the sea.   It will quickly attract some of these little creatures and they will immediately start to devour it.   That is not a reason to cease swimming in the ocean, but it is a good reason to avoid entering the water after dark.   The wise would also not enter the water at any time that they have any sort of injury that is seeping blood.

The " Ethanol " Question.

A few decades ago we were assured that the world was running out of oil.  The anti-car lobby was gleefully predicting the demise of the internal combustion engine because we were depleting the known oil reserves and major new discoveries were rare.  That was the start of petrol prices rising from a few centres a litre to the rate charged today.

In this twenty-first century we find ourselves living in a world that is awash with oil.  This  " black gold " has been discovered in a host of countries and uneconomic quantities dispersed in rock formations are being harvested by what is called a " fracking " process.  In Canada, a vast area of tar sands is yielding oil and OPEC no longer has a hand on the supply spigot and can dictate the price we will pay.  The price of oil has crashed to about fifty dollars a barrel.

During the oil scarcity era and its consequent price increase a new industry offered hope that the car age might survive.  It was found to be possible to replicate oil and refine something similar to petrol from various vegetable crops.  It was called " Ethanol " and a ten percent volume mixed with traditional petrol was quickly on the market. In New South Wales, laws are in place to force Ethanol to gain a six percent market share.  The producers of Ethanol are an important industrial entity in this state.

Unfortunately, it seems motorists are reluctant to use it.  It delivers a slightly lower mileage than traditional petrol and it sells a few centres a litre at a lower price, but its safety in a modern car engine is in doubt in some minds.  Stocking it is no longer an option for resellers.  The law requires the installation of tanks and pumps so all fuel outlets offer Ethanol.

The situation has changed completely.  We have a world over supplied with oil at precisely the time when the internal combustion engine is about to be replaced with electrically driven battery powered cars.  More to the point, the growing world population is facing a coming food shortage and the very crop that could assuage that hunger is being diverted to produce Ethanol.

Todays farmers are increasingly planting crops of corn under contract to Ethanol refiners with the result that the supply of corn is in short supply - and at an ever rising price.  We are seeing famine in countries unable to feed their own population and reliant on importing food with limited financial resources.  To rub salt into the wound, Australia motorists are being forced to buy a product that they would prefer to reject.

There is no easy answer.  Ethanol production is a big industry with a lot of capital invested and it has political clout.  Farmers have financial stability from a firm contractual price for their crop rather than the price vagaries of the open market and most fuel resellers have by now undertaken the expense to abide by the law and offer Ethanol.

Perhaps the only saving grace is that Ethanol is a totally Australian product while local oil extraction is less than our need and we are fast dispensing with refining capacity to turn it into motor fuel.
The problem seems to be to persuade Australian motorists to use it !

Makarrata !

The question - of putting together a question of how our Indigenous people should be treated in the Australian Constitution - is in itself a minefield that can not possibly please everybody.  As a matter of convenience the government of Britain decided to declare the Australian continent an " empty land " when they decided to establish a penal settlement on our shores.  That fallacy persisted when Australia achieved Federation and we presently have a Constitution that ignores those here before white settlement.

Slowly and surely that anomaly is being corrected.  An earlier referendum granted the Indigenous people citizenship and the High Court has bestowed land rights in some circumstances, and a sprinkling of Indigenous people have won seats in parliament, but the vast majority earn less, have a shorter life and poorer health than the average Australian citizen.

From the Indigenous community comes a call for a " Makarrata " Conciliation Commission to thrash out exactly what will be put to the Australian population in the form of a referendum to change the Australian Constitution.   That is fraught with danger.  The greatest calamity would be for a badly worded and poorly thought out question being rejected in a national vote.   That would broaden a gulf between this nations " first people " and the Australia of today that might take centuries to heal.

One of the problems is that hot heads on both sides have unrealistic ideas of what is possible. Suggestions range from the concept of a formal treaty to a block of seats reserved in parliament to give Indigenous people a say in the affairs of the nation.  Some form of lands rights recognition is also high on the agenda and will undoubtedly clash with our rural farming and cattle industry.


One of the dangers is pressure from several quarters to rush this question to finality and have the basis for a referendum ready to go by the end of this year.  That begs the question of finding out exactly what the broad spectrum of Indigenous people want and that is not clear from the angry voices of what has emerged as the " Aboriginal industry " that they speak for the masses.  In many ways the loudest voices seem to be fulfilling political aspirations rather than expressing tribal thinking.

A Makarrata is a workable idea - if it is given the time to percolate across the many layers of the Indigenous community - and here we have great extremes.  A significant proportion is closely integrated with the broad stream city and town Australia and is highly articulate.   Another huge segment lives a semi tribal life on the fringes of society and it will tale skill and perseverance to get their opinion on what is proposed.

The final outcome will be heavy with compromise.  No doubt many will claim it does not go far enough - and others will claim it goes too far, but this will be the compromise we have to live with if we want a united Australia.

It will fail to achieve that end if it becomes a political football between the existing sides of politics.

Fish Farming Enigma.

When the first human beings appeared on this planet they adopted a " hunter gathering " lifestyle.  Food was where they could find it and they often went hungry.  It took centuries before they managed to domesticate some animals and learn to plant seeds to replicate crops. Gradually they learned to farm the land and hence agriculture became the corner stone of life as we knew it.

The other great food source was the sea. Those dwelling near the coastline learned how to catch fish and eventually how to build boats that would take them far from land.  In todays world giant fishing boats from a variety of nations roam the oceans and there is a fear that what they are catching is exceeding sustainability levels. Nations enjoy protected fishing rights in the waters immediately adjacent to their shoreline - but the high seas have no owner.

It was probable inevitable that the farming methods used on land would eventually spread to the sea.  Some clever people discovered how to farm fish by keeping them in giant cages in sheltered offshore waters and this is now a growing industry in most parts of then world.  Here it is particularly prevalent in Tasmania.

Salmon are an ideal fish for this type of farming.  Giant metal cages are established offshore with a double outer perimeter to ward off predators and these are stocked with " fingerlings " which quickly grow in size.  These growing fish are fed a diet which usually consists of offal from slaughterhouses and the waste catch from the regular fishing industry.  There is a high density of fish in these cages and their waste settles on the ocean bottom, requiring the cages to be moved to new locations on a regular cycle.


Unfortunately when animals of any type are massed in close proximity to each other this proximity is an incubator for many types of disease and this is prevented by regularly treating them with an antibiotic.  In fact, agriculture in all its forms absorbs a vastly greater amount of all the antibiotics produced than used in the treatment of humans.

Alarm bells are ringing because this over use of antibiotics is allowing many diseases to gain immunity and we are in danger of having superbugs emerge that will be beyond our ability to control. Diseases that were once fatal but long under control may reappear and a mere scratch that is of little consequence today could become life threatening.  It is imperative that we reduce this mass use of antibiotics in agriculture.

Statistics from the fish farming industry in Tasmania are alarming.   The biggest salmon company quadrupled its use of antibiotics between 2012 and 2015.   It used 301 kilograms in total, which represented 9.8 grams per tonne of fish.   This is in contrast to other fish farms which managed to reduced the amount of antibiotics as a control measure.


The company reports that use fluctuates from year to year, depending on what the fish require to be kept healthy.  Some diseases are seasonal and wax or wane according to weather conditions.  It seems that these intensive farming methods are not sustainable without such measures to keep disease under control.

Ensuring that salmon and many other delicacies are reliably and consistently on sale in the food markets comes at a price.  We can only hope that drug research can fill the gap as the old antibiotic standbys become ineffective for humans.

Money Laundering.

The government thought it had a useful curb on money laundering with its reporting laws.  Anyone trying to deposit money at a bank or settle any other form of financial transaction with cash money that exceeds ten thousand dollars could expect a visit from the authorities demanding to know about the source of that money.   Unless it could be satisfactorily explained, it could be deemed " the proceeds of crime " and seized.  All such seizures were of great interest to both the police and the taxation department - and a thorough investigation of the culprits lifestyle and business followed.

This was aimed primarily at the drug trade.  A successful drug trader can make millions  and this is primarily cash money.  The money flow is needed to pay for the drugs smuggled into the country and to pay those employed in the syndicate who usually flaunt their wealth with flash cars and other luxuries.  This ostentatious display of wealth is often what alerts police to the presence of illegal activity.

This flow of cash money is also involved in the financing of terrorist activity.  Terrorists urge their supporters in Australia to engage in crime and donate money and this breaks Australian law. These reporting laws make it difficult for financial support to reach the terrorists in another country by the usual lawful money transfer systems.

It seems that the criminal element quickly found a way to circumvent these reporting laws - by using the bank ATM system.   One of the benefits of depositing cash money via an ATM is anonymity.  The money - which is slightly less than ten thousand dollars - is to be credited to an account opened in a fictitious name, and later - using a credit card - that money is transferred to an account in another country.

Obviously, a single transaction could slip through the net unnoticed, but systems are in place to ring alarm bells when a pattern emerges and it seems that Australia's biggest bank allowed this to proceed unchallenged. Multi millions passed through the ATM's and eventually out of the country.  Even when it was brought to their notice, they took no action - and now they face the consequences.

The bank is accused of failing to inform regulators about some 53,000 suspicious deposits passing through its network of ATMs.  The bank faces a potential fine of $ 18 million for each contravention under the present legislation.   It could be the biggest impost ever imposed in the history of banking in Australia.

It will certainly cause the government to rethink the benefits of forcing commerce to embrace a wider use of electronic payment methods for purchases by doing away with large denomination banknotes.  Not only would that make paying cash for drugs difficult it would cripple the black economy because all forms of electronic payments leave behind a record.

It also seems certain that when this massive fine kicks in, all aspects of the money handling industry will be complying with the reporting laws astutely.

" Copycat " Crime Surge !

We live in a connected world and any form of innovation usually quickly finds its way to our shores. Crime reports coming out of the city of London detail an alarming increase in street crime where acid or some other corrosive substance is used to overcome resistance from the victim.

It seems that petty criminals are now targeting the personal wealth that abounds on city streets.  High on the list are the upmarket mobile phones in people's hands or the music systems plugged into their ears. They are also quick to spot expensive watches ostentatiously worn in public and often the robber is riding a pushbike, moped or a motorcycle for a quick getaway.

This is a crime that comes without warning.  The victim has acid thrown in their face, blinding them and causing severe pain. Their property is seized and the thief has melted into the traffic in a moment, and often they are left with permanent disfigurement and severe facial scars.

The London police think this is the crime industries response to increased penalties for those caught carrying a knife in public.  Many petty criminals used a knife to frighten victims of street crime and being caught in possession of a knife can now bring a prison sentence.  Carrying acid is not illegal - and it is readily available from most hardware stores at a cheap price.

Unfortunately, the very acid now used in crime has many legitimate uses.   Acid forms a component of car batteries and replacement is readily available at motor parts stores.   A range of acidic products are used in most households to clear blocked drains.   It is not an expensive item, usually retailing at about the $10 mark.

Acid has long been a revenge weapon used in British ethnic crime.  Honour killings and punishment to make women obey the rules of their old countries sometimes included disfigurement with acid for acts of rebellion.  Police investigating such crimes were met with a wall of silence.  For a long time this use of acid was carefully hidden away in the ethnic ghettos that formed when migrants from other countries failed to integrate.  Now it seems to be making its appearance and wreaking havoc on the ordinary citizens of that city.

The British police are urging their parliament to make possession of acid without a valid reason a crime similar to carrying a knife and it seems inevitable that it will not go unnoticed by the Australian criminal fraternity.  We have similar knife laws and we can expect to have acid appear on our streets unless we take similar legislative action.

In this communication age, all ideas spread quickly.  Unfortunately  the " good " and the " bad " do not differentiate !

Civil Disobedience !

The cluster of homeless people who have pitched their tents  in the centre of Sydney is a classical example of civil disobedience which appears to be politically motivated.  The fact that each and every " squatter " in the commercial heart of the city is residing in the same type and configuration of one person tent, scrupulously maintained at a regimented distance from each other looks more like a military encampment than a spontaneous gathering of people down on their luck.

It is also shaping up to become an interesting confrontation between the Lord Mayor and the state premier. The premier is demanding that the council take action to remove what is really an obstacle to the movement of people through public space - and the council is responding that it lacks the law to demand people " move on " - which is the prerogative of the government police force.

The homeless people are playing a canny game.  Their camp is high profile media and it will draw public sympathy.  They claim that there is safety in numbers and statistics prove their case.  There have been events where people sleeping in their cars have been bashed or murdered and even the harassment of those sleeping under bridges and in public places seems to be common.

There is also a regimentation that is very apparent at this tent camp in the city.  The residents seem to rely on buying in food and are very careful to maintain a high degree of order.   No cooking on the footpath.  Everything carefully put away within the actual tent area.  They are careful to make their way to public toilets.  The scene is one of neatness - and it is very tidy.

It is claimed that offers of alternative accommodation to those in this camp have been refused and that tends to illustrate the political motivation underpinning what is really a form of protest.  Not only has the price of homes in Australia moved out of reach of many ordinary people, the rental market is unable to provide shelter for the working poor. It is claimed that the transition to " homeless " can occur with startling rapidity when rental availability falls below the demand level.

It is certainly not a good look to have this transit camp right in the city.  If the police move in and force people out it will create a repugnant spectacle of heartlessness and yet providing an alternative site somewhere out of sight could create a permanent slum that would quickly become an eyesore. That is a solution neither side of politics wants on their conscience.

It seems that the protest movement in Australia has discovered the advantage of moving political issues into the arena of " public theatre ".   Played out before the television cameras issues nag at the public conscience and the unfortunates of this world get their five minutes of fame.

Like the " Yellow Umbrella " protests of Hong Kong, this test of wills will be decided in the public domain.

Invasion of Privacy !

Forty years ago Australia was undergoing a political crisis.  The Senate had voted to deny the government access to the money needed to run the country and the Constitution called for a general election to resolve that matter.   The prime minister of the day refused - and said he intended to ignore the Constitution and order the Treasury to print money in defiance of the parliament.   It was a face off between the man voters had installed in office and the Governor General who represented the Monarchy in our form of government.

The outcome was unprecedented.  The Governor General sacked the Prime Minister and that action has forever been a matter of controversy.  It lays at the root of a movement to abandon the Monarchy in favour of becoming a Republic - and elevating an Australian citizen to be our head of state.  A referendum narrowly rejected that option when the option called for such a position to be decided by parliamentarians.   Directly electing a head of state was not offered at that time.

Now the " Dismissal " crisis is again raising hackles in Australia.  A Governor General acts as the personal representative of the Monarch and as such there is a separation between official correspondence and any personal letters the two may exchange.  Official correspondence forms part of the archives but personal letters are closely guarded and kept under lock and key in Windsor castle.

An application has been made to the Federal court by the son of that dismissed Prime Minister seeking access to the private correspondence.   It is contended that because they refer intimately to a matter of state they are the property of the Australian people, who have a right to know what advice the Queen gave in deciding the action taken.

The National Archives of Australia is refusing to release these letters although they have a release date some years in the future - if the Queen agrees.  According to the intent of the Governor General's estate such matters gain general access in 2027 but various statutes give the Monarch the right to block the release of any " personal " letters.

Obviously, the Queen would have been very interested in a Constitutional crisis in Australia and no doubt the Governor General would have asked for her advice.  The office of Governor General can be construed as subservient to the crown and therefore becomes a " master and servant " relationship.  Advice given by way of personal letters must therefore impinge on the outcome of the matter, and it can be argued have a direct outcome on the final decisions taken.    This tends to dilute their " personal " protection.

The biggest problem is that the present Queen was on the throne when this confrontation occurred and disclosure of her advice to her representative could influence attitudes towards the Monarchy. Hopefully, its progress through the court may suffer interminable delay.  The Queen is in extreme old age and should this matter be settled after her reign ends it will simply join other matters of contention buried in the history books.

Air Safety !

Death in any form is something we wish to avoid, but the idea of dieing in an air accident seems to enthral people in a special horror.  It also seems to fascinate terrorists.  The destruction of a plane and its passengers ensures maximum publicity and these days propaganda is high on most terrorist agendas.

It seems a simple objective.  Hundred of people flashing through the sky at high speed encased in a thin aluminium tube that is vulnerable to mischief.   We have seen an airliner shot out of the sky by a missile fired from a war site in  Ukraine and a number of airliners have been destroyed by bombs smuggled aboard their cargo holds but now the risk has moved to suicide bombers who may sacrifice their own lives to destroy a plane in flight.

The definition of a " bomb " has become more sophisticated.  One such attempt was chemicals saturated in the wearers underpants and others have attempted to mix innocuous carry-ons in flight to create an explosive.  There is a danger that electronic devices may mask such a danger and the list of prohibited items grows steadily.   We are advised to be at the airport two hours prior to a local flight - and three hours if international travel is involved.  The romance of air travel is being eroded.

It seems our security people foiled a terrorist plot to smuggler an explosive device onto a plane at Sydney airport and destroy it in flight.  The arrest pool is widening and an actual bomb had been constructed.  We have yet to learn just how they intended to smuggle it onto a plane but it is clear that followers of Islamic State living in Australia intended to wage war on their fellow citizens.

It seems that our main security thrust is concentrated on both cargo and passengers carried by aircraft. Luggage searches and personal pat downs are the first line of defence at airports and it seems that the spooks are efficiently penetrating terrorist cells to gain early warning. Unfortunately, there is another danger that is impossible to effectively counter.

Aircraft taking off from Sydney mostly head out over Botany Bay but many incoming make a low approach over the inner suburbs.   It is common to see giant airliners with their undercarriage lowered, flaps positioned for low speed gliding a few hundred feet above the roofs of homes before they touch down on the runway at Mascot.

They are vulnerable to a terrorist with something as simple as a rocker propelled grenade launcher, standing on the patio of a unit block or in the backyard of a home and firing at an almost unmissable target. Rocket propelled grenade launchers are commonly used by terrorists in the Middle East and we know that arms smuggling into Australia is rife.

Unfortunately, when someone is prepared to sacrifice their life for a cause a whole lot of new opportunities for success arise.  So far, luck has been in our favour !