A recent phenomenon that has exploded onto the commercial scene is the practice of merchants to impose a " fine " if you are late paying a bill.
It started with the banks. Be just a day late paying the minimum due on Visa or Mastercard and the banks slug you a fat fee.
Overdraw your account by the odd dollar and another fine pops up in the debit column next time you get a statement - and these are serious money fines - ranging from thirty five to fifty dollars in most cases.
Now this disease has spread to other avenues of commerce. If you do not pay the paper bill on time the local newsagent adds a five dollar fine to the next bill.
All sorts of trades have jumped on the bandwagon - the plumber, the electrician and even the people who mow lawns for a living.]
The question is - are these fines legal ?
This seems to be a moot point not yet addressed by the legal profession.
The short answer is that they probably are not. When you deal with a person or company providing services there is usually no agreement on the terms and conditions that apply.
That does not seem to be the case with banks, providers of telephone services and similar organizations who do ask you to agree to the terms under which they will trade with you.
Presumeably, somewhere in the fine print there is a right to apply excess fees in certain circumstances.
The great majority of trade with small business has no such agreement, and most likely deciding to add new terms and conditions would require the consent of both parties.
In such a case, those fines imposed without reference are simply a try on - and they are getting away with it because most people lack an adequate knowledge of the law - and few would go to the cost of challenging the validity in court.
An interesting thought to ponder ! Next time one of these fines appears - ask the merchant concerned what legal basis supports the claim ?
Sunday, 14 October 2007
Saturday, 13 October 2007
The mobile phone battle.
It was first mooted in a comic strip years ago. Dick Tracey had a mobile phone concealed in his shoe. Decades ago this became reality - although the first mobiles were big and clumbsy - had frequent drop outs - and cost an arm and a leg to use.
Today the mobile has evolved into a brilliant piece of technology, small enough to be hidden in the palm of the hand and delivering information, photography and the Internet as well as just phone calls.
It can be found in the pocket or purse of just about the entire population - including children - and it is fast delivering a death blow to the old fixed line home phone.
In this capacity it's range has expanded and " black spots " are becoming fewer. It is rare to drive on any major road and be out of sight of that ubiquitous mobile phone tower.
Until recently we accepted limitations. There were problems using mobile phones within buildings or where deep valleys reduced the signal, but today we demand that our mobiles can serve us anywhere at anytime without limitation !
And that brings us into conflict with a section of the population concerned about the potential dangers of EME and EMR - Electro Magnetic Energy - and Electro Magnetic Radiation.
The problem is that so far science has not proven that EME and EMR pose any danger to the public in the levels involved in mobile phone transponder towers - but equally so - science has not proven them entirely safe.
There is evidence that EMR produced by the proximity to high voltage power cables may have a hand in some forms of disease such as Leukemia, but this is at output levels sky high in comparison to mobile phones.
The quandary is - that to improve mobile coverage and eliminate black spots - it is necessary to increase the number of phone towers and that these will need to be in high density areas of the population. Such transponders will be located near sporting fields, shopping centres and schools - and generally wherever there are large numbers of people needing to use mobile phones.
It seems we have a choice. Either accept that science considers EME and EMR harmless in the levels of mobile phone outlet - or learn to live without this modern means of communication !
It seems that at present we have a bit of each option. When a new tower is proposed we picket and protest - and loudly complain.
And when the protest is dismissed and the tower is put in place - we go back to " business as usual " - and happily continue our love affair with our mobile phones !
Today the mobile has evolved into a brilliant piece of technology, small enough to be hidden in the palm of the hand and delivering information, photography and the Internet as well as just phone calls.
It can be found in the pocket or purse of just about the entire population - including children - and it is fast delivering a death blow to the old fixed line home phone.
In this capacity it's range has expanded and " black spots " are becoming fewer. It is rare to drive on any major road and be out of sight of that ubiquitous mobile phone tower.
Until recently we accepted limitations. There were problems using mobile phones within buildings or where deep valleys reduced the signal, but today we demand that our mobiles can serve us anywhere at anytime without limitation !
And that brings us into conflict with a section of the population concerned about the potential dangers of EME and EMR - Electro Magnetic Energy - and Electro Magnetic Radiation.
The problem is that so far science has not proven that EME and EMR pose any danger to the public in the levels involved in mobile phone transponder towers - but equally so - science has not proven them entirely safe.
There is evidence that EMR produced by the proximity to high voltage power cables may have a hand in some forms of disease such as Leukemia, but this is at output levels sky high in comparison to mobile phones.
The quandary is - that to improve mobile coverage and eliminate black spots - it is necessary to increase the number of phone towers and that these will need to be in high density areas of the population. Such transponders will be located near sporting fields, shopping centres and schools - and generally wherever there are large numbers of people needing to use mobile phones.
It seems we have a choice. Either accept that science considers EME and EMR harmless in the levels of mobile phone outlet - or learn to live without this modern means of communication !
It seems that at present we have a bit of each option. When a new tower is proposed we picket and protest - and loudly complain.
And when the protest is dismissed and the tower is put in place - we go back to " business as usual " - and happily continue our love affair with our mobile phones !
Friday, 12 October 2007
The Aboriginal question !
Prime Minister John Howard has promised that - if he retains office - he will implement a referendum within eighteen months to alter the constitution to recognise that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were " the first Australians ".
The cost will run into millions and it seems an awful lot of money to waste to put into writing something that we have known all of our lives - that the Aboriginal people were here when the first fleet arrived !
Somehow there seems to be a feeling amongst some white people that we should apologise - simply for being here ! There is a tendency to use the social rules of the present and try to demonise the first settlers for adopting the rules of behaviour that existed at that time.
It might be as well to remember that in 1788 slavery was still an accepted institution and that it was not until the 1860's that the Americans fought a bitter civil war to end it in their country. Despite this, our early settlers did not clap Aborigines in chains and put them to work as slaves.
We hear moans of anguish about white/Aboriginal relations in the early days - but not a peep about the harsh laws of jolly old England - that condoned thrashing of prisoners with the " cat of nine tails " and sentenced starving men trying to feed their families by stealing a loaf of bread - to transportation for life !
One thing is certain. Australia would be occupied by a European power because in those days it was accepted that whatever explorer first set foot in a new land, the flag of his country would be planted on the beach - and that country claimed for his king.
That being the case, our Aborigines probably lived better under the English than they may have under some other rulers. It is time to stop looking back into the past and concentrating on the present.
What is needed is less recrimination - and more effort to provide health care and education to our Aboriginal communities to ensure that they merge with mainstream Australia - and take their place as citizens of equal opportunity in this prosperous country !
The cost will run into millions and it seems an awful lot of money to waste to put into writing something that we have known all of our lives - that the Aboriginal people were here when the first fleet arrived !
Somehow there seems to be a feeling amongst some white people that we should apologise - simply for being here ! There is a tendency to use the social rules of the present and try to demonise the first settlers for adopting the rules of behaviour that existed at that time.
It might be as well to remember that in 1788 slavery was still an accepted institution and that it was not until the 1860's that the Americans fought a bitter civil war to end it in their country. Despite this, our early settlers did not clap Aborigines in chains and put them to work as slaves.
We hear moans of anguish about white/Aboriginal relations in the early days - but not a peep about the harsh laws of jolly old England - that condoned thrashing of prisoners with the " cat of nine tails " and sentenced starving men trying to feed their families by stealing a loaf of bread - to transportation for life !
One thing is certain. Australia would be occupied by a European power because in those days it was accepted that whatever explorer first set foot in a new land, the flag of his country would be planted on the beach - and that country claimed for his king.
That being the case, our Aborigines probably lived better under the English than they may have under some other rulers. It is time to stop looking back into the past and concentrating on the present.
What is needed is less recrimination - and more effort to provide health care and education to our Aboriginal communities to ensure that they merge with mainstream Australia - and take their place as citizens of equal opportunity in this prosperous country !
Thursday, 11 October 2007
Retirement options.
Alarm expressed by many at the proposal that the retirement age be lifted from the present sixty-five to sixty-seven.
It sounds draconian, but a little careful thought reveals that there are possible benefits to both the retiree - and the country.
When the present retirement age was set the life expectancy was much lower and many people only lived less than five years on the pension. Today those retiring at sixty-five can expect to still be drawing the pension twenty years later.
Australia is facing a shortage of people to fill jobs. The number of children per family has been steadily dropping and the shortfall is being made up by migration.
With greater life expectancy those approaching sixty-five have a great store of skill and knowledge that can be put to good use. Employers are starting to see the wisdom of hanging on to older workers whose dedication and punctuality is legendary. Many hate the thought of compulsory retirement - and would gladly extend their working life by several years.
The tax office needs to have a long, hard look at what is involved in a longer period of employment. Workers who remain on the job past sixty-five do not draw the pension - and that saves the government money.
At the same time, they remain taxpayers - and that contribution is massive as most are on senior salaries and many are in management positions. It would be fair if these contributions were rewarded.
A scheme is in place where those who do not retire - and do not draw the pension - get a solid cash bonus when they do finally retire. This is not taxable - but it was full of inequities. For instance, if a person died before reaching the nominated new retirement age this bonus was not passed on to the spouse or family - and was simply confiscated by the tax office.
The scheme needs a thorough review to attain the element of fairness - without which it will be rejected by retirees.
Most people would reject a plan to make the pension unattainable until sixty-seven. Many will not have sufficient health to keep working beyond sixty-five but with goodwill on both sides it is possible to craft a scheme that suits those who are happy to continue working, and at the same time save the government a mint of money.
If such a scheme is to work it must be rewarding to both sides. It will fail if from the government view it is all " take ". If a retiree continues to work and save the government pension money - and at the same time remain a taxpayer - there must be a guaranteed reward to make that worthwhile.
Anything less is doomed to failure !
It sounds draconian, but a little careful thought reveals that there are possible benefits to both the retiree - and the country.
When the present retirement age was set the life expectancy was much lower and many people only lived less than five years on the pension. Today those retiring at sixty-five can expect to still be drawing the pension twenty years later.
Australia is facing a shortage of people to fill jobs. The number of children per family has been steadily dropping and the shortfall is being made up by migration.
With greater life expectancy those approaching sixty-five have a great store of skill and knowledge that can be put to good use. Employers are starting to see the wisdom of hanging on to older workers whose dedication and punctuality is legendary. Many hate the thought of compulsory retirement - and would gladly extend their working life by several years.
The tax office needs to have a long, hard look at what is involved in a longer period of employment. Workers who remain on the job past sixty-five do not draw the pension - and that saves the government money.
At the same time, they remain taxpayers - and that contribution is massive as most are on senior salaries and many are in management positions. It would be fair if these contributions were rewarded.
A scheme is in place where those who do not retire - and do not draw the pension - get a solid cash bonus when they do finally retire. This is not taxable - but it was full of inequities. For instance, if a person died before reaching the nominated new retirement age this bonus was not passed on to the spouse or family - and was simply confiscated by the tax office.
The scheme needs a thorough review to attain the element of fairness - without which it will be rejected by retirees.
Most people would reject a plan to make the pension unattainable until sixty-seven. Many will not have sufficient health to keep working beyond sixty-five but with goodwill on both sides it is possible to craft a scheme that suits those who are happy to continue working, and at the same time save the government a mint of money.
If such a scheme is to work it must be rewarding to both sides. It will fail if from the government view it is all " take ". If a retiree continues to work and save the government pension money - and at the same time remain a taxpayer - there must be a guaranteed reward to make that worthwhile.
Anything less is doomed to failure !
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
Our expanded naval forces.
Tenders have been let for two super ships to be built for the Royal Australian navy. HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide will be a new breed, weighing in at 27,000 tonnes and capable of each carrying a thousand fully equipped troops with helicopter support, vehicles, artillery and all the necessary fuel and supplies to support them in the field.
They will also have a floating dock accommodating four watercraft for landing purposes - and each ship will have a fully equipped hospital with two operating theatres. The cost will run to $ 3.1 billion.
Those who oppose any form of military spending will be critical, but we live in a fast changing world and these new additions - due in 2013 - will give added capacity to project power beyond our shores.
It is obvious that the design of the new vessels is aimed at being able to put a military force ashore and maintain them under combat conditions. Critics will argue that we face no discernible military threat - so why the expenditure of such a huge sum ?
There is no imminent threat of invasion on the horizon, but there is every chance that we will be called upon to intervene as our near neighbours degenerate into failing states.
This has already happened in the case of the Solomon Islands and East Timor. Small, island economies which were once colonies of the great powers are finding it hard to create a vibrant economy without industries or raw materials. In most cases they have looked to tourism but this has failed due to lack of funds to develop the necessary infrastructure.
As their economies wind down to subsistence level there is a chance that for sheer survival they may turn to drug cultivation - or fall victim to the enticement of terrorist groups who offer support in exchange for a secure base for their operations.
Australia does not look to become the policeman of the southern Pacific, but we would be wise to have the infrastructure in place to offer help when one of the neighbouring island communities asks for it. In that respect, these two ships are a step in the right direction !
They will also have a floating dock accommodating four watercraft for landing purposes - and each ship will have a fully equipped hospital with two operating theatres. The cost will run to $ 3.1 billion.
Those who oppose any form of military spending will be critical, but we live in a fast changing world and these new additions - due in 2013 - will give added capacity to project power beyond our shores.
It is obvious that the design of the new vessels is aimed at being able to put a military force ashore and maintain them under combat conditions. Critics will argue that we face no discernible military threat - so why the expenditure of such a huge sum ?
There is no imminent threat of invasion on the horizon, but there is every chance that we will be called upon to intervene as our near neighbours degenerate into failing states.
This has already happened in the case of the Solomon Islands and East Timor. Small, island economies which were once colonies of the great powers are finding it hard to create a vibrant economy without industries or raw materials. In most cases they have looked to tourism but this has failed due to lack of funds to develop the necessary infrastructure.
As their economies wind down to subsistence level there is a chance that for sheer survival they may turn to drug cultivation - or fall victim to the enticement of terrorist groups who offer support in exchange for a secure base for their operations.
Australia does not look to become the policeman of the southern Pacific, but we would be wise to have the infrastructure in place to offer help when one of the neighbouring island communities asks for it. In that respect, these two ships are a step in the right direction !
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
Parking meters for Wollongong ?
Wollongong is a city masquerading as a big, comfortable country town. It doesn't have Sydney type traffic jams - the pace of life is less frenetic - and it doesn't have parking meters.
That is about to change ! Councillors claim parking meters will be " revenue neutral ", but in fact they will fractionally reduce the amount of street parking available and drive the majority to shun the CBD in favour of the free parking at regional shopping centres.
If parking meters are installed each space will be calculated to accommodate one of the biggest cars made - the Ford Fairlane or the Holden Caprice. More smaller, compact cars can shuffle into existing kerb space.
We already have controlled parking in this city. Kerbside parking is regulated by time restrictions and an army of rangers issues fines for those who overstay.
The same army of rangers would be needed to monitor parking meters - and write ticket fines for those who offend.
The only difference is that kerbside parking is presently free - and metered slots would reap a bonanza of cash from that same space. So much for the claim that meters would be revenue neutral !
The proposal includes meters for the CBD shopping precinct - and meters at every beach and tourist destination. It seems we are intending to impose the " Sydney disease " on Wollongong - where hopping in the car and taking Mum and the kids to the beach for a swim is fast fading into an impossible dream.
Not only are the meters rapacious in the rate of charge per hour, but there is the misery of trekking back and forth to feed money into the hungry monsters !
Hopefully wise heads will think long and hard before making a final decision.
Wollongong has it all when it comes to life style. If access to the shopping precinct at the CBD is the aim a better result would come from a park and ride scheme to allow cars to stay out of the CBD - and remove any hassle of finding a parking space.
It would also be the cheapest option !
That is about to change ! Councillors claim parking meters will be " revenue neutral ", but in fact they will fractionally reduce the amount of street parking available and drive the majority to shun the CBD in favour of the free parking at regional shopping centres.
If parking meters are installed each space will be calculated to accommodate one of the biggest cars made - the Ford Fairlane or the Holden Caprice. More smaller, compact cars can shuffle into existing kerb space.
We already have controlled parking in this city. Kerbside parking is regulated by time restrictions and an army of rangers issues fines for those who overstay.
The same army of rangers would be needed to monitor parking meters - and write ticket fines for those who offend.
The only difference is that kerbside parking is presently free - and metered slots would reap a bonanza of cash from that same space. So much for the claim that meters would be revenue neutral !
The proposal includes meters for the CBD shopping precinct - and meters at every beach and tourist destination. It seems we are intending to impose the " Sydney disease " on Wollongong - where hopping in the car and taking Mum and the kids to the beach for a swim is fast fading into an impossible dream.
Not only are the meters rapacious in the rate of charge per hour, but there is the misery of trekking back and forth to feed money into the hungry monsters !
Hopefully wise heads will think long and hard before making a final decision.
Wollongong has it all when it comes to life style. If access to the shopping precinct at the CBD is the aim a better result would come from a park and ride scheme to allow cars to stay out of the CBD - and remove any hassle of finding a parking space.
It would also be the cheapest option !
Monday, 8 October 2007
The scales of justice.
A change of court procedure may please many and concern others. It is proposed that judges have the discretion to disallow the cross examination of victims when giving evidence in rape and other sexual assault cases.
The move is aimed at curbing the practice of counsel harassing and humiliating victims by asking for minute detail in open court and constantly interrupting the evidence flow.
Under the new rules victims evidence would be given in " narrative " form without interruption.
The intent is commendable. Children who have suffered sexual assault and women seeking justice in rape cases have in the past been subjected to ordeals in the witness box by barristers who have mastered the art of using innuendo to add " spin " during cross examination.
In most cases it is not a fair contest when a person with no court experience - and under extreme emotional duress - is faced with a professional debater whose job is to convince the jury that the story is untruthful.
Sometimes efforts to offer protection tilt the scales of justice . The accused in any matter before a court is entitled to the notion of " innocent until proved guilty " - and one of the tenets of law is the ability to question the evidence presented to prove that guilt.
It is not unknown for false charges of a malicious nature to be levelled. It will depend on how judges interpret their new powers as to whether this law change is reasonable or not.
There should be no objection to a witness giving evidence in narrative style, uninterrupted - provided that at the conclusion the defence is entitled to confront that evidence and subject it to examination.
Should there be no questions allowed the victim's evidence could form a statement of fact in the minds of jurors - and run the risk of the accused being falsely convicted.
Justice is a two way street. The lawmakers must be diligent in ensuring that the protection of the innocent does not imbalance the rights of the accused.
In this instance, that will depend on how the judiciary use their new powers !
The move is aimed at curbing the practice of counsel harassing and humiliating victims by asking for minute detail in open court and constantly interrupting the evidence flow.
Under the new rules victims evidence would be given in " narrative " form without interruption.
The intent is commendable. Children who have suffered sexual assault and women seeking justice in rape cases have in the past been subjected to ordeals in the witness box by barristers who have mastered the art of using innuendo to add " spin " during cross examination.
In most cases it is not a fair contest when a person with no court experience - and under extreme emotional duress - is faced with a professional debater whose job is to convince the jury that the story is untruthful.
Sometimes efforts to offer protection tilt the scales of justice . The accused in any matter before a court is entitled to the notion of " innocent until proved guilty " - and one of the tenets of law is the ability to question the evidence presented to prove that guilt.
It is not unknown for false charges of a malicious nature to be levelled. It will depend on how judges interpret their new powers as to whether this law change is reasonable or not.
There should be no objection to a witness giving evidence in narrative style, uninterrupted - provided that at the conclusion the defence is entitled to confront that evidence and subject it to examination.
Should there be no questions allowed the victim's evidence could form a statement of fact in the minds of jurors - and run the risk of the accused being falsely convicted.
Justice is a two way street. The lawmakers must be diligent in ensuring that the protection of the innocent does not imbalance the rights of the accused.
In this instance, that will depend on how the judiciary use their new powers !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)