Domestic violence is a sad fact of life that happens when many relationships break down. It can range in severity to the exchange of insults to near death bashings, and in some cases the actual ending of another persons life is the final outcome.
Now it has become the subject of a new " Employment Rules " policy being considered by New South Wale's 152 councils, and if accepted, will be applied to their 50,000 employees.
This will be a new " entitlement " that grants up to an additional five days annual leave - when all other leave avenues are exhausted. It will enable the victim to seek medical treatment, seek legal advice and if necessary attend court, and this support will be enhanced by the employers responsibility to screen incoming phone calls and emails, remove the employees details from any council literature and ensure that staff parking is secure or move the employee to another work site.
Most people have sympathy for those exposed to domestic violence, but once an arrangements becomes an " entitlement " it becomes just another drain on the ability of the employer to manage their business - and it's finances.
When universal " sick leave " laws were first envisaged they were hailed as a a " humanitarium measure ", but it didn't take long for a small percentage of the work force to exploit them fully - and meticulously exhaust these " days off " in each calendar year.
As things stand, many employers are generously supportive of staff subjected to domestic violence and bend over backwards to give assistance, but there is a deep gulf between voluntary acts of benevolence - and writing that into the employment code as an " entitlement ".
If this enters the rules and regulations that apply to council employees, it it inevitable that there will be pressure to extend it to state and Federal awards - and the unions will seek it's inclusion in awards pertaining to the private sector.
We need to think long and hard before we enact another example of " entitlement creep " which is adding to the business costs which make this country uncompetitive on world markets.
Monday, 14 October 2013
Sunday, 13 October 2013
Kindergarten " Story " wars !
" Story time " is a delight to most children attending Kindergarten, Play School - or any of the early learning centres. The aged " Once upon a time " fairytales have given way for stories that reflect the age in which we live - and this has some parents calling for content bans.
It seems that the modern crop of child stories has no hesitation in handling family life in homes where there are two Mums - or two Dads. It includes the single parent family, where a divorced person is bringing up a child, and makes no attempt to moralise on the rights or wrongs of relationships.
Some people see this as " propaganda " for getting children to accept the " Gay scene " that is modern society and demand that this type of literature be withdrawn.
It seems a desire to recreate the morality of Victorian England, where even the hint of that forbidden word - " Sex " - would see conversations stop. We are also seeing a " morals revolt " in Valadimir Putin's Russia, where open support for the Gay scene can see a citizen serve a prison term.
The idea of building a moral wall around children is doomed to failure. Children are more perceptive than we imagine, and they quickly accept the variety of lifestyles of those they encounter on a daily basis.
Many decades ago the child of couples who had divorced suffered isolation within the school system. The attitude of parents was to dissuade their child from becoming friendly with a " tainted " peer. Divorce was regarded as a moral sin - and the sin of the parent was visited upon the child.
Unfortunately, we still have people who cling to the standards of a by-gone age - and they usually have strident voices that frighten politicians. What some will claim to be propagana for the gay lobby is really simply illustrating the real world in which we live.
Hermetically shielding our children from the world of reality is a sure way to create future friction and their need to rebel to establish their own identities !
Not every story ends with that fairytale tradition - that they " all lived happily ever after " !
It seems that the modern crop of child stories has no hesitation in handling family life in homes where there are two Mums - or two Dads. It includes the single parent family, where a divorced person is bringing up a child, and makes no attempt to moralise on the rights or wrongs of relationships.
Some people see this as " propaganda " for getting children to accept the " Gay scene " that is modern society and demand that this type of literature be withdrawn.
It seems a desire to recreate the morality of Victorian England, where even the hint of that forbidden word - " Sex " - would see conversations stop. We are also seeing a " morals revolt " in Valadimir Putin's Russia, where open support for the Gay scene can see a citizen serve a prison term.
The idea of building a moral wall around children is doomed to failure. Children are more perceptive than we imagine, and they quickly accept the variety of lifestyles of those they encounter on a daily basis.
Many decades ago the child of couples who had divorced suffered isolation within the school system. The attitude of parents was to dissuade their child from becoming friendly with a " tainted " peer. Divorce was regarded as a moral sin - and the sin of the parent was visited upon the child.
Unfortunately, we still have people who cling to the standards of a by-gone age - and they usually have strident voices that frighten politicians. What some will claim to be propagana for the gay lobby is really simply illustrating the real world in which we live.
Hermetically shielding our children from the world of reality is a sure way to create future friction and their need to rebel to establish their own identities !
Not every story ends with that fairytale tradition - that they " all lived happily ever after " !
Saturday, 12 October 2013
Loan sharks !
Providing loans to desperate people at excessive rates of interest has been with us since the dawn of time. Initially, these people were called " Pawnbrokers " - and they advanced a miniscule amount of the value of the goods pawned on the understanding that the loan be repaid with interest in a nominated amount of time - or the goods were confiscated.
In this twenty-first century the trade took on a respectable veneer and the glitzy store image moved to main street. The money offered was no longer a " loan ", but an offer to buy outright the offered goods - at a mere fraction of their true value. These were then reoffered to the public - at a huge profit to the merchant.
These stores also offered what came to be termed " Until pay-day loans ".
Small amounts of cash money for desperate people trying to bridge the gap until the next welfare payment or paycheck to buy food or obtain desperately needed medicine. The interest charged was astronomical - and the government capped these loans with a maximum interest rate of 48%.
Evidence is now emerging that the loan sharks are getting around this restriction and some loans are attracting interest at a rate of 633%. It is a clever dodge. The borrower is forced to sign various separate agreements that impose penalties for late payments - and sometimes even for early payments - that inflate the real cost of the loan well above the legal limit.
Another clever impost occurs when a borrower falls short on full repayment within the agreed time frame. The lender suggests that this balance be " rolled over " into a new loan - and the victim is now committed to paying interest on that already highly inflated interest - which is far higher than the original amount borrowed. It is a never ending circle, from which there is no escape.
The government has promised to crack down hard on this manipulation of lending laws, but unfortunately the truly desperate have no other avenue to borrow money. Their circumstances make them unattractive to the banks and most have a past credit record that would not stand up to scrutiny.
At least the civil courts may have a chance of imposing redress. A class action has commenced seeking to recover $40 million extorted from 50,000 New South Wales citizens by way of excess interest rates.
If successful, it will send the loan sharks back to the drawing boards !
In this twenty-first century the trade took on a respectable veneer and the glitzy store image moved to main street. The money offered was no longer a " loan ", but an offer to buy outright the offered goods - at a mere fraction of their true value. These were then reoffered to the public - at a huge profit to the merchant.
These stores also offered what came to be termed " Until pay-day loans ".
Small amounts of cash money for desperate people trying to bridge the gap until the next welfare payment or paycheck to buy food or obtain desperately needed medicine. The interest charged was astronomical - and the government capped these loans with a maximum interest rate of 48%.
Evidence is now emerging that the loan sharks are getting around this restriction and some loans are attracting interest at a rate of 633%. It is a clever dodge. The borrower is forced to sign various separate agreements that impose penalties for late payments - and sometimes even for early payments - that inflate the real cost of the loan well above the legal limit.
Another clever impost occurs when a borrower falls short on full repayment within the agreed time frame. The lender suggests that this balance be " rolled over " into a new loan - and the victim is now committed to paying interest on that already highly inflated interest - which is far higher than the original amount borrowed. It is a never ending circle, from which there is no escape.
The government has promised to crack down hard on this manipulation of lending laws, but unfortunately the truly desperate have no other avenue to borrow money. Their circumstances make them unattractive to the banks and most have a past credit record that would not stand up to scrutiny.
At least the civil courts may have a chance of imposing redress. A class action has commenced seeking to recover $40 million extorted from 50,000 New South Wales citizens by way of excess interest rates.
If successful, it will send the loan sharks back to the drawing boards !
Friday, 11 October 2013
Perhaps the only answer !
It is becoming painfully apparent that the power and prestige of the American president is becoming eroded. When Barack Obama publicly threatened a " red line " on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, his authority was diminished when they were used - and he did nothing !
The " Tea Party" wing of the Republican party senses blood in the water and have used their power to virtually shut down the government of the United States and send the public service on furlough. It seems that their resolve may actually carry through to blocking a bill to increase the critical borrowing power of the country - and lead to it defaulting on it's debts.
This is the ultimate tactical use of political power. A vote to end the shutdown and pass that money bill would probably be successful - if the leaders of the Republican party would let it go to the vote. They are using their numbers to block it even reaching that stage while they try and force Obama to capitulate on his health care reform.
It seems farcical that the greatest military and economic power on the planet should be brought to it's knees by a minority of it's people refusing to allow the government - to govern ! Desperate situations require the brave to venture into unknown waters to create a workable solution.
It would be unrealistic to think that the founding fathers would not have provided emergency powers in the constitution to absolve just this sort of situation. Perhaps Barack Obama should take the matter to the highest court in the land - the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Washington, and appeal to the Chief Justice and the eight Associate Justices to use their powers to save the country from anarchy and financial destruction.
It would be reasonable to ask the Supreme court to declare the terms of office of all members of the House of Representatives - and of the Senate - vacant, and order a fresh election.
Similar action has happened in other world countries, and Australians will remember a day in 1975 when supply was blocked and a government defied the constitution and refused to take the matter to the people. The " Reserve Powers " came into play - and the obstacle was removed.
There is every likelihood that Obama would be vindicated. On a previous shutdown, the voters at a subsequent election punished the Republican party for it's tactics and voiced their disapproval. Such a bold step would go a long way to restoring the credibility of the American president.
The world economy is at cross roads. To do nothing seems to ensure economic disaster !
The " Tea Party" wing of the Republican party senses blood in the water and have used their power to virtually shut down the government of the United States and send the public service on furlough. It seems that their resolve may actually carry through to blocking a bill to increase the critical borrowing power of the country - and lead to it defaulting on it's debts.
This is the ultimate tactical use of political power. A vote to end the shutdown and pass that money bill would probably be successful - if the leaders of the Republican party would let it go to the vote. They are using their numbers to block it even reaching that stage while they try and force Obama to capitulate on his health care reform.
It seems farcical that the greatest military and economic power on the planet should be brought to it's knees by a minority of it's people refusing to allow the government - to govern ! Desperate situations require the brave to venture into unknown waters to create a workable solution.
It would be unrealistic to think that the founding fathers would not have provided emergency powers in the constitution to absolve just this sort of situation. Perhaps Barack Obama should take the matter to the highest court in the land - the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Washington, and appeal to the Chief Justice and the eight Associate Justices to use their powers to save the country from anarchy and financial destruction.
It would be reasonable to ask the Supreme court to declare the terms of office of all members of the House of Representatives - and of the Senate - vacant, and order a fresh election.
Similar action has happened in other world countries, and Australians will remember a day in 1975 when supply was blocked and a government defied the constitution and refused to take the matter to the people. The " Reserve Powers " came into play - and the obstacle was removed.
There is every likelihood that Obama would be vindicated. On a previous shutdown, the voters at a subsequent election punished the Republican party for it's tactics and voiced their disapproval. Such a bold step would go a long way to restoring the credibility of the American president.
The world economy is at cross roads. To do nothing seems to ensure economic disaster !
Thursday, 10 October 2013
Oops !
Trying to breath new life into the shattered Australian Labor party now in opposition in New South Wales was going to be a long and difficult job, but a chance remark seems to have put the skids under opposition leader John Robertson.
Robertson let it slip that while he was the Unions NSW boss and a tender was being considered for the sale of union owned waterfront land in Sydney used as a holiday retreat - he was offered a $ 3 million bribe by a notorious standover man to slant the sale in his direction.
Robertson proudly claimed that he rejected the offer - and removed this man from further consideration in the tender process, but also admitted that he did nothing to bring the matter to the attention of the police.
This gaffe has set off a storm of recriminations about what we expect from polticians and it seems that it has set the wheels in motion for Robertson to be replaced as leader. In the eyes of some, failing to report an offered bribe to the police is little different from actually accepting the money !
Of course, there is a subtle difference in the circumstances. At the time this bribe was offered John Robertson was not a politician. He was acting in his capacity as a union leader - and now he is being judged in the capacity of leader of a political party - but the same lack of judgement applies.
It comes at an unfortunate time. This state is still reeling at the disclosure that a minister and politicians and their political allies consorted together to rig the authority vested in government to enrich themselves to the tune of millions of dollars - at the expense of the New South Wales taxpayers.
Robertson chose an unfortunate time to drop his bombshell. Just when that scandal was starting to fade from public attention the issue of bribes has been refocussed in the public mind. - right at the time the Labor party is trying to act nice and select a new national leader.
Albanese and Shorten must be wondering why the Gods of politics are frowning on them !
Robertson let it slip that while he was the Unions NSW boss and a tender was being considered for the sale of union owned waterfront land in Sydney used as a holiday retreat - he was offered a $ 3 million bribe by a notorious standover man to slant the sale in his direction.
Robertson proudly claimed that he rejected the offer - and removed this man from further consideration in the tender process, but also admitted that he did nothing to bring the matter to the attention of the police.
This gaffe has set off a storm of recriminations about what we expect from polticians and it seems that it has set the wheels in motion for Robertson to be replaced as leader. In the eyes of some, failing to report an offered bribe to the police is little different from actually accepting the money !
Of course, there is a subtle difference in the circumstances. At the time this bribe was offered John Robertson was not a politician. He was acting in his capacity as a union leader - and now he is being judged in the capacity of leader of a political party - but the same lack of judgement applies.
It comes at an unfortunate time. This state is still reeling at the disclosure that a minister and politicians and their political allies consorted together to rig the authority vested in government to enrich themselves to the tune of millions of dollars - at the expense of the New South Wales taxpayers.
Robertson chose an unfortunate time to drop his bombshell. Just when that scandal was starting to fade from public attention the issue of bribes has been refocussed in the public mind. - right at the time the Labor party is trying to act nice and select a new national leader.
Albanese and Shorten must be wondering why the Gods of politics are frowning on them !
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
" Consorting " laws !
It sounds as if Queensland Premier Campbell Newman is trying to reinstate the old " Consorting law " as a weapon against the new breed of bikie gangs. His proposal to make it illegal for as little as three people on motorbikes to ride together would probably have to survive a high court challenge.
" Consorting " laws are probably still on the law statutes, but how long since someone was actually charged with consorting ? Known, convicted criminals were once forbidden to associate - even socially - with one another and the police used this law to harass career criminals.
We certainly have a problem with the bikie gangs and their drug involvement but legislating them out of existence seems more a pipe dream than reality. Will it become illegal to ride a lawfully owned and registered motorcycle ? Can an assembly of people who describe themselves as a " Motorcycle club " be legally prohibited from meeting together - and riding in one another's company ?
A prime consideration will be the use of " colours". The fact that members proudly display their badge of membership on their backs both intimidates the police and others - and serves to advertise the numerical strength of that particular club. If they remove their colours - will that become the divide between ordinary citizen and club member ?
We seem to be backing away from the concept that to be termed a criminal a person first had to be convicted of a crime. We have many in our community who sympathise with the aims of al Qaeda terrorists - but they are free to come and go until they actually break a law. They may actually freely voice their support for al Qaeda aims, but the line to be crossed to invoke a law breach is actual criminal activity.
There seems to be a note of desperation in this reach into the law books to create new offences which can only be applied to selected members of the general public. The parliament has the right to enact new laws, but that right is limited by reference to the highest court in the land if the framing and intent of such a law conflicts with the constitution.
We are walking on shaky ground if we dump the checks and balances that apply to personal freedom - and the concept of justice - to counter a rising evil
that seems beyond our present laws to contain.
It would be easy to tame a monster - by creating an even bigger and more terrifying monster. Hopefully - caution will prevail !
" Consorting " laws are probably still on the law statutes, but how long since someone was actually charged with consorting ? Known, convicted criminals were once forbidden to associate - even socially - with one another and the police used this law to harass career criminals.
We certainly have a problem with the bikie gangs and their drug involvement but legislating them out of existence seems more a pipe dream than reality. Will it become illegal to ride a lawfully owned and registered motorcycle ? Can an assembly of people who describe themselves as a " Motorcycle club " be legally prohibited from meeting together - and riding in one another's company ?
A prime consideration will be the use of " colours". The fact that members proudly display their badge of membership on their backs both intimidates the police and others - and serves to advertise the numerical strength of that particular club. If they remove their colours - will that become the divide between ordinary citizen and club member ?
We seem to be backing away from the concept that to be termed a criminal a person first had to be convicted of a crime. We have many in our community who sympathise with the aims of al Qaeda terrorists - but they are free to come and go until they actually break a law. They may actually freely voice their support for al Qaeda aims, but the line to be crossed to invoke a law breach is actual criminal activity.
There seems to be a note of desperation in this reach into the law books to create new offences which can only be applied to selected members of the general public. The parliament has the right to enact new laws, but that right is limited by reference to the highest court in the land if the framing and intent of such a law conflicts with the constitution.
We are walking on shaky ground if we dump the checks and balances that apply to personal freedom - and the concept of justice - to counter a rising evil
that seems beyond our present laws to contain.
It would be easy to tame a monster - by creating an even bigger and more terrifying monster. Hopefully - caution will prevail !
Tuesday, 8 October 2013
The " Diesel " phenomenon !
An ever increasing number of car manufacturers are offering the option of a diesel engine to new car buyers. These engines have come a long way from the days of rattling engine sounds and waiting for glow plugs to light before starting the ignition.
Diesel engine sales have tripled over the past ten years and now represent four percent of new car sales, with popularity in the SUV range extending that percentage to ten percent.
The lure is more kilometres per litre of fuel and longer engine life, but the savings depend heavily on how the car is used. Diesels are at their best when it comes to distance travelled. Their efficiency drops sharply if their use is restricted to " stop and start " city car travel.
One of the advantages of diesel over petrol is the lower emission of Co2 from the tail pipe - but diesel engines need regular periods of distance running to burn away the buildup of debris in the exhaust system, and this can not be achieved in city use.
Traditionally, diesel fuel was priced lower than petrol because it required less refinement but these days the price of both fuels varies widely. World demand is a factor and with diesel it has to compete with the need for heating oil during the northern hemisphere winter. Prices rise when demand reaches a peak.
Making a decision between petrol and diesel is best done after a careful comparison. Petrol engined cars are usually way cheaper than diesel and the latest technology has narrowed the fuel use gap. Unless the lifestyle has changed greatly, the use history of the previous car would be a good guide to such a comparison.
Like all big spending decisions, first doing " homework " to get the facts right is essential. Buying a new car is usually the second most important financial decision in a persons life - and that is not something to be taken on pure impulse !
Diesel engine sales have tripled over the past ten years and now represent four percent of new car sales, with popularity in the SUV range extending that percentage to ten percent.
The lure is more kilometres per litre of fuel and longer engine life, but the savings depend heavily on how the car is used. Diesels are at their best when it comes to distance travelled. Their efficiency drops sharply if their use is restricted to " stop and start " city car travel.
One of the advantages of diesel over petrol is the lower emission of Co2 from the tail pipe - but diesel engines need regular periods of distance running to burn away the buildup of debris in the exhaust system, and this can not be achieved in city use.
Traditionally, diesel fuel was priced lower than petrol because it required less refinement but these days the price of both fuels varies widely. World demand is a factor and with diesel it has to compete with the need for heating oil during the northern hemisphere winter. Prices rise when demand reaches a peak.
Making a decision between petrol and diesel is best done after a careful comparison. Petrol engined cars are usually way cheaper than diesel and the latest technology has narrowed the fuel use gap. Unless the lifestyle has changed greatly, the use history of the previous car would be a good guide to such a comparison.
Like all big spending decisions, first doing " homework " to get the facts right is essential. Buying a new car is usually the second most important financial decision in a persons life - and that is not something to be taken on pure impulse !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)