Most Australian are perplexed about the litany of cases in America where white cops shoot unarmed blacks and condone the shooting by claiming that they fired in "self defence ". Finally - the ubiquitous camera phone delivered damning evidence that will see a white policeman stand trial for murder. The likely outcomes is that all police will be required to wear body cameras and a visual record will become evidence when they interact with the public.
It was the triviality of the offence that will amaze many people. A fifty year old black motorist was pulled over because he had a defective tail light. He got out of the car and confronted the policeman and there seemed to be a tussle over the cops Taser, which dropped to the ground. The unarmed motorist fled - and with his back turned the officer pulled his gun and fired eight shots into his back, killing him instantly. Before another officer arrived, he picked up the Taser and dropped it beside the body to support his self defence claim.
A witness used the camera in his phone to record this entire incident and made it available to the dead man's relatives - and from there it went viral. The police officer has been fired from the Charleston, North Carolina police force and is in prison awaiting a murder trial, but this incident reinforces a spate of suspicious killings in recent times when each death has involved an unarmed black man and gun fire for no clear reason.
There seems to be a lot wrong with the thinking of police in the United States. The fact that there is a gun culture that makes it likely that any person a cop approaches may be armed is good reason to make them cautious but in most cases they seem to demand that the person lay on the ground and they are quick to apply handcuffs. News footage reinforces this custom and it is also evident that any incident involves an excess of additional police cars and considerable backup for even the most trivial event. It seems that the police involved demand instant obedience. There seems no question of equality in dealings with the law.
That same aggressive attitude seems to be finding it's way into the stance of police here in Australia. Guns are becoming more prevalent in the hands of bikie gangs and the drug industry and the incidence of terrorism has hardened police attitudes to confrontation when dealing with the public. Fortunately, the actual firing of a police pistol involves a thorough investigation of the circumstances, although this was also promised when Tasers were introduced - and has been found wanting. In many cases Tasers are used to avoid the need to physically subdue a prospect and there have been accusations of gross overuse.
This North Carolina incident in the US will probably accelerate the inclusion of a body camera on police uniforms and we would be wise to adopt that custom here. Where it is in use there has been a noticeable decrease in confrontations with the police because evidence will clearly negate false claims - and that is applicable to both sides of the law. Just as formal interviews between suspects and police are taped and recorded, every encounter between the police and the public would be the better for a sound and motion record as evidence.
There seems no doubt that at least a portion of police in the United States are quick to use their guns and could be accused of being "trigger happy ". The Tasers on issue here in Australia are equipped with video cameras, but in many instances there are claims that the video was either "turned off "or "obscured ".
It is essential that when body cameras become standard issue it be ensured that they are never not operating at all times - and in all circumstances. They present the long awaited opportunity to remove the element of doubt whenever there is a disparity between two points of view.
Saturday, 11 April 2015
Friday, 10 April 2015
The Global Tax System !
The Australian Tax office is holding an enquiry to investigate why giant global companies that sell their products in Australia pay mere pennies in tax in comparison to their global earnings - and they have Google, Apple and Microsoft directly in their sights.
Welcome to the mysterious world of the global tax system, and the many revolving doors that are open to interpretation when deciding how the tax pie is shared - and these three companies have a host of similarities that work in their favour.
Firstly, their product is basically intellectual property which in most cases devolves into an actual physical form and is producing in China. It is shipped to Australia from a foreign country and probably invoiced from a totally different country in another part of the world. It is subjected to patent laws and the disclosure requirements of the United States, and it is therefore almost impossible to dissect the cost structure that applies to each and every part of the assembly and sales process.
There is ambiguity in the actual location of the company that owns the product. It's production facilities may be in one country and the bulks of it's research and development in another, but legally it is registered in a third with a low corporate tax rate - such as Singapore or Ireland. That raises the issue of the right of sovereign countries to set the rate at which they collect taxes - and in Australia the corporate rate is set at thirty percent while low cost Singapore levies at just seventeen percent. There is a distinct advantage in paying corporate tax where the level is lower.
Within each company structure there is a wide variance on how costs will be determined and allocated at each stage of the products journey from manufacture to arriving in the hands of the end customer. There have been many accusations that transfer invoicing is used to lower the value of imports and thus lower the tax margin that applies - and at what stage associated costs such as those of research and development are added. This compilation has a direct bearing on the profit margin claimed - and on which corporate tax will apply.
Accounting is dominated by the "big four " firms with global reach and they employ an army of legal and technical people tasked with providing the best advice on how to structure corporations to avoid paying higher taxes. In some instances, this avoids paying the GST by shipping and invoicing from a foreign source to take advantage of the concession that applies to in-line sales.
This enquiry is currently grilling the top executives of the firms involved and they will have the backing of their legal and accounting staff to determine how they answer questions. It is becoming clear that there is a vast difference in the global interpretation that can apply to matters such as transfer invoicing and cost allocations that apply when tax matters are determined, but it is also clear that there is an advantage in locating the head office of a profitable firm in a country with a low tax take.
No doubt the Australian Tax office will, extract some concessions that improve the tax flow but it is also clear that any country with what is considered a high corporate tax rate will be at a distinct disadvantage from regimes that set a low tax take to attract corporate business.
Welcome to the mysterious world of the global tax system, and the many revolving doors that are open to interpretation when deciding how the tax pie is shared - and these three companies have a host of similarities that work in their favour.
Firstly, their product is basically intellectual property which in most cases devolves into an actual physical form and is producing in China. It is shipped to Australia from a foreign country and probably invoiced from a totally different country in another part of the world. It is subjected to patent laws and the disclosure requirements of the United States, and it is therefore almost impossible to dissect the cost structure that applies to each and every part of the assembly and sales process.
There is ambiguity in the actual location of the company that owns the product. It's production facilities may be in one country and the bulks of it's research and development in another, but legally it is registered in a third with a low corporate tax rate - such as Singapore or Ireland. That raises the issue of the right of sovereign countries to set the rate at which they collect taxes - and in Australia the corporate rate is set at thirty percent while low cost Singapore levies at just seventeen percent. There is a distinct advantage in paying corporate tax where the level is lower.
Within each company structure there is a wide variance on how costs will be determined and allocated at each stage of the products journey from manufacture to arriving in the hands of the end customer. There have been many accusations that transfer invoicing is used to lower the value of imports and thus lower the tax margin that applies - and at what stage associated costs such as those of research and development are added. This compilation has a direct bearing on the profit margin claimed - and on which corporate tax will apply.
Accounting is dominated by the "big four " firms with global reach and they employ an army of legal and technical people tasked with providing the best advice on how to structure corporations to avoid paying higher taxes. In some instances, this avoids paying the GST by shipping and invoicing from a foreign source to take advantage of the concession that applies to in-line sales.
This enquiry is currently grilling the top executives of the firms involved and they will have the backing of their legal and accounting staff to determine how they answer questions. It is becoming clear that there is a vast difference in the global interpretation that can apply to matters such as transfer invoicing and cost allocations that apply when tax matters are determined, but it is also clear that there is an advantage in locating the head office of a profitable firm in a country with a low tax take.
No doubt the Australian Tax office will, extract some concessions that improve the tax flow but it is also clear that any country with what is considered a high corporate tax rate will be at a distinct disadvantage from regimes that set a low tax take to attract corporate business.
Thursday, 9 April 2015
No Free Lunch !
The Federal court has handed down a ruling that will strike fear into many Australian households. It has ordered Internet providers taking part in what are called "Peer to Peer file sharing networks " to hand over the names and addresses of their customers who have been illegally downloading Hollywood movies without paying a hiring fee.
The Internet providers have just twenty-eight days to lodge an appeal against this "preliminary disclosure " ruling and the judge has chosen not to impose a ceiling on the amount of money that may be claimed for what the owners will regard as illegal access to their property. If an appeal fails, it opens the door for some 4,500 Australian families to receive what are called "speculative invoices "- a claim for several thousand dollars in damages to avoid being dragged through the courts.
The cost to legally access a film is usually about twenty dollars but a "speculative invoicing "claim could run to as much as seven thousand dollars - and do huge damage to a persons credit history. It could drag on in the courts for ages and cost a fortune in legal representation and many people simply negotiate to settle for a lesser amount. Usually that reduces the claim from thousands to hundreds of dollars, but it is still a blow to family finances.
Such was the challenge that the Internet gave to the entertainment industry. There has been a certain ambiguity about intellectual property rights when music or film is viewed together by friends and this introduced the concept of "peer to peer file sharing networks" . Was this any different from a group of people gathering together to view a film or listen to music - and should each individual have to contribute a payment ? Ignoring this doubt, many went ahead and downloaded for free.
Piracy has long been a curse on film studio profits. Early in the electronic age it began when hidden video cameras were smuggled into movie theatres and the film and soundtrack recorded. This poor quality recording was transferred to DVD's which were sold in flea markets for a few dollars - but enought to make bums on theatre seats dwindle. The product now seen on file sharing networks is high quality and is making serious inroads into movie and music profitability.
It seems that the court action that has resulted in a judgement to force Internet providers to hand over their clientile base information is the first step in a publicity campaign designed to create fear. The mere threat of being dragged into court and possibly ordered to pay thousands of dollars in damages will probably cause the vast majority of people to steer clear of film and music downloading. To be effective, the industry will need to be relentless in pursuing prosecutions and hard hearted in negotiating settlements. A lot of people will be seriously financially damaged - as a result.
Fortunately, the judge who ruled on this case did impose a condition that will prevent "speculative invoicing " letters being issued prior to their format being provided for his scrutiny - and acceptance. There seems the possibility of mercy if limits are imposed, but there is no doubt that this is the first blow in a concerted campaign to restore the right to gain profit from intellectual property - for without that both the film and music industry bases face collapse.
For those who have been enjoying free downloads the day of reckoning has arrived. The chickens are coming home to roost - and the future is uncertain. That just tends to underscore an old witticism that someone tagged to the offers that usually accompany "deals "!
There's no such thing as a free lunch !
The Internet providers have just twenty-eight days to lodge an appeal against this "preliminary disclosure " ruling and the judge has chosen not to impose a ceiling on the amount of money that may be claimed for what the owners will regard as illegal access to their property. If an appeal fails, it opens the door for some 4,500 Australian families to receive what are called "speculative invoices "- a claim for several thousand dollars in damages to avoid being dragged through the courts.
The cost to legally access a film is usually about twenty dollars but a "speculative invoicing "claim could run to as much as seven thousand dollars - and do huge damage to a persons credit history. It could drag on in the courts for ages and cost a fortune in legal representation and many people simply negotiate to settle for a lesser amount. Usually that reduces the claim from thousands to hundreds of dollars, but it is still a blow to family finances.
Such was the challenge that the Internet gave to the entertainment industry. There has been a certain ambiguity about intellectual property rights when music or film is viewed together by friends and this introduced the concept of "peer to peer file sharing networks" . Was this any different from a group of people gathering together to view a film or listen to music - and should each individual have to contribute a payment ? Ignoring this doubt, many went ahead and downloaded for free.
Piracy has long been a curse on film studio profits. Early in the electronic age it began when hidden video cameras were smuggled into movie theatres and the film and soundtrack recorded. This poor quality recording was transferred to DVD's which were sold in flea markets for a few dollars - but enought to make bums on theatre seats dwindle. The product now seen on file sharing networks is high quality and is making serious inroads into movie and music profitability.
It seems that the court action that has resulted in a judgement to force Internet providers to hand over their clientile base information is the first step in a publicity campaign designed to create fear. The mere threat of being dragged into court and possibly ordered to pay thousands of dollars in damages will probably cause the vast majority of people to steer clear of film and music downloading. To be effective, the industry will need to be relentless in pursuing prosecutions and hard hearted in negotiating settlements. A lot of people will be seriously financially damaged - as a result.
Fortunately, the judge who ruled on this case did impose a condition that will prevent "speculative invoicing " letters being issued prior to their format being provided for his scrutiny - and acceptance. There seems the possibility of mercy if limits are imposed, but there is no doubt that this is the first blow in a concerted campaign to restore the right to gain profit from intellectual property - for without that both the film and music industry bases face collapse.
For those who have been enjoying free downloads the day of reckoning has arrived. The chickens are coming home to roost - and the future is uncertain. That just tends to underscore an old witticism that someone tagged to the offers that usually accompany "deals "!
There's no such thing as a free lunch !
Wednesday, 8 April 2015
A Medical " Filter " System !
It is an inescapable fact that our Medicare system is becoming a drain on the economy. The government tried to impose a five dollar co-payment on patients bulk billed by their doctor but that idea crashed and burned when it failed to pass the Senate - and it has been abandoned.
Now it is proposed that the rebate doctors receive from Medicare for their services to patients be frozen at the present level. Inevitably, as staff wages rise and the cost of drugs and services increase the income of doctors will decline and they will have to impose a charge on patients to maintain their income level. It is estimated that by 2018 they will need a co-payment of about $8.40 for each visit.
That idea simply transfers the blame away from the government and places it squarely on the shoulders of the medical profession. Either way, the cost to see a doctor rises and it kills the much vaunted "bulk billed " option that was such a boon to the low wage and under privileged strata of our society.
Any change to medicine comes up against a rock hard and implacable dogma that sees those with the title of "Doctor " resistant to any form of change. The medical profession insists that they - and they alone - must evaluate the patient and authorise even the most minor procedure - and that even transcends into a visit to receive the annual flu shot. Doctors guard their turf jealously.
Perhaps we need to revisit the whole concept of medicine and reevaluate what is in the best interests of both the doctor and the patient. That thought will run headlong into the contention by doctors that any change to the present regimen will involve patient risk - but a reality check discloses that a great many doctor's visits are simply routine and for matters that do not involve a medical examination.
How many times do we visit our doctor to get prescription renewals ? When we have an annual check for skin cancers by a Dermatologist or many other routine specialist visits these all require a "referral " from our General Practitioner. Surely the time has come when patients should first pass through the " filter " of a Paramedic nursing sister authorised to renew prescriptions and handle routines such as referrals - and who would carry out the normal procedures of checking blood pressure and reevaluating medication normal on such GP visits. The annual flu shot would certainly fit into such a routine.
Paramedics are skilled people able to spot symptoms that need attention by the doctor and who would pass the patient for a consultation automatically when specifically requested. If the aim of Medicare cost containment is to be met, we need to filter the patient flow and reduce the doctor's work load to those who need specialised knowledge.
Undoubtedly, such a suggestion will be rejected by the medical profession, but if we blindly stick to dogma and make no change we will see a steady erosion of those who fail to consult a doctor because of the cost and instead rely on advice from their friendly local chemist. There is also the danger that if the Medicare rebate loses value it will see consultation times shaved. Face to face time with a qualified doctor may decline to the point that forensic medicine becomes meaningless.
We could easily see Australian society revert to the pre-Medicare days where desperate people were being sued for unpaid medical bills and many existed with curable medical conditions that went untreated because visiting a doctor was out of the question - on cost grounds. Even in todays more enlightened age, we tend to have doctors grouped in fashionable suburbs while some country towns lack even a single consulting general practitioner.
We need to live within the confines of what is economically possible to spread the Medicare net for the widest coverage. Perhaps neither doctor nor patient welcomes change, but sheer economics is going to force a review - and we need to face reality. The old medical model has passed it's use by date. A clever country will adapt - and universal health care will survive !
Now it is proposed that the rebate doctors receive from Medicare for their services to patients be frozen at the present level. Inevitably, as staff wages rise and the cost of drugs and services increase the income of doctors will decline and they will have to impose a charge on patients to maintain their income level. It is estimated that by 2018 they will need a co-payment of about $8.40 for each visit.
That idea simply transfers the blame away from the government and places it squarely on the shoulders of the medical profession. Either way, the cost to see a doctor rises and it kills the much vaunted "bulk billed " option that was such a boon to the low wage and under privileged strata of our society.
Any change to medicine comes up against a rock hard and implacable dogma that sees those with the title of "Doctor " resistant to any form of change. The medical profession insists that they - and they alone - must evaluate the patient and authorise even the most minor procedure - and that even transcends into a visit to receive the annual flu shot. Doctors guard their turf jealously.
Perhaps we need to revisit the whole concept of medicine and reevaluate what is in the best interests of both the doctor and the patient. That thought will run headlong into the contention by doctors that any change to the present regimen will involve patient risk - but a reality check discloses that a great many doctor's visits are simply routine and for matters that do not involve a medical examination.
How many times do we visit our doctor to get prescription renewals ? When we have an annual check for skin cancers by a Dermatologist or many other routine specialist visits these all require a "referral " from our General Practitioner. Surely the time has come when patients should first pass through the " filter " of a Paramedic nursing sister authorised to renew prescriptions and handle routines such as referrals - and who would carry out the normal procedures of checking blood pressure and reevaluating medication normal on such GP visits. The annual flu shot would certainly fit into such a routine.
Paramedics are skilled people able to spot symptoms that need attention by the doctor and who would pass the patient for a consultation automatically when specifically requested. If the aim of Medicare cost containment is to be met, we need to filter the patient flow and reduce the doctor's work load to those who need specialised knowledge.
Undoubtedly, such a suggestion will be rejected by the medical profession, but if we blindly stick to dogma and make no change we will see a steady erosion of those who fail to consult a doctor because of the cost and instead rely on advice from their friendly local chemist. There is also the danger that if the Medicare rebate loses value it will see consultation times shaved. Face to face time with a qualified doctor may decline to the point that forensic medicine becomes meaningless.
We could easily see Australian society revert to the pre-Medicare days where desperate people were being sued for unpaid medical bills and many existed with curable medical conditions that went untreated because visiting a doctor was out of the question - on cost grounds. Even in todays more enlightened age, we tend to have doctors grouped in fashionable suburbs while some country towns lack even a single consulting general practitioner.
We need to live within the confines of what is economically possible to spread the Medicare net for the widest coverage. Perhaps neither doctor nor patient welcomes change, but sheer economics is going to force a review - and we need to face reality. The old medical model has passed it's use by date. A clever country will adapt - and universal health care will survive !
Tuesday, 7 April 2015
The " Power " of the Internet !
It could be termed one of those "Only in America "stories, but this one reached into the hip pockets of folk all over the world - and certainly some of the money came from Australia.
The American state of Indiana has passed what is called the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act "which allows people to refuse service if a customer offends their religious views. It seems that a US ABC 57 network reporter was in the tiny Indiana town of Walkerton and approached the father and daughter proprietors of a pizza shop - and asked them for their reaction if a gay couple wanted them to cater for their wedding. Both had strong religious views - and the daughter replied that they would decline.
It was a purely hypothetical question. Few weddings are catered for out of a cardboard pizza box and this tiny shop simply eked a living as the local takeaway - but that interview brewed a storm of reaction across the entire United States. The fire and vitriol was enormous and there was talk of burning the shop down. Harassment and spiteful contact forced both father and daughter to close the business and go into hiding. It was a financial disaster - caused by a simple, off-the-cuff remark.
Then a miracle happened. This incident was getting a big mention in the national news and a cable company started an appeal on the Internet. Instantly - a trickle of donations increased in volume and quickly passed the appeal target - and kept growing. As the total mounted, it took on a life of it's own and that father and daughter achieved fame as the reason for sending those donations - and the amount in the kitty quickly passed a million dollars.
What happens next is unclear. That pizza shop may never reopen and perhaps the father and daughter may retire, but the whole thing can be directly attributed to "happenance ". A TV reporter at a loose end and looking for a story in a small town chose to ask a seemingly innocent question of one of the locals - and the reply lit the fuse that drew an action response right across a nation of over three hundred million people - and onward to the wide - wide - world.
That could never have happened before the electronic age. The coming of the Internet has wired the entire world into an instant news cycle and we have all become players in the moral decision making process. What passed unnoticed in a previous age will now have us sitting at our computer keyboard or Smartphone and passing judgement by way of Facebook or Twitter. The means are at our fingertips to contribute a few dollars - or to blast our political representative with our view and demand action. The Internet has delivered enormous power. Whether that is used for good or evil is another question !
This past weekend competing mobs did battle in the streets of major Australian cities on an issue that is fast dividing this country. The police were tasked with keeping the competing sides apart and in essence that was a religious battle. One side of the spectrum is protesting at the rising tide of Islam in Australia and demanding an end to Islamic migration and the cessation of new prayer halls and mosques - and the banning of Halal identification on food products. The other side regards this as a form of racism and demands the closure of immigration detention centres.
If nothing else, that incident in Walkerton, Indiana illustrates the care we need to take when someone pushes a microphone in our face - and asks a question. Depending on our answer, we may face financial oblivion and end up tarred and feathered - and run out of town on a rail - or we could find ourselves a national hero and bestowed with a bounty of a million dollars.
The world wide web has replaced that lady with the sword and the scales whose statue represents justice outside most court houses. It's just that we need to weight our answers and consider all the implications - before we commit to an answer !
The American state of Indiana has passed what is called the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act "which allows people to refuse service if a customer offends their religious views. It seems that a US ABC 57 network reporter was in the tiny Indiana town of Walkerton and approached the father and daughter proprietors of a pizza shop - and asked them for their reaction if a gay couple wanted them to cater for their wedding. Both had strong religious views - and the daughter replied that they would decline.
It was a purely hypothetical question. Few weddings are catered for out of a cardboard pizza box and this tiny shop simply eked a living as the local takeaway - but that interview brewed a storm of reaction across the entire United States. The fire and vitriol was enormous and there was talk of burning the shop down. Harassment and spiteful contact forced both father and daughter to close the business and go into hiding. It was a financial disaster - caused by a simple, off-the-cuff remark.
Then a miracle happened. This incident was getting a big mention in the national news and a cable company started an appeal on the Internet. Instantly - a trickle of donations increased in volume and quickly passed the appeal target - and kept growing. As the total mounted, it took on a life of it's own and that father and daughter achieved fame as the reason for sending those donations - and the amount in the kitty quickly passed a million dollars.
What happens next is unclear. That pizza shop may never reopen and perhaps the father and daughter may retire, but the whole thing can be directly attributed to "happenance ". A TV reporter at a loose end and looking for a story in a small town chose to ask a seemingly innocent question of one of the locals - and the reply lit the fuse that drew an action response right across a nation of over three hundred million people - and onward to the wide - wide - world.
That could never have happened before the electronic age. The coming of the Internet has wired the entire world into an instant news cycle and we have all become players in the moral decision making process. What passed unnoticed in a previous age will now have us sitting at our computer keyboard or Smartphone and passing judgement by way of Facebook or Twitter. The means are at our fingertips to contribute a few dollars - or to blast our political representative with our view and demand action. The Internet has delivered enormous power. Whether that is used for good or evil is another question !
This past weekend competing mobs did battle in the streets of major Australian cities on an issue that is fast dividing this country. The police were tasked with keeping the competing sides apart and in essence that was a religious battle. One side of the spectrum is protesting at the rising tide of Islam in Australia and demanding an end to Islamic migration and the cessation of new prayer halls and mosques - and the banning of Halal identification on food products. The other side regards this as a form of racism and demands the closure of immigration detention centres.
If nothing else, that incident in Walkerton, Indiana illustrates the care we need to take when someone pushes a microphone in our face - and asks a question. Depending on our answer, we may face financial oblivion and end up tarred and feathered - and run out of town on a rail - or we could find ourselves a national hero and bestowed with a bounty of a million dollars.
The world wide web has replaced that lady with the sword and the scales whose statue represents justice outside most court houses. It's just that we need to weight our answers and consider all the implications - before we commit to an answer !
Monday, 6 April 2015
The " Au Pair " Option !
In Britain the upper classes enjoy the services of legendary "Nannies "who teach their children social etiquette and manners. The less affluent countries of Europe provide " au pair " girls who are eager to live in their hosts homes and look after their children in exchange for what amounts to "pocket money ". The attraction is the opportunity to travel about in a different country and learn to speak better English. The gain is mutual benefits for both the host and the au pair
Many will be surprised to learn that about ten thousand au pairs are working in Australia each year and some people are thinking that this should be expanded to provide an answer to the burgeoning crisis overwhelming the child care industry. The main obstacle seems to be a restriction on entry visas that limits the stay to just six months. Advocates suggest that this be extended to at least twelve months - and in exceptional cases - even longer.
This is an unregulated industry, but the general terms are that the au pair boards with the family and receives a stipend of somewhere between $ 200 and $ 250 a week. In exchange, the au pair provides about thirty hours of childcare a week, allowing the recipient to return to the work force or enjoy additional leisure time.
We are surrounded by low wage Asian countries, many of whom provide great numbers of au pairs to Hong Kong and Middle East countries. It is suggested that if the child care rebate was extended to au pair arrangements it would most likely bring relief to what seems an otherwise intractable problem. At present there are too few places available in child care and the cost is beyond the ability to pay for women in low wage jobs.
The au pair option would surely apply most to "middle Australia ". A family considering employing an au pair would need a home capable of providing personal living space and accept a foreign young woman into their living arrangements. Unfortunately, there have been instances overseas where employers have regarded their au pairs as little more than slaves, with appalling living conditions and unpaid allowances. We would not want that to happen in this country.
It is also inevitable that there would be cases of incompatibility. Sometimes children do not warm to a stranger - and sometimes the presence of a stranger creates undesirable emotional attachments that were not intended - with disastrous results. It is essential that if we are to develop an extended au pair regime we need an office of review that is available to both parties to allow adjudication of disputes - and relocation where that is necessary.
There are obvious problems with that six month visa limitation. In particular, where an au pair is caring for a child with difficulties - and autism comes to mind - it takes time to develop a relationship. Whether the child care rebate is extended or not, there certainly is an opportunity to extend au pair use in this country under the conditions that presently apply.
It has worked well in Europe and other parts of the world. There will be the usual problems with those overstaying their visas and not all pairings will be harmonious, but by and large it is a sensible answer to at least provide child care at an affordable price.
Many will be surprised to learn that about ten thousand au pairs are working in Australia each year and some people are thinking that this should be expanded to provide an answer to the burgeoning crisis overwhelming the child care industry. The main obstacle seems to be a restriction on entry visas that limits the stay to just six months. Advocates suggest that this be extended to at least twelve months - and in exceptional cases - even longer.
This is an unregulated industry, but the general terms are that the au pair boards with the family and receives a stipend of somewhere between $ 200 and $ 250 a week. In exchange, the au pair provides about thirty hours of childcare a week, allowing the recipient to return to the work force or enjoy additional leisure time.
We are surrounded by low wage Asian countries, many of whom provide great numbers of au pairs to Hong Kong and Middle East countries. It is suggested that if the child care rebate was extended to au pair arrangements it would most likely bring relief to what seems an otherwise intractable problem. At present there are too few places available in child care and the cost is beyond the ability to pay for women in low wage jobs.
The au pair option would surely apply most to "middle Australia ". A family considering employing an au pair would need a home capable of providing personal living space and accept a foreign young woman into their living arrangements. Unfortunately, there have been instances overseas where employers have regarded their au pairs as little more than slaves, with appalling living conditions and unpaid allowances. We would not want that to happen in this country.
It is also inevitable that there would be cases of incompatibility. Sometimes children do not warm to a stranger - and sometimes the presence of a stranger creates undesirable emotional attachments that were not intended - with disastrous results. It is essential that if we are to develop an extended au pair regime we need an office of review that is available to both parties to allow adjudication of disputes - and relocation where that is necessary.
There are obvious problems with that six month visa limitation. In particular, where an au pair is caring for a child with difficulties - and autism comes to mind - it takes time to develop a relationship. Whether the child care rebate is extended or not, there certainly is an opportunity to extend au pair use in this country under the conditions that presently apply.
It has worked well in Europe and other parts of the world. There will be the usual problems with those overstaying their visas and not all pairings will be harmonious, but by and large it is a sensible answer to at least provide child care at an affordable price.
Sunday, 5 April 2015
Sore Losers !
The NRL has been thrown into panic mode after a disgraceful melee at the end of a hotly contested game between Canterbury Bankstown and South Sydney. The scores were level in the final minutes of this game at ANZ stadium and then the Bunnies were awarded a vital penalty and won 18/17.
The Bulldogs fans erupted in fury. Full bottles of water were thrown from the stands onto the pitch and these missiles hit the referee and other match officials. A touch judge was knocked down and suffered a broken shoulder - and was rushed to hospital. What astonished officials was the sheer volume of that barrage of bottles. They came thick and fast and there was a very real danger of serious injury - or worse - to all those on the playing area.
When the fans finally vacated the stadium there were ugly scenes in the streets. The Bulldog fans were truculent and at one stage a Bunnies fan was "King Hit " without provocation and only the intervention of the police stopped further clashes.
Bulldog fans have long had the reputation for unruly conduct but these incidents were way out of hand. This was not a case of an isolated fan throwing a bottle. Probably a bottle thrown started some sort of crowd hysteria that led to an avalanche of bottle throwing, but the League is determined to nip this in the bud before it becomes a habit at future games. It has the potential to cause fans to stay away in droves - and perhaps cause many to abandon this sport in favour of soccer or Australian Rules.
No doubt club officials will be carefully scrutinising the video coverage of those in the stands to identify the culprits - but the sheer volume involved means that this will require mass punishment. This will certainly break new ground. The usual punishment for bad behaviour is to ban a spectator from a given number of games but it is possible that all Bulldogs fans may have to be mass punished for a period of time to stamp out bottle throwing.
Another option would be to ban all forms of bottled liquid at game venues. Both beer and water would only be available in soft plastic single serve measure, and gate security would need to search bags to prevent anything considered a potential missile being brought into the stadium. That would be a sad turn of events when we consider the long and proud history of Rugby League as once the major sport in this state.
One thing is absolutely certain. Game officials need to come down hard and act swiftly. It seems that we may be on the cusp of what was once known as the "British disease " - when soccer fans in the UK behaved so abominally that they were banned from travelling to much of Europe. In some instances, games were played to empty stadiums - behind locked gates, with consequent financial hardship to game organizers and the clubs.
Australian soccer still has a residual problem with fans who smuggle flares into matches and light these in the stands and throw them onto the pitch. This has become fairly isolated but only because the offenders are dutifully tracked down - and suitably punished. British soccer is now again welcome in Europe and it seems that the "British disease "has been successfully vaccinated.
Perhaps this bottle throwing incident was simply a rush of blood or a typical case of mass crowd hysteria, but the reaction needs to be sufficient to make sure it does not occur again - and does not develop into a typical fracas at the end of closely scored games.
Most Rugby League followers watching the game on television would have been appalled at what may become called "the Australian disease " if it is not promptly curtailed !
The Bulldogs fans erupted in fury. Full bottles of water were thrown from the stands onto the pitch and these missiles hit the referee and other match officials. A touch judge was knocked down and suffered a broken shoulder - and was rushed to hospital. What astonished officials was the sheer volume of that barrage of bottles. They came thick and fast and there was a very real danger of serious injury - or worse - to all those on the playing area.
When the fans finally vacated the stadium there were ugly scenes in the streets. The Bulldog fans were truculent and at one stage a Bunnies fan was "King Hit " without provocation and only the intervention of the police stopped further clashes.
Bulldog fans have long had the reputation for unruly conduct but these incidents were way out of hand. This was not a case of an isolated fan throwing a bottle. Probably a bottle thrown started some sort of crowd hysteria that led to an avalanche of bottle throwing, but the League is determined to nip this in the bud before it becomes a habit at future games. It has the potential to cause fans to stay away in droves - and perhaps cause many to abandon this sport in favour of soccer or Australian Rules.
No doubt club officials will be carefully scrutinising the video coverage of those in the stands to identify the culprits - but the sheer volume involved means that this will require mass punishment. This will certainly break new ground. The usual punishment for bad behaviour is to ban a spectator from a given number of games but it is possible that all Bulldogs fans may have to be mass punished for a period of time to stamp out bottle throwing.
Another option would be to ban all forms of bottled liquid at game venues. Both beer and water would only be available in soft plastic single serve measure, and gate security would need to search bags to prevent anything considered a potential missile being brought into the stadium. That would be a sad turn of events when we consider the long and proud history of Rugby League as once the major sport in this state.
One thing is absolutely certain. Game officials need to come down hard and act swiftly. It seems that we may be on the cusp of what was once known as the "British disease " - when soccer fans in the UK behaved so abominally that they were banned from travelling to much of Europe. In some instances, games were played to empty stadiums - behind locked gates, with consequent financial hardship to game organizers and the clubs.
Australian soccer still has a residual problem with fans who smuggle flares into matches and light these in the stands and throw them onto the pitch. This has become fairly isolated but only because the offenders are dutifully tracked down - and suitably punished. British soccer is now again welcome in Europe and it seems that the "British disease "has been successfully vaccinated.
Perhaps this bottle throwing incident was simply a rush of blood or a typical case of mass crowd hysteria, but the reaction needs to be sufficient to make sure it does not occur again - and does not develop into a typical fracas at the end of closely scored games.
Most Rugby League followers watching the game on television would have been appalled at what may become called "the Australian disease " if it is not promptly curtailed !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)