Twenty-six worshippers were gunned down and died when a disgruntled man walked into a Baptist church in a small Texas town and sprayed the congregation with an assault rifle. Twenty other people were wounded and the death toll is expected to rise further. This was not a " lone wolf " terrorist attack in support of Islamic State.
The people who oppose any form of gun control repeatedly claim that the best defence of a bad guy with a gun - is the intervention of a good guy with a gun, and to some extent that was what happened in the little township of Sutherland Springs in Texas. Except that the " good guy " was too late to save all those lives. The " bad guy " escaped in his car and was later found dead. It is unclear if he died from a shot from the man who intervened - or took his own life.
What is inescapable is that all those people died because their killer had the use of a military grade assault rifle capable of delivering automatic fire from a magazine designed for use on a battlefield. Such weapons are openly sold from gun shops in neighbouring towns and cost from under a thousand dollars. It is also inescapable that few restrictions apply that will stop people with a grudge against others from openly buying such weapons.
This killer is described as a white man in his md twenties who once served in the United States air force. He faced a court martial while in military service for an assault on his spouse and their child and served a twelve month prison sentence and was given a dishonourable discharge. It is suspected that members of his former wife's family were members of that slain church congregation.
A decade or so ago the problem in the United States was hand guns. There are actually more hand guns in circulation that people and they featured heavily in homicides and suicides. The American constitution protects the right for citizens to " bear arms " and any form of gun control is anathema to the powerful National Rifle Association. The NRA also opposes purchase waiting periods and restrictions on sales to those with criminal convictions.
This gun issue is also enshrined in politics. The Republican party - presently holding both the presidency and the numbers in both houses of parliament - backs the NRA stance while some form of gun control is favoured by the Democrats. It is now too late to close the flood gates on the flow of automatic weapons. The numbers in private hands has been building steadily in recent years and legislators fear that any control measure would be ignored widely. This delivers the assurance that massacres like that killing in Sutherland Springs and on a theatre audience in Los Vegas will continue on a regular basis.
That is something the rest of the world fails to understand. It may be that the settling on the American interior was achieved with open warfare against its previous Indian tribes and settlers learned to live with a gun on their hip. It may be that this gun culture has been exploited by Hollywood movies to the extent that our entertainment features gun use as " normal " and this is now firmly embedded in the American psyche.
The one thing that is certain is that America is unlikely to place meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in the near future. It seems now that with a population of three hundred million the sacrifice of a few dozen in gun massacres from time to time is accepted as the price they pay for that cherished freedom to own a gun !
Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Tuesday, 7 November 2017
Flashpoint !
Our entire refugee problem is now concentrated on the fate of six hundred men who are staging a mutiny on Manus Island. The Australian built refugee centre has now been closed for six days and these men are refusing to move to a new facility under construction in a suburb with surrounding Papua New Guinea housing. The refugees claim to be fearful for their own safety because of a poor relationship with the native population.
What is totally unacceptable is the standard of living that now exists. Both the power and water have been cut off and the refugees are living on whatever rainwater they manage to catch and store in wheelie bins. They are being refused food supplies to starve them into accepting the move and charitable organizations trying to reach them are being turned back by police. The medical facility has been withdrawn and as a result those on medication are now not only cut off from supply, but isolated from medical help if their condition deteriorates to an actual emergency - and all this is being covered by the world media.
There seems to be a very reasonable doubt that the new detention centre under construction is ready for occupation. It seems to consist of a number of transportable buildings simply dumped in a large mud hole and the site of the old centre has reverted to use by the Papua New Guinea military. The military have promised that the detainees will not be moved by force.
This situation is rapidly reaching crisis point. We have an agreement with America to repatriate 1250 of our refugees in exchange for a number of theirs but this is progressing at glacial speed. The plan is not popular with the US President and the vetting process has so far resulted in just 54 people being resettled. Now New Zealand has offered to take one hundred and fifty refugees, but that offer has been rejected.
The problem is that there are vast hordes of stateless refugees in transit camps in Indonesia and Malaysia who hope to settle in Australia and the only thing stopping the people smugglers from enticing them onto boats and making the journey to either Christmas island or the Australian coastline is the certainty that they would end up endlessly confined in a remote camp somewhere other than Australia.
The Australian government fears that even settling 150 in New Zealand would send the message that forced arrivals in Australia are likely to eventually be settled somewhere and enable the people smugglers to fill their boats with desperate people prepared to take a risk on the high seas. We could face an unsustainable flood of immigrants trying to force their way into this country.
The immediate danger is what happens to those six hundred men existing in a closed camp that is not providing food or medical facilities. There is both risk of physical confrontation with the NG police or military or even the possibility of a mass suicide attempt to try and resolve the situation. They are people rejected by Australia and eventually their fate rests in our hands.
There is a degree of support within Australia for a policy change to bring those six hundred here and get them settled, but a resumption of boat people landing on our shores would be politically rejected. Such a move would be political suicide and is unlikely to happen.
Perhaps some hard line thinkers hope that confrontation may lead to a massacre that removes this problem. That might well have been the solution a century or so ago, but we live in a media world and we cherish our reputation as a civilized country.
The problem of those unfortunate people who just happened to arrive on our shores at " the wrong moment " when a solution was put in place - seem destined to live in a time warp !
What is totally unacceptable is the standard of living that now exists. Both the power and water have been cut off and the refugees are living on whatever rainwater they manage to catch and store in wheelie bins. They are being refused food supplies to starve them into accepting the move and charitable organizations trying to reach them are being turned back by police. The medical facility has been withdrawn and as a result those on medication are now not only cut off from supply, but isolated from medical help if their condition deteriorates to an actual emergency - and all this is being covered by the world media.
There seems to be a very reasonable doubt that the new detention centre under construction is ready for occupation. It seems to consist of a number of transportable buildings simply dumped in a large mud hole and the site of the old centre has reverted to use by the Papua New Guinea military. The military have promised that the detainees will not be moved by force.
This situation is rapidly reaching crisis point. We have an agreement with America to repatriate 1250 of our refugees in exchange for a number of theirs but this is progressing at glacial speed. The plan is not popular with the US President and the vetting process has so far resulted in just 54 people being resettled. Now New Zealand has offered to take one hundred and fifty refugees, but that offer has been rejected.
The problem is that there are vast hordes of stateless refugees in transit camps in Indonesia and Malaysia who hope to settle in Australia and the only thing stopping the people smugglers from enticing them onto boats and making the journey to either Christmas island or the Australian coastline is the certainty that they would end up endlessly confined in a remote camp somewhere other than Australia.
The Australian government fears that even settling 150 in New Zealand would send the message that forced arrivals in Australia are likely to eventually be settled somewhere and enable the people smugglers to fill their boats with desperate people prepared to take a risk on the high seas. We could face an unsustainable flood of immigrants trying to force their way into this country.
The immediate danger is what happens to those six hundred men existing in a closed camp that is not providing food or medical facilities. There is both risk of physical confrontation with the NG police or military or even the possibility of a mass suicide attempt to try and resolve the situation. They are people rejected by Australia and eventually their fate rests in our hands.
There is a degree of support within Australia for a policy change to bring those six hundred here and get them settled, but a resumption of boat people landing on our shores would be politically rejected. Such a move would be political suicide and is unlikely to happen.
Perhaps some hard line thinkers hope that confrontation may lead to a massacre that removes this problem. That might well have been the solution a century or so ago, but we live in a media world and we cherish our reputation as a civilized country.
The problem of those unfortunate people who just happened to arrive on our shores at " the wrong moment " when a solution was put in place - seem destined to live in a time warp !
Monday, 6 November 2017
The " Citizenship " Issue !
Section forty-four of the Australian Constitution is quite clear. To be legally eligible to stand and win a seat in the Federal parliament an Australian must not hold citizenship of any other country. That does not mean that they must never have had such citizenship. It does mean that when nominations are called for an election, those intending to stand must have taken legal steps to revoke and cancel such citizenship to meet that obligation.
The scramble for political advantage has all the political parties trying to determine if any of their members are in breach of this requirement while at the same time taking different stances on a proposal for an external probe to become mandatory. There is a fear that we may have more undiscovered illegals sitting in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and if they are discovered and forced to stand down that could totally shift the power balance.
The one thing that is common in those breaching this section of the Constitution is their belief that they were not held to be citizens of another country, and in many cases they were born here in Australia and that citizenship was automatically bestowed on them by the rule of another country as it is applied to the ancestry of their parents or even grandparents. The rules of how this applies differs from country to country and can change as the governments of each of those countries change their outlook. We probably have a bigger problem than we at first imagined.
We are a multicultural country which has accepted settlers from just about every country in the know world. Many came here from the chaos of Europe after the second world war ended and many more have arrived from the civil wars that have wracked many regimes in Asia and Africa. It was common for new arrivals to be " stateless " and now their children are adults they maybe totally unaware of what citizenship claims that automatically apply to their forbears backgrounds.
There are some regimes that totally refuse to relinquish any claim to new citizenship when even a tenuous and remote link remains with that original country. We are already seeing many instances where the birth - or even just the residence - of a family member is sufficient for citizenship to become a right to the sons and daughters of that person wherever they live. Sometimes, that right to claim citizenship even extends to grandchildren, and sometimes the right is even conferred on soldiers of another nation who may have served a long term garrison duty in a foreign land.
There may be many people with a legitimate claim to Australian citizenship who have every right to stand and win a seat in the Australian parliament who may later find that the laws of another country confer an obligation that extinguishes that right. We can only revoke the citizenship of another country- if we are aware that such an obligation actually exists,
Perhaps the answer is to empower such a citizenship cancellation to be enshrined in Australian law by the gazetting of a public notice in the form of a statutory declaration by any member nominating to contest an Australian election that they reject and cancel any citizenship rights that may apply to them anywhere in the world. All who intend to contest such elections would be wise to take that action as a matter of course.
Otherwise, this matter of citizenship remains a whim of whatever other country and whatever citizenship laws they happen to put in place. Such a statutory cancellation should then put that Section forty-four obligation to rest !
The scramble for political advantage has all the political parties trying to determine if any of their members are in breach of this requirement while at the same time taking different stances on a proposal for an external probe to become mandatory. There is a fear that we may have more undiscovered illegals sitting in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and if they are discovered and forced to stand down that could totally shift the power balance.
The one thing that is common in those breaching this section of the Constitution is their belief that they were not held to be citizens of another country, and in many cases they were born here in Australia and that citizenship was automatically bestowed on them by the rule of another country as it is applied to the ancestry of their parents or even grandparents. The rules of how this applies differs from country to country and can change as the governments of each of those countries change their outlook. We probably have a bigger problem than we at first imagined.
We are a multicultural country which has accepted settlers from just about every country in the know world. Many came here from the chaos of Europe after the second world war ended and many more have arrived from the civil wars that have wracked many regimes in Asia and Africa. It was common for new arrivals to be " stateless " and now their children are adults they maybe totally unaware of what citizenship claims that automatically apply to their forbears backgrounds.
There are some regimes that totally refuse to relinquish any claim to new citizenship when even a tenuous and remote link remains with that original country. We are already seeing many instances where the birth - or even just the residence - of a family member is sufficient for citizenship to become a right to the sons and daughters of that person wherever they live. Sometimes, that right to claim citizenship even extends to grandchildren, and sometimes the right is even conferred on soldiers of another nation who may have served a long term garrison duty in a foreign land.
There may be many people with a legitimate claim to Australian citizenship who have every right to stand and win a seat in the Australian parliament who may later find that the laws of another country confer an obligation that extinguishes that right. We can only revoke the citizenship of another country- if we are aware that such an obligation actually exists,
Perhaps the answer is to empower such a citizenship cancellation to be enshrined in Australian law by the gazetting of a public notice in the form of a statutory declaration by any member nominating to contest an Australian election that they reject and cancel any citizenship rights that may apply to them anywhere in the world. All who intend to contest such elections would be wise to take that action as a matter of course.
Otherwise, this matter of citizenship remains a whim of whatever other country and whatever citizenship laws they happen to put in place. Such a statutory cancellation should then put that Section forty-four obligation to rest !
Sunday, 5 November 2017
" Cosmetic Surgery " Crackdown !
It took an unnecessary death to get the politicians moving, but the recent COAG meeting of state premiers has tightened the rules on who may make claims to be " Cosmetic Surgeons ". Medical specialities are controlled by the Royal Australian College of Surgeons and this is the only body to train surgeons in Australia - and accreditation is only granted after eight to twelve years of specialised training.
In September a patient was rushed to hospital and subsequently dies when a botched procedure to deliver breast enhancement went wrong. It is alleged that the proprietor of a beauty clinic was undergoing this procedure in the hands of an overseas nurse here on a holiday visa and that there was a problem with the anaesthetic used. All this will be sorted out in a court action, but it has shone the spotlight on the need for qualifications to apply to many procedures which are opaquely described as " cosmetic " when the true description should be " medical ".
The title " cosmetic surgeon " is not recognised as an accredited speciality by the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority or the Australian Medical Council. As things stand, in theory a GP could present as a " cosmetic surgeon " and not have that claim challenged because the term has no Australian recognition as a medical speciality. As a consequence, anyone with any sort of medical qualification using the term is simply licensing themselves as a " specialist " !
In all states the regulations pertaining to medical titles will be strengthened. AHPRA's guidelines for medical advertising already stipulate that practitioners must be accredited and " approved for the purpose of the registration . It is essentially a breach of this code to use the term " Cosmetic Surgeon ".
No doubt this will curtail blatant advertising of cosmetic procedures in this country but it will do nothing to curb the industry enticing Australians to go overseas for cut price procedures which are often advertised as part of a holiday experience. The qualification of the surgeons who perform these procedures is totally unknown and patients have little recourse to legal action in the host country if things go wrong. Usually the only outcome is to return to Australia and seek remedial surgery in the Australian health system.
Usually, there is a very big discrepancy between the price asked at these overseas clinics and the quotes obtained here for comparison. There is no doubt that some clinics deliver very high standards, but an Australian visitor booking in from overseas has little chance of evaluating the standards of either the clinic or the surgeons who will deliver the procedure. A lot will depend on the rules in place stipulated by the government of that country - and they may fall far short of the standards applicable here.
Hopefully, these tightened Australian rules will stamp out a growing tendency for local cosmetic providers who match the prices of these overseas clinics by offering similar services in premises that lack the backup facilities of hospitals and which employ surgeons who have not trained in the disciplines claimed.
Standards have been slipping and this action will improve patient safety and lift the expectation of satisfactory outcomes.
In September a patient was rushed to hospital and subsequently dies when a botched procedure to deliver breast enhancement went wrong. It is alleged that the proprietor of a beauty clinic was undergoing this procedure in the hands of an overseas nurse here on a holiday visa and that there was a problem with the anaesthetic used. All this will be sorted out in a court action, but it has shone the spotlight on the need for qualifications to apply to many procedures which are opaquely described as " cosmetic " when the true description should be " medical ".
The title " cosmetic surgeon " is not recognised as an accredited speciality by the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority or the Australian Medical Council. As things stand, in theory a GP could present as a " cosmetic surgeon " and not have that claim challenged because the term has no Australian recognition as a medical speciality. As a consequence, anyone with any sort of medical qualification using the term is simply licensing themselves as a " specialist " !
In all states the regulations pertaining to medical titles will be strengthened. AHPRA's guidelines for medical advertising already stipulate that practitioners must be accredited and " approved for the purpose of the registration . It is essentially a breach of this code to use the term " Cosmetic Surgeon ".
No doubt this will curtail blatant advertising of cosmetic procedures in this country but it will do nothing to curb the industry enticing Australians to go overseas for cut price procedures which are often advertised as part of a holiday experience. The qualification of the surgeons who perform these procedures is totally unknown and patients have little recourse to legal action in the host country if things go wrong. Usually the only outcome is to return to Australia and seek remedial surgery in the Australian health system.
Usually, there is a very big discrepancy between the price asked at these overseas clinics and the quotes obtained here for comparison. There is no doubt that some clinics deliver very high standards, but an Australian visitor booking in from overseas has little chance of evaluating the standards of either the clinic or the surgeons who will deliver the procedure. A lot will depend on the rules in place stipulated by the government of that country - and they may fall far short of the standards applicable here.
Hopefully, these tightened Australian rules will stamp out a growing tendency for local cosmetic providers who match the prices of these overseas clinics by offering similar services in premises that lack the backup facilities of hospitals and which employ surgeons who have not trained in the disciplines claimed.
Standards have been slipping and this action will improve patient safety and lift the expectation of satisfactory outcomes.
Saturday, 4 November 2017
This " Digital " Age !
Getting a job working in a bank used to be regarded as a " job for life ". It used to be very similar to the civil service in that years served had a lot to do with both promotions and seniority and banks were institutions that never seemed to change. That is certainly not the situation today, and an announcement by one of Australia's four giant banks has set the scene for a massive disruption to work place numbers.
National Australia Bank ( NAB ) has announced that it will shed six thousand jobs which will represent eighteen percent of its present workforce. This is despite it recently announcing that its annual profits edged 2.5 percent higher to reach a staggering $ 6.6 billion. It seems that the role of banks is changing as we enter the " digital " age and the future will see less of things like main street branches and automatic teller machines. In fact the continuation of notes and coins in the marketplace is in doubt.
At the same time NAB is shedding the people who interact with the public, it is busy recruiting an extra two thousand new employees with advanced technology skills. It seems that this requirement level far exceeds the retraining capabilities of the staff it intends to sack and the bank has set aside between $500 million and $ 800 million for what it terms " restructuring costs " - a mix of the cost of shedding staff and providing help to assist them in finding a new job.
Many of our elderly ruefully remember the days when the banks opened on the dot of ten in the morning - and slammed the doors shut at precisely three in the afternoon, Monday to Friday. Those were the days when we often got stuck in a bank queue when local small businesses banked their takings and the teller took ages to count the notes and coins - and it usually took several days before a banked cheque was " cleared " within the system. Even a tax refund cheque had to undergo that process before the funds became available to the account holder.
We have been through the process of seeing bank branches closed and replaced with automatic teller machines and now the need to have ready cash in our wallets or purse is coming to an end. Paying small bills in cash now poses a cost to merchants. The banks are refusing to receive deposits over the counter at branches and require this money to be picked up and transported to a special facility by " money handling companies " - who charge for that service.
More and more small purchases are being paid by tapping a credit card - or even mobile phone - on a charging point to transfer the money from your bank account to that of the merchant. This form of " digital " banking is set to become a required procedure in the near future and the structure of banks is changing to accommodate that change.
Few of the people facing the sack at NAB will be shocked at this announcement. This is an inevitability that has been apparent for some time. Also inevitable is a similar announcement from the other three big Australian banks that a similar procedure is being put in place. A lot of well paid jobs will disappear and banking will become the preserve of those with an appropriate university degree.
An employment avenue is closing off for those who leave school with just the HSC and the expectation of acquiring further qualification within the banking industry !
National Australia Bank ( NAB ) has announced that it will shed six thousand jobs which will represent eighteen percent of its present workforce. This is despite it recently announcing that its annual profits edged 2.5 percent higher to reach a staggering $ 6.6 billion. It seems that the role of banks is changing as we enter the " digital " age and the future will see less of things like main street branches and automatic teller machines. In fact the continuation of notes and coins in the marketplace is in doubt.
At the same time NAB is shedding the people who interact with the public, it is busy recruiting an extra two thousand new employees with advanced technology skills. It seems that this requirement level far exceeds the retraining capabilities of the staff it intends to sack and the bank has set aside between $500 million and $ 800 million for what it terms " restructuring costs " - a mix of the cost of shedding staff and providing help to assist them in finding a new job.
Many of our elderly ruefully remember the days when the banks opened on the dot of ten in the morning - and slammed the doors shut at precisely three in the afternoon, Monday to Friday. Those were the days when we often got stuck in a bank queue when local small businesses banked their takings and the teller took ages to count the notes and coins - and it usually took several days before a banked cheque was " cleared " within the system. Even a tax refund cheque had to undergo that process before the funds became available to the account holder.
We have been through the process of seeing bank branches closed and replaced with automatic teller machines and now the need to have ready cash in our wallets or purse is coming to an end. Paying small bills in cash now poses a cost to merchants. The banks are refusing to receive deposits over the counter at branches and require this money to be picked up and transported to a special facility by " money handling companies " - who charge for that service.
More and more small purchases are being paid by tapping a credit card - or even mobile phone - on a charging point to transfer the money from your bank account to that of the merchant. This form of " digital " banking is set to become a required procedure in the near future and the structure of banks is changing to accommodate that change.
Few of the people facing the sack at NAB will be shocked at this announcement. This is an inevitability that has been apparent for some time. Also inevitable is a similar announcement from the other three big Australian banks that a similar procedure is being put in place. A lot of well paid jobs will disappear and banking will become the preserve of those with an appropriate university degree.
An employment avenue is closing off for those who leave school with just the HSC and the expectation of acquiring further qualification within the banking industry !
Friday, 3 November 2017
Rent Control !
A spate of comments on the problems facing some people who rent the place they live in has dragged the issue of rent control into the political arena. In New South Wales the state opposition has promised to enact legislation to protect renter's rights - if it wins office. This threat has sent the government into speculation mode on changes to the law to deliver a new " renter's rights " regime.
What seems to be at the crux of the problems facing renters is the ability of landlords to issue an eviction order without stating the reason and both the short period of lease terms and the ability for rent increases to be imposed with frequency and without advance warning.
Labor is proposing to extend the default length of leases from six to twelve months and limit rent increases to once a year. It is also musing with a plan to impose five year tenancies in some circumstances, but with " consultation within the industry ".
This sounds suspiciously like " rent control " and we last had that at the start of the second world war. In order to maintain stability for the dependents of troops defending the country their kin were deemed " protected tenants ", immune from eviction and with the rent set by a tribunal. That quickly became too politically sensitive for change, and years after the war ended we still had people exercising their " rights " to live in premises for which they were paying rents that did not even cover the council rates. This situation made those premises impossible to sell, and the unfortunate owners were obliged by law to replace any facilities forming part of those premises that failed. Some owners were deemed " asset rich " but doomed to penury.
The founder and owner of development and rental giant - Meriton - has fired a shot across the bows of this proposal. He is threatening to stop construction of new rental housing and to start selling existing properties if rent legislation makes the rental industry economically uncompetitive. Harry Triguboff's warning can not be ignored. Like all other commercial ventures, providing dwellings for rental is a legitimate business that must make a profit to be viable. If unreasonable legislation voids that profit and owners realise on their asset it will create a huge rental shortage - and drive rental prices soaring.
There certainly is room for improvement in the current rental law. Those " no reason " eviction orders have long passed their useful purpose and should be discontinued. A request for legitimate repairs should not be a reason for a forced eviction and rent increases need to be restricted to a sensible time spacing. People delivering a " good " tenancy deserve protection and the certainty that their lives will not be interrupted.
But - all renters are not good tenants. Some deliver an intolerable noise level that disturbs their neighbours. Some hold wild parties and often have domestic discord. Rubbish left around and the parking of cars often comes into dispute. There is a real need for managing agents to have control and sometimes this can only result in tenant eviction.
The problem with any form of rent control is that the moment it becomes a political issue, unrealistic expectations come to the fore. The side of politics not holding office can promise rewards they may not deliver should they form government and such promises become a pressure point in the public mind when reasonable legislation is being proposed.
The tenancy laws do need modification but that needs to be carefully evaluated to cover the needs of both parties. Should a law change badly alter the balance between the rental public and the owners who provide the dwellings the outcome will benefit nobody. A return to " rent control " could be a disaster !
What seems to be at the crux of the problems facing renters is the ability of landlords to issue an eviction order without stating the reason and both the short period of lease terms and the ability for rent increases to be imposed with frequency and without advance warning.
Labor is proposing to extend the default length of leases from six to twelve months and limit rent increases to once a year. It is also musing with a plan to impose five year tenancies in some circumstances, but with " consultation within the industry ".
This sounds suspiciously like " rent control " and we last had that at the start of the second world war. In order to maintain stability for the dependents of troops defending the country their kin were deemed " protected tenants ", immune from eviction and with the rent set by a tribunal. That quickly became too politically sensitive for change, and years after the war ended we still had people exercising their " rights " to live in premises for which they were paying rents that did not even cover the council rates. This situation made those premises impossible to sell, and the unfortunate owners were obliged by law to replace any facilities forming part of those premises that failed. Some owners were deemed " asset rich " but doomed to penury.
The founder and owner of development and rental giant - Meriton - has fired a shot across the bows of this proposal. He is threatening to stop construction of new rental housing and to start selling existing properties if rent legislation makes the rental industry economically uncompetitive. Harry Triguboff's warning can not be ignored. Like all other commercial ventures, providing dwellings for rental is a legitimate business that must make a profit to be viable. If unreasonable legislation voids that profit and owners realise on their asset it will create a huge rental shortage - and drive rental prices soaring.
There certainly is room for improvement in the current rental law. Those " no reason " eviction orders have long passed their useful purpose and should be discontinued. A request for legitimate repairs should not be a reason for a forced eviction and rent increases need to be restricted to a sensible time spacing. People delivering a " good " tenancy deserve protection and the certainty that their lives will not be interrupted.
But - all renters are not good tenants. Some deliver an intolerable noise level that disturbs their neighbours. Some hold wild parties and often have domestic discord. Rubbish left around and the parking of cars often comes into dispute. There is a real need for managing agents to have control and sometimes this can only result in tenant eviction.
The problem with any form of rent control is that the moment it becomes a political issue, unrealistic expectations come to the fore. The side of politics not holding office can promise rewards they may not deliver should they form government and such promises become a pressure point in the public mind when reasonable legislation is being proposed.
The tenancy laws do need modification but that needs to be carefully evaluated to cover the needs of both parties. Should a law change badly alter the balance between the rental public and the owners who provide the dwellings the outcome will benefit nobody. A return to " rent control " could be a disaster !
Thursday, 2 November 2017
Artificial Intelligence - the Risk Factor !
The news that artificial intelligence has reached the stage of " self learning " is something that should trigger alarm in thinking people. The battle between human minds and AI breached an important barrier in 1997 when IBM's " Deep Blue " super-computer beat this worlds best Chess champion, Garry Kasparov. We have always held Chess as the ultimate battle between human minds.
Now another important barrier has fallen. In Asia a game called " Go " has held a similar position to Chess in Asian minds and been deeply competitive between masters in the culture of China, Korea and Japan. At a competition in Seoul a contest between a computer named " Alpha-Go " beat the foremost world champion 3-0.
What must disturb some people is the way Alpha-Go achieved that superiority. Firstly, the rules of this very complicated game was entered into the computers memory and then it played against humans as it learned the ropes. It quickly began to play games against itself and explored the incredible number of game moves that are possible within the confines of a board with nineteen squares as its perimeter. The computer had crossed the barrier and was now capable of " self learning ".
That is frightening ! We have created a monster that Stephen Hawking, one of our foremost scientists warns may bring about the end of the human race. We have entered the dark world of artificial intelligence where the memory chip is now capable of evolving on its own and is no longer under the control of human minds. In fact, it is already showing its superiority to the human minds that developed the first computers.
The fact that humans tasked computers to play Chess and Go introduces the inevitability that military minds in some countries will use artificial intelligence to try and gain battlefield superiority. The sort of future warfare depicted in science fiction could easily become a reality - and the history books make it very clear that over the years we developed from the stone age various leaders have emerged with ambitions to rule the world. Names that come to mind include Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
The cork is out of the bottle and the " Genie " of artificial intelligence is now a reality. We can be sure that in some countries it is already being tasked with weapons technology and the tactics necessary to win wars. We are already seeing the advance of " fighting machines " controlled from a far distance and capable of delivering destruction of unimaginable capacity. The very concept of war is reaching new heights.
Sadly, the future of humankind is passing from control by mere mortals into the hands of a form of intelligence that we do not even begin to understand. Compassion was a big part of human intelligence and that is fast being converted to the more coldly functional sphere of" logic ". It is quite possible that this " logic " may discard the human race as inferior - and expendable.
Our future is hidden behind a very larger question mark ! In fact, we may be complicit in our own destruction !
Now another important barrier has fallen. In Asia a game called " Go " has held a similar position to Chess in Asian minds and been deeply competitive between masters in the culture of China, Korea and Japan. At a competition in Seoul a contest between a computer named " Alpha-Go " beat the foremost world champion 3-0.
What must disturb some people is the way Alpha-Go achieved that superiority. Firstly, the rules of this very complicated game was entered into the computers memory and then it played against humans as it learned the ropes. It quickly began to play games against itself and explored the incredible number of game moves that are possible within the confines of a board with nineteen squares as its perimeter. The computer had crossed the barrier and was now capable of " self learning ".
That is frightening ! We have created a monster that Stephen Hawking, one of our foremost scientists warns may bring about the end of the human race. We have entered the dark world of artificial intelligence where the memory chip is now capable of evolving on its own and is no longer under the control of human minds. In fact, it is already showing its superiority to the human minds that developed the first computers.
The fact that humans tasked computers to play Chess and Go introduces the inevitability that military minds in some countries will use artificial intelligence to try and gain battlefield superiority. The sort of future warfare depicted in science fiction could easily become a reality - and the history books make it very clear that over the years we developed from the stone age various leaders have emerged with ambitions to rule the world. Names that come to mind include Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
The cork is out of the bottle and the " Genie " of artificial intelligence is now a reality. We can be sure that in some countries it is already being tasked with weapons technology and the tactics necessary to win wars. We are already seeing the advance of " fighting machines " controlled from a far distance and capable of delivering destruction of unimaginable capacity. The very concept of war is reaching new heights.
Sadly, the future of humankind is passing from control by mere mortals into the hands of a form of intelligence that we do not even begin to understand. Compassion was a big part of human intelligence and that is fast being converted to the more coldly functional sphere of" logic ". It is quite possible that this " logic " may discard the human race as inferior - and expendable.
Our future is hidden behind a very larger question mark ! In fact, we may be complicit in our own destruction !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)