Secrecy Laws !

In many parts of the world being a journalist is a very dangerous occupation.  Writing a story that criticises the government can land the writer in prison and in some instances a persistent critic may simply " disappear " and be never heard of again.  The number of countries with a free press is ever tightening.

Here in Australia a Senate Committee is enquiring into the future of public interest journalism.  This new national security bill is proposing that a twenty year prison term would be the penalty for communicating or dealing with protected government information.

That has all news organizations worried.  It seems like the thin edge of the wedge.  The wording suggests guilt by simply " dealing with " protected information and that encompasses editors and administrative staff in addition to the actual writer.  Media organizations claim that this could see people prosecuted for simply receiving  classified information or enquiring about it.

At present, journalists are protected by a defence not extended to others as long as their reporting is deemed " fair and accurate " and " in the public interest ".  There is a doubt that this protection will apply to the new secrecy law and consequently it may be used to mask the exposure of graft and corruption that often emerges when a whistleblower talks to a journalist.

Silencing news organizations is a familiar tactic of repressive governments around the world and it is impeding the information flow in Ethiopia, Egypt, Zimbabwe and Turkey.   Our biggest trading partner - China - has a " great firewall " to insulate its citizens from the Internet and any form of criticism can bring an instant reprisal.

One of the problems is the interpretation of " government protected " information.  To most people that encompasses matters of defence and possible trade negotiations, but it can be extended to peripheral matters if whatever government is in office chooses to take that coursed of action.  It is essential that exactly what is covered by this new law is explicitly spelt out with detailed clarity.

Usually, the law system in this country leaves that to the courts.  Our laws rely on court precedence to establish matters of legality and the final arbitrator is the High court of Australia.  Unfortunately, litigants can suffer long bouts of detention and loss while matters make their way through the process of hearings and appeal.

The attorney general claims that this law change is basically " upgrading " existing law which has been in place for many years.  Many experienced journalists claim that it breaks new ground and this specific twenty year penalty takes the incarceration issue out of the hands of the courts.

We gag the news flow at our peril. A free press shines a bright light into many hidden corners, sometimes to the discomfort of those in government.   Without it, we lose a means of  " keeping the bastards  honest " !

Alzheimer's Blood Test !

The news that a consortium of Australian and Japanese scientists have developed a blood test that may warn of the inevitability of Dementia developing thirty years into the future may not be good news for many people.   We welcome early detection of disease when that brings the prospect of a cure, but at this stage Alzheimer's is virtually a death sentence.

Apparently this blood test uses a highly specialised mass spectrometry technique to measure the low concentrations of a peptide in the blood samples and this reliably predicts that the patient will develop a Dementia disease such as Alzheimer's, perhaps thirty years into the future.

This test may be a help to laboratories seeking to develop a cure for Dementia.  At this stage it is blamed on an unusual protein build-up in the brain but as time passes the disease develops from mild forgetfulness to the full ravages of a return to childhood, with incontinence and total memory loss. Sufferers often have no memory of their former life and do not recognise their own spouse or children.

The problem is that once this test is added to the technique available to the medical profession in evaluating their patients it can quickly assume a threat for which it was not intended.   A multinational company reviewing a short list of candidates for CEO appointment might demand they all be subjected to this test as part of that selection process.  They would certainly hesitate to place the wealth of a company and the jobs of thousands of people into the care of a person whose analysis and decision making will have a certain impairment factor because of inevitable Dementia.

Even hiring a young man or woman at the start of their career will involve a long training regimen and expense which an employer would hope may be repaid by retaining their services by progress along the management chain.  Often such a selection involves a medical examination and it would be tempting to include that Dementia test in the specification.

Clarifying one of life's mysteries can even intrude into the process of selecting one's life partner.  We have long entered the realm of the two income family and those intending to have children could insist on this test to ensure that both are capable of sustaining the needs that lay ahead.  The nuclear family involves a high load of debt and the wise would ensure that this is sustainable by both partners continuing in good health.

Selecting a career path starts these days towards the end of the school system and should a student learn that they must eventually suffer Dementia that can drastically alter their attitude to life.  It would certainly diminish enthusiasm to begin the gruelling grind that is a necessity for most professional careers and may end the prospect of that person starting their own business.   Some may argue that if life is going to end in Dementia, riding the surf waves is a more fulfilling career choice.

The problem is that whatever is invented - can not be uninvented.   A reliable Dementia diagnostic tool is fast becoming a reality and once it passes into the blood analysis system it is no longer under the control of the individual patient.

Perhaps there are some areas of the future that are better to be unknown !

A New " Space Race " !

Remember the days of the race to space between the United States and the Soviet Union  ?  We were treated to television views of massive rockets lifting off from the launch pad - and sometimes spectacular explosions when they misfired.

The biggest rocket from that era was Saturn V which put men on the moon and it was capable of lifting a payload of almost 150 tonnes.  Since then the rockets have been getting smaller, and now a new space race has evolved between American billionaires Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

Musk's Space-X has had success in retrieving and reusing his Falcon Heavy rockets and they are now lifting NASA satellites into orbit and supplying the International Space station.  Musk has the ambition of soon taking tourists on space jaunts and establishing a colony on Mars and he is building a rocket nearly as big as Saturn V which retired from service in 1973.

This bigger version of the Falcon Heavy is seventy metres tall and is powered by 28 engines, each capable of delivering 22.8m newtons of thrust.  It will be the equivalent of harnessing eighteen Boeing 747 jet liners in a team to pull a 64 tonne payload into near earth orbit.  This is half what the Saturn V could manage but it is more than double what the present NASA work horse - the Delta IV Heavy - can lift.

This bigger rocket will make a test flight within the next few days and consequently it will carry just a nominal payload.   Elon Musk is also the head of the Tesla electric car company and he intends to use this test launch to enhance the Tesla advertising potential.   The payload that will be carried into orbit will be his personal Tesla cherry red sports car which he hopes will spend eternity circling around the sun.

Musk has set his sights on Mars and already work has started on an even bigger rocket system which is designated " BFR ". Little is known about the specification, beyond the payload which will be designed to lift about 250 tonnes into space, far in excess of both the Chinese Long March 9 and Russian Energiya 5V which are expected to debut in 2028 and lift about 150 tonnes.

Musk has set a launch date of 2022 for the BFR.  Due to his irreverent sense of humour BFR stands for " Big Fucking Rocket " but students writing essays on the space race might be wise to omit this detail from their submissions.

NASA is also back in the big rocket business with its SLS with a 70 tonne payload, but not expected on the launch pad until 2029. This " Space Launch System " will enable NASA to get back to the moon and probably eventually to Mars, but it seems that the space race is now open to a field of contenders.

After the Moon landings the world lost interest but the prospect of a space colony on Mars will certainly rekindle a new enthusiasm.   The prospect of an earth station on another world that we can actually see with a telescope will open new bragging rights for whoever firstly attains this goal.

The Road Safety Enigma !

We just had a horror year for deaths on New South Wales roads and this new year is not starting well.  On the first long weekend holiday, crash deaths doubled from last year when twenty-eight people lost their lives.  The statistics tell a compelling story.

More than fifty percent of fatal crashes in New South Wales occurred on high speed country roads, while high speed fatalities in Sydney, Newcastle and greater Wollongong are unchanged since 2010.  There is a very obvious way of calming speeding on country roads which is already in place and awaiting the go-ahead from the state government.

It is called point-to-point speed camera technology - and it already applies to truck movements on our road system.  Cameras record the number plates of traffic at numerous points on the highway system and the computers compare the time factor for using legal speed to reach the next camera recording.  If the vehicle reaches that point too soo, it is obviously speeding and a ticket is on the way in the mail.

This device to limit speeding is in use for all road traffic in every other state - except New South Wales.   Here, it only applies to truck movements and pressure is building for it to be extended to cover all forms of road movement.   Unfortunately, while it may be effective, it will be wildly unpopular.

The only other option would seem to be a lower legal speed limit on all undivided roads.  At present, multi lane divided roads usually have a speed limit of 110 and lesser roads are limited to 100.   The sheer misery of driving long distances at a speed of 90 or even 80 kph is a misery few could tolerate.

It would seem reasonable to retain that 100 kph limit on country roads and insist drivers obey it by using point to point speed camera technology.  One compelling factor is that the cameras are already in place and no expenditure is required - and it could be up and running from the moment a decision is made.

We would simply have to learn to drive at the speed limit - or be taxed off the road by cumulative penalties.  Demerit points are accumulated with speeding fines.  A few decades ago we drove at 60 kph on city streets and for safety reasons that was reduced to 50.   Now that is even reduced to 40 outside schools during twice daily student movement times.  We ignore those limits at our peril.

There are few drivers who do not exceed the speed limit on what they regard as a " safe "  road they know so well.  If point to point is adopted for all traffic, those camera gantries will be a sure reminder to use speed control - or suffer the consequences.  The vast majority of drivers will - however reluctantly - obey the speed limit as a necessity.

Eventually, self driving cars will eliminate " human error " which is the cause of most road crashes. Our ever increasing population is coupled with the greater number of cars on our roads.  It will be hard for any government not to adopt this traffic calming but unpopular measure.

Where Is The Enemy ?

One of the biggest ticket items of the Australian economy is " defence " and yet just who we are defending against is not perfectly clear.  The world's biggest military powers are the United States, Russia and China.  We are in alliance with one of these and the government does not believe either of the other two are planning an invasion of this country.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has said " there is no country in the region that shows any hostile intent towards Australia, other than North Korea ".   Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop confirmed that view when she told Sky news " we do not see Russia or China as posing a military threat to Australia.

The bogey of " Communism "  seems to have evaporated.  There is no doubt the old Soviet Union intended to force this type of government on the world and did not shrink from doing so with military force, but that regime has faded  into a semi democratic kleptocracy and we have learned to live with a Communist ruled Cuba, Vietnam and Cambodia.

That leaves China as the enigma.  Apart from tidying up their borders in places like Nepal and Tibet the Middle Kingdom seems to have its hands full creating an export economy to keep its huge population from becoming restive.  China's Communist party brooks no form of dissent and Xi Jinping is ever tightening that form of control. The worry is that " Nationalism "  is being enhanced by the central government and should the economy falter that can become a convenient way of placing the blame on a distant enemy.

Perhaps for Australia the risk factor is closer to home.  We have seen the damage that can be done when religions clash.  Much of the fighting in the Middle East is that ongoing shism between Shia and Sunni Islam.  We are seeing genocide is Myanmar when " ethnic cleansing " is forcing a religious minority out of the country.

To our immediate north, Indonesia is the worlds most populous Islamic nation.   It has a secular constitution and until recently religious diversity has been tolerated.  Now a hard line element is introducing religion into politics and that tolerance is vanishing.   There is an evident danger that the next election may see religion play a major part in putting a hard line president in office if the electorate can be manipulated into voting on religious lines.

When Indonesia emerged from Dutch colonial rule its first president  - " Bung " Sukarno - was openly hostile to Australia and claimed that Indonesia would eventually invade and reclaim what he termed its " lost property ".   Indonesia went through a revolution when Sukarno backed a Communist uprising and a firm secular president then held a virtual dictatorship for many years.  It now has an active " Islamic State " element that is proclaiming holy war against western targets. What sort of regime eventually emerges in Indonesia will dictate the relationship we have with that country.

Defence is very reliant on the economic clout of the nation to be defended.  We have a small population by world standards - and therefore a small tax base from which to finance our defence forces.   They are certainly adequate to counter any immediate threat but we would need our alliance with others if a new world war emerged.

Anybody suggesting we should reduce our defence spending to save money is an optimist.   The very fact that we have adequate defences in place is the main reason that we are not facing a threat from our neighbours - and we would be wise to keep it that way !

An Australian Arms Industry ?

The closure of the last car manufacturing plant in Australia dealt a damaging blow to the production industry that supplied a wide variety of parts that applied to automobile manufacturing..  It is now suggested that this expertise be redirected and we should seek a toe hold in the giant arms export industry.

As things stand, our armed forces are a customer of this world industry when it comes to big ticket items.  Our fighter jets are designed and produced in the United States and we recently called tenders for a new fleet of conventional submarines. It is not suggested that we try to compete in this sophisticated field of design and technology advancement which absorbs multi billion research budgets annually.

We do have a nascent arms industry that is a supplier to the Australian defence forces but production runs are meagre and an expansion would deliver badly needed jobs and technical advances.  It is suggested that this expansion be supported with a $3.8 billion injection of taxpayers funds in the way of seed money.

Supporters of this plan point to our success with the Bushmaster armoured patrol vehicle.  This Australian built troop carrier has proven simply better than competing vehicles from other countries and it has found a ready market amongst our allies, including Japan.   We  need to be selective in directing research to where improvements are possible without the enormous cost of bringing new technology to market.

Entry into the world arms bazaar would also need to go hand in hand with an expanded consular engagement with other countries.  At present, the world arms trade is heavily influenced by the United States, Russia, Britain and France. By its very nature, much of the arms trade is influenced by treaties and embargoes imposed by these giants in trade deals.

Just as Australian industry learned to compete successfully with car parts that met the standards, quality and price demanded by the world car manufacturers and gained input into cars made here for export to world markets, there is no reason that these same manufacturers can not turn their skills towards the world arms trade.

What is important is to select production targets that are attainable and not blocked off by technology secrets that will not be available to us. It would be helpful if Australia developed an integrated and specialised sales organization to develop the contacts and skill to present Australian arms products to this world market, reducing the cost to individual manufacturers.

This is a plan that has great potential, but it also has risks.  Once of those risks is the failure to recognise limitations.  If we are careful in selecting avenues of production that are open to us we can readily duplicate things like that Bushmaster success !

Reconciliation !

This Australia day brought contrasting sights in many cities.  Indigenous people in ceremonial dress performed " smoking ceremonies " to bless recognition of the arrival of Europeans here in 1788 and others marched in protest at the same event, which they called " Invasion day ".

There is pressure to abandon January twenty-six because many Indigenous Australians claim they can not celebrate the loss of  the land beneath their feet - which a foreign country annexed without their permission.   This rejection takes many forms.   The moderates demand recognition as the previous owners of Australia and the more extreme want white Australia  returned to from whence they came.

There seems to be universal acclamation that this great land mass was not claimed by a number of European countries and divided into separate colonies with fixed borders and individual languages - as happened in Africa.  A lot of wrongs have been righted and Australia's Indigenous people are now equal citizens in this prosperous country but many still need to adapt to the benefits that this nation has to offer.

We live in a dangerous world.  The creation of " empires " is still valid in some minds and we are small in numbers on the verge of vastly overcrowded Asia.  It seems certain that we face internal change in the years ahead, and discarding the monarchy for a Republican form of government is already under discussion.  When - and if - that happens it will require a new flag to identify us in the world.   That could present an opportunity to formerly recognise our Indigenous brothers and sisters in a meaningful way.   If we simple replaced the Union Jack in the upper right corner of our flag with the Aboriginal flag this combination would recognise those who were here before 1788 and those who came after that date.by the stars of the Southern Cross and the Federation star.

It seems inevitable that in the years ahead there will be a close mingling of Indigenous Australians in all walks of life.  The key will be education standards that enable a choice between a lifestyle that remains close to traditional culture or integration in the commercial world that delivers the style of living most take for granted.  Each generation will have the opportunity to make that choice.

There is a danger that this cultural bridge between Indigenous people who have embraced the opportunities of our commercial culture and achieved a rewarding lifestyle and those still clinging to a traditional life may become impossible to join together.  There is an anger and a rejection that has found a home with many non Indigenous citizens and this was illustrated by the crowds noisily protesting on Australia day.

Reconciliation between these two great groupings will be a slow progress as educated children find their place in society and permeate all professional levels.   What is encouraging is the ready acceptance of  " smoking ceremonies " to add an Indigenous aspect to most civic events.  It seems that the bridging of Indigenous and non-Indigenous is well under way !