People who own property within Shellharbour village have every right to be worried. The council is thinking of slapping a Heritage Conservation Zone ruling on their homes. If this goes ahead they will be prevented from making any change to their property without it first getting full approval from the council - and that means everything from applying a coat of paint without the council choosing the colour to renewing fittings such as shade awnings over windows or replacing a letterbox.
The whole point of a Heritage Conservation order is to freeze buildings within a gazetted zone in some sort of time warp - so that those interested in the past can view with nostalgia the way we lived in yesteryear ! It completely ignores the fact that owning homes in that time zone represents the biggest outlay in the owner's life and that we are condemning those owners to maintain the same standard of living as our parents and grand parents. It is almost a form of acquisition - but without compensation.
If this goes ahead, owners wanting to install solar roof panels to generate electricity will be refused council permission - because such items were not part of the visual scene that the Heritage Conservation order is trying to preserve.
Many people think gazetting this order is a case of " too little and too late ". Change had already overtaken the old Shellharbour village and it will be impossible to roll back to a past era and all that will be achieved is to impose a blanket of misery on present owner's lives.
It is certainly an imposition to slap a control order on people who bought their present homes in good faith and have plans to modernise - or in some cases - demolish and use the site for a new dwelling. There has been no attempt to gauge the consent of these owners. A capricious council is seeking to ride roughshod over any objections and bulldoze the order into law.
If this zoning goes ahead it will certainly cause a steep drop in resale values, and that means a loss that few can really afford. Perhaps we need a law change to provide at least a measure of compensation - and that would be something to make council think long and hard before imposing such draconian measures.
Perhaps freedom from paying rates could automatically apply in a Heritage zone - and if homes must be preserved in their original form - then maybe maintaining that image should be at council expense.
It is certainly grossly unfair to simply impose a Heritage order - and leave the owners to pickup the bill !
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Strange logic !
The Fairfax newspaper group has been undergoing some strange management gymnastics in recent times, but an announced policy change seems to be an exercise in wayward thinking. Across the entire business spectrum it has become fashionable to cut costs by moving functions offshore to low cost countries where labour can be hired at a fraction of the Australian domestic rate. Usually, the function involved is either accounting or a call centre - where a big number of people are involved.
Fairfax is dividing the newsrooms of it's regional papers - the Illawarra Mercury and the Newcastle Herald - from it's editorial production functions - and the editorial people will in future be located in New Zealand.
This breaks the nexus between on the spot reporters and their editorial bosses, who decide how to present a story and what significance it will generate in reader's minds. The nuances of local public opinion will be lost when policy decisions are made by people in a distant country, far removed from the scuttlebutt and comment heard in the clubs and pubs that the paper's readers frequent.
There is no doubt that this change will produce friction between the newsrooms and editorial floor. The communications age that brought us Facebook, Twitter, email and cheap phone calls will never replace the thought cohesion that connects when two people meet face to face and sort out a difference of opinion - and smooth out any lingering differences later by sharing an ale at the local watering hole.
What makes a local paper valuable to the people who buy it - is local news. A physical separation between the people who report it and the people who decide the slant with which it will be presented makes all the difference in perception - and that will be lost when this change is implemented.
It sounds like the ravings of some marketing genius who has been brought in to " modernise " and seeks to make change - simply for the sake of having things look " different "..
Making them " work " is an entirely different matter !
Fairfax is dividing the newsrooms of it's regional papers - the Illawarra Mercury and the Newcastle Herald - from it's editorial production functions - and the editorial people will in future be located in New Zealand.
This breaks the nexus between on the spot reporters and their editorial bosses, who decide how to present a story and what significance it will generate in reader's minds. The nuances of local public opinion will be lost when policy decisions are made by people in a distant country, far removed from the scuttlebutt and comment heard in the clubs and pubs that the paper's readers frequent.
There is no doubt that this change will produce friction between the newsrooms and editorial floor. The communications age that brought us Facebook, Twitter, email and cheap phone calls will never replace the thought cohesion that connects when two people meet face to face and sort out a difference of opinion - and smooth out any lingering differences later by sharing an ale at the local watering hole.
What makes a local paper valuable to the people who buy it - is local news. A physical separation between the people who report it and the people who decide the slant with which it will be presented makes all the difference in perception - and that will be lost when this change is implemented.
It sounds like the ravings of some marketing genius who has been brought in to " modernise " and seeks to make change - simply for the sake of having things look " different "..
Making them " work " is an entirely different matter !
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
The " Legally registered " trap !
The discontinuation of car registration stickers on car windscreens from next year will remove a legal trap that has ensnared many people in the past. That registration sticker has been regarded as proof that the vehicle is legally registered and may be driven on this state's roads.
That may have been the case many years ago when all car owners were required to attend a RTA office and pay the registration fee - and have the sticker imprinted with the cash register receipt number. Today, that transaction can be made over the phone or on the Internet using a computer, and as a consequence no such record of payment appears on the sticker.
In many cases payment for registration is made by personal cheque or use of a credit card, and in the event that this method of payment is not honoured, the registering authority simply cancels the transaction by the click of a computer key. As a result, the vehicle appears to be legally registered and no attempt is made to recover that sticker or confiscate the car's number plates.
A second trap in this legal minefield concerns unpaid fines. When the period of grace for paying a driving fine - or a parking fine - expires, recovering the money passes to the state office of debt recovery. The offender receives demands and if these are ignored the usual procedure is to cancel that persons driver's license - and the registration of any motor vehicles in that persons name. Once again, no attempt is made to recover either the registration sticker or number plates attached to that vehicle.
The risk passes to any person who buys a car from a private buyer and assumes that the sticker is a true record that the vehicle is legally registered - and that it shows what length of time remains until re-registration is required. This new owner has a period of grace before transferring ownership is required - and may lose the legal protection of registration in the event of an accident. Such an accident may involve costs that will cripple that person financially for the rest of their life.
The fact that in future there will be no deceptive registration stickers will remove a hazard. Anyone buying a second hand car would be well advised to make their own enquiry to determine it's registered state - before even taking a test drive.
That may have been the case many years ago when all car owners were required to attend a RTA office and pay the registration fee - and have the sticker imprinted with the cash register receipt number. Today, that transaction can be made over the phone or on the Internet using a computer, and as a consequence no such record of payment appears on the sticker.
In many cases payment for registration is made by personal cheque or use of a credit card, and in the event that this method of payment is not honoured, the registering authority simply cancels the transaction by the click of a computer key. As a result, the vehicle appears to be legally registered and no attempt is made to recover that sticker or confiscate the car's number plates.
A second trap in this legal minefield concerns unpaid fines. When the period of grace for paying a driving fine - or a parking fine - expires, recovering the money passes to the state office of debt recovery. The offender receives demands and if these are ignored the usual procedure is to cancel that persons driver's license - and the registration of any motor vehicles in that persons name. Once again, no attempt is made to recover either the registration sticker or number plates attached to that vehicle.
The risk passes to any person who buys a car from a private buyer and assumes that the sticker is a true record that the vehicle is legally registered - and that it shows what length of time remains until re-registration is required. This new owner has a period of grace before transferring ownership is required - and may lose the legal protection of registration in the event of an accident. Such an accident may involve costs that will cripple that person financially for the rest of their life.
The fact that in future there will be no deceptive registration stickers will remove a hazard. Anyone buying a second hand car would be well advised to make their own enquiry to determine it's registered state - before even taking a test drive.
Monday, 28 May 2012
Third World Australia ?
Starving children begging for food are depicted in television advertisements pleading for Australians to make monthly contributions to bring them a better life. Of course, these children are in socalled " Third World " countries - a long way from " First World " Australia !
It comes as something of a shock to realise that right here in first world Wollongong we have children who start the day without even a morsel of breakfast. Children at Albion Park public school are given a healthy breakfast of toast, Vegemite, fruit and Milo to fill empty stomachs and help them concentrate on their lessons - for a nominal payment as low as just twenty cents.
This has been an initiative of the school canteen, and the volunteers who provide this service are finding it harder and harder to raise the money needed to keep it going from their fund raising activities. They have been recently forced to turn to the local McDonalds for help.
This sad story raises two issues. The first is that hard times are hitting home in Australia, brought on by the GFC of 2008, when employment started to sharply contract and as a result, family incomes became tight for many people. It seems that in some homes there was insufficient money to provide breakfast for the kids - and many went to school hungry.
The second point is our education system. We spend a huge amount of money on providing schools and teachers, but hungry kids just don't absorb education like their better fed peers. It is a fact of life that kids who start the day with something in their stomach are more attentive and learn faster.
It is depressing to think how little money is needed to provide a few loafs of bread, some margarine and a tub of Vegemite, and yet in these troubled times that is becoming an uphill task for the people who volunteer to run school canteens.
Surely both the Federal and state governments should look at this sort of breakfast programme as part of the education process. Not all schools need this help, but those that do should not be denied.
Or do we need to advertise on TV for public help to find a few lousy dollars to fund school breakfasts in " Third World Australia " ?
It comes as something of a shock to realise that right here in first world Wollongong we have children who start the day without even a morsel of breakfast. Children at Albion Park public school are given a healthy breakfast of toast, Vegemite, fruit and Milo to fill empty stomachs and help them concentrate on their lessons - for a nominal payment as low as just twenty cents.
This has been an initiative of the school canteen, and the volunteers who provide this service are finding it harder and harder to raise the money needed to keep it going from their fund raising activities. They have been recently forced to turn to the local McDonalds for help.
This sad story raises two issues. The first is that hard times are hitting home in Australia, brought on by the GFC of 2008, when employment started to sharply contract and as a result, family incomes became tight for many people. It seems that in some homes there was insufficient money to provide breakfast for the kids - and many went to school hungry.
The second point is our education system. We spend a huge amount of money on providing schools and teachers, but hungry kids just don't absorb education like their better fed peers. It is a fact of life that kids who start the day with something in their stomach are more attentive and learn faster.
It is depressing to think how little money is needed to provide a few loafs of bread, some margarine and a tub of Vegemite, and yet in these troubled times that is becoming an uphill task for the people who volunteer to run school canteens.
Surely both the Federal and state governments should look at this sort of breakfast programme as part of the education process. Not all schools need this help, but those that do should not be denied.
Or do we need to advertise on TV for public help to find a few lousy dollars to fund school breakfasts in " Third World Australia " ?
Sunday, 27 May 2012
Alcohol - and the law !
Barry O'Farrell's proposed law to send any person who provides alcohol to a child under eighteen years of age that is not their own - to a twelve month prison term makes sense - but that also presumes that parents have control over their children - and that ceased a long time ago.
The law has relentlessly chipped away at parent's rights to impose house rules and time curfews. Parents are prevented from delivering a soft smack to a naughty toddler, and just about any form of punishment is frowned upon by child support agencies. Kids are perfectly free to walk out the door of the family home whenever they please - and if they decline to live under the same roof as their parent's Centrelink will hand them an allowance to do their own thing - as they please !
This proposed law is supposed to crack down on wild parties hosted by parents who provide the alcohol, but it will be equally illegal to allow your own child access to a small glass of wine with dinner. Many parents believe that a moderate introduction to alcohol in the family home leads to a responsible attitude later - because it is no longer a " new experience ".
One of the problems that will certainly arise is situations where hulking great teenagers - on the cusp of eighteen - bully their parents into providing alcohol for a party. There are many households, particularly where a frail single mother is the breadwinner - where the kids rule the roost. In some cases, saying " No " will involve physical retaliation. If this proposal becomes law, police will need to use discretion and not simply apply it as a bludgeon in all circumstances.
This proposed law specifically targets parents who disagree with alcohol laws and see no harm in providing alcohol to kids under eighteen, but laws presently on the books make it illegal to do that anyway. It will create a huge headache for parents hosting a party for those over eighteen. The guest list will have to be carefully culled to determine that no under eighteens will be present - and to be legal some form of proof of age would be necessary.
What effect this law will have on under age drinking will depend on how it is applied. It took a lot of years for random breath testing of car drivers to convince the majority of people not to drink and drive. We still get offenders, but the ratio has dropped to the exception where mass checking is involved.
Provided this law is applied to blatant cases and discretion is shown where discretion is needed, then there is a chance that over time the message may get home - just as has happened with drinking and driving.
The law has relentlessly chipped away at parent's rights to impose house rules and time curfews. Parents are prevented from delivering a soft smack to a naughty toddler, and just about any form of punishment is frowned upon by child support agencies. Kids are perfectly free to walk out the door of the family home whenever they please - and if they decline to live under the same roof as their parent's Centrelink will hand them an allowance to do their own thing - as they please !
This proposed law is supposed to crack down on wild parties hosted by parents who provide the alcohol, but it will be equally illegal to allow your own child access to a small glass of wine with dinner. Many parents believe that a moderate introduction to alcohol in the family home leads to a responsible attitude later - because it is no longer a " new experience ".
One of the problems that will certainly arise is situations where hulking great teenagers - on the cusp of eighteen - bully their parents into providing alcohol for a party. There are many households, particularly where a frail single mother is the breadwinner - where the kids rule the roost. In some cases, saying " No " will involve physical retaliation. If this proposal becomes law, police will need to use discretion and not simply apply it as a bludgeon in all circumstances.
This proposed law specifically targets parents who disagree with alcohol laws and see no harm in providing alcohol to kids under eighteen, but laws presently on the books make it illegal to do that anyway. It will create a huge headache for parents hosting a party for those over eighteen. The guest list will have to be carefully culled to determine that no under eighteens will be present - and to be legal some form of proof of age would be necessary.
What effect this law will have on under age drinking will depend on how it is applied. It took a lot of years for random breath testing of car drivers to convince the majority of people not to drink and drive. We still get offenders, but the ratio has dropped to the exception where mass checking is involved.
Provided this law is applied to blatant cases and discretion is shown where discretion is needed, then there is a chance that over time the message may get home - just as has happened with drinking and driving.
Saturday, 26 May 2012
A wrong righted !
In an era where the Automated Teller Machine ( ATM ) replaced bank branches little thought was given to the communities which lived in outback Australia. Some of these places were served by just a single central store operating during limited hours and usually that store also served as an agency for one of the four big banks.
It seems that achieving uniformity saw most of these agencies replaced with an ATM, but an ATM owned and operated by a " for profit " provider, not by a bank, and as a result transaction fees were entirely a matter for the ATM's owner.
We city folk grizzle at the fee gouging the banks imposed when they forced us to use ATM's by closing branches, but they are only a pale shadow of the fee regimen that exists in remote areas. It can cost as much as ten dollars to make a single transaction - whether that is to withdraw money or simply to have your account balance show on the screen. In many cases, remote residents lost twenty percent of their pension to ATM fees.
In all fairness, there are extraordinary costs involved in providing an ATM in a remote location. They are a complex piece of machinery that needs regular servicing, and it can be more than a days journey for an armoured money truck and it's security crew to travel just to replenish the machines cash drawer. It would be grossly unfair to claim that high ATM fees in remote areas was purely opportunistic greed. But they are still an unfair impost on those who have no other way of accessing their money.
All that will change by the end of this year. ATM access fees in remote areas will drop to comparison with those at city locations. Along with the license to be a bank, these institutions have a responsibility to service their customers - wherever they happen to be located and for once the banks will have to pickup the tab.
Whether this is done by arrangement with the private owners of remote ATM's or by the banks installing their own machines is a matter for negotiation, but the important outcome is that people who live a long way from city services will no longer lose a big part of their income in accessing their own money !
It seems that achieving uniformity saw most of these agencies replaced with an ATM, but an ATM owned and operated by a " for profit " provider, not by a bank, and as a result transaction fees were entirely a matter for the ATM's owner.
We city folk grizzle at the fee gouging the banks imposed when they forced us to use ATM's by closing branches, but they are only a pale shadow of the fee regimen that exists in remote areas. It can cost as much as ten dollars to make a single transaction - whether that is to withdraw money or simply to have your account balance show on the screen. In many cases, remote residents lost twenty percent of their pension to ATM fees.
In all fairness, there are extraordinary costs involved in providing an ATM in a remote location. They are a complex piece of machinery that needs regular servicing, and it can be more than a days journey for an armoured money truck and it's security crew to travel just to replenish the machines cash drawer. It would be grossly unfair to claim that high ATM fees in remote areas was purely opportunistic greed. But they are still an unfair impost on those who have no other way of accessing their money.
All that will change by the end of this year. ATM access fees in remote areas will drop to comparison with those at city locations. Along with the license to be a bank, these institutions have a responsibility to service their customers - wherever they happen to be located and for once the banks will have to pickup the tab.
Whether this is done by arrangement with the private owners of remote ATM's or by the banks installing their own machines is a matter for negotiation, but the important outcome is that people who live a long way from city services will no longer lose a big part of their income in accessing their own money !
Friday, 25 May 2012
Law Changes !
From next January 1 it will not be necessary to display a registration sticker on the windscreen of your car. These are being discontinued in New South Wales as a cost cutting exercise following similar moves in West Australia in 2010 and South Australia in 2011. The state government is confident that the new number plate recognition technology being installed in police cars will detect any unregistered cars and keep registrations under control.
It is promised that registration renewal notices will still be sent to each car owner and this should eliminate the excuse of the missing stickers making people prone to forget that registration is due. That was not done in the other two states, and was the most criticised component of the new scheme. At the very least, motorists will not miss the task of scraping off the old sticker each year and trying to remove the residue from the glass.
What remains to be dealt with is the totally unnecessary privacy law that prevents the owner of a motor vehicle to be identified by way of the vehicle number plate. Huge numbers of people have had the experience of seeing another vehicle cause damage and then speed away. Along with other witnesses, they have reported to the police with the registration details of that car, only to be told that the police can not reveal the name and address of the owner - because of privacy laws.
Basically, by hiding behind this law the police are actually aiding and abetting a crime. The crazy thing is that having been supplied with this information and the statements of witnesses, the police can proceed to charge that driver with the offence of not stopping after an accident and exchanging license details - but they are still unable to supply the aggrieved party with the name and address necessary to start a civil claim to recover the cost of the damage.
Why is a person who has committed a criminal act protected from being identified ? We urgently need a law change to remove this veil of secrecy. There is no valid reason why the owners of every registered motor vehicle should not be available on a common register for all to see..
It is simply a " bad law " when legislation protects the guilty from " due process " - and it needs to be changed !
It is promised that registration renewal notices will still be sent to each car owner and this should eliminate the excuse of the missing stickers making people prone to forget that registration is due. That was not done in the other two states, and was the most criticised component of the new scheme. At the very least, motorists will not miss the task of scraping off the old sticker each year and trying to remove the residue from the glass.
What remains to be dealt with is the totally unnecessary privacy law that prevents the owner of a motor vehicle to be identified by way of the vehicle number plate. Huge numbers of people have had the experience of seeing another vehicle cause damage and then speed away. Along with other witnesses, they have reported to the police with the registration details of that car, only to be told that the police can not reveal the name and address of the owner - because of privacy laws.
Basically, by hiding behind this law the police are actually aiding and abetting a crime. The crazy thing is that having been supplied with this information and the statements of witnesses, the police can proceed to charge that driver with the offence of not stopping after an accident and exchanging license details - but they are still unable to supply the aggrieved party with the name and address necessary to start a civil claim to recover the cost of the damage.
Why is a person who has committed a criminal act protected from being identified ? We urgently need a law change to remove this veil of secrecy. There is no valid reason why the owners of every registered motor vehicle should not be available on a common register for all to see..
It is simply a " bad law " when legislation protects the guilty from " due process " - and it needs to be changed !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)