That UK Visa Wall !

Tony Abbott's decision to make the Queen's consort - Price Phillip - an Australian knight has tended to throw the spotlight on the relationship between the two countries.  Australians entering the United Kingdom find themselves in a queue to go through a gate labelled "Foreigners " - while citizens from the EU can freely move between it's national borders.

In particular, many young Australians seeking a European experience have difficulty getting a visa application with a work permit approved, and those that do are subjected to restrictions and time limitations.  The dice is severely loaded against travellers from the old "Commonwealth " countries  and that has been the subject of debate in Westminster.   This "Visa wall " seems to be an artificial barrier against citizens from Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

This was a concern when the United Kingdom was thinking of joining the EU.  One of the other EU rules demanded that imports into Britain from other EU countries be protected by tariffs imposed on goods from non EU sources, hence Australian apples would face a tariff barrier while Spanish apples would flow into the UK duty free.   The British entry severely damaged the trade balance between the UK and all Commonwealth countries.

Britain has promised it's citizens a referendum vote on continuing to remain in the EU and negotiations are under way to ease some of the edicts coming out of Brussels.  That seems to be a chance to clean up this Commonwealth Visa mess once and for all.

It is certainly an aim of the EU to create a borderless society with a common currency and no restrictions of movement between member countries, but allowing entry into Britain by those citizens who recognise the Queen as their head of state should be a purely British internal matter.  Gaining a Visa and entering the UK confers no right to visit other EU countries without the usual Visa approvals.

Granting entry rights to visitors is a matter for decision by the parliament of the country concerned, and here in Australia that decision is made in Canberra.     If the EU has enacted an over riding control over visitor protocol for all it's member states, that should be a prime subject for revision.  If Britain opts to allow free entry to Commonwealth citizens - as was the case before it entered the EU - then restoration in no way clashes with the lack of entry restrictions to those from other EU countries. Such an entry relates only to England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales - and goes no further.

This Commonwealth of Nations is a unique institution that has survived in an era of great change.  That the head of state for a number of nations lives in a far country is unusual and serves as the backbone of the Westminster system of government.  In many parts of the world, countries have adopted a Republican style of government and appoint a head of state by electing a president.  A change to this type of governing has a latent presence in Australia.

The UK should remind itself just how it lost it's American colonies about the same time as the first fleet arrived in Australia.   The issue at that time was taxation without representation, but in essence it was more a matter of failing to nurture the bonds between the two countries.  It would be very easy for the bonds linking the Commonwealth countries to the Mother country to fray unless they were constantly renewed and irritants removed.    This Visa issue is such a constant irritant.

Regulating " Backpackers " !

We are a hospitable nation and we welcome visitors from the other parts of the world.  The tourist industry is an integral part of our economy and servicing it's demand provides jobs for a significant portion of the workforce.  Unfortunately, at the height of summer it also delivers an aspect that many people find very unpleasant.

We rely heavily on backpackers to bring in the Australian fruit and vegetable harvest.  Many enjoy a seaside holiday before the crops are ready to be picked and it is traditional that new arrivals purchase a van or station wagon for both transport and accommodation once they start doing the rounds of the farms when the picking season starts.

Every season - at the height of summer - our beach and coastal suburbs are inundated with backpackers living out of these vehicles.  Suburban streets and picnic areas become a virtual ghetto of young people slightly moving their vehicles on a regular basis to comply with parking laws, but generally hogging all available parking spots.  This inevitably brings complaints from resident householders.

Not all of our summer guests are neat and tidy people.  It is not unusual to see rubbish - including discarded fast food containers - strewn amongst the vehicles and public amenities are often used to wash cooking equipment - and to be used for personal ablutions.  In some cases, ornamental structures and shrubbery serve as makeshift toilets.

Bylaws differ suburb to suburb, but generally sleeping in parked vehicles is not permitted, yet most councils are lax in enforcing their regulations.  Noisy parties bring the attention of the police.  This is a scene that poses a hygiene risk and yet we are reluctant to crack down heavily and enforce all the bylaws that apply, despite agitation by permanent residents who see their way of life being threatened.

Seaside suburbs are usually the venue for another regular event that brings criticism.  The outgoing crop of tourists returning to their home countries usually try and sell their vehicles to the new arrivals eager to obtain cars or vans that have been outfitted as "mobile homes ".   Vehicles offered for sale tend to be concentrated in a small area which quickly takes on the appearance of a car yard - to the exclusion of access by other residents.

Fortunately, both these phenomenons peak for a short period each year but in recent times change has become apparent.  Not all of our backpackers are interested in fruit picking and the season seems to be extending steadily.  In particular, those whose main interest is surfing tend to make a seaside suburb home on a full year basis - and that presents an entirely new problem.

The lure of Australia for many young visitors is not only the fantastic climate and beach scene, but the opportunity to have a very cheap holiday living al fresco.   If we are to set aside an area for backpacker parking it will inevitably carry a cost - and more importantly - the cameradie that is an integral part of the present holiday experience will be lost.   It would be unfortunate if the very attraction that makes Australia a Mecca for young people was denigrated by over regulation.

It seems that councils have a difficult task ahead of them.  Balancing just the right amount of  restrictions to keep the locals happy and yet not implementing some draconian regime that drives backpackers out of Australia.

It seems that our fruit crop hangs in the balance !

Term Deposits !

The Commonwealth bank has sent a curious letter to all it's customers who have money invested in the form of a term deposit with them.   It gives notice of new banking regulations that came into force on December 8, 2014 under which those people wishing to make an early withdrawal must give the bank thirty-one days notice.

A term deposit takes the form of an offer by the bank for a certain amount of interest to be paid on an agreed sum of money left with the bank for the nominated period of time.  At the expiration of such terms, it is usual for the account holder to contact the bank and peruse the varying offers of interest rates that apply to differing deposit periods and make a fresh renewal choice - or withdraw the funds.

Early withdrawals have in the past been a matter of negotiation with the bank.  The length of time the deposit is held is regarded as a contract and some banks readily allow early withdrawal, but either reduce or entirely cancel the interest earned as the penalty for breach of contract.  At lot depends on the circumstances for the early withdrawal request.   In the event of the death of the depositor, some banks waive penalties to allow the settlement of the deceased estate to be concluded promptly.

This new banking regulation seems designed to lock in funds and make those needing to vary a term deposit wait a minimum of thirty-one days before they can access their money - and it makes no mention of what penalty may apply for an early withdrawal.   The money market is volatile and it may be that this new regulation is mainly aimed at the big end of town, hedge funds and major investors who are prepared to forego short term interest loss to enable their investment to take a new direction.   This measure will certainly give the banks more direct control of their liquidity.

Term deposits are a sore point with many bank customers.   When the term is nearing expiration they usually receive a letter from the bank which gives them seven days notice each side of the termination date to renew or withdraw funds.   It advises that if no instruction is forthcoming, the capital will be reinvested for the same time term as the original investment - and nominates an interest rate that will be paid.

Invariably, this interest rate is on the lower end of the scale offering, and often they have the temerity to offer differing interest rates for exactly the same term and scale, but each with a differing name applied to the offer.   A customer taking the trouble to call at the bank and discuss what is offering can usually obtain a better interest than contained in the bank's letter.

This is a ploy that is common across the entire financial spectrum - banks, building societies and credit unions.    That letter of automatic renewal disregards the claim that such institutions are always "working in their customer's interest ".   The unwary will find that the proposal for automatic renewal will be very much in the lenders favour.

At this stage, the new regulation only applies to those seeking early withdrawal before the term maturity date.   Some will wonder how long before the banks require thirty-one days notice of intention to withdraw - before the actual term comes to an end !

The "Desperation " Vote !

The people of Greece went to the polls and made a "desperation "choice.   They handed 36% of the vote to the left wing anti-austerity party, Syriza, giving it 149 seats in the Greek parliament, just short of the 151 seats needed to govern in it's own right.

Syriza is led by Alexis Tsipras ( 40 ) who is vehemently against the harsh economic conditions imposed by a troika of the IMF, ECG and EU led by Germany as part of a $ 342 billion bailout to save Greece from default - and economic oblivion.  As a result of this forced cut back on services and pensions Greece has been mired in recession with youth unemployment at critically high levels. This has seen a passing parade of Greek politicians of short duration - until Mr Tsipras burst onto the scene with the promise of restoring the Greek economy by renegotiating this imposed austerity - and threatening to withdraw Greece from the EU and abandon the Euro currency unless his conditions were met.

A "Grexit " as this has been labelled has been a nightmare for the EU, but it is now less of a threat since the overall recession has been stabilized and some EU leaders think the Syriza plan is a bluff. Tsipras has muted the exit call and is talking about a drastic renegotiation of the terms of the loan, probably extending the term to reduce repayments so that more money can be used to revive the Greek economy and put young people back to work.

The ball is squarely now back in Syriza's court.  They have clearly won power and it will only take the defection of a couple of uncommitted politicians to give them full reign to implement whatever policies they choose to save the Greek economy.   One of the stumbling blocks could be Germany's Angela Merkel's  insistence on austerity as the only answer to the EU's problems.  If Germany is the holdout to a softening of imposed conditions Alexis Tsipras may take the fateful step of taking Greece out of the EU and establishing it's own currency again by abandoning the Euro.  He could then impose a drastic devaluation, improving the prospect of Greek exports and making Greece a bonanza of a European tourist destination.   It could also set in train a similar move by other struggling members of the EU community.

A lot of world leaders will be holding their breath and waiting to see just how hard the Syriza demands will be to meet.   The world economy is not fully recovered from the 08 recession and Europe seems to be faring worse than the rest of the world.  There is every chance that Britain may face a referendum on continuing EU membership and the stability of this trading block is having troubles integrating the edicts from Brussels with the customs of it's member states.  It seems that Brussels is favouring a "United States of Europe " agenda - and that is clashing with the autonomy that the citizens of many member states desire.   Many people have misgivings about how far a concentration of power in Europe should extend.

The Greek problem arose because Greece failed to bring it's economy under control.  Weak parliaments fragmented power and as a result no measures were implemented to bring spending into line with income.  Taxation in Greece became something of a joke.  The national debt expanded exponentially as borrowings propped up annual deficits - until the eventual day of reckoning arrived.  The level of income was fast approaching the point where it was insufficient to service the needs of past borrowings - and the spectre of default hovered over Greece.

That is a lesson that Australia needs to consider.   Every day we pay $ 30 million in interest to service our debt of $ 245 billion, and a balanced budget is nowhere in sight.   The problem is that the parliament is more interested in playing politics than seriously passing the measures necessary to bring income into line with outgoings.

There seems no prospect of our parliament reaching a reasonable compromise and enacting the legislation necessary to curb spending and balance that against a rise in revenue.   Any cuts in spending will be vigorously opposed - and any increase in taxation will be howled down.   There is an implacable line across which those in government and those in opposition refuse to cross.  The result is political stalemate - and an ever increasing debt riding on the shoulders of every man, woman and child in this country.

Exactly that same scenario brought Greece to it's knees - and it now awaits the decisions of a contentious form of radical government - handed power as a matter of desperation.   Perhaps the same fate awaits Australia unless the people we sent to parliament start making decisions for the good of the nation rather than just enhancing political point scoring.

Disability Parking !

Having a disability parking sticker on a cars windscreen allows the vehicle being used to transport the holder to park in specially designated zones and shelters that person from parking time limits and the need to pay parking meter fees.

Getting such a permit is at the discretion of that persons doctor.  Basically, the doctor will authorise an application if the patient uses a walking frame, crutches, has calipers - or is detrimentally affected by any condition in walking a hundred meters.

Unfortunately, the scarcity of parking has caused many able bodied drivers to park in designated zones reserved for those with a disability and the fines have been steadily increasing in all Australian states.  They now exceed five hundred dollars as a bare minamum - and recently the loss of demerit points has been added to the penalty.

All councils are required to provide designated disability parking spots kerbside in areas with restricted parking and similar requirements are imposed on public parking at hospitals, near schools, in shopping centres and in all the wider public domain.   We are now seeing increasing use of these restricted spaces by able bodied drivers because the only policing seems to take place when there is misuse on public streets.

It is now common for the disability parking places near fast food outlets to be occupied by able bodied shoppers making a quick purchase, safe in the knowledge that this seems to be immune from the orbit of both police and council rangers.   It has become so prevalent that a "shame "movement has appeared on Facebook and we are now seeing vast numbers of pictures appearing of illegals occupying parking spaces reserved for the disabled.   There are mutterings that these provide sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution.

Of course, there are offenders on both sides of this parking debate.  That disability parking sticker only applies if the named holder is being carried in the vehicle at the time that it is parked in a disability parking space.  It is not uncommon for the sticker to be permanently displayed and parked in disability zones when being used by other members of the family, and this attracts an even bigger  misuse penalty.  These stickers specifically name the holder - and he or she must be present when the parking privilege is being used.

In particular, there seems to be abuse of disability parking by sections of industry involved in making numerous deliveries.  It is noticeable that often an able bodied driver in a vehicle with a disability sticker seems to be constantly moving from one disability zone to another - and often their trade can be identified as a courier or someone moving medical specimens from doctors rooms to pathology. That form of illegality solves what is otherwise an intractable parking problem.

When this legislation came into force it contained a provision that few seem to have taken into consideration.   It specifically allowed a time extension to less than fifteen minute restrictions by allowing double the posted limit.   For instance, some postal areas have a two minute limit and some drop off or pickup areas have a ten minutes limit - both of which are doubled for disability permit holders, few of which seem aware of this provision.

If a fine and loss of demerit points fails to deter those imposing on the disabled, perhaps the seizure of the offending vehicle for a period of time will bring a change of heart.

Fixing the "Electricity " Problem !

It seems that the three instrumentality's responsible for providing the electricity we use all have different agendas and therefore coordination is lacking in putting together a working plan to ensure we have both sufficient supply and a base price that is affordable.

The big problem seems to be peak loads.   We need sufficient power generation to meet demand when users hit the switch but for most of the day this is laying idle.  Add a few facts to the picture and the situation becomes much clearer.

Last year was the hottest on record in Australia.  Most people now accept that global warming is a fact of life and there is the expectation that the years ahead will be even hotter.  As a result,millions of  Australian homes now have air conditioning and the rate is New South Wales is presently at 64%.   A lot of the late afternoon peak can be directly attributed to people cooling their homes in summer and warming them in winter.  This move to air conditioning is expected to continue on an upward graph.

The solar industry now has panels on the roof of 1.3 million Australian homes and that pace of installation is accelerating.  Each solar collector comes with a smart meter that records unused electricity generated that flows backwards through the meter and becomes the property of the power company - for which they pay a miserable 6 c a kwh.   Many households are self sufficient in their electricity needs  - just so long as the sun is shining.   They draw from their power supplier on overcast days - and during the night.

It should be the aim of both Federal and State governments to have a solar collector on the roof of every home in Australia - and to achieve that it should be mandatory for one to be installed as a matter of course on every new home or whenever a major renovation is planned.  The extent of surplus electricity generated by such a national grid would go a long way to supplying industry and the overall daily demand.

Originally, the supply of electricity was a government function and if it were still a government owned industry fixing this problem would be a lot simpler.   It has now passed into the private sector, and the main objective of the new power companies is to make a profit for their shareholders.  What is required is a completely new working plan to integrate both commercial and domestic power generation within a cost framework that will be profitable for the power company and acceptable to the public.

Simply getting electricity from the point of generation to each user is costly.  That involves "poles and wires "and since 2005 $8 billion has been spent upgrading services.  Poles and wires must be maintained, irrespective of whether the load delivered is large - or small.

New thinking is required on the part of the power companies.  A huge extension of the solar grid would present an opportunity to balance a mix of cheaper generating options.  Obviously there would still be peaks on hot but overcast days and these could be filled with gas turbine generators - costly to run, but cheap to acquire - and the price charged to customers should reflect that whenever they are needed.  The power companies have every right to provide their services at a profit.

Smart meters allow price variables to apply at different times of the day - and the option to use power when it is most expensive rests with the customer.   The media would alert when a peak was approaching that would see a price increase and customers would decide whether to delay doing the family washing or putting on the air conditioner at their discretion.  Power pricing needs to be variable -  and each customer can then make a personal decision on how much to use now - or wait until it is cheaper at a later time.

It is quite possible to introduce a generating and pricing regime that balances the requirements of both levels of government and the profitability of the power companies.  It just requires new thinking to take account of the realities of both weather and the technology available !

A Saga Ends !

The residents of Boonara Avenue, Bondi must be popping champagne corks.  Waverley Council is enforcing the auction of a house in their street to recover a debt of $ 180,000 resulting from the constant cleanup of rubbish hoarded by it's owner, a mother and her two adult daughters.

Since 1990 this has been an ongoing saga.  Perhaps a compulsive disorder syndrome but for some strange reason this trio has collected every imaginable type of rubbish and stored it in the rooms of their home - and the overflow consumed the entire garden and surround of a normal suburban house.

Not only an unsightly mess, this became both a fire hazard and a health threat.  The smell was obnoxious and it was an attraction for vermin.  It certainly reduced the appeal and value of nearby properties.  Entreaties for moderation were rejected and the council was forced to send in it's workforce and remove truck loads of garbage on a regular basis - and immediately the property was clear restocking began again.

Many Boonara Avenue residents will be holding their breath.  The auction is scheduled for February 17, but the family has the option of repaying the money and retaining ownership of their home - and they will probably then continue to collect rubbish.   Any new owner will also proceed with caution.  The property will be sold with the present high pile of rubbish intact and it will probably take a legal eviction order to remove the residents - and that could be both messy and expensive.

The house is certainly dated and will most likely be demolished and replaced with a modern home, but any buyer would be well advised to take all the legal obstacles into account, and while public opinion should be on any buyers side, the plight of three elderly women being forced to relinquish their home could result in some peculiar reactions.  The formation of a sympathy group with a "Save the Hoarders "message would not be out of the question.

This case should also raise questions in medical circles.   The fact that three adult women should embark on a course of action that is not only illegal, but seems to be a form of compulsion that is beyond their ability to control suggests a need for medical intervention.   The problem seems to be that when a person with medical difficulties does not seek voluntary help, the right of medical authorities to arbitrarily take control is at best opaque.  In this instance, the only action possible seemed to be from the council in enforcing its own and health bylaws to protect both the owners of the home - and the public.

There is another aspect of this case that should send a chill through all Sydney suburbs.   If this forced auction goes ahead the purchase price will be far in excess of the $ 180,000 debt owed to Waverley council, and the surplus will be handed to the owners of that notorious home in Boonara Avenue.

What if they decide to buy another home - and continue to collect rubbish  ?   What an unnerving thought to all those people who live in a street where another house has a "For Sale "sign on it's front lawn !