The timing could not have been worse. On World Autism Awareness Day a story broke in the media about a ten year old Canberra boy being locked in a cage in his classroom as a control measure. "Barbaric "was one of the words used to describe a two metre square cage made from fencing material and this public school's principal has been suspended as a result.
This was certainly an ill advised control attempt but to many people it may be regarded as a "desperation measure ". Kids with afflictions like autism are simply dumped into a classroom and it is left to the teaching staff to deal with their tantrums. Autism ranges in severity, but at it's worst the child can be totally uncontrollable - and very disruptive, and yet the teacher is expected to progress the rest of his or her charges to an acceptable education level.
Children with Disabilities Australia released a report critical of control methods used in many schools. It claims that troublesome children are often locked in "time out "rooms for extended periods, and sometimes are denied requests to go to a toilet. There are certainly a range of measures in use to try and ease disruptions and they include what are termed "withdrawal spaces ", "safe reading corners "and in extreme cases - having an assistant take the child for a walk in the school grounds.
The entire Australian school system has been subjected to a lengthy evaluation and this produced the "Gonski Report "in 2011. David Gonski is a noted educationalist and his report laid out the blueprint for an improved education system that would integrate a common curriculum across state education systems. Unfortunately, implementing it in it's entirety would involve a huge increase in the education budget - and come into conflict with state ego's. At best, the more appealing aspects are being put into place - within budget restraints.
Perhaps this "cage in a classroom "incident should be seen as a call for help ? We have a divided education system in Australia and the standards in schools varies wildly between suburbs in the same city. A lot of people deliberately seek a home in an area noted for it's "good " schools, while less affluent suburbs have schools with a bad reputation for both teaching standards and results achieved. The teaching profession is heavily unionised and any talk of pay incentives for excellence is anathema to it's thinking. Most reform efforts founder on the issue of seniority. The teaching unions are relentless in promoting on the basis of time served rather than results achieved, and bright and promising teachers are denied progress up the promotional ladder. There are no rewards for incentive thinking or progressive teaching methods.
Kids being disruptive because they have a medical condition is a daunting problem for any teacher, but in some schools a majority of the pupils come from homes where any form of discipline is entirely missing. They have no respect for their teachers - and no interest in getting an education, and yet the school staff will be judged on the results they achieve. No wonder we have schools that are near impossible to attract willing staff.
This Canberra cage incident will no doubt be blown out of all proportions. Disciplinary measures will be heavy handed and it will be roundly condemned by a vast array of do-gooders and childhood experts, but little will be done to try and alleviate the conditions that caused this ill advised remedy to be put in place.
It is a sheer impossibility to throw together a mix of kids who want to learn and a sprinkling of others totally opposed to the learning progress - and expect to deliver a homogenised outcome. When a few
kids afflicted with autism are added to the mix - success becomes even more distant.
Even Gonski did not have an answer to that perplexing problem, but obviously the provision of specially trained staff to assist the teacher and relieve disruption must become part of the equation. It simply requires the will - and the money - to achieve relief !
Saturday, 4 April 2015
Friday, 3 April 2015
A " Comfortable " Retirement !
It's quite simple really ! If you want to retire with enough money to live comfortably you need to ensure you have sufficient funds in your "superannuation pot "to be able to withdraw at an appropriate level during those retirement years. The more salary you contribute while you are working, the bigger the sum available at retirement.
The rules that apply tend to favour high income earners. The tax office encourages contributions to superannuation by allowing them to lower a persons taxable income by excluding such payments from the tax take. Many make what is termed a "sacrifice " by accepting lower take home pay and putting more into their super pot to ensure a better old age - and now we are seeing some prudent people retiring and drawing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
A long time ago, whatever we managed to save by way of superannuation was our money, but then the government decided to take a bite out of "lump sum "withdrawals to encourage people to buy an annuity instead. The tax that applies is fifteen percent for sums under three hundred thousand dollars - and thirty percent for bigger amounts.
It seems that the politicians have reached a "political consensus " that the best way to balance the budget would be to take a bit more tax out of superannuation - but excluding the terms that apply to their own pensions of course. These days that is not as generous as of yore. Those who entered parliament before 2004 retire with a "Golden Handshake "which delivers an annual pension of $ 200,000, fully indexed. Those who entered after 2004 get a lesser "Standard " amount - but still generous when compared to what the average citizen receives.
Even a suggestion of changes to the tax applicable to superannuation will make many people uneasy. That seems akin to moving the goal posts in the middle of a game. Many have cheerfully sacrificed their present standard of living to ensure a comfortable old age and now have the prospect of seeing a tax raid on their superannuation pot - and having a comfortable old age snatched away. People who made their retirement plans by taking the superannuation rules into consideration may have taken a different course - perhaps investing in property instead - had these proposed changes been evident.
There seems a degree of "class resentment " in this proposal. Successful people who are big earners and live an opulent lifestyle want that standard of living to continue into retirement - and plan accordingly. Of course they are going to have more money that the little guys down at the bottom of the wage heap and that can be the cause of jealousy and resentment, but interfering with it is something we do at our peril.
If we make it impossible for achievers to comfortably retire and live their final years in Australia they will use the skills that put them in that elevated position to make other arrangements. The money in superannuation pots works hard to finance many aspects of Australian life and should we cause it to be squirrelled away offshore because of punitive taxation this country would be the loser.
There is a view from some in government ranks that those who manage to rise above the herd and either achieve high office - or create an asset that delivers rich rewards - are tall poppies that should be cut down to size. A few other countries with a socialist manifesto have put that into practice - with disastrous results. There is absolutely no doubt that the rich should shoulder their fair share of the tax burden and most would agree that there are many loopholes that should be closed to achieve that end, but imposing penury in retirement will be counter productive.
That is only a very short step away from something we rejected many years ago. It would certainly raise the spectre of the return of " death taxes " !
The rules that apply tend to favour high income earners. The tax office encourages contributions to superannuation by allowing them to lower a persons taxable income by excluding such payments from the tax take. Many make what is termed a "sacrifice " by accepting lower take home pay and putting more into their super pot to ensure a better old age - and now we are seeing some prudent people retiring and drawing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
A long time ago, whatever we managed to save by way of superannuation was our money, but then the government decided to take a bite out of "lump sum "withdrawals to encourage people to buy an annuity instead. The tax that applies is fifteen percent for sums under three hundred thousand dollars - and thirty percent for bigger amounts.
It seems that the politicians have reached a "political consensus " that the best way to balance the budget would be to take a bit more tax out of superannuation - but excluding the terms that apply to their own pensions of course. These days that is not as generous as of yore. Those who entered parliament before 2004 retire with a "Golden Handshake "which delivers an annual pension of $ 200,000, fully indexed. Those who entered after 2004 get a lesser "Standard " amount - but still generous when compared to what the average citizen receives.
Even a suggestion of changes to the tax applicable to superannuation will make many people uneasy. That seems akin to moving the goal posts in the middle of a game. Many have cheerfully sacrificed their present standard of living to ensure a comfortable old age and now have the prospect of seeing a tax raid on their superannuation pot - and having a comfortable old age snatched away. People who made their retirement plans by taking the superannuation rules into consideration may have taken a different course - perhaps investing in property instead - had these proposed changes been evident.
There seems a degree of "class resentment " in this proposal. Successful people who are big earners and live an opulent lifestyle want that standard of living to continue into retirement - and plan accordingly. Of course they are going to have more money that the little guys down at the bottom of the wage heap and that can be the cause of jealousy and resentment, but interfering with it is something we do at our peril.
If we make it impossible for achievers to comfortably retire and live their final years in Australia they will use the skills that put them in that elevated position to make other arrangements. The money in superannuation pots works hard to finance many aspects of Australian life and should we cause it to be squirrelled away offshore because of punitive taxation this country would be the loser.
There is a view from some in government ranks that those who manage to rise above the herd and either achieve high office - or create an asset that delivers rich rewards - are tall poppies that should be cut down to size. A few other countries with a socialist manifesto have put that into practice - with disastrous results. There is absolutely no doubt that the rich should shoulder their fair share of the tax burden and most would agree that there are many loopholes that should be closed to achieve that end, but imposing penury in retirement will be counter productive.
That is only a very short step away from something we rejected many years ago. It would certainly raise the spectre of the return of " death taxes " !
Thursday, 2 April 2015
Paid " Volunteers " !
To some people they are a nuisance. Others welcome those representing political parties who hand out "How to Vote "cards outside polling booths. It is thought that a small minority of undecided voters are actually influenced in the way they cast their vote and all the political parties ask their supporters to donate time putting flyers into letterboxes and manning their presence at polling booths on election day.
Traditionally, this is unpaid work. Every political party has a hard core of party faithful who donate both time and money to getting their view on politics elected. Politics is passion to some people and at the recent New South Wales state election that passion boiled over when a pollster from one party became physically aggressive to a young women handing out literature for a rival party. It was captured on camera - and featured prominently in the nightly TV news.
In recent times, the number of parties vying for a seat in the upper house of both Federal and state has multiplied enormously. This New South Wales election saw 394 candidates jostling for just 42 seats and the voting paper size needed to accommodate all their names and the parties they represented was as big as a tablecloth. There were political parties that few had heard of - and consequently many received just a handful of votes.
One unsuccessful party was the "No Land Tax Party " and it is claimed that they recruited three thousand people to hand out their "How to Vote "cards at polling booths - with the promise of being paid $30 an hour. It is now alleged that those workers are unpaid and still waiting for their promised money.
We have a plethora of weird and wonderful laws that are supposed to level the playing field for those wanting to have a chance of entering parliament and even a party that receives minimal voting support gets "electoral funding ". It has been suggested that the "No Land Tax Party "will be reimbursed to the tune of $ 300,000 for costs at this election.
The thought of people handing out literature as a paid job on polling day will certainly grate with some people - as will the thought that money from the public purse will reward the sides of politics that find little favour with the public. We like to think that our houses of parliament are serious in deciding the best for this nation and yet it seems that politics is descending into more and more single issue parties and our proportional representation system is rewarding some with a seat, despite low support numbers, and this is one of the main reasons we are seeing this multiplication of strange little political movements.
This tendency is creating an impasse to whoever wins a majority's ability to govern. The balance of power at both Federal and state level often lands in the hands of a disparate group of what can only be called "independents "- although they may be termed part of a "party ". The Palmer Political Party ( PUP ) falls into this category. An amalgamation of those supporting a rich benefactor and others, which quickly fell apart as the individuals went their own way - and now one of them is proposing to start her own political party - to be called the "Jacqi Lambie Network ".
It's about time we had a long, hard look at the financing arrangement of politics. There must never be an obstacle to a genuine political doctrine emerging and seeking a place in parliament, but it needs to generate sufficient support to financially stand on it's own feet. Perhaps that doctrine should apply to all forms of politics. Perhaps politics would be best served by being completely removed from public funding and forced to rely entirely on public support to finance it's campaigns . Dipping into the public purse is merely a crutch that distorts the depth of active support for a political movement.
Whether political parties should be allowed to pay for supporters to represent them in the field raises another question. Many may believe that leaving politics to party volunteers delivered a better moral tone !
Traditionally, this is unpaid work. Every political party has a hard core of party faithful who donate both time and money to getting their view on politics elected. Politics is passion to some people and at the recent New South Wales state election that passion boiled over when a pollster from one party became physically aggressive to a young women handing out literature for a rival party. It was captured on camera - and featured prominently in the nightly TV news.
In recent times, the number of parties vying for a seat in the upper house of both Federal and state has multiplied enormously. This New South Wales election saw 394 candidates jostling for just 42 seats and the voting paper size needed to accommodate all their names and the parties they represented was as big as a tablecloth. There were political parties that few had heard of - and consequently many received just a handful of votes.
One unsuccessful party was the "No Land Tax Party " and it is claimed that they recruited three thousand people to hand out their "How to Vote "cards at polling booths - with the promise of being paid $30 an hour. It is now alleged that those workers are unpaid and still waiting for their promised money.
We have a plethora of weird and wonderful laws that are supposed to level the playing field for those wanting to have a chance of entering parliament and even a party that receives minimal voting support gets "electoral funding ". It has been suggested that the "No Land Tax Party "will be reimbursed to the tune of $ 300,000 for costs at this election.
The thought of people handing out literature as a paid job on polling day will certainly grate with some people - as will the thought that money from the public purse will reward the sides of politics that find little favour with the public. We like to think that our houses of parliament are serious in deciding the best for this nation and yet it seems that politics is descending into more and more single issue parties and our proportional representation system is rewarding some with a seat, despite low support numbers, and this is one of the main reasons we are seeing this multiplication of strange little political movements.
This tendency is creating an impasse to whoever wins a majority's ability to govern. The balance of power at both Federal and state level often lands in the hands of a disparate group of what can only be called "independents "- although they may be termed part of a "party ". The Palmer Political Party ( PUP ) falls into this category. An amalgamation of those supporting a rich benefactor and others, which quickly fell apart as the individuals went their own way - and now one of them is proposing to start her own political party - to be called the "Jacqi Lambie Network ".
It's about time we had a long, hard look at the financing arrangement of politics. There must never be an obstacle to a genuine political doctrine emerging and seeking a place in parliament, but it needs to generate sufficient support to financially stand on it's own feet. Perhaps that doctrine should apply to all forms of politics. Perhaps politics would be best served by being completely removed from public funding and forced to rely entirely on public support to finance it's campaigns . Dipping into the public purse is merely a crutch that distorts the depth of active support for a political movement.
Whether political parties should be allowed to pay for supporters to represent them in the field raises another question. Many may believe that leaving politics to party volunteers delivered a better moral tone !
Wednesday, 1 April 2015
The Killer " Ice Age " !
When Heroin use was rampant the user was likely to die of an overdose because the strength reaching the streets varied widely. Addicts were also more likely to break into homes looking for goods that could be easily turned into cash to finance their next "hit ", but rarely did Heroin lead to aggression.
Marijuana has been with us for a very long time. It is a recreational drug in many ways similar to alcohol and it is evident that it has replaced grog as the substance present in the blood of many drivers involved in car crashes.
New South Wales Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione has issued a warning that the increasing use of Crystal Meth - which is known as "Ice " - is fuelling crimes of violence to the extent that it could "bring us to our knees as a nation ".
The litany of irrational violence seems to be ever increasing. There have been instances of torture and murder for no apparent reason, and recently a man under the influence of Ice went berserk and stabbed others at his workplace. Another driver led police on a wild chase when he drove the wrong way down the M1. In most cases, when attempting to place such a person under arrest the police involved comment that Ice seems to bestow superhuman strength and aggression.
St Vincents hospital head of emergency comments that those under the influence of Ice are "the most out of control or most violent human beings I have ever seen in my life "! Police and hospital staff, together with the Paramedics who crew our ambulance fleet literally take their life in their hands when they try to deal with those under the influence of Crystal Meth.
The danger is that the use of Ice is growing exponentially. Not only is it imported into this country, we have many small production units "cooking " local supplies and it can be produced from reasonably easily obtained ingredients. As a consequence, it's price on the streets is low and it is probably the cheapest illegal substance available. It is also the most addictive substance since Heroin. Many users have their first taste - and are immediately "hooked " !
Often, Police find that using their Taser's fails to subdue a person under the influence of Ice and it takes the involvement of several officers to subdue the offender and place him or her in a paddy wagon. Many suspect that the spate of "King Hit " attacks that took place around Kings Cross were Ice fuelled and since new laws cleaned up the Cross it seems that unprovoked and deadly irrational attacks have moved to the suburbs.
The Police Commissioner is appealing to the public for help. If we are to stamp out this drug it will need the backing of the public to supply the information to crack the distribution networks and close down the Crystal Meth labs. Unless Ice becomes "public enemy number one "there is a chance that it will spin out of control - with an ever widening pool of addicts.
There simply is no "safe "level of Ice use. It is not a drug that can be applied to deliver a "Saturday night high " and be ignored for the rest of the week. The metabolic balance of a great many people will be influenced to a dangerous level of addiction the moment this drug enters their body - and from that point onward aggression and irrationality are out of control.
We would be wise to heed the comment from the head of emergency at St Vincents hospital. That is the destination of most emergency cases in inner Sydney and the fact the it's doctors and nurses find themselves under attack at strength and ferocity levels never seen before is a foretaste of what the public can expect if this drug escapes control. The statistician estimates that at the moment just two percent of the Australian population is using Ice. Considering the mayhem this is delivering, just imagine what any multiplication of those numbers would deliver ?
Marijuana has been with us for a very long time. It is a recreational drug in many ways similar to alcohol and it is evident that it has replaced grog as the substance present in the blood of many drivers involved in car crashes.
New South Wales Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione has issued a warning that the increasing use of Crystal Meth - which is known as "Ice " - is fuelling crimes of violence to the extent that it could "bring us to our knees as a nation ".
The litany of irrational violence seems to be ever increasing. There have been instances of torture and murder for no apparent reason, and recently a man under the influence of Ice went berserk and stabbed others at his workplace. Another driver led police on a wild chase when he drove the wrong way down the M1. In most cases, when attempting to place such a person under arrest the police involved comment that Ice seems to bestow superhuman strength and aggression.
St Vincents hospital head of emergency comments that those under the influence of Ice are "the most out of control or most violent human beings I have ever seen in my life "! Police and hospital staff, together with the Paramedics who crew our ambulance fleet literally take their life in their hands when they try to deal with those under the influence of Crystal Meth.
The danger is that the use of Ice is growing exponentially. Not only is it imported into this country, we have many small production units "cooking " local supplies and it can be produced from reasonably easily obtained ingredients. As a consequence, it's price on the streets is low and it is probably the cheapest illegal substance available. It is also the most addictive substance since Heroin. Many users have their first taste - and are immediately "hooked " !
Often, Police find that using their Taser's fails to subdue a person under the influence of Ice and it takes the involvement of several officers to subdue the offender and place him or her in a paddy wagon. Many suspect that the spate of "King Hit " attacks that took place around Kings Cross were Ice fuelled and since new laws cleaned up the Cross it seems that unprovoked and deadly irrational attacks have moved to the suburbs.
The Police Commissioner is appealing to the public for help. If we are to stamp out this drug it will need the backing of the public to supply the information to crack the distribution networks and close down the Crystal Meth labs. Unless Ice becomes "public enemy number one "there is a chance that it will spin out of control - with an ever widening pool of addicts.
There simply is no "safe "level of Ice use. It is not a drug that can be applied to deliver a "Saturday night high " and be ignored for the rest of the week. The metabolic balance of a great many people will be influenced to a dangerous level of addiction the moment this drug enters their body - and from that point onward aggression and irrationality are out of control.
We would be wise to heed the comment from the head of emergency at St Vincents hospital. That is the destination of most emergency cases in inner Sydney and the fact the it's doctors and nurses find themselves under attack at strength and ferocity levels never seen before is a foretaste of what the public can expect if this drug escapes control. The statistician estimates that at the moment just two percent of the Australian population is using Ice. Considering the mayhem this is delivering, just imagine what any multiplication of those numbers would deliver ?
Tuesday, 31 March 2015
On the Edge !
The Queensland State Labor government is teetering on the edge of losing it's majority now that Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has sacked Billy Gordon from her party. It seems that this newly elected member has a long criminal history that includes break and enter offences, breach of probation and bail conditions, two suspended driving license incidents and now there are claims that he may face domestic violence charges. Incredibly, none of this surfaced when the Labor administration conducted it's research to select candidates to represent the party at the last Queensland state election.
Premier Palaszczuk is incensed that Billy Gordon deceived her and has called on him to resign from parliament. He admits that he faced many challenges as "a young indigenous boy " and this situation is unprecedented. The choice of resigning or remaining in parliament is purely up to Mr Gordon to decide - and that leaves many questions unanswered.
Billy Gordon's past is seeing him cast out from membership of the Labor party, but it in no way precludes him from remaining a member of parliament. He could continue to hold his seat as an independent and if he chose to vote along Labor lines the government could survive. On the other hand, if he remains and switches allegiances to the opposition that would create an interesting " numbers game "involving the two Katter's Party seat holders. It seems that the fate of the Queensland parliament rests in Billy Gordon's hands.
The reaction of the Queensland public will be interesting. That fact that Billy Gordon has an indigenous background may work in his favour. Some may see him as an underprivileged young man who overcame diversity to rise and become an elected member of parliament - who should be forgiven youthful sins. It is quite possible that his cause will be taken up by the Queensland indigenous community and he may emerge as an indigenous leader. It is certain that his criminal history will be dissected - item by item - and the severity of each crime questioned.
There are clear rules that apply to whoever sits in a parliament. Those that have been convicted and served a prison term of a given length are automatically excluded, as are people whose affairs are held in bankruptcy, but lesser matters are merely at the discretion of the voting public. In recent times, a parliamentary member convicted of drink driving is seen as committing a serious ethical offence and any sort of marital discord is a sure turn off for the public.
The main impetus of this sudden and unexpected turn of events will be to shine the spotlight on the ALP's selection of candidate's process. How did this criminal activity escape scrutiny ? What other secrets are lurking in the past of others, waiting to spring a surprise and perhaps terminally change the numbers game ? And the biggest question of all ? Who is responsible ?
This is not the first time that a state parliament has been rocked by an unexpected disclosure and party selection committees have taken steps to make sure that their candidates are "squeaky clean ". Apparently, that has not extended to the processes in Queensland, and now the party is paying a heavy price for that laxity. There is every expectation that the fate of the government will play out like a Hollywood soap opera !
Premier Palaszczuk is incensed that Billy Gordon deceived her and has called on him to resign from parliament. He admits that he faced many challenges as "a young indigenous boy " and this situation is unprecedented. The choice of resigning or remaining in parliament is purely up to Mr Gordon to decide - and that leaves many questions unanswered.
Billy Gordon's past is seeing him cast out from membership of the Labor party, but it in no way precludes him from remaining a member of parliament. He could continue to hold his seat as an independent and if he chose to vote along Labor lines the government could survive. On the other hand, if he remains and switches allegiances to the opposition that would create an interesting " numbers game "involving the two Katter's Party seat holders. It seems that the fate of the Queensland parliament rests in Billy Gordon's hands.
The reaction of the Queensland public will be interesting. That fact that Billy Gordon has an indigenous background may work in his favour. Some may see him as an underprivileged young man who overcame diversity to rise and become an elected member of parliament - who should be forgiven youthful sins. It is quite possible that his cause will be taken up by the Queensland indigenous community and he may emerge as an indigenous leader. It is certain that his criminal history will be dissected - item by item - and the severity of each crime questioned.
There are clear rules that apply to whoever sits in a parliament. Those that have been convicted and served a prison term of a given length are automatically excluded, as are people whose affairs are held in bankruptcy, but lesser matters are merely at the discretion of the voting public. In recent times, a parliamentary member convicted of drink driving is seen as committing a serious ethical offence and any sort of marital discord is a sure turn off for the public.
The main impetus of this sudden and unexpected turn of events will be to shine the spotlight on the ALP's selection of candidate's process. How did this criminal activity escape scrutiny ? What other secrets are lurking in the past of others, waiting to spring a surprise and perhaps terminally change the numbers game ? And the biggest question of all ? Who is responsible ?
This is not the first time that a state parliament has been rocked by an unexpected disclosure and party selection committees have taken steps to make sure that their candidates are "squeaky clean ". Apparently, that has not extended to the processes in Queensland, and now the party is paying a heavy price for that laxity. There is every expectation that the fate of the government will play out like a Hollywood soap opera !
Monday, 30 March 2015
The " Mandate " Question ?
Clearly the main issue in last Saturday's New South Wales state election was the government's proposal to lease forty-nine percent of the state's "poles and wires " delivering electricity to consumers to gain over twenty billion dollars to upgrade the state's transport, schools and hospitals.
This was opposed by the Labor party who tried to mislead the public by claiming that Mike Baird was "selling "a public asset. In fact, poles and wires will remain in public ownership. The deal is for a ninety-nine year lease with the rent up front and that money available for immediate use - and the poles and wires revert to public ownership when the lease expires.
Mike Bairds's Liberal/National coalition won the election easily. Luke Foley's Labor party clawed back some seats lost at last election's landslide, but Baird can claim his win as a "mandate "for his poles and wires proposal. This raises the question of exactly what is involved in a "mandate "and how does it apply ?
Baird went to the people with poles and wires as the main - indeed some would say "sole " item - on the government's agenda. Foley claimed that the vast majority of New South Wales people were against the proposal. The election was billed as a referendum on this issue - and clearly it was not rejected in the vote.
A plethora of past Labor prime ministers and state premiers branded acceptance of the poles and wires issue as essential to the state - and publicly endorsed it. Labor luminaries fulminated at the union featherbedding and rorting they had imposed on this state instrumentality. It was an issue past Labor regimes had tried to implement - and failed because of union pressure within the party movement.
The issue of gaining a mandate is certainly mired in controversy. Certainly not every voter who voted for the coalition on Saturday favoured poles and wires - and most definitely not all those who voted Labor rejected it, but when an issue is the prime plank of a political party - and they win an election handsomely - they have a right to to put that plan into effect.
Despite this election win, the issue will still face a stumbling block in the upper house. The voters were presented with a form as big as a tablecloth containing the names of 394 candidates vying for election in just 42 seats. Before the election, the Liberal/Nationals held seventeen seats, Labor fourteen, the Greens five, and two each were held by the Shooters and Fishers, Christian Democrats and the Independents. The balance of power was in the hands of the minor parties.
Mike Baird has a point when he claims that Luke Foley lost the referendum on poles and wires - and should join the government in pushing the legislation into law. Foley may claim that he would be going against the wishes of those who voted Labor and must remain committed to it's rejection. Once again, the issue of a mandate seems lost in the fog of politics. Finality will rest on horse trading in the upper house to gain the plurality needed for success.
Such seems to be the way of the parliamentary system that contains a "house of review " in one form or another. In Federal parliament it is termed the "Senate " and rarely does one side of politics have a majority in both the lower and upper houses.
Originally it was hoped that these upper chambers would be the domain of gifted people far removed from the hardball of party politics and they would discuss issues before them in a fair and consistent manner. In recent times the composition of such upper houses has become the focus of single issue groups who gain a seat far in excess of the volume of support. Their voting intentions then become contradictory - and often tinged with malice. They are capable of bringing the business of government to a halt.
Some may contend that a mandate is only possible if these upper houses are removed and that when the voters go to the polls they are bestowing a mandate on whichever party gains a majority. That party is then free to implement the issues they took to the election. The sole purpose of an election is for the majority to decide on the issues put before them.
In it's purest form, all legislation would need prior approval by way of a mandate decided by what a political party proposes when seeking office !
This was opposed by the Labor party who tried to mislead the public by claiming that Mike Baird was "selling "a public asset. In fact, poles and wires will remain in public ownership. The deal is for a ninety-nine year lease with the rent up front and that money available for immediate use - and the poles and wires revert to public ownership when the lease expires.
Mike Bairds's Liberal/National coalition won the election easily. Luke Foley's Labor party clawed back some seats lost at last election's landslide, but Baird can claim his win as a "mandate "for his poles and wires proposal. This raises the question of exactly what is involved in a "mandate "and how does it apply ?
Baird went to the people with poles and wires as the main - indeed some would say "sole " item - on the government's agenda. Foley claimed that the vast majority of New South Wales people were against the proposal. The election was billed as a referendum on this issue - and clearly it was not rejected in the vote.
A plethora of past Labor prime ministers and state premiers branded acceptance of the poles and wires issue as essential to the state - and publicly endorsed it. Labor luminaries fulminated at the union featherbedding and rorting they had imposed on this state instrumentality. It was an issue past Labor regimes had tried to implement - and failed because of union pressure within the party movement.
The issue of gaining a mandate is certainly mired in controversy. Certainly not every voter who voted for the coalition on Saturday favoured poles and wires - and most definitely not all those who voted Labor rejected it, but when an issue is the prime plank of a political party - and they win an election handsomely - they have a right to to put that plan into effect.
Despite this election win, the issue will still face a stumbling block in the upper house. The voters were presented with a form as big as a tablecloth containing the names of 394 candidates vying for election in just 42 seats. Before the election, the Liberal/Nationals held seventeen seats, Labor fourteen, the Greens five, and two each were held by the Shooters and Fishers, Christian Democrats and the Independents. The balance of power was in the hands of the minor parties.
Mike Baird has a point when he claims that Luke Foley lost the referendum on poles and wires - and should join the government in pushing the legislation into law. Foley may claim that he would be going against the wishes of those who voted Labor and must remain committed to it's rejection. Once again, the issue of a mandate seems lost in the fog of politics. Finality will rest on horse trading in the upper house to gain the plurality needed for success.
Such seems to be the way of the parliamentary system that contains a "house of review " in one form or another. In Federal parliament it is termed the "Senate " and rarely does one side of politics have a majority in both the lower and upper houses.
Originally it was hoped that these upper chambers would be the domain of gifted people far removed from the hardball of party politics and they would discuss issues before them in a fair and consistent manner. In recent times the composition of such upper houses has become the focus of single issue groups who gain a seat far in excess of the volume of support. Their voting intentions then become contradictory - and often tinged with malice. They are capable of bringing the business of government to a halt.
Some may contend that a mandate is only possible if these upper houses are removed and that when the voters go to the polls they are bestowing a mandate on whichever party gains a majority. That party is then free to implement the issues they took to the election. The sole purpose of an election is for the majority to decide on the issues put before them.
In it's purest form, all legislation would need prior approval by way of a mandate decided by what a political party proposes when seeking office !
Sunday, 29 March 2015
A New "Flying " Fear !
The voice recorder tape recovered from a Germanwings aircraft that crashed into the French Alps delivered a chilling message. When the captain left the cockpit to visit the toilet the co-pilot locked him out and sent the plane to it's doom. The captain can be heard hammering on the door and demanding admittance. Then comes the shriek of the "ground proximity "warning alarm and the screams of the terrified passengers - and then an abrupt silence. It seems that the likely cause was an emotional breakup between the co-pilot and his fiancee - leading to a suicide that included one hundred and forty nine other innocent people.
This was not an entirely isolated incident. Since 1976 there have been at least eight plane crashes that have been deliberately caused by a crew member. In April 1994 a Federal Express employee hitched a ride on a DC10 freighter flying from Tennessee to California, a privilege sanctioned by the company. He attacked the three pilots with a spear gun and metal hammers and two of the wounded crew grappled with him while the pilot - drifting in and out of consciousness - managed to safely land the plane. The attacker had ambitions to become a pilot but was failing his grades and believed that the insurance involved in his death in a plane crash would provide the security for his estranged wife and child he could not deliver. He is now serving a lengthy prison sentence.
In December 1997 a Silk Air plane flying over Indonesian territory broke the sound barrier when it dived at maximum power and crashed into a muddy river, killing all one hundred and four people aboard. The captain sent the co-pilot out of the cockpit and locked the door, before deliberately crashing the plane. It was later revealed that he was a former high ranking air force officer who played the stock exchange, trading on margins. The Asian economic crisis had left him short and he was just days away from bankruptcy - and in an Asian society that is socially untenable. He hoped that insurance from his death would solve his financial problems and spare his family humiliation.
In October 1999 an Egypt Air Boeing 767 mysteriously crashed into the ocean on a flight from New York to Cairo. One of the relief crew pilots was known to solicit sex on American city stopovers and on this trip his boss was amongst the passengers. When he solicited sex from a chambermaid at a city hotel this resulted in a complaint made to his boss. He was carpeted - and perhaps unwisely - his boss told him his flying days were over and when they returned to Cairo he would be demoted to a desk job. When he was along in the cockpit on the return flight he took the aircraft off autopilot and killed all the two hundred and seventeen people aboard.
The ghosts of Malaysian Airlines flight MH 370 lingers in the minds of many people. It seems inconceivable that a modern airliner can stray off course and disappear without trace, but so far the mystery is beyond solution. Untold millions are being spent searching for the wreckage - and there is suspicion that this disappearance could have been a bizarre form of suicide by a crew member. The entire airline industry is beefing up cabin procedures. In future, it is unlikely that the rules will allow a single person to be alone in the plane's cockpit under any circumstances.
Unfortunately, the publicity surrounding the MH 370 disappearance may have put this form of suicide into other people's minds. It seems certain that passengers will wonder what pressures and anxieties exist in the life of those piloting planes they are carried in - and it is a fact that events that excite the news media tend to invite repetition. In a disturbed mind, crashing a plane may seem an entirely reasonable method of suicide. That is often termed the " copycat "syndrome.
Perhaps we have awakened a sleeping giant. It is not only the airline industry that puts the lives of others at risk. Should the driver of a packed commuter train decide to end his or her life in a blaze of glory and open the throttle to maximum speed and ignore all signals - the end result would be catastrophic. The opportunity for mayhem exists with tourist buses and with the drivers of all sorts of heavy transport. The main danger is that this form of personal annihilation involving taking down a group of other people as company may appeal to disturbed minds. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how any reasonable defence is possible.
Fortunately, taken in the context of the entire airline industry the incidence of suicide at the controls of an aircraft is minimal in relation to the numbers of flights that occur daily. Horrifying as that concept may be, it simply reinforces the claim that flying is still the safest form of transport when all risks are taken into account !
This was not an entirely isolated incident. Since 1976 there have been at least eight plane crashes that have been deliberately caused by a crew member. In April 1994 a Federal Express employee hitched a ride on a DC10 freighter flying from Tennessee to California, a privilege sanctioned by the company. He attacked the three pilots with a spear gun and metal hammers and two of the wounded crew grappled with him while the pilot - drifting in and out of consciousness - managed to safely land the plane. The attacker had ambitions to become a pilot but was failing his grades and believed that the insurance involved in his death in a plane crash would provide the security for his estranged wife and child he could not deliver. He is now serving a lengthy prison sentence.
In December 1997 a Silk Air plane flying over Indonesian territory broke the sound barrier when it dived at maximum power and crashed into a muddy river, killing all one hundred and four people aboard. The captain sent the co-pilot out of the cockpit and locked the door, before deliberately crashing the plane. It was later revealed that he was a former high ranking air force officer who played the stock exchange, trading on margins. The Asian economic crisis had left him short and he was just days away from bankruptcy - and in an Asian society that is socially untenable. He hoped that insurance from his death would solve his financial problems and spare his family humiliation.
In October 1999 an Egypt Air Boeing 767 mysteriously crashed into the ocean on a flight from New York to Cairo. One of the relief crew pilots was known to solicit sex on American city stopovers and on this trip his boss was amongst the passengers. When he solicited sex from a chambermaid at a city hotel this resulted in a complaint made to his boss. He was carpeted - and perhaps unwisely - his boss told him his flying days were over and when they returned to Cairo he would be demoted to a desk job. When he was along in the cockpit on the return flight he took the aircraft off autopilot and killed all the two hundred and seventeen people aboard.
The ghosts of Malaysian Airlines flight MH 370 lingers in the minds of many people. It seems inconceivable that a modern airliner can stray off course and disappear without trace, but so far the mystery is beyond solution. Untold millions are being spent searching for the wreckage - and there is suspicion that this disappearance could have been a bizarre form of suicide by a crew member. The entire airline industry is beefing up cabin procedures. In future, it is unlikely that the rules will allow a single person to be alone in the plane's cockpit under any circumstances.
Unfortunately, the publicity surrounding the MH 370 disappearance may have put this form of suicide into other people's minds. It seems certain that passengers will wonder what pressures and anxieties exist in the life of those piloting planes they are carried in - and it is a fact that events that excite the news media tend to invite repetition. In a disturbed mind, crashing a plane may seem an entirely reasonable method of suicide. That is often termed the " copycat "syndrome.
Perhaps we have awakened a sleeping giant. It is not only the airline industry that puts the lives of others at risk. Should the driver of a packed commuter train decide to end his or her life in a blaze of glory and open the throttle to maximum speed and ignore all signals - the end result would be catastrophic. The opportunity for mayhem exists with tourist buses and with the drivers of all sorts of heavy transport. The main danger is that this form of personal annihilation involving taking down a group of other people as company may appeal to disturbed minds. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how any reasonable defence is possible.
Fortunately, taken in the context of the entire airline industry the incidence of suicide at the controls of an aircraft is minimal in relation to the numbers of flights that occur daily. Horrifying as that concept may be, it simply reinforces the claim that flying is still the safest form of transport when all risks are taken into account !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)