The Australian tax Hemorrhage !

About fifteen percent of the Australian population are still regular smokers and the crime industry was not slow in seeing the opportunity this presented for illicit profits.  Smoking prevention laws have driven the retail price of a packet of twenty Marlboro cigarettes to $ 27 and these can be bought overseas fort just three dollars.

Smuggling tobacco is a lot safer than trying to bring narcotics into this country.  The penalties are mild compared to what the courts hand down in drug cases and yet the profits are similar.  We have now reached the stage where illicit tobacco is hemorrhaging tax revenues of more than $ 294 million a year.

The problem is that it is a still growing industry.  Originally, dodgy smokes were being distributed by shady characters in back lanes but now a very open distribution network has emerged.  The rumour mill will direct you to some sort of retail business where cartons of foreign branded cigarettes are available from under the counter in defiance of the law.  One such illegal store in Bondi was recently  raided and the proprietor handed a $ 72,000 fine for selling tobacco without health warnings.

The market is also widening.  Not only cartons of cigarettes flowing into this country, but we now have illegal tobacco farms growing the product for distribution outside the tax regime.   This is reaching the market as " chop chop " loose leaf which allows smokers to roll their own.   A six hectare crop was discovered in March near the Victorian and New South Wales border and valued by law enforcement as worth $ 15.4 million.

This illegal tobacco industry is now no longer concentrated in a few city outlets.  Just about every large country town now has a reseller that is well known to the locals.   These are harder for the police to take down because they usually only sell to customers who are personally known to them.  This is big business, with fleets of delivery trucks taking care of state wide distribution.

There is no mystery about who controls this trade.  The proprietors move easily in the upper echelons of society and flaunt their wealth.   From time to time the authorities bust an incoming shipment and this features in the nightly news, but that is just a " business expense " in the eyes of the smugglers. A small " inconvenience " that is quickly rectified.

This illegal enterprise is run on similar lines to the Mafia crime empire.   The top people have " clean hands " and are not directly involved in day by day operations.   The lesser fry are well compensated for prison time and know to keep their mouth shut.   It takes skilful police infiltration to break cases.

The sheer volume of imports coming into this country makes intensive inspection of all cargo impossible. X-Raying of entire container loads is increasing, but it is unlikely that we will ever be in a position to check more than a small portion of whatever enters the country.  Tobacco products are bulky, but they are usually described on manifests as a product of similar size and weight.

It seems that tobacco contraband is now a well established industry that is impossible to eradicate - as long as we still have smokers in this country.

Airbng Rental Clearance !

A win for the people who live in apartment buildings and want to use the Airbng rental service  to increase their income.  An owner/resident has just scored a ruling by the New South Wales Civil Administration Tribunal ( NCAT ) that by-laws imposed by Body Corporates can not " prohibit or restrict " the operation of a lot.  That means this applicant can legally rent her unit.

Of course, this only applies to New South Wales and it seems certain that the Tribunals ruling will be challenged in a higher court.  Living in an apartment building is very different from living in a free standing house.  It is a form of " communal living " and we are still sorting out the rules that apply.

For years, some body corporates totally banned any form of pets.  It not only applied to dogs and cats, but was zealously applied to such items as caged Canaries and even gold fish.  That has been struck down and residents are now free to indulge their passion for pets, provided they obey reasonable noise and hygiene rules.

Smokers are facing  ever more stringent rules and their habit is coming under greater containment.  Smoking can be forbidden on open verandas where nicotine laden smoke can infiltrate nearby neighbours windows or pollute other open patios.  It is fast reaching the stage that some buildings will be declared entirely smoke free, prohibiting smoking even within the living areas of individual units.

This case which resulted in a tribunal ruling will be controversial, but it will attract support and condemnation in equal measure.  The woman seeking to rent her apartment is a 38 year old school teacher and she claims that she gained $ 13,000 last year from rental payments.   To many people, such income may be the difference in affordability in becoming a homeowner and a restriction places a limitation on our rights to do what we please within the confines of our own home.

The reason the case went to the tribunal was a complaint from a neighbour.   This woman was distressed to encounter total strangers in the communal laundry area and she also objected to men sitting on the neighbouring deck and watching what she was doing in her unit.  The fact that her neighbour was a school teacher could result in this happening repeatedly because of the extensive school holidays.

One of the problems is that Airbnb rentals introduce an unexpected living change.   When people select a unit and make a purchase they usually make that selection taking into account the type of neighbours and the unit lifestyle.   That can not be guaranteed.   Real Estate has a constant turnover and areas change due to " gentrification "in some cases and loss of appeal in many others.   If the locality gains transport links, many placid, low rise areas suddenly blossom towering high rise and a vastly changed economic spectrum.

The rules that apply to apartment living are far from finalised.  The final decision will probably involve the High Court and that may be many years into the future.  It may well become a form of purchase agreement applied to individual buildings.  Some people may be prepared to pay a higher purchase price for certainty that an embargo is in place to prevent any form of short term renting from becoming a reality.

But such an embargo would need to survive court challenges !

The " Privacy " issue !

As part of the computer age a new form of communication brought a mixed bag of delight and threats.  Public forums like Facebook and Twitter opened the opportunity for very " ordinary" people to have their say on anything from their personal gripes to comment on world events.  Just about any imaginable subject was open slather for a " Tweet " !

Unfortunately, there was a dark side to this world wide web.  When relationships soured a partner with malicious intent could post salacious pictures on the net to inflict hurt and the innocent party had difficulty getting them removed.   That was usually a lengthy process and by the time they succeeded - the damage was done !

Social media is such a new phenomenon that just how the law applies to it is uncertain.  Laws are now in place to punish people who post offensive material without the consent of the person depicted in any photograph or other form of image and the media proprietors must respond promptly to legitimate " take down " requests.  The protocols in place are being steadily tightened.

Now a new form of attack has burst onto the social media scene.  A correspondent who it is claimed is the CEO of a trading company has revealed damaging financial information on the inner workings of that company.  The matter revealed includes the margins in place to deliver profit and even the arrangements with individual clients.  This is precisely what the courts would consider " commercial confidential "  and slap on a restricted access notice if it emerged in a court case.

The instigator certainly was not that firms CEO.   Someone used that persons identity to create a Twitter account and it seems that this was part of a determined plan to harm the integrity of that company.  As fast as these tweets are taken down, new ones appear, purporting to come from other senior company members.   It seems to be a case of mass identity theft.

It is also apparent that the nature of the disclosure makes it certain that the information is coming from an internal source and of coursed the company is desperate to learn just who is responsible. Twitter refuses to reveal that information, unless ordered to do so by a court.  The company's lawyers have sought a court order to uncover the tweeters name, IP address, phone number, email address and location.   It is also requested that such information also apply to accounts linked to that same email.

No doubt this disgruntled tweeter will be unmasked, but that will open a new can of worms.  This was not a blackmail attempt.   There was no threat of further disclosures unless a ransom was paid, hence this disclosure was not a crime.   It is quite possible that simply disclosing information that its owner would prefer to keep secret breaks no law.  In fact, some people will claim that it is fully justified in the interests of " whistleblower "  protection.

Perhaps this opens a new hazard for company management.  The unnerving prospect that a low level employee with access to critical company information may become aggrieved because of being passed over for promotion and decide to take revenge on the company by divulging sensitive information on public media.   It also opens an avenue of discontent that may arise if management needs to discipline an employee for shoddy work.  It delivers an entirely new aspect on the risks companies face in maintaining good internal security and staff loyalty.

It seems that the advance of science is a double edged sword !

Now the " Abortion " Issue !

Most people are sick and tired of the avalanche of letters arriving in the daily mail seeking donations for various medical research charities.  We agree with the aims of many, but there is a limitation on how much the average family can afford to contribute.

The destination of the " charity dollar " is widely split.   We need to decide whether to fund medical research that may find a cure for many debilitating  diseases or whether the money would be better spent saving those starving to death in drought stricken countries but now it seems we are about to be asked to put our hands in or pocket to fund abortion and contraceptives for those Australians who can't pay for private services.

Marie Stopes Australia is the only supplier of medical abortion in this country and they have now attained tax deductable  status on the donations they received.  They are seeking " brave philanthropists " to bankroll a three million dollar fund to provide both abortions and contraceptives to those Australians unable to afford them.

The average cost of a medical termination in Australia runs to five hundred dollars, and this is unaffordable to many in the lower social order.  In addition, those from rural locations must find travel and accommodation money to access whatever services are available.   There are long waiting times for those seeking long acting reversible contraception at hospital out patients departments.

Reproductive services in Australia's health system stirs varied emotions.  The Catholic church opposes most forms of contraception and rejects abortion under any circumstances.  When the " pill " became the newest form of contraception more than half a century ago it put a cheap and reliable form of contraception in the hands of the masses.  To most people, the debate on contraception was over.

Abortion is an entirely different matter.  Publicly funded abortion services are not available in New South Wales, Queensland, The ACT and Tasmania.   Other states provide limited services and it is freely available in a few public hospitals only in Victoria.

In fact abortion is still a crime in New South Wales and is only permitted when a doctor deems that continuation of a pregnancy will harm the physical or mental health of that person.  This is open to wide interpretation and consequently availability usually relies on the moral outlook of the individual doctor.  It is freely available in some areas, and almost entirely missing in others.

Asking the public to donate to provide abortion services opens an old wound.   Those that oppose abortion tend to do so with an almost savage intensity.  A fund to pay for abortion services for the poor will be like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

Unfortunately, it seems the only way many will succeed in terminating an unwanted pregnancy.  We are unlikely to see debate in our parliament to allow pregnancy termination services in the hospital system.   Our cowardly politicians would run a mile before committing themselves to a public vote - and risk losing voting support in their electorates.

As the present furore over same sex marriage shows, anything to do with " sex " still stirs public emotions.  Unwanted pregnancies should be a thing of the past.  Modern, reliable contraception is available on prescription from most medical clinics but even the few dollars involved is beyond the reach of some people.

And for the really poor, that good old trusty condom is freely available for pennies at the local service station - and most grocery outlets !

Those " Heritage " Decisions !

The battle for the preservation of parts of " old " Sydney sometimes wanders into strange decision making.  Such was the case when plans went before council for a new apartment building on Bayswater street, Potts Point.  This was a replacement for a 1912 vintage Edwardian faced apartment building which some people thought had " heritage " value.   As a result, the plan only received approval with the inclusion of provisions that this old façade be preserved and integrated into the new building.

That certainly delivered immense problems to the developer, not the least of which was site access. How do you construct a new eight story, forty-four apartment building on a city site when the only access to the street is blocked by a façade - which must be retained ?   It seems the developer just ignored the heritage order and used sledge hammers to destroy the façade.

That was a law breach that could result in a $5 million fine and possibly a prison term if it proceeds to a criminal prosecution.  But the façade destruction did eliminate the problem of integrating something old into something new.  The heritage order required this old façade of Hensley Hall to be preserved and the new building constructed both behind and above that façade.    That would require a 1912 entrance to a building with apartments already selling off the plan for prices starting at $ 820,000.

The developer now claims that the destruction of the old façade was inevitable.  On inspection, it was found that the spandrels and parapets thought to be masonry were actually timber and this was rotted with age.  This unstable structure was cleared away because the developer intends to restore the façade - using brick.

From a point of view of building practice, trying to construct a new building while an unstable facade is preserved would be a nightmare.  Far easier to simply restore something reasonably like what was there before, but using modern material.   The only problem is that this new façade will bear absolutely no relationship to what was sought to be preserved.

To the eye of the historian, heritage is preservation of something that is an example of the past exactly as it was in that earlier period.  Many would question whether inflicting the façade of an old building on the front of a modern high building serves that purpose.  Few will be satisfied with a carefully constructed impression on what that old façade looked like but presented with modern building materials.

Now the law must take its course.  A punitive aspect must discourage others from interfering with heritage orders but it should also include a more technical involvement in the decision when heritage orders are being decided.   The aesthetics need to be in tune with the practical nature of what is proposed.

It will be interesting to see exactly what finally fronts the street when this new Hensley House opens its doors to the public.

The " Gender " Issue !

Becoming a director of a public company brings with it prestige and influence, but it also imposes an obligation to  abide by the rules that government agencies impose.  A director who flaunts those rules can face court and be convicted of a felony which results in a prison sentence.  In many cases, the court will bar that person from serving as a company director for a given number of years.

In the distant past, it was unusual for a woman to serve on the board of any company in Australia.  It was usual for a small group of men known for their business integrity to sit on a number of company boards and there was male exclusivity in both the board of directors and the senior management of most companies.  This was a very " comfortable " arrangement that persisted for years.

In fact, in the earlier twentieth century it was unusual for many women to have any sort of permanent employment after marriage.  The genders observed the male as the " breadwinner " and the female as the " home maker " and most women were simply tasked with rearing the children.   That is not the situation today.

The economics of present day Australia require both genders to earn a pay packet and a huge child care industry exists to allow that to happen.  Women have not yet risen to pay equality with men but they are fast moving into management roles and many are starting their own companies.  The " glass ceiling " has been shattered and one of the reasons is the move women have made in getting elected and serving in Australia's parliaments.

Those parliaments are now looking to rebalance company boards with a greater number of women directors and this seems to be meeting resistance. Statistics show that eleven of the ASX 200 companies have no women on their boards and a further sixty-four have just one.  There is suspicion that many companies simply select a reasonably compliant woman for the job and that the appointment is merely for " keeping up appearances ".  The  " real " decisions are still made by the conclave of men.

" Push " is changing to " shove " and the forty thousand members of the Australian Institute of Company Directors ( AICD ) is coming under pressure to accept a government mandated  quota system in which all boards will comprise a thirty percent women content by the end of 2018.

There is no doubt that the aspect of how women see things can be beneficial to the way companies do business because women are fifty percent of the purchasing public.  A well balanced board is less likely to make marketing mistakes or stray into practices which break the law, but there is a danger when appointing women to boards becomes a legal requirement.  Gender then becomes the ruling factor rather than aptitude for the job.

It is rather frightening to think that if this law becomes reality, in the coming fifteen months an enormous number of companies across the entire business spectrum will need to select and appoint women directors to achieve that thirty percent gender balance.  How many compliant wives or mistresses will be elevate to board status, to make up the numbers and achieve legality ?   How many women will be thrust into positions in which they lack the business knowledge or the particular depth of technical know how of the business they now control ?

It would do immeasurable damage to the status of women to have a few glaring examples of newly appointed women directors resulting in marketing fiascos - and the critics will exploit that with glee. This time factor is too short to implement with legal thrust.  A five year time frame would allow suitable women to be groomed for the job, and for women with board pretensions to prepare for that responsibility.

The " Rohingya " Problem !

The misery of unwelcome minorities at war with their hosts is often a tragic leftover from the days of European nations establishing their colonial empires.   At a time when Britain ruled both India and Burma and they needed workers to establish a new industry they simply moved expatriates from one country to another.

How the world has changed.   India gained freedom in 1947 but divided into India and Pakistan to separate warring religions.  Part of Pakistan later hived off to form Bangladesh and Burma changed its name to Myanmar.  A Muslim minority stranded in Myanmar are now the "Rohingya " and they are persecuted by their Buddhist hosts.

There are about a million Rohingya in a remote coastal part of Myanmar bordering Bangladesh.  They have lived there for many generations under British rule but the relationship soured after that country's independence.  The Rohingya live in poverty and they are refused national identity. Now they are experiencing a campaign of terror inflicted by the Myanmar army.  Their villages are being burned and they are subjected to rape and extermination.  Hundreds of thousands have been fleeing to Bangladesh.

In effect, this is a classic example of  " ethnic cleansing ".  The Myanmar Buddhists want to drive them out - and Bangladesh is an overcrowded country - and doesn't want them.  The United Nations is calling for calm and trying to negotiate a settlement.

Myanmar is not a normal country.  For years it was ruled by a military junta and only recently has it emerged as a part democracy.  The military yielded some power to Aung San Suu  Kyi but they control the parliament and retain full control of law and order - and defence.

One of the problems is that hot heads amongst the Rohingya took up arms and attacked police posts. That has caused the military to launch a reign of terror on the entire population and Aung San Suu Kyi's appeal for calm is being ignored.  The military claim that this Muslim insurgency will attract freedom fighters from Islamic State and they intend to stamp out the insurrection before it gathers strength.   They seem intent on pushing the Rohingya over the border and not letting them return.

Aung San Suu Kyi is in a difficult position.  The Buddhist masses  support the Rohingya removal and if she speaks out in their favour she will lose their support.   She walks a delicate balance, imposing a small degree of conformity on the army and gently nudging Myanmar towards becoming a democratic country.  She is losing world support because of her silence on the Rohingya.

Most of the Rohingya are now living in squalid refugee camps in Bangladesh.  Their villages are burnt to the ground and the Myanmar army shows no sign of stopping its campaign.  It seems the Rohingya will shortly be entirely displaced and the people of Myanmar will have got their wish.  Unfortunately, the Rohingya may end up being an unwelcome Muslim minority imposed on a resentful Muslim majority country.   Their impoverishment is unlikely to improve.

The United Nations may impose sanctions on Myanmar, but that country is struggling to find its place in the world and sanctions may cause the army to reimpose the control it is only slowly yielding.  If force resulted in a Rohingya return, it would probably become a religious civil war as freedom fighters join what is fast becoming a religious jihad.

When religion is involved, sanity rarely prevails !