It seems the Iranians must be reflecting on past glories. The seizure of British sailors and Marines searching cargo ships under a UN mandate brings back memories of the storming of the US embassy in Tehran and the long running crisis that followed.
The basis of this action depends on whether the British were in Iranian or Iraqui waters, but that is unlikely to be ever factually decided - nor will it play a big part in what follows.
The Iranians are playing a dangerous game. This is not the Americans they are tangling with - and the British have a long history of managing an empire by playing off enemies against each other.
There is an old Arab saying - " The enemy of my enemy is my friend " !
Iran should remember that it is a prominent Sh'ite country - and that the Sh'ite sector is very much the smaller of the Sh'ite/Sunni divisions of Islam. It is surrounded by Arab states who do not look upon Iranians as " Arabs " but as " Persians " - and many of those Sunni countries resent Iranian efforts to take centre stage in middle eastern affairs.
The British are very good at welding together strange alliances and Iran is vulnerable to the aspirations of other Arab states. It would suit many to see the Sh'ite's suffer a humiliation and be taken down a peg or two - and of course there is always the lure of those rich Iranian oil fields.
Iran would be wise to end this hostage crisis quickly. If it is prolonged it will play into British hands to negotiate complex alliances - and where those lead nobody knows !
Saturday, 31 March 2007
Friday, 30 March 2007
Justice in high places !
Nobody likes paying speeding fines - and even less the demerit driving points loss that goes with them. But - there is a way out ! If someone else was driving the car and not the owner - then all that is required is for the owner to sign a statutory declaration advising who the person was that was driving the car when the offence occurred.
Federal court judge Marcus Einfeld (67) did just that to escape several speeding fines - but there was a problem. According to a police investigation the person named died several years before the alleged speeding offence.
Now Einfeld must face court, charged with six counts of perverting the course of justice, three counts of perjury and four of making a false instrument. The most serious of these matters could result in a gaol term of fourteen years.
What amazes most people is that the fine involved is a mere seventy-seven dollars. It seems inconceivable that a man on the salary of a Federal court judge would indulge in criminal activity to avoid such a trifling amount.
It is also a lesson on how things can escalate - and the obvious tale that illustrates that truth concerned the once most powerful man in the world, ex-US president Richard Nixon.
The Watergate break-in was simply a minor crime and one that would normally not attract much attention in the frenzy of a presidential election campaign. What elevated it to national prominence were the lies and deceit employed to try and shift the blame and claim innocence. As the facts evolved more players were gathered in the net - until the ultimate victim became the president himself - leading to the humiliation of a resignation and loss of the highest office in the land.
There must be a moral there somewhere. Unfortunately it seems to fade into the background when the human trait of greed takes centre stage.
Federal court judge Marcus Einfeld (67) did just that to escape several speeding fines - but there was a problem. According to a police investigation the person named died several years before the alleged speeding offence.
Now Einfeld must face court, charged with six counts of perverting the course of justice, three counts of perjury and four of making a false instrument. The most serious of these matters could result in a gaol term of fourteen years.
What amazes most people is that the fine involved is a mere seventy-seven dollars. It seems inconceivable that a man on the salary of a Federal court judge would indulge in criminal activity to avoid such a trifling amount.
It is also a lesson on how things can escalate - and the obvious tale that illustrates that truth concerned the once most powerful man in the world, ex-US president Richard Nixon.
The Watergate break-in was simply a minor crime and one that would normally not attract much attention in the frenzy of a presidential election campaign. What elevated it to national prominence were the lies and deceit employed to try and shift the blame and claim innocence. As the facts evolved more players were gathered in the net - until the ultimate victim became the president himself - leading to the humiliation of a resignation and loss of the highest office in the land.
There must be a moral there somewhere. Unfortunately it seems to fade into the background when the human trait of greed takes centre stage.
Thursday, 29 March 2007
Plea bargaining.
Many people are mystified as to why alleged terrorist David Hicks would plead guilty to a crime he claims he did not commit in response to a plea bargaining deal.
Plea bargaining is an American invention. It is usually " a deal " between the prosecution and the prosecuted in which more serious charges are dropped in exchange for a plea of guilty to lesser charges.
In many cases, the prosecution has a weak case and knows that the prosecution may fail. The person prosecuted has the option of taking a chance and walking free if that happens - or serving a much longer sentence if found guilty. Taking " the deal " removes that risk in return for a lesser sentence.
David Hicks probably made his decision based on two factors. He was desperate to get out of Gitmo - and most likely the sentence he will serve has already been agreed by him and his captors - and whatever time he serves will be in his home country - Australia.
This scenario brings back memories of another " deal " struck after members of the French DGSE - the equivalent of the American CIA or the British MI6 - bombed the Greenpeace protest ship " Rainbow Warrior " in Auckland harbour on July 10, 1985.
Two members of the team were caught and faced a murder charge after their bombing killed a crew member. They were found guilty - and were given a long prison sentence.
The French government demanded that they be released and imposed commercial sanctions on New Zealand trade, banning imports of New Zealand farm products into France and crippling the New Zealand economy.
Eventually " a deal " was struck. The two DGSE members would be sent to the French island of Hao in the Pacific where they would serve the full term of the sentence imposed by a New Zealand court. They would be prisoners - but prisoners on French soil.
That deal lasted less than three years. In May, 1988,on various pretences the deceitful French repatriated them to France with President Mitterand giving them a public welcome just before a national election. They were feted as heroes, decorated and promoted.
It seems that " deals " between nations depend on the honesty of the nations involved - and which one has the superior military power !
Plea bargaining is an American invention. It is usually " a deal " between the prosecution and the prosecuted in which more serious charges are dropped in exchange for a plea of guilty to lesser charges.
In many cases, the prosecution has a weak case and knows that the prosecution may fail. The person prosecuted has the option of taking a chance and walking free if that happens - or serving a much longer sentence if found guilty. Taking " the deal " removes that risk in return for a lesser sentence.
David Hicks probably made his decision based on two factors. He was desperate to get out of Gitmo - and most likely the sentence he will serve has already been agreed by him and his captors - and whatever time he serves will be in his home country - Australia.
This scenario brings back memories of another " deal " struck after members of the French DGSE - the equivalent of the American CIA or the British MI6 - bombed the Greenpeace protest ship " Rainbow Warrior " in Auckland harbour on July 10, 1985.
Two members of the team were caught and faced a murder charge after their bombing killed a crew member. They were found guilty - and were given a long prison sentence.
The French government demanded that they be released and imposed commercial sanctions on New Zealand trade, banning imports of New Zealand farm products into France and crippling the New Zealand economy.
Eventually " a deal " was struck. The two DGSE members would be sent to the French island of Hao in the Pacific where they would serve the full term of the sentence imposed by a New Zealand court. They would be prisoners - but prisoners on French soil.
That deal lasted less than three years. In May, 1988,on various pretences the deceitful French repatriated them to France with President Mitterand giving them a public welcome just before a national election. They were feted as heroes, decorated and promoted.
It seems that " deals " between nations depend on the honesty of the nations involved - and which one has the superior military power !
Plea bargaining.
Many people are mystified as to why alleged terrorist David Hicks would plead guilty to a crime he claims he did not commit in response to a plea bargaining deal.
Plea bargaining is an American invention. It is usually " a deal " between the prosecution and the prosecuted in which more serious charges are dropped in exchange for a plea of guilty to lesser charges.
In many cases, the prosecution has a weak case and knows that the prosecution may fail. The person prosecuted has the option of taking a chance and walking free if that happens - or serving a much longer sentence if found guilty. Taking " the deal " removes that risk in return for a lesser sentence.
David Hicks probably made his decision based on two factors. He was desperate to get out of Gitmo - and most likely the sentence he will serve has already been agreed by him and his captors - and whatever time he serves will be in his home country - Australia.
This scenario brings back memories of another " deal " struck after members of the French DGSE - the equivalent of the American CIA or the British MI6 - bombed the Greenpeace protest ship " Rainbow Warrior " in Auckland harbour on July 10, 1985.
Two members of the team were caught and faced a murder charge after their bombing killed a crew member. They were found guilty - and were given a long prison sentence.
The French government demanded that they be released and imposed commercial sanctions on New Zealand trade, banning imports of New Zealand farm products into France and crippling the New Zealand economy.
Eventually " a deal " was struck. The two DGSE members would be sent to the French island of Hao in the Pacific where they would serve the full term of the sentence imposed by a New Zealand court. They would be prisoners - but prisoners on French soil.
That deal lasted less than three years. In May, 1988,on various pretences the deceitful French repatriated them to France with President Mitterand giving them a public welcome just before a national election. They were feted as heroes, decorated and promoted.
It seems that " deals " between nations depend on the honesty of the nations involved - and which one has the superior military power !
Plea bargaining is an American invention. It is usually " a deal " between the prosecution and the prosecuted in which more serious charges are dropped in exchange for a plea of guilty to lesser charges.
In many cases, the prosecution has a weak case and knows that the prosecution may fail. The person prosecuted has the option of taking a chance and walking free if that happens - or serving a much longer sentence if found guilty. Taking " the deal " removes that risk in return for a lesser sentence.
David Hicks probably made his decision based on two factors. He was desperate to get out of Gitmo - and most likely the sentence he will serve has already been agreed by him and his captors - and whatever time he serves will be in his home country - Australia.
This scenario brings back memories of another " deal " struck after members of the French DGSE - the equivalent of the American CIA or the British MI6 - bombed the Greenpeace protest ship " Rainbow Warrior " in Auckland harbour on July 10, 1985.
Two members of the team were caught and faced a murder charge after their bombing killed a crew member. They were found guilty - and were given a long prison sentence.
The French government demanded that they be released and imposed commercial sanctions on New Zealand trade, banning imports of New Zealand farm products into France and crippling the New Zealand economy.
Eventually " a deal " was struck. The two DGSE members would be sent to the French island of Hao in the Pacific where they would serve the full term of the sentence imposed by a New Zealand court. They would be prisoners - but prisoners on French soil.
That deal lasted less than three years. In May, 1988,on various pretences the deceitful French repatriated them to France with President Mitterand giving them a public welcome just before a national election. They were feted as heroes, decorated and promoted.
It seems that " deals " between nations depend on the honesty of the nations involved - and which one has the superior military power !
Wednesday, 28 March 2007
The " Bail house " option.
Some time ago the state government tightened bail laws when it was revealed that those on bail were using their freedom to create more crime. Bail had become a " revolving door " and new procedures restricted the options open to magistrates.
Unfortunately this created a new problem. The state simply did not have enough gaol cells to accommodate the influx of new remand prisoners - and unsuitable alternatives were pushed into service.
One of these was the holding cells under Wollongong court house. These are designed to hold prisoners during the day while their trial is in progress. They were not intended for overnight accommodation and there is no provision for a shower, discussion with lawyers or any form of exercise. Meals are usually take away from McDonalds.
The cells are designed for eighteen prisoners. Research reveals that up to twenty-three remand prisoners are housed there, often for days at a time.
It has been suggested that a new approach to remand prisoners is needed. Not all prisoners are suitable for bail - but then again not all such prisoners need to be incarcerated in cells 24/7. Perhaps the answer would be a " Bail house " where remand prisoners could be released during the day to attend to their jobs and who would be required to present themselves at the end of work for lock-up during the night.
In that way their normal way of earning a living could be preserved. In many cases remand prisoners are held for matters that are unlikely to result in a custodial sentence, and yet the time spent in restraint on remand destroys relationships, causes employment to be terminated, mortgages to go unpaid - and generally presents the prisoner with an economic and social disaster.
There is also the matter of economics for the state. It costs about $ 200 a day to hold a remand prisoner in some sort of gaol. A " Bail house " option would be cheaper - and would greatly enhance the prospect of rehabilitation because normal life options would be preserved.
Unfortunately this created a new problem. The state simply did not have enough gaol cells to accommodate the influx of new remand prisoners - and unsuitable alternatives were pushed into service.
One of these was the holding cells under Wollongong court house. These are designed to hold prisoners during the day while their trial is in progress. They were not intended for overnight accommodation and there is no provision for a shower, discussion with lawyers or any form of exercise. Meals are usually take away from McDonalds.
The cells are designed for eighteen prisoners. Research reveals that up to twenty-three remand prisoners are housed there, often for days at a time.
It has been suggested that a new approach to remand prisoners is needed. Not all prisoners are suitable for bail - but then again not all such prisoners need to be incarcerated in cells 24/7. Perhaps the answer would be a " Bail house " where remand prisoners could be released during the day to attend to their jobs and who would be required to present themselves at the end of work for lock-up during the night.
In that way their normal way of earning a living could be preserved. In many cases remand prisoners are held for matters that are unlikely to result in a custodial sentence, and yet the time spent in restraint on remand destroys relationships, causes employment to be terminated, mortgages to go unpaid - and generally presents the prisoner with an economic and social disaster.
There is also the matter of economics for the state. It costs about $ 200 a day to hold a remand prisoner in some sort of gaol. A " Bail house " option would be cheaper - and would greatly enhance the prospect of rehabilitation because normal life options would be preserved.
Tuesday, 27 March 2007
Union muscle.
The unions are forever griping about the few unscrupulous employers who take advantage of the new industrial relations laws to peg back wages, but those same unions are not above using their industrial muscle in contravention of the law.
This week one of them got caught !
The giant Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy union ( CFMEU ) was fined $ 23,250 for falsely telling workers that they had to be members of the CFMEU to be able to work on job sites in Wollongong.
The law is very clear on this point. The days of " closed shop " - union members only work sites is long gone. Nobody is obliged to join a union as a condition of employment.
In this instance, the offending union has been ordered to place full page advertisements in Sydney newspapers advertising the fact that workers have a free choice whether or not to join the CFMEU.
Both the fine and the newspaper advertisements are part of an ongoing charade. This militant union has no intention of complying with the law. It's only regret is that it was stupid enough to get caught. There are subtle ways to get the message across to those seeking work and no doubt the CFMEU will continue to make it clear to new employees that they had better join the union - or else !
One of the objections many have to union membership is that the unions support one political party - and donate huge sums to support that party's effort to achieve government. These donations come from union dues - and so to many who have other political preferences it is galling to see their money directed against their political wishes.
Perhaps the time will come when by law union dues will have to be divided into two categories. A membership fee which is compulsory - and a political fee which the union can use to support a political party - which is optional.
Unfortunately whatever system the law dictates will not stop industrial muscle being used to achieve the outcome the union bosses demand !
This week one of them got caught !
The giant Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy union ( CFMEU ) was fined $ 23,250 for falsely telling workers that they had to be members of the CFMEU to be able to work on job sites in Wollongong.
The law is very clear on this point. The days of " closed shop " - union members only work sites is long gone. Nobody is obliged to join a union as a condition of employment.
In this instance, the offending union has been ordered to place full page advertisements in Sydney newspapers advertising the fact that workers have a free choice whether or not to join the CFMEU.
Both the fine and the newspaper advertisements are part of an ongoing charade. This militant union has no intention of complying with the law. It's only regret is that it was stupid enough to get caught. There are subtle ways to get the message across to those seeking work and no doubt the CFMEU will continue to make it clear to new employees that they had better join the union - or else !
One of the objections many have to union membership is that the unions support one political party - and donate huge sums to support that party's effort to achieve government. These donations come from union dues - and so to many who have other political preferences it is galling to see their money directed against their political wishes.
Perhaps the time will come when by law union dues will have to be divided into two categories. A membership fee which is compulsory - and a political fee which the union can use to support a political party - which is optional.
Unfortunately whatever system the law dictates will not stop industrial muscle being used to achieve the outcome the union bosses demand !
Union muscle.
The unions are forever griping about the few unscrupulous employers who take advantage of the new industrial relations laws to peg back wages, but those same unions are not above using their industrial muscle in contravention of the law.
This week one of them got caught !
The giant Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy union ( CFMEU ) was fined $ 23,250 for falsely telling workers that they had to be members of the CFMEU to be able to work on job sites in Wollongong.
The law is very clear on this point. The days of " closed shop " - union members only work sites is long gone. Nobody is obliged to join a union as a condition of employment.
In this instance, the offending union has been ordered to place full page advertisements in Sydney newspapers advertising the fact that workers have a free choice whether or not to join the CFMEU.
Both the fine and the newspaper advertisements are part of an ongoing charade. This militant union has no intention of complying with the law. It's only regret is that it was stupid enough to get caught. There are subtle ways to get the message across to those seeking work and no doubt the CFMEU will continue to make it clear to new employees that they had better join the union - or else !
One of the objections many have to union membership is that the unions support one political party - and donate huge sums to support that party's effort to achieve government. These donations come from union dues - and so to many who have other political preferences it is galling to see their money directed against their political wishes.
Perhaps the time will come when by law union dues will have to be divided into two categories. A membership fee which is compulsory - and a political fee which the union can use to support a political party - which is optional.
Unfortunately whatever system the law dictates will not stop industrial muscle being used to achieve the outcome the union bosses demand !
This week one of them got caught !
The giant Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy union ( CFMEU ) was fined $ 23,250 for falsely telling workers that they had to be members of the CFMEU to be able to work on job sites in Wollongong.
The law is very clear on this point. The days of " closed shop " - union members only work sites is long gone. Nobody is obliged to join a union as a condition of employment.
In this instance, the offending union has been ordered to place full page advertisements in Sydney newspapers advertising the fact that workers have a free choice whether or not to join the CFMEU.
Both the fine and the newspaper advertisements are part of an ongoing charade. This militant union has no intention of complying with the law. It's only regret is that it was stupid enough to get caught. There are subtle ways to get the message across to those seeking work and no doubt the CFMEU will continue to make it clear to new employees that they had better join the union - or else !
One of the objections many have to union membership is that the unions support one political party - and donate huge sums to support that party's effort to achieve government. These donations come from union dues - and so to many who have other political preferences it is galling to see their money directed against their political wishes.
Perhaps the time will come when by law union dues will have to be divided into two categories. A membership fee which is compulsory - and a political fee which the union can use to support a political party - which is optional.
Unfortunately whatever system the law dictates will not stop industrial muscle being used to achieve the outcome the union bosses demand !
Monday, 26 March 2007
The homeless !
On any given night welfare workers estimate that there are a hundred thousand homeless people scattered across this nation. They range over all ages and both genders and the only thing they have in common is that they have no permanent place of residence.
Home to many is the shelter of a bridge or a cubby constructed of cardboard cartons - with maybe a sheet of iron or some plastic to ward off the rain. They are vulnerable to those seeking to force sex upon them or those who consider doing them harm a form of sport.
Many agencies try to help. Soup kitchens provide a mobile service and welfare agencies maintain refuges, but the provision of such services never manages to accommodate the numbers that need such help.
The young homeless are of most concern to many. Their situation deprives them of any hope of finding a job and extricating themselves from the mess their lives have become. Employers usually need an address and expect their employees to present in a neat and tidy manner, something impossible when that person has rolled out of a cardboard carton and must come to work without either breakfast or the use of a bathroom.
The question of why they are homeless can present many answers. In some cases it is their own fault. Those that rebel against reasonable parental authority have a lot to learn about life, but for many it is a case of escaping sexual abuse - or of simply being rejected by those supposed to be their " loved ones ".
There is no answer. The homeless exist in every country of this world and the combined thinking power of governments, churches and welfare agencies across the globe has not been able to find an answer. Unfortunately homelessness is part of a journey that usually leads to life in a prison or at best - as a dependent in some sort of institution for those unable to fend for themselves.
Centuries ago such people were consigned to what was known as " the poor house ".
We are now a rich and cultured society - but as far as the homeless are concerned - nothing much has changed !
Home to many is the shelter of a bridge or a cubby constructed of cardboard cartons - with maybe a sheet of iron or some plastic to ward off the rain. They are vulnerable to those seeking to force sex upon them or those who consider doing them harm a form of sport.
Many agencies try to help. Soup kitchens provide a mobile service and welfare agencies maintain refuges, but the provision of such services never manages to accommodate the numbers that need such help.
The young homeless are of most concern to many. Their situation deprives them of any hope of finding a job and extricating themselves from the mess their lives have become. Employers usually need an address and expect their employees to present in a neat and tidy manner, something impossible when that person has rolled out of a cardboard carton and must come to work without either breakfast or the use of a bathroom.
The question of why they are homeless can present many answers. In some cases it is their own fault. Those that rebel against reasonable parental authority have a lot to learn about life, but for many it is a case of escaping sexual abuse - or of simply being rejected by those supposed to be their " loved ones ".
There is no answer. The homeless exist in every country of this world and the combined thinking power of governments, churches and welfare agencies across the globe has not been able to find an answer. Unfortunately homelessness is part of a journey that usually leads to life in a prison or at best - as a dependent in some sort of institution for those unable to fend for themselves.
Centuries ago such people were consigned to what was known as " the poor house ".
We are now a rich and cultured society - but as far as the homeless are concerned - nothing much has changed !
The homeless !
On any given night welfare workers estimate that there are a hundred thousand homeless people scattered across this nation. They range over all ages and both genders and the only thing they have in common is that they have no permanent place of residence.
Home to many is the shelter of a bridge or a cubby constructed of cardboard cartons - with maybe a sheet of iron or some plastic to ward off the rain. They are vulnerable to those seeking to force sex upon them or those who consider doing them harm a form of sport.
Many agencies try to help. Soup kitchens provide a mobile service and welfare agencies maintain refuges, but the provision of such services never manages to accommodate the numbers that need such help.
The young homeless are of most concern to many. Their situation deprives them of any hope of finding a job and extricating themselves from the mess their lives have become. Employers usually need an address and expect their employees to present in a neat and tidy manner, something impossible when that person has rolled out of a cardboard carton and must come to work without either breakfast or the use of a bathroom.
The question of why they are homeless can present many answers. In some cases it is their own fault. Those that rebel against reasonable parental authority have a lot to learn about life, but for many it is a case of escaping sexual abuse - or of simply being rejected by those supposed to be their " loved ones ".
There is no answer. The homeless exist in every country of this world and the combined thinking power of governments, churches and welfare agencies across the globe has not been able to find an answer. Unfortunately homelessness is part of a journey that usually leads to life in a prison or at best - as a dependent in some sort of institution for those unable to fend for themselves.
Centuries ago such people were consigned to what was known as " the poor house ".
We are now a rich and cultured society - but as far as the homeless are concerned - nothing much has changed !
Home to many is the shelter of a bridge or a cubby constructed of cardboard cartons - with maybe a sheet of iron or some plastic to ward off the rain. They are vulnerable to those seeking to force sex upon them or those who consider doing them harm a form of sport.
Many agencies try to help. Soup kitchens provide a mobile service and welfare agencies maintain refuges, but the provision of such services never manages to accommodate the numbers that need such help.
The young homeless are of most concern to many. Their situation deprives them of any hope of finding a job and extricating themselves from the mess their lives have become. Employers usually need an address and expect their employees to present in a neat and tidy manner, something impossible when that person has rolled out of a cardboard carton and must come to work without either breakfast or the use of a bathroom.
The question of why they are homeless can present many answers. In some cases it is their own fault. Those that rebel against reasonable parental authority have a lot to learn about life, but for many it is a case of escaping sexual abuse - or of simply being rejected by those supposed to be their " loved ones ".
There is no answer. The homeless exist in every country of this world and the combined thinking power of governments, churches and welfare agencies across the globe has not been able to find an answer. Unfortunately homelessness is part of a journey that usually leads to life in a prison or at best - as a dependent in some sort of institution for those unable to fend for themselves.
Centuries ago such people were consigned to what was known as " the poor house ".
We are now a rich and cultured society - but as far as the homeless are concerned - nothing much has changed !
Sunday, 25 March 2007
The election aftermath.
The New South Wales state election was a contest between a party that did not deserve to be re-elected and an opposition that was not ready to form a government.
The incumbent Labor party focused it's campaign on Morris Iemma's eighteen month stewardship as premier - totally ignoring the disastrous years of Bob Carr's reign.
There was little in the way of detailed future plans from the government - and far too many unfunded " pie in the sky "promises from the Liberal/National opposition.
In the end, it came down to a decision between a charismatic premier who avoided mentioning the mess he inherited - but promised better things in the future - and an inexperienced opposition leader who promised too much. The voters flipped a coin and decided to go with the devil they knew - but they imposed the punishment of a small number of lost seats - and many safe Labor electorates being reduced to marginal status.
So - where do we go from here ?
For Peter Debnam, leader of the Liberals it probably means the end of his ambitions to be premier. It is clear that he lacks charisma and it is almost certain that he will be replaced as leader.
The future of the Labor state government will depend on whether Morris Iemma has the clout to whip the party's notorious factions into line and impose his authority. He has ministers who are not performing - and who need replacing. Merit must come to the fore rather than the incestuous power sharing that promotes numbers rather than skill that has been past practice.
The next four years will be critical. The voters of this state have clearly indicated that they are not impressed with the debacles of rail, roads and hospitals. The government has been given one last chance - and next time around they will not be forgiving if the situation has not improved.
The incumbent Labor party focused it's campaign on Morris Iemma's eighteen month stewardship as premier - totally ignoring the disastrous years of Bob Carr's reign.
There was little in the way of detailed future plans from the government - and far too many unfunded " pie in the sky "promises from the Liberal/National opposition.
In the end, it came down to a decision between a charismatic premier who avoided mentioning the mess he inherited - but promised better things in the future - and an inexperienced opposition leader who promised too much. The voters flipped a coin and decided to go with the devil they knew - but they imposed the punishment of a small number of lost seats - and many safe Labor electorates being reduced to marginal status.
So - where do we go from here ?
For Peter Debnam, leader of the Liberals it probably means the end of his ambitions to be premier. It is clear that he lacks charisma and it is almost certain that he will be replaced as leader.
The future of the Labor state government will depend on whether Morris Iemma has the clout to whip the party's notorious factions into line and impose his authority. He has ministers who are not performing - and who need replacing. Merit must come to the fore rather than the incestuous power sharing that promotes numbers rather than skill that has been past practice.
The next four years will be critical. The voters of this state have clearly indicated that they are not impressed with the debacles of rail, roads and hospitals. The government has been given one last chance - and next time around they will not be forgiving if the situation has not improved.
Saturday, 24 March 2007
Compulsory voting !
Today is a state election in New South Wales - and Australia is one of the few countries in the world that insists that every citizen of voting age presents and votes at Federal, state and council elections. There is a penalty by way of a fine for those that disregard this law.
The strange thing is that this law does not require that you actually cast a valid vote. What it does require is that you present yourself at a polling station and have your name crossed off the voter roll. You will then be handed ballot papers - but what you do from there is your business. It is perfectly legal to write obscenities on those forms - or as many people do - write " none of the above " below the list of candidates. In this way, those who have religious objections to voting can act within the law - but still not cast a ballot.
Compulsory voting raises contention. Australia is a democracy - and some argue that forcing people to vote is undemocratic. Others argue that it is democratic to insist that voters select the government that will have legal power over their lives and that to leave that selection to chance is to reduce the very ideal of democracy.
At least we are spared the spectacle of some countries where political parties desperately try to persuade their followers to make the effort and go and cast a vote. In some such cases, election results are skewed by extraneous events - such as the weather or the coinciding event of a sporting spectacle.
Some people grumble at what they consider the chore of voting, but in the course of many years of Australian history there has been no real movement to repeal the act and make voting a choice option.
After all, the one thing people complain about is always the government of the day, nomatter which side of politics is in office. It could be said that because of compulsory voting - we get the government that we deserve !
The strange thing is that this law does not require that you actually cast a valid vote. What it does require is that you present yourself at a polling station and have your name crossed off the voter roll. You will then be handed ballot papers - but what you do from there is your business. It is perfectly legal to write obscenities on those forms - or as many people do - write " none of the above " below the list of candidates. In this way, those who have religious objections to voting can act within the law - but still not cast a ballot.
Compulsory voting raises contention. Australia is a democracy - and some argue that forcing people to vote is undemocratic. Others argue that it is democratic to insist that voters select the government that will have legal power over their lives and that to leave that selection to chance is to reduce the very ideal of democracy.
At least we are spared the spectacle of some countries where political parties desperately try to persuade their followers to make the effort and go and cast a vote. In some such cases, election results are skewed by extraneous events - such as the weather or the coinciding event of a sporting spectacle.
Some people grumble at what they consider the chore of voting, but in the course of many years of Australian history there has been no real movement to repeal the act and make voting a choice option.
After all, the one thing people complain about is always the government of the day, nomatter which side of politics is in office. It could be said that because of compulsory voting - we get the government that we deserve !
Friday, 23 March 2007
Raid on " the Futures fund " !
Federal Opposition leader Kevin Rudd has announced a plan he intends to implement should he win the election due later this year. He will spend $ 4.7 billion dollars to extend high speed broadband to 98% of the Australian public.
The sticking point is the source of money to finance this plan. Labor has long opposed the sale of Telstra but there now seems to be a change of heart. Prime Minister John Howard parked a huge block of Telstra shares in " the Futures fund " - a " money bank " intended to fund public service superannuation liabilities and make them fully funded by 2020. Kevin Rudd plans to raid that fund to finance his broadband scheme.
John Howard opposes using public money to extend broadband. Admittedly our present broadband is slow compared to world standards and the proposed service would be forty times faster, but would take five years to implement. Howard claims that private enterprise will do this job anyway, given that there is demand and the government has no place in such a field. Robbing the Futures fund would only lead to further Labor raids on " the honey pot " and this could have disastrous results for public service superannuation in years to come " when the chickens come home to roost "!
Kevin Rudd counters this by claiming that Labor will only use money from this fund that is capable of turning a profit - and therefore replenishing the fund.
That signals danger to anyone who understands the communication industry. No doubt private enterprise will bring high speed broadband to the public - but that market will be big cities and large country towns. To bring it to 98% of Australians would probably be uneconomical to a profit oriented company, and if the government did so it would mean high charges for bulk market users to cover this shortfall - and make the service uneconomic in world terms.
The private sector is usually able to bring major projects to fruition for less money than where a government is involved - and is also much better at evaluating risks. Anything to do with communications is risky. What seems to be " bread and butter " today can be totally obsolete tomorrow because of technology break throughs. Consider the present Telstra problem. Trillions of miles of decaying copper cable underground in a world that is embracing wireless mobile phones and rebelling at huge line rental charges.
Australia needs to look long and hard at this broadband proposal. Make or break may be only inches apart - and that is a decision that should not be left to politicians to make !
The sticking point is the source of money to finance this plan. Labor has long opposed the sale of Telstra but there now seems to be a change of heart. Prime Minister John Howard parked a huge block of Telstra shares in " the Futures fund " - a " money bank " intended to fund public service superannuation liabilities and make them fully funded by 2020. Kevin Rudd plans to raid that fund to finance his broadband scheme.
John Howard opposes using public money to extend broadband. Admittedly our present broadband is slow compared to world standards and the proposed service would be forty times faster, but would take five years to implement. Howard claims that private enterprise will do this job anyway, given that there is demand and the government has no place in such a field. Robbing the Futures fund would only lead to further Labor raids on " the honey pot " and this could have disastrous results for public service superannuation in years to come " when the chickens come home to roost "!
Kevin Rudd counters this by claiming that Labor will only use money from this fund that is capable of turning a profit - and therefore replenishing the fund.
That signals danger to anyone who understands the communication industry. No doubt private enterprise will bring high speed broadband to the public - but that market will be big cities and large country towns. To bring it to 98% of Australians would probably be uneconomical to a profit oriented company, and if the government did so it would mean high charges for bulk market users to cover this shortfall - and make the service uneconomic in world terms.
The private sector is usually able to bring major projects to fruition for less money than where a government is involved - and is also much better at evaluating risks. Anything to do with communications is risky. What seems to be " bread and butter " today can be totally obsolete tomorrow because of technology break throughs. Consider the present Telstra problem. Trillions of miles of decaying copper cable underground in a world that is embracing wireless mobile phones and rebelling at huge line rental charges.
Australia needs to look long and hard at this broadband proposal. Make or break may be only inches apart - and that is a decision that should not be left to politicians to make !
Raid on " the Futures fund " !
Federal Opposition leader Kevin Rudd has announced a plan he intends to implement should he win the election due later this year. He will spend $ 4.7 billion dollars to extend high speed broadband to 98% of the Australian public.
The sticking point is the source of money to finance this plan. Labor has long opposed the sale of Telstra but there now seems to be a change of heart. Prime Minister John Howard parked a huge block of Telstra shares in " the Futures fund " - a " money bank " intended to fund public service superannuation liabilities and make them fully funded by 2020. Kevin Rudd plans to raid that fund to finance his broadband scheme.
John Howard opposes using public money to extend broadband. Admittedly our present broadband is slow compared to world standards and the proposed service would be forty times faster, but would take five years to implement. Howard claims that private enterprise will do this job anyway, given that there is demand and the government has no place in such a field. Robbing the Futures fund would only lead to further Labor raids on " the honey pot " and this could have disastrous results for public service superannuation in years to come " when the chickens come home to roost "!
Kevin Rudd counters this by claiming that Labor will only use money from this fund that is capable of turning a profit - and therefore replenishing the fund.
That signals danger to anyone who understands the communication industry. No doubt private enterprise will bring high speed broadband to the public - but that market will be big cities and large country towns. To bring it to 98% of Australians would probably be uneconomical to a profit oriented company, and if the government did so it would mean high charges for bulk market users to cover this shortfall - and make the service uneconomic in world terms.
The private sector is usually able to bring major projects to fruition for less money than where a government is involved - and is also much better at evaluating risks. Anything to do with communications is risky. What seems to be " bread and butter " today can be totally obsolete tomorrow because of technology break throughs. Consider the present Telstra problem. Trillions of miles of decaying copper cable underground in a world that is embracing wireless mobile phones and rebelling at huge line rental charges.
Australia needs to look long and hard at this broadband proposal. Make or break may be only inches apart - and that is a decision that should not be left to politicians to make !
The sticking point is the source of money to finance this plan. Labor has long opposed the sale of Telstra but there now seems to be a change of heart. Prime Minister John Howard parked a huge block of Telstra shares in " the Futures fund " - a " money bank " intended to fund public service superannuation liabilities and make them fully funded by 2020. Kevin Rudd plans to raid that fund to finance his broadband scheme.
John Howard opposes using public money to extend broadband. Admittedly our present broadband is slow compared to world standards and the proposed service would be forty times faster, but would take five years to implement. Howard claims that private enterprise will do this job anyway, given that there is demand and the government has no place in such a field. Robbing the Futures fund would only lead to further Labor raids on " the honey pot " and this could have disastrous results for public service superannuation in years to come " when the chickens come home to roost "!
Kevin Rudd counters this by claiming that Labor will only use money from this fund that is capable of turning a profit - and therefore replenishing the fund.
That signals danger to anyone who understands the communication industry. No doubt private enterprise will bring high speed broadband to the public - but that market will be big cities and large country towns. To bring it to 98% of Australians would probably be uneconomical to a profit oriented company, and if the government did so it would mean high charges for bulk market users to cover this shortfall - and make the service uneconomic in world terms.
The private sector is usually able to bring major projects to fruition for less money than where a government is involved - and is also much better at evaluating risks. Anything to do with communications is risky. What seems to be " bread and butter " today can be totally obsolete tomorrow because of technology break throughs. Consider the present Telstra problem. Trillions of miles of decaying copper cable underground in a world that is embracing wireless mobile phones and rebelling at huge line rental charges.
Australia needs to look long and hard at this broadband proposal. Make or break may be only inches apart - and that is a decision that should not be left to politicians to make !
Raid on " the Futures fund " !
Federal Opposition leader Kevin Rudd has announced a plan he intends to implement should he win the election due later this year. He will spend $ 4.7 billion dollars to extend high speed broadband to 98% of the Australian public.
The sticking point is the source of money to finance this plan. Labor has long opposed the sale of Telstra but there now seems to be a change of heart. Prime Minister John Howard parked a huge block of Telstra shares in " the Futures fund " - a " money bank " intended to fund public service superannuation liabilities and make them fully funded by 2020. Kevin Rudd plans to raid that fund to finance his broadband scheme.
John Howard opposes using public money to extend broadband. Admittedly our present broadband is slow compared to world standards and the proposed service would be forty times faster, but would take five years to implement. Howard claims that private enterprise will do this job anyway, given that there is demand and the government has no place in such a field. Robbing the Futures fund would only lead to further Labor raids on " the honey pot " and this could have disastrous results for public service superannuation in years to come " when the chickens come home to roost "!
Kevin Rudd counters this by claiming that Labor will only use money from this fund that is capable of turning a profit - and therefore replenishing the fund.
That signals danger to anyone who understands the communication industry. No doubt private enterprise will bring high speed broadband to the public - but that market will be big cities and large country towns. To bring it to 98% of Australians would probably be uneconomical to a profit oriented company, and if the government did so it would mean high charges for bulk market users to cover this shortfall - and make the service uneconomic in world terms.
The private sector is usually able to bring major projects to fruition for less money than where a government is involved - and is also much better at evaluating risks. Anything to do with communications is risky. What seems to be " bread and butter " today can be totally obsolete tomorrow because of technology break throughs. Consider the present Telstra problem. Trillions of miles of decaying copper cable underground in a world that is embracing wireless mobile phones and rebelling at huge line rental charges.
Australia needs to look long and hard at this broadband proposal. Make or break may be only inches apart - and that is a decision that should not be left to politicians to make !
The sticking point is the source of money to finance this plan. Labor has long opposed the sale of Telstra but there now seems to be a change of heart. Prime Minister John Howard parked a huge block of Telstra shares in " the Futures fund " - a " money bank " intended to fund public service superannuation liabilities and make them fully funded by 2020. Kevin Rudd plans to raid that fund to finance his broadband scheme.
John Howard opposes using public money to extend broadband. Admittedly our present broadband is slow compared to world standards and the proposed service would be forty times faster, but would take five years to implement. Howard claims that private enterprise will do this job anyway, given that there is demand and the government has no place in such a field. Robbing the Futures fund would only lead to further Labor raids on " the honey pot " and this could have disastrous results for public service superannuation in years to come " when the chickens come home to roost "!
Kevin Rudd counters this by claiming that Labor will only use money from this fund that is capable of turning a profit - and therefore replenishing the fund.
That signals danger to anyone who understands the communication industry. No doubt private enterprise will bring high speed broadband to the public - but that market will be big cities and large country towns. To bring it to 98% of Australians would probably be uneconomical to a profit oriented company, and if the government did so it would mean high charges for bulk market users to cover this shortfall - and make the service uneconomic in world terms.
The private sector is usually able to bring major projects to fruition for less money than where a government is involved - and is also much better at evaluating risks. Anything to do with communications is risky. What seems to be " bread and butter " today can be totally obsolete tomorrow because of technology break throughs. Consider the present Telstra problem. Trillions of miles of decaying copper cable underground in a world that is embracing wireless mobile phones and rebelling at huge line rental charges.
Australia needs to look long and hard at this broadband proposal. Make or break may be only inches apart - and that is a decision that should not be left to politicians to make !
Thursday, 22 March 2007
" The worst train system in the world ".
Just three days before a state election the Iemma Labor government was rocked by a report that compared the railway systems in comparable cities - and declared that " Sydney has the worst train system in the world ".
This merely reinforces what Sydney commuters have known for years. Our rail is barely " third world " with slow and unreliable trains, packed like sardines and without toilets in many cases. To add insult to injury, fares are substantially higher than the state of the art rail systems in other countries.
How did this happen ? Previous governments of both political persuasions have put railways at the back of the list of spending options. The government of Bob Carr decided to make political capital by way of a great leap forward - the provision of new, state of the art trains. This was the era of the promised " Millennium train " - which arrived years late and with cost over-runs in the millions - and simply didn't work ! It was so full of " whiz bang " electronics that it was incompatible with our steam age signalling systems - and had to be " dumbed down " before it was brought into service.
We still have steam age tracks and signalling systems and there is no hope of a modern rail system until the government bites the bullet and invests the money necessary to bring rail into the twenty-first century - even if that means taking the state into debt.
There is no mention of such a plan by either political party with an election just days away. Both promise " improvements " but the work necessary to fully modernise the NSW rail system extends far beyond that word. " Replace " would probably fill the bill, but that seems to be a bridge too far for our political leaders !
This merely reinforces what Sydney commuters have known for years. Our rail is barely " third world " with slow and unreliable trains, packed like sardines and without toilets in many cases. To add insult to injury, fares are substantially higher than the state of the art rail systems in other countries.
How did this happen ? Previous governments of both political persuasions have put railways at the back of the list of spending options. The government of Bob Carr decided to make political capital by way of a great leap forward - the provision of new, state of the art trains. This was the era of the promised " Millennium train " - which arrived years late and with cost over-runs in the millions - and simply didn't work ! It was so full of " whiz bang " electronics that it was incompatible with our steam age signalling systems - and had to be " dumbed down " before it was brought into service.
We still have steam age tracks and signalling systems and there is no hope of a modern rail system until the government bites the bullet and invests the money necessary to bring rail into the twenty-first century - even if that means taking the state into debt.
There is no mention of such a plan by either political party with an election just days away. Both promise " improvements " but the work necessary to fully modernise the NSW rail system extends far beyond that word. " Replace " would probably fill the bill, but that seems to be a bridge too far for our political leaders !
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Roadside drug testing.
This week the New South Wales government announced that it had achieved it's first court conviction for driving while affected by a drug - detected by it's new roadside testing regime.
This system is new - and very mysterious. Little has been divulged except that the state has a single mobile testing unit housed in a bus - and a small squad of officers trained in detection techniques. It was stated that the squad would not be conducting normal roadside testing - similar to the alcohol testing units - because each test took about twenty minutes and was thus unsuitable for mass screenings.
The government intended to target special events - such as rave party exits and lay-overs for heavy vehicles whose driver's were notorious drug users.
What concerns many is the regimen involved for testing. The most common drug used by many is Marijuana and it is a fact that residue from it's use lingers in the body for weeks - and in some cases months. As the drug is illegal, could it be that a conviction would be sought for it's mere presence - which would indicate that the person tested had conducted an illegal act to have that trace in his or her body ?
The purpose of detection was supposed to be to remove drivers who were behind the wheel of a car with a level of drug intoxication that made them unfit to drive - similar to those over .05 for alcohol. So far, no level of safety has been mentioned where the presence of Marijuana is detected.
Obviously there is a desperate need to remove drivers who get behind the wheel with a dangerous level of alcohol or drugs in their body - but we need to know what testing is involved for drugs - how levels are measured - and what levels constitute illegality leading to arrest and a court appearance.
So far that has not been forthcoming. Now that the first conviction has occurred a frank appraisal of what system we have in place is essential !
This system is new - and very mysterious. Little has been divulged except that the state has a single mobile testing unit housed in a bus - and a small squad of officers trained in detection techniques. It was stated that the squad would not be conducting normal roadside testing - similar to the alcohol testing units - because each test took about twenty minutes and was thus unsuitable for mass screenings.
The government intended to target special events - such as rave party exits and lay-overs for heavy vehicles whose driver's were notorious drug users.
What concerns many is the regimen involved for testing. The most common drug used by many is Marijuana and it is a fact that residue from it's use lingers in the body for weeks - and in some cases months. As the drug is illegal, could it be that a conviction would be sought for it's mere presence - which would indicate that the person tested had conducted an illegal act to have that trace in his or her body ?
The purpose of detection was supposed to be to remove drivers who were behind the wheel of a car with a level of drug intoxication that made them unfit to drive - similar to those over .05 for alcohol. So far, no level of safety has been mentioned where the presence of Marijuana is detected.
Obviously there is a desperate need to remove drivers who get behind the wheel with a dangerous level of alcohol or drugs in their body - but we need to know what testing is involved for drugs - how levels are measured - and what levels constitute illegality leading to arrest and a court appearance.
So far that has not been forthcoming. Now that the first conviction has occurred a frank appraisal of what system we have in place is essential !
Tuesday, 20 March 2007
Police pursuits !
Every time a criminal is killed or injured in a crash arising from a police pursuit pressure builds for a discontinuation of police pursuits. In many cases the driver involved is a juvenile and once the siren and flashing lights are switched on all forms of common sense evaporate. No heed is paid to traffic lights, stop signs or other traffic. The chances of the pursued car crashing or killing other drivers is a factor monitored by the police commanders - who have the power to order the pursuit discontinued.
It boils down to a balance between public safety and the requirement that the police enforce the law. If all pursuits that involve vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit are banned then law and order has surrendered and the streets become the property of car thieves and hijackers.
Consider this scenario. A householder hears noises and sees youths tinkering with his car in the drive. He phones 000 - and just as the police arrive his car is hot wired and driven off by the thieves.
The householder points to the disappearing car and asks the cops to do something about the theft. The cops shrug their shoulders and advise him that chasing stolen cars is no longer allowed. File a report at the local police station - if you can find one manned - and you will be advised when the car turns up - abandoned or more likely torched and burnt out !
Would you be satisfied if that happened to you ?
The present situation is probably the best we can hope for. Police do apply the law and try to apprehend those driving stolen vehicles - or who ignore breath testing stations - but pursuits are called off when traffic density or other safety factors warrant.
The people calling for the end of all police pursuits are in cloud cuckoo land. There would be no point in having a police force unless it was allowed to do the job enshrined in legislation - and demanded by the majority of the public !
It boils down to a balance between public safety and the requirement that the police enforce the law. If all pursuits that involve vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit are banned then law and order has surrendered and the streets become the property of car thieves and hijackers.
Consider this scenario. A householder hears noises and sees youths tinkering with his car in the drive. He phones 000 - and just as the police arrive his car is hot wired and driven off by the thieves.
The householder points to the disappearing car and asks the cops to do something about the theft. The cops shrug their shoulders and advise him that chasing stolen cars is no longer allowed. File a report at the local police station - if you can find one manned - and you will be advised when the car turns up - abandoned or more likely torched and burnt out !
Would you be satisfied if that happened to you ?
The present situation is probably the best we can hope for. Police do apply the law and try to apprehend those driving stolen vehicles - or who ignore breath testing stations - but pursuits are called off when traffic density or other safety factors warrant.
The people calling for the end of all police pursuits are in cloud cuckoo land. There would be no point in having a police force unless it was allowed to do the job enshrined in legislation - and demanded by the majority of the public !
Police pursuits !
Every time a criminal is killed or injured in a crash arising from a police pursuit pressure builds for a discontinuation of police pursuits. In many cases the driver involved is a juvenile and once the siren and flashing lights are switched on all forms of common sense evaporate. No heed is paid to traffic lights, stop signs or other traffic. The chances of the pursued car crashing or killing other drivers is a factor monitored by the police commanders - who have the power to order the pursuit discontinued.
It boils down to a balance between public safety and the requirement that the police enforce the law. If all pursuits that involve vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit are banned then law and order has surrendered and the streets become the property of car thieves and hijackers.
Consider this scenario. A householder hears noises and sees youths tinkering with his car in the drive. He phones 000 - and just as the police arrive his car is hot wired and driven off by the thieves.
The householder points to the disappearing car and asks the cops to do something about the theft. The cops shrug their shoulders and advise him that chasing stolen cars is no longer allowed. File a report at the local police station - if you can find one manned - and you will be advised when the car turns up - abandoned or more likely torched and burnt out !
Would you be satisfied if that happened to you ?
The present situation is probably the best we can hope for. Police do apply the law and try to apprehend those driving stolen vehicles - or who ignore breath testing stations - but pursuits are called off when traffic density or other safety factors warrant.
The people calling for the end of all police pursuits are in cloud cuckoo land. There would be no point in having a police force unless it was allowed to do the job enshrined in legislation - and demanded by the majority of the public !
It boils down to a balance between public safety and the requirement that the police enforce the law. If all pursuits that involve vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit are banned then law and order has surrendered and the streets become the property of car thieves and hijackers.
Consider this scenario. A householder hears noises and sees youths tinkering with his car in the drive. He phones 000 - and just as the police arrive his car is hot wired and driven off by the thieves.
The householder points to the disappearing car and asks the cops to do something about the theft. The cops shrug their shoulders and advise him that chasing stolen cars is no longer allowed. File a report at the local police station - if you can find one manned - and you will be advised when the car turns up - abandoned or more likely torched and burnt out !
Would you be satisfied if that happened to you ?
The present situation is probably the best we can hope for. Police do apply the law and try to apprehend those driving stolen vehicles - or who ignore breath testing stations - but pursuits are called off when traffic density or other safety factors warrant.
The people calling for the end of all police pursuits are in cloud cuckoo land. There would be no point in having a police force unless it was allowed to do the job enshrined in legislation - and demanded by the majority of the public !
Monday, 19 March 2007
Further curbs on smokers !
Sydney's Mosman council - one of this country's toughest on restricting smokers - has further extended it's no-smoking bans. It was one of the first to ban smoking at outdoor eating venues and has bans in place covering beaches, outdoor playing areas, playgrounds, public events, playing fields and the grounds of council managed buildings.
Now even this strict regime has been extended. It is now illegal to lightup in parks, public squares, bus shelters and council car parks. Fines of $ 110 apply.
This raises the point of just where is it legal to smoke ? It seems the council has just about everything covered - with the exception of a public street - providing it is not near a council managed building - or your own home.
It seems that the old adage that " your home is your castle " may also be about to fall. Recently a couple who were heavy smokers fell foul of their neighbours in a multi-apartment high rise building. Their neighbours took them to court, claiming that the smoke from their cigarettes polluted adjoining apartments and sought a smoking ban - which was granted.
This seems to raise an ethical issue. If nicotine is a legal product - and heavily taxed by the government - is it legal to impose bans which in effect prevent a user from exercising a right to use that product ?
A ban in areas where food is consumed or in places where people congregate - such as bars and night clubs - may be reasonable, but when that ban applies to just about any place in the open air other than public streets seems to be an unreasonable restriction.
There is another option, of course. The government could bite the bullet and declare tobacco a prohibited substance - similar to marijuana - on the grounds that it is a danger to public health.
That will not happen. For a start, the government could not plug the gap that the cessation of tobacco taxes would create - and the fact that twenty percent of the population chooses to smoke would ensure annihilation at the next poll.
Somewhere down the track this Mosman council edict may find itself challenged in the High court !
Now even this strict regime has been extended. It is now illegal to lightup in parks, public squares, bus shelters and council car parks. Fines of $ 110 apply.
This raises the point of just where is it legal to smoke ? It seems the council has just about everything covered - with the exception of a public street - providing it is not near a council managed building - or your own home.
It seems that the old adage that " your home is your castle " may also be about to fall. Recently a couple who were heavy smokers fell foul of their neighbours in a multi-apartment high rise building. Their neighbours took them to court, claiming that the smoke from their cigarettes polluted adjoining apartments and sought a smoking ban - which was granted.
This seems to raise an ethical issue. If nicotine is a legal product - and heavily taxed by the government - is it legal to impose bans which in effect prevent a user from exercising a right to use that product ?
A ban in areas where food is consumed or in places where people congregate - such as bars and night clubs - may be reasonable, but when that ban applies to just about any place in the open air other than public streets seems to be an unreasonable restriction.
There is another option, of course. The government could bite the bullet and declare tobacco a prohibited substance - similar to marijuana - on the grounds that it is a danger to public health.
That will not happen. For a start, the government could not plug the gap that the cessation of tobacco taxes would create - and the fact that twenty percent of the population chooses to smoke would ensure annihilation at the next poll.
Somewhere down the track this Mosman council edict may find itself challenged in the High court !
Further curbs on smokers !
Sydney's Mosman council - one of this country's toughest on restricting smokers - has further extended it's no-smoking bans. It was one of the first to ban smoking at outdoor eating venues and has bans in place covering beaches, outdoor playing areas, playgrounds, public events, playing fields and the grounds of council managed buildings.
Now even this strict regime has been extended. It is now illegal to lightup in parks, public squares, bus shelters and council car parks. Fines of $ 110 apply.
This raises the point of just where is it legal to smoke ? It seems the council has just about everything covered - with the exception of a public street - providing it is not near a council managed building - or your own home.
It seems that the old adage that " your home is your castle " may also be about to fall. Recently a couple who were heavy smokers fell foul of their neighbours in a multi-apartment high rise building. Their neighbours took them to court, claiming that the smoke from their cigarettes polluted adjoining apartments and sought a smoking ban - which was granted.
This seems to raise an ethical issue. If nicotine is a legal product - and heavily taxed by the government - is it legal to impose bans which in effect prevent a user from exercising a right to use that product ?
A ban in areas where food is consumed or in places where people congregate - such as bars and night clubs - may be reasonable, but when that ban applies to just about any place in the open air other than public streets seems to be an unreasonable restriction.
There is another option, of course. The government could bite the bullet and declare tobacco a prohibited substance - similar to marijuana - on the grounds that it is a danger to public health.
That will not happen. For a start, the government could not plug the gap that the cessation of tobacco taxes would create - and the fact that twenty percent of the population chooses to smoke would ensure annihilation at the next poll.
Somewhere down the track this Mosman council edict may find itself challenged in the High court !
Now even this strict regime has been extended. It is now illegal to lightup in parks, public squares, bus shelters and council car parks. Fines of $ 110 apply.
This raises the point of just where is it legal to smoke ? It seems the council has just about everything covered - with the exception of a public street - providing it is not near a council managed building - or your own home.
It seems that the old adage that " your home is your castle " may also be about to fall. Recently a couple who were heavy smokers fell foul of their neighbours in a multi-apartment high rise building. Their neighbours took them to court, claiming that the smoke from their cigarettes polluted adjoining apartments and sought a smoking ban - which was granted.
This seems to raise an ethical issue. If nicotine is a legal product - and heavily taxed by the government - is it legal to impose bans which in effect prevent a user from exercising a right to use that product ?
A ban in areas where food is consumed or in places where people congregate - such as bars and night clubs - may be reasonable, but when that ban applies to just about any place in the open air other than public streets seems to be an unreasonable restriction.
There is another option, of course. The government could bite the bullet and declare tobacco a prohibited substance - similar to marijuana - on the grounds that it is a danger to public health.
That will not happen. For a start, the government could not plug the gap that the cessation of tobacco taxes would create - and the fact that twenty percent of the population chooses to smoke would ensure annihilation at the next poll.
Somewhere down the track this Mosman council edict may find itself challenged in the High court !
Sunday, 18 March 2007
The " Coathanger " !
This morning, over two hundred thousand people will attend a birthday party. They will be celebrating the seventy-fifth birthday of the Sydney Harbour bridge - and for the occasion that bridge will be closed to vehicular traffic and it's eight car lanes will provide space for the walkers as they admire the view and celebrate the event.
The bridge was planned at a time when Australia had a very small population and the estimated cost - over twenty million dollars - was staggering. The specification was also beyond the reach of the imagination. It would comprise fifty-two thousand tonnes of steel and ninety-five thousand cubic metres of concrete - and a single coat of paint would involve two hundred and seventy thousand litres.
During the building years the world slipped into the great depression and perhaps the sight of the great bridge relentlessly moving towards completion provided hope for a better future. It was certainly big. It was one thousand and forty-nine metres long and forty nine metres wide - and it's highest point was one hundred and thirty four metres.
It's official opening, on March 15, 1932 provided drama when Irishman Captain De Groot rode forward and slashed the ribbon with his sword to pre-empt the state premier.
Since then this bridge has become an icon linking the city centre and the north shore - but more than that - it has become a world symbol. Few achieve the fame of world recognition - but when it comes to bridges this one joins London bridge in England and the Golden Gate bridge in the USA as structures with instant recognition in every corner of the world.
The bridge was planned at a time when Australia had a very small population and the estimated cost - over twenty million dollars - was staggering. The specification was also beyond the reach of the imagination. It would comprise fifty-two thousand tonnes of steel and ninety-five thousand cubic metres of concrete - and a single coat of paint would involve two hundred and seventy thousand litres.
During the building years the world slipped into the great depression and perhaps the sight of the great bridge relentlessly moving towards completion provided hope for a better future. It was certainly big. It was one thousand and forty-nine metres long and forty nine metres wide - and it's highest point was one hundred and thirty four metres.
It's official opening, on March 15, 1932 provided drama when Irishman Captain De Groot rode forward and slashed the ribbon with his sword to pre-empt the state premier.
Since then this bridge has become an icon linking the city centre and the north shore - but more than that - it has become a world symbol. Few achieve the fame of world recognition - but when it comes to bridges this one joins London bridge in England and the Golden Gate bridge in the USA as structures with instant recognition in every corner of the world.
Saturday, 17 March 2007
Greed !
The sacking of Minister for the Ageing, Senator Santo Santoro for not disclosing his share portfolio shines the spotlight of the naked greed that many politicians bring to their duties. Santoro was initially disciplined for holding shares in a company whose products interacted with his ministry - but then came the revelation that he had shareholdings in another sixty companies that had not been disclosed.
Politicians are well paid and those holding a ministry are the beneficiaries of even greater remuneration. It seems that enough is never enough for those with aspirations of great wealth.
It is time that both sides of politics reached agreement that all members of parliament - backbenchers as well as ministers - should be prohibited from trading in shares while ever they hold public office. The secrets they share as members of parliament are just too tempting when it comes to share trading with inside knowledge.
They should not be obliged to sell existing shares upon election but such shares should immediately be transferred to a blind trust. In that way, wise share selection prior to becoming a member of parliament would not be disturbed, but the member would have no influence on buying or selling - and that function would be in the hands of a person totally removed from member influence.
Unfortunately this is only a partial solution. Whilst a member of parliament is barred from share trading, that does not apply to members of his family - and his intimate knowledge could be passed on to family or friends who had agreed to trade on his behalf.
There is no perfect solution but as we have seen in recent times - politicians will get their snout in the trough in various ways. Unfortunately - there is no magic bullet that can be used against greed !
Politicians are well paid and those holding a ministry are the beneficiaries of even greater remuneration. It seems that enough is never enough for those with aspirations of great wealth.
It is time that both sides of politics reached agreement that all members of parliament - backbenchers as well as ministers - should be prohibited from trading in shares while ever they hold public office. The secrets they share as members of parliament are just too tempting when it comes to share trading with inside knowledge.
They should not be obliged to sell existing shares upon election but such shares should immediately be transferred to a blind trust. In that way, wise share selection prior to becoming a member of parliament would not be disturbed, but the member would have no influence on buying or selling - and that function would be in the hands of a person totally removed from member influence.
Unfortunately this is only a partial solution. Whilst a member of parliament is barred from share trading, that does not apply to members of his family - and his intimate knowledge could be passed on to family or friends who had agreed to trade on his behalf.
There is no perfect solution but as we have seen in recent times - politicians will get their snout in the trough in various ways. Unfortunately - there is no magic bullet that can be used against greed !
Greed !
The sacking of Minister for the Ageing, Senator Santo Santoro for not disclosing his share portfolio shines the spotlight of the naked greed that many politicians bring to their duties. Santoro was initially disciplined for holding shares in a company whose products interacted with his ministry - but then came the revelation that he had shareholdings in another sixty companies that had not been disclosed.
Politicians are well paid and those holding a ministry are the beneficiaries of even greater remuneration. It seems that enough is never enough for those with aspirations of great wealth.
It is time that both sides of politics reached agreement that all members of parliament - backbenchers as well as ministers - should be prohibited from trading in shares while ever they hold public office. The secrets they share as members of parliament are just too tempting when it comes to share trading with inside knowledge.
They should not be obliged to sell existing shares upon election but such shares should immediately be transferred to a blind trust. In that way, wise share selection prior to becoming a member of parliament would not be disturbed, but the member would have no influence on buying or selling - and that function would be in the hands of a person totally removed from member influence.
Unfortunately this is only a partial solution. Whilst a member of parliament is barred from share trading, that does not apply to members of his family - and his intimate knowledge could be passed on to family or friends who had agreed to trade on his behalf.
There is no perfect solution but as we have seen in recent times - politicians will get their snout in the trough in various ways. Unfortunately - there is no magic bullet that can be used against greed !
Politicians are well paid and those holding a ministry are the beneficiaries of even greater remuneration. It seems that enough is never enough for those with aspirations of great wealth.
It is time that both sides of politics reached agreement that all members of parliament - backbenchers as well as ministers - should be prohibited from trading in shares while ever they hold public office. The secrets they share as members of parliament are just too tempting when it comes to share trading with inside knowledge.
They should not be obliged to sell existing shares upon election but such shares should immediately be transferred to a blind trust. In that way, wise share selection prior to becoming a member of parliament would not be disturbed, but the member would have no influence on buying or selling - and that function would be in the hands of a person totally removed from member influence.
Unfortunately this is only a partial solution. Whilst a member of parliament is barred from share trading, that does not apply to members of his family - and his intimate knowledge could be passed on to family or friends who had agreed to trade on his behalf.
There is no perfect solution but as we have seen in recent times - politicians will get their snout in the trough in various ways. Unfortunately - there is no magic bullet that can be used against greed !
Friday, 16 March 2007
Another train debacle !
On Wednesday, New South Wales premier Morris Iemma must have been wondering what he did to offend the Gods of politics.
A fully packed commuter train came to a shuddering halt on the Sydney Harbour bridge. It's pantograph had snagged the overhead power wires and the resulting loss of power halted all other trains on the city circuit and the north shore line.
It was all downhill from there. Not only did the railways communications fail, leaving passengers unaware of what had happened and what was being done to rescue them - but the passengers crowded into that stalled train were made to remain locked in the carriages for three hours - without air conditioning - and without toilets!
When help did arrive, a door at the end of the train was opened and passenger made to walk the tracks back to a North Sydney station. Women's shoes did not fare well walking on rough rail ballast.
These passengers then joined others from North Shore trains competing for room on the few bus services available - and just about everyone arrived home seriously late, disgruntled and unhappy with the service - and all this just a matter of days away from a state election !
Morris Iemma has abjectly apologised - once again ! But if the political Gods are still in an angry mood there may be more to come.
This Sunday the famed Sydney Harbour bridge attains it's seventy-fifth birthday, and to celebrate that event the bridge will be closed for most of the morning to allow two hundred thousand people to walk it's length.
Those intending to walk were asked to register a week ago, but no tickets were issued and there will be no way of knowing if the crowd that turns up is registered walkers or just plain gate crashers - and now the unions have become involved and intend to turn the bridge walk into a demonstration against workplace laws. Four thousand unionists - who are registered walkers - will be identified by wearing T shirts containing slogans.
Hopefully the political Gods may be smiling on Sunday, but if not the stage could be set for another political disaster if too many people try to walk in too little space and the event turns into a political demonstration.
And then there is the matter of crowd control when the walk is over. Will there be enough trains and buses to get the people home - or will it become a repeat of the visit of Queen Mary 2 ? Morris Iemma must hope that just this once " Murphy's Law " does not apply !
A fully packed commuter train came to a shuddering halt on the Sydney Harbour bridge. It's pantograph had snagged the overhead power wires and the resulting loss of power halted all other trains on the city circuit and the north shore line.
It was all downhill from there. Not only did the railways communications fail, leaving passengers unaware of what had happened and what was being done to rescue them - but the passengers crowded into that stalled train were made to remain locked in the carriages for three hours - without air conditioning - and without toilets!
When help did arrive, a door at the end of the train was opened and passenger made to walk the tracks back to a North Sydney station. Women's shoes did not fare well walking on rough rail ballast.
These passengers then joined others from North Shore trains competing for room on the few bus services available - and just about everyone arrived home seriously late, disgruntled and unhappy with the service - and all this just a matter of days away from a state election !
Morris Iemma has abjectly apologised - once again ! But if the political Gods are still in an angry mood there may be more to come.
This Sunday the famed Sydney Harbour bridge attains it's seventy-fifth birthday, and to celebrate that event the bridge will be closed for most of the morning to allow two hundred thousand people to walk it's length.
Those intending to walk were asked to register a week ago, but no tickets were issued and there will be no way of knowing if the crowd that turns up is registered walkers or just plain gate crashers - and now the unions have become involved and intend to turn the bridge walk into a demonstration against workplace laws. Four thousand unionists - who are registered walkers - will be identified by wearing T shirts containing slogans.
Hopefully the political Gods may be smiling on Sunday, but if not the stage could be set for another political disaster if too many people try to walk in too little space and the event turns into a political demonstration.
And then there is the matter of crowd control when the walk is over. Will there be enough trains and buses to get the people home - or will it become a repeat of the visit of Queen Mary 2 ? Morris Iemma must hope that just this once " Murphy's Law " does not apply !
Thursday, 15 March 2007
A political turn-off !
Just nine days out from a state election and the Greens state that their policy will be to decriminalize possession and use of " Ice ". Presumably this means that the public can openly smoke or inject this drug with freedom from police attention or charge !
The problem with this approach is that " Ice " is the fastest growing scourge on the drug scene and now has more addicts than heroin or cocaine. It is also the easiest to create. Any kid who has passed the HSC exam in chemistry would have the know-how to set up a lab to produce the drug - and the ingredients are readily available in this country.
Unlike other drugs, " Ice " is more likely to produce a psychotic state in the user which often manifests itself in an unprovoked - and deadly violent - attack on others. It is also the cheapest illicit drug offered on the streets.
Each election the Green vote has been growing. Many people are attracted by their fear of global warming - their desire to see Carbon Dioxide levels lowered - their rejection of land clearing and forest reduction - and the belief that we must return to our roots if our children will inherit a survivable lifestyle during the remainder of this century.
It is doubtful if even a small percentage will agree with the Greens new platform on ice. Obviously the main political parties will press their advantage by maintaining their attitude to all illicit drugs - and as a result many who would gladly vote Green will have second thoughts.
At least the voters know what the Greens propose to do when they pause, pen poised at the ballot box!
The problem with this approach is that " Ice " is the fastest growing scourge on the drug scene and now has more addicts than heroin or cocaine. It is also the easiest to create. Any kid who has passed the HSC exam in chemistry would have the know-how to set up a lab to produce the drug - and the ingredients are readily available in this country.
Unlike other drugs, " Ice " is more likely to produce a psychotic state in the user which often manifests itself in an unprovoked - and deadly violent - attack on others. It is also the cheapest illicit drug offered on the streets.
Each election the Green vote has been growing. Many people are attracted by their fear of global warming - their desire to see Carbon Dioxide levels lowered - their rejection of land clearing and forest reduction - and the belief that we must return to our roots if our children will inherit a survivable lifestyle during the remainder of this century.
It is doubtful if even a small percentage will agree with the Greens new platform on ice. Obviously the main political parties will press their advantage by maintaining their attitude to all illicit drugs - and as a result many who would gladly vote Green will have second thoughts.
At least the voters know what the Greens propose to do when they pause, pen poised at the ballot box!
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
The illusion of winning wealth.
Just about every product we put in our shopping trolley these days seems to come attached to some sort of competition that offers a lucrative prize. That prize can range from an incredible amount of cash to items such as jet skis, automobiles or lesser electrical goods such as plasma tv'S, mobile phones or DVD players.
The one thing they seem to have in common is a requirement that you - the customer - spend additional money to become part of that competition.
That can take several forms. You may be required to post the coupon attached to the product back to the company for registration - which involves a fifty cent stamp - or you may be obliged to make a phone call to a number where your details will be entered into the competition.
Every such competition comes with small print which details the rules that will apply to the competition - and by law in some states - a date when the competition will be drawn - and the winner advertised in a certain daily newspaper.
Few people who enter these competitions expect to win - and even fewer take the trouble to buy the nominated newspaper to check on the results.
Even those few who do would be little the wiser if the winner was a common name supposed to be a resident of a crowded suburb of a major city. Who is going to take the trouble to see if this is correct - and check that the competition is legitimate ?
Competitions are a popular form of advertising and they certainly sell products. These competitions require authority from a state government department, but it would be unusual if that department had a compliance division that tracked all and every authorised competition to see that it was legitimate, produced a verifiable winner - and that person actually received the prise. With the thousands of such promotions under way at any given period of time it would be unusual if a few shonky traders were not running scams to improve their bottom line !
The one thing they seem to have in common is a requirement that you - the customer - spend additional money to become part of that competition.
That can take several forms. You may be required to post the coupon attached to the product back to the company for registration - which involves a fifty cent stamp - or you may be obliged to make a phone call to a number where your details will be entered into the competition.
Every such competition comes with small print which details the rules that will apply to the competition - and by law in some states - a date when the competition will be drawn - and the winner advertised in a certain daily newspaper.
Few people who enter these competitions expect to win - and even fewer take the trouble to buy the nominated newspaper to check on the results.
Even those few who do would be little the wiser if the winner was a common name supposed to be a resident of a crowded suburb of a major city. Who is going to take the trouble to see if this is correct - and check that the competition is legitimate ?
Competitions are a popular form of advertising and they certainly sell products. These competitions require authority from a state government department, but it would be unusual if that department had a compliance division that tracked all and every authorised competition to see that it was legitimate, produced a verifiable winner - and that person actually received the prise. With the thousands of such promotions under way at any given period of time it would be unusual if a few shonky traders were not running scams to improve their bottom line !
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Slamming the door.
Reverend Fred Nile, who enjoys the dual roles of minister of religion and politician has called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration for a period of ten years.
This will be welcomed by some members of the public incensed by the sight of Muslim women wearing Burquas in our streets and Muslim Imams calling for jihad from mosques, but it deals less than justly with the hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants already here who reject jihad and whose only wish is to live a peaceful life in Australia.
It is a typical case of a noisy minority hogging the media spotlight and bringing shame to the entire diaspora.
The problem affecting Muslims goes back to the actions of just one man - Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is from the " Wahabism " portion of Sunni Islam and this sect calls for the execution of all non-Sunni Muslims, including those who follow the Sh'ite path. It's followers believe that their faith should be spread by the sword and that as " Holy Warriors " any act of infamy - including suicide bombing - is justified and earns them a special place in Paradise - complete with many un-Islamic privileges.
Initially the call to jihad confused and frightened most Muslims in Australia. They tried to reconcile Muslim solidarity with their life in a secular country - to which many had fled to escape religious persecution. As a result, they were silent when events such as 9/11 took place - and to many that silence was taken to mean their agreement with jihad.
But times are changing. Muslim Australia is sick to the teeth with hysterical and radicals Imams preaching fiery sermons from mosques. This is not the view of majority Muslims - and now they have taken steps to stand up and be counted. The Mufti of Australia - Sheik al Hilaly and his like brethren have been barred from preaching in the Lakemba mosque and it has been made plain that they are not welcome there.
It took a while to happen, but it seems Islam in Australia has found it's voice and simply wants to practice it's religion in peace - and certainly will not tolerate a small minority trying to spread division and antagonising this country's non-Muslim majority.
Fred Nile's call is out of step - and is just the thing that radical Imams will pounce on to try and send a hate message to the younger Muslim population that Islam is under threat here. Just as Islam Australia is silencing it's fanatics, so we should be equally applying the gag to extremists like Fred Nile !
This will be welcomed by some members of the public incensed by the sight of Muslim women wearing Burquas in our streets and Muslim Imams calling for jihad from mosques, but it deals less than justly with the hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants already here who reject jihad and whose only wish is to live a peaceful life in Australia.
It is a typical case of a noisy minority hogging the media spotlight and bringing shame to the entire diaspora.
The problem affecting Muslims goes back to the actions of just one man - Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is from the " Wahabism " portion of Sunni Islam and this sect calls for the execution of all non-Sunni Muslims, including those who follow the Sh'ite path. It's followers believe that their faith should be spread by the sword and that as " Holy Warriors " any act of infamy - including suicide bombing - is justified and earns them a special place in Paradise - complete with many un-Islamic privileges.
Initially the call to jihad confused and frightened most Muslims in Australia. They tried to reconcile Muslim solidarity with their life in a secular country - to which many had fled to escape religious persecution. As a result, they were silent when events such as 9/11 took place - and to many that silence was taken to mean their agreement with jihad.
But times are changing. Muslim Australia is sick to the teeth with hysterical and radicals Imams preaching fiery sermons from mosques. This is not the view of majority Muslims - and now they have taken steps to stand up and be counted. The Mufti of Australia - Sheik al Hilaly and his like brethren have been barred from preaching in the Lakemba mosque and it has been made plain that they are not welcome there.
It took a while to happen, but it seems Islam in Australia has found it's voice and simply wants to practice it's religion in peace - and certainly will not tolerate a small minority trying to spread division and antagonising this country's non-Muslim majority.
Fred Nile's call is out of step - and is just the thing that radical Imams will pounce on to try and send a hate message to the younger Muslim population that Islam is under threat here. Just as Islam Australia is silencing it's fanatics, so we should be equally applying the gag to extremists like Fred Nile !
Monday, 12 March 2007
DNA from all.
With a state election now just days away New South Wales premier Morris Iemma has introduced a law and order component. He has promised that - if re-elected - he will amend the law to make it compulsory for the police to record DNA from even minor offenders. Presumably, this means that people charged with minor crimes such as graffiti, Jay walking or riding a bicycle without a helmet would have their DNA placed on the state data base.
The civil liberties people are outraged, and yet a proposal some years ago to record the DNA of all people in this country is still bubbling along in the background.
It was proposed that all babies at birth have their DNA recorded and that mature citizens be recorded at such times as they entered hospital, a nursing home or started employment in any government capacity.
The idea was not popular and the politicians backed off, but there would have been obvious advantages. As well as solving crime promptly a national DNA data base would be invaluable for identifying victims of accidents. Had such a scheme been in existence two Australians deported as illegal immigrants would not have spent time dumped erroneously in foreign countries.
But it would also have aspects of " big brother ". At present the state has no right to record it's citizens fingerprints unless they are criminals. DNA would be more intrusive than fingerprints and yet in some instances fingerprints are required for security purposes in job specifications.
Civil Liberties people put forward another warning. DNA provides traces that could identify a person of belonging to certain ethnic groups. Had it been available in Hitler's time it would have been invaluable in identifying and rounding up Jews.
We are probably some way from the compulsory recording of fingerprints and DNA - but that day will eventually arrive. It will sneak in by the back door. Soon we may discontinue PIN to use an ATM. Instead we may gaze into the camera and the machine will make an identity check by recording the unique aspects of our eyes. Already sensitive areas of some processing plants can only be accessed by finger and palm print recognition.
Iemma's proposal may founder on the anvil of public opinion - and at best it may be just another electoral promise from a desperate politician - but keep in mind that the idea is active in many scientific minds who see benefits far outweighing the loss of privacy. It may not occur in the near future - but it would be a brave soul who consulted the crystal ball and proclaimed - never !
The civil liberties people are outraged, and yet a proposal some years ago to record the DNA of all people in this country is still bubbling along in the background.
It was proposed that all babies at birth have their DNA recorded and that mature citizens be recorded at such times as they entered hospital, a nursing home or started employment in any government capacity.
The idea was not popular and the politicians backed off, but there would have been obvious advantages. As well as solving crime promptly a national DNA data base would be invaluable for identifying victims of accidents. Had such a scheme been in existence two Australians deported as illegal immigrants would not have spent time dumped erroneously in foreign countries.
But it would also have aspects of " big brother ". At present the state has no right to record it's citizens fingerprints unless they are criminals. DNA would be more intrusive than fingerprints and yet in some instances fingerprints are required for security purposes in job specifications.
Civil Liberties people put forward another warning. DNA provides traces that could identify a person of belonging to certain ethnic groups. Had it been available in Hitler's time it would have been invaluable in identifying and rounding up Jews.
We are probably some way from the compulsory recording of fingerprints and DNA - but that day will eventually arrive. It will sneak in by the back door. Soon we may discontinue PIN to use an ATM. Instead we may gaze into the camera and the machine will make an identity check by recording the unique aspects of our eyes. Already sensitive areas of some processing plants can only be accessed by finger and palm print recognition.
Iemma's proposal may founder on the anvil of public opinion - and at best it may be just another electoral promise from a desperate politician - but keep in mind that the idea is active in many scientific minds who see benefits far outweighing the loss of privacy. It may not occur in the near future - but it would be a brave soul who consulted the crystal ball and proclaimed - never !
Sunday, 11 March 2007
Police attrition.
Alarming figures released today reveal that one hundred and forty nine police officers resigned and left the force between December 1 last year and January 31.
Even more alarming, a breakdown of those figures reveal the loss of senior people who are the backbone of the police culture - the very people who weld together the rank and file to create a cohesive force.
Resignations came from ten inspectors, two senior sergeants and twenty-six sergeants.
It seems that the New South Wales police force is fast becoming a collective of newly graduated constables with a sad lack of experienced, middle management leaders to guide them to proficiency.
So far, nobody seems to have an answer as to why this is happening. The New South Wales police force is the biggest police service in Australia - and the best paid !
Policing used to be a life career choice, but then the format was entirely different from today. Back then each suburb had a police residence that served as the local police station. The resident officer knew his locals - and he kept the youth of his district from becoming criminals by stopping the progress from yaa-hooing to petty theft by strict law enforcement.
Those days are long gone. Today the cops no longer walk the beat. Policing is done from patrol cars and for many police service has become remote - and a police career is losing allure for those with a sense of duty.
Maybe now is the time for intense interviews with all police handing in their resignations to determine why we are experiencing this loss. If we can not provide substance to policing this attrition will continue. Now is the time to find out what police think and what they see as the down side of a police career. Listen and learn would be good advice to the police and political bureaucracy !
Even more alarming, a breakdown of those figures reveal the loss of senior people who are the backbone of the police culture - the very people who weld together the rank and file to create a cohesive force.
Resignations came from ten inspectors, two senior sergeants and twenty-six sergeants.
It seems that the New South Wales police force is fast becoming a collective of newly graduated constables with a sad lack of experienced, middle management leaders to guide them to proficiency.
So far, nobody seems to have an answer as to why this is happening. The New South Wales police force is the biggest police service in Australia - and the best paid !
Policing used to be a life career choice, but then the format was entirely different from today. Back then each suburb had a police residence that served as the local police station. The resident officer knew his locals - and he kept the youth of his district from becoming criminals by stopping the progress from yaa-hooing to petty theft by strict law enforcement.
Those days are long gone. Today the cops no longer walk the beat. Policing is done from patrol cars and for many police service has become remote - and a police career is losing allure for those with a sense of duty.
Maybe now is the time for intense interviews with all police handing in their resignations to determine why we are experiencing this loss. If we can not provide substance to policing this attrition will continue. Now is the time to find out what police think and what they see as the down side of a police career. Listen and learn would be good advice to the police and political bureaucracy !
Police attrition.
Alarming figures released today reveal that one hundred and forty nine police officers resigned and left the force between December 1 last year and January 31.
Even more alarming, a breakdown of those figures reveal the loss of senior people who are the backbone of the police culture - the very people who weld together the rank and file to create a cohesive force.
Resignations came from ten inspectors, two senior sergeants and twenty-six sergeants.
It seems that the New South Wales police force is fast becoming a collective of newly graduated constables with a sad lack of experienced, middle management leaders to guide them to proficiency.
So far, nobody seems to have an answer as to why this is happening. The New South Wales police force is the biggest police service in Australia - and the best paid !
Policing used to be a life career choice, but then the format was entirely different from today. Back then each suburb had a police residence that served as the local police station. The resident officer knew his locals - and he kept the youth of his district from becoming criminals by stopping the progress from yaa-hooing to petty theft by strict law enforcement.
Those days are long gone. Today the cops no longer walk the beat. Policing is done from patrol cars and for many police service has become remote - and a police career is losing allure for those with a sense of duty.
Maybe now is the time for intense interviews with all police handing in their resignations to determine why we are experiencing this loss. If we can not provide substance to policing this attrition will continue. Now is the time to find out what police think and what they see as the down side of a police career. Listen and learn would be good advice to the police and political bureaucracy !
Even more alarming, a breakdown of those figures reveal the loss of senior people who are the backbone of the police culture - the very people who weld together the rank and file to create a cohesive force.
Resignations came from ten inspectors, two senior sergeants and twenty-six sergeants.
It seems that the New South Wales police force is fast becoming a collective of newly graduated constables with a sad lack of experienced, middle management leaders to guide them to proficiency.
So far, nobody seems to have an answer as to why this is happening. The New South Wales police force is the biggest police service in Australia - and the best paid !
Policing used to be a life career choice, but then the format was entirely different from today. Back then each suburb had a police residence that served as the local police station. The resident officer knew his locals - and he kept the youth of his district from becoming criminals by stopping the progress from yaa-hooing to petty theft by strict law enforcement.
Those days are long gone. Today the cops no longer walk the beat. Policing is done from patrol cars and for many police service has become remote - and a police career is losing allure for those with a sense of duty.
Maybe now is the time for intense interviews with all police handing in their resignations to determine why we are experiencing this loss. If we can not provide substance to policing this attrition will continue. Now is the time to find out what police think and what they see as the down side of a police career. Listen and learn would be good advice to the police and political bureaucracy !
Saturday, 10 March 2007
A fatal signature.
This week saw another blow land on Kevin Rudd's shoulders in his quest to become the next prime minister. Shadow Attorney General Kelvin Thomason resigned from the shadow ministry in disgrace, having signed a glowing reference for a Melbourne drug baron who was seeking a liquor license. This man - Tony Mokbel - is hiding overseas, having skipped bail on serious drug charges.
This incident should throw the spotlight on the culture that surrounds references - and the people who provide them.
The Queensland Health service employed a doctor on the basis of glowing references from his American colleagues. Many deaths later from botched operations that this doctor was incompetent to perform an enquiry quizzed those who signed these references - to be told that this was normal protocol. Those signing admitted that they had never met the man - knew nothing of his reputation - but simply went along with the culture when asked.
This reference culture is alive and well in the business community. Time and time again business leaders admit to quietly easing out an incompetent employee, but sending him on his way with a glowing testimonial that is nothing but a pack of lies - and a trap for any future employer. Most condone doing this as a mark of sympathy because that employee " was basically a good bloke " and " the stupid bastard was no longer my concern ".
This attitude diminishes the value of references and must lead many magistrates to downgrade them when considering imposing a sentence on a convicted person. It is custom for those charged with a crime to solicit testimonials from people of substance in an effort to lessen the sentence. It seems that in many cases politicians, business people - and even ministers of religion - feel obliged to provide a testimonial despite having little knowledge of the person involved.
The resignation of the shadow Attorney General will certainly bring the matter to public attention. Signing a reference is a both legally and morally binding commitment - and in this case the person involved had the possibility of becoming the chief custodian of law in this country. His fall is a heavy price to pay, but hopefully it will cause many others to hesitate before putting pen to paper without an honest belief that what is written is correct !
This incident should throw the spotlight on the culture that surrounds references - and the people who provide them.
The Queensland Health service employed a doctor on the basis of glowing references from his American colleagues. Many deaths later from botched operations that this doctor was incompetent to perform an enquiry quizzed those who signed these references - to be told that this was normal protocol. Those signing admitted that they had never met the man - knew nothing of his reputation - but simply went along with the culture when asked.
This reference culture is alive and well in the business community. Time and time again business leaders admit to quietly easing out an incompetent employee, but sending him on his way with a glowing testimonial that is nothing but a pack of lies - and a trap for any future employer. Most condone doing this as a mark of sympathy because that employee " was basically a good bloke " and " the stupid bastard was no longer my concern ".
This attitude diminishes the value of references and must lead many magistrates to downgrade them when considering imposing a sentence on a convicted person. It is custom for those charged with a crime to solicit testimonials from people of substance in an effort to lessen the sentence. It seems that in many cases politicians, business people - and even ministers of religion - feel obliged to provide a testimonial despite having little knowledge of the person involved.
The resignation of the shadow Attorney General will certainly bring the matter to public attention. Signing a reference is a both legally and morally binding commitment - and in this case the person involved had the possibility of becoming the chief custodian of law in this country. His fall is a heavy price to pay, but hopefully it will cause many others to hesitate before putting pen to paper without an honest belief that what is written is correct !
Friday, 9 March 2007
Decisions on water !
A few weeks ago both sides of politics trotted out policies to safeguard the Sydney water supply in the face of the worst drought ever. The reason for those policies was two-fold. The mighty Warragamba dam was perilously close to 30% capacity - and a state election was due on March 24.
Now the situation has changed. The long range weather people advise that the " El Nino " effect has ended - and as a consequence we can expect more normal rain patterns to emerge. To support this point of view we have been having massive, rain bearing thunder storms - and the level of Warragamba and the other dams is definitely on the improve. There are now expectations of substantial rain over the remains of Autumn.
In a way, this has happened at an unfortunate time. Both sides of politics are locked into their election policies and one of these involves the spending of over a billion dollars on a desalination plant. Perhaps now - with relief rain improving the dams situation - it would be a good time to draw breath and take another long, hard look at the best way to drought proof the Sydney basin.
A billion dollars would buy a lot of other ways to save water. There is no lack of rain along the coastal fringe. The problem is that it rarely moves inland and reaches the catchment area. There would be no need for a desalination plant if that rainfall was harvested and pumped into the dam system.
It would require careful planning. When it rains in coastal Sydney the gutter systems also collect all sorts of rubbish. Presumably we would need retention basins from which this water could be pumped inland to more massive retention basins where two things would happen. Having sieved out the solid waste matter a percentage of the saved water would be piped to industry, thus saving good drinking water being drawn from our dams. The remainder would need to go through a purification process to remove contaminants before being pumped into the dams.
History reveals that there is no lack of rain along the coastal fringe and that this is reliable. The problem will be for political parties to make change with an election just days away. A change of policy shouldn't be a big surprise to to voters. Very few expect the plethora of grandiose promises made in the heat of election battles to be kept anyway !
Now the situation has changed. The long range weather people advise that the " El Nino " effect has ended - and as a consequence we can expect more normal rain patterns to emerge. To support this point of view we have been having massive, rain bearing thunder storms - and the level of Warragamba and the other dams is definitely on the improve. There are now expectations of substantial rain over the remains of Autumn.
In a way, this has happened at an unfortunate time. Both sides of politics are locked into their election policies and one of these involves the spending of over a billion dollars on a desalination plant. Perhaps now - with relief rain improving the dams situation - it would be a good time to draw breath and take another long, hard look at the best way to drought proof the Sydney basin.
A billion dollars would buy a lot of other ways to save water. There is no lack of rain along the coastal fringe. The problem is that it rarely moves inland and reaches the catchment area. There would be no need for a desalination plant if that rainfall was harvested and pumped into the dam system.
It would require careful planning. When it rains in coastal Sydney the gutter systems also collect all sorts of rubbish. Presumably we would need retention basins from which this water could be pumped inland to more massive retention basins where two things would happen. Having sieved out the solid waste matter a percentage of the saved water would be piped to industry, thus saving good drinking water being drawn from our dams. The remainder would need to go through a purification process to remove contaminants before being pumped into the dams.
History reveals that there is no lack of rain along the coastal fringe and that this is reliable. The problem will be for political parties to make change with an election just days away. A change of policy shouldn't be a big surprise to to voters. Very few expect the plethora of grandiose promises made in the heat of election battles to be kept anyway !
Decisions on water !
A few weeks ago both sides of politics trotted out policies to safeguard the Sydney water supply in the face of the worst drought ever. The reason for those policies was two-fold. The mighty Warragamba dam was perilously close to 30% capacity - and a state election was due on March 24.
Now the situation has changed. The long range weather people advise that the " El Nino " effect has ended - and as a consequence we can expect more normal rain patterns to emerge. To support this point of view we have been having massive, rain bearing thunder storms - and the level of Warragamba and the other dams is definitely on the improve. There are now expectations of substantial rain over the remains of Autumn.
In a way, this has happened at an unfortunate time. Both sides of politics are locked into their election policies and one of these involves the spending of over a billion dollars on a desalination plant. Perhaps now - with relief rain improving the dams situation - it would be a good time to draw breath and take another long, hard look at the best way to drought proof the Sydney basin.
A billion dollars would buy a lot of other ways to save water. There is no lack of rain along the coastal fringe. The problem is that it rarely moves inland and reaches the catchment area. There would be no need for a desalination plant if that rainfall was harvested and pumped into the dam system.
It would require careful planning. When it rains in coastal Sydney the gutter systems also collect all sorts of rubbish. Presumably we would need retention basins from which this water could be pumped inland to more massive retention basins where two things would happen. Having sieved out the solid waste matter a percentage of the saved water would be piped to industry, thus saving good drinking water being drawn from our dams. The remainder would need to go through a purification process to remove contaminants before being pumped into the dams.
History reveals that there is no lack of rain along the coastal fringe and that this is reliable. The problem will be for political parties to make change with an election just days away. A change of policy shouldn't be a big surprise to to voters. Very few expect the plethora of grandiose promises made in the heat of election battles to be kept anyway !
Now the situation has changed. The long range weather people advise that the " El Nino " effect has ended - and as a consequence we can expect more normal rain patterns to emerge. To support this point of view we have been having massive, rain bearing thunder storms - and the level of Warragamba and the other dams is definitely on the improve. There are now expectations of substantial rain over the remains of Autumn.
In a way, this has happened at an unfortunate time. Both sides of politics are locked into their election policies and one of these involves the spending of over a billion dollars on a desalination plant. Perhaps now - with relief rain improving the dams situation - it would be a good time to draw breath and take another long, hard look at the best way to drought proof the Sydney basin.
A billion dollars would buy a lot of other ways to save water. There is no lack of rain along the coastal fringe. The problem is that it rarely moves inland and reaches the catchment area. There would be no need for a desalination plant if that rainfall was harvested and pumped into the dam system.
It would require careful planning. When it rains in coastal Sydney the gutter systems also collect all sorts of rubbish. Presumably we would need retention basins from which this water could be pumped inland to more massive retention basins where two things would happen. Having sieved out the solid waste matter a percentage of the saved water would be piped to industry, thus saving good drinking water being drawn from our dams. The remainder would need to go through a purification process to remove contaminants before being pumped into the dams.
History reveals that there is no lack of rain along the coastal fringe and that this is reliable. The problem will be for political parties to make change with an election just days away. A change of policy shouldn't be a big surprise to to voters. Very few expect the plethora of grandiose promises made in the heat of election battles to be kept anyway !
Thursday, 8 March 2007
The instant news !
Yesterday there was a wild brawl in the grounds of a high school in Sydney's western suburbs. Graphic pictures of the melee featured in the evening news - thanks to students using their photo/mobile phones to record the event - and happily forwarding it to the media.
We live in a different age from the hit or miss days when the only news coverage was by staff reporters and cameramen. Vast numbers of people have a mobile phone with camera capability and they are quick to record the event when something newsworthy happens during their day.
These cameras not only add to news gathering but have become a valuable help in solving crime. Crims running from a mugging or the holdup of a convenience store are likely to find themselves - in full colour - on someone's camera. Even a minor road crash is often recorded by strangers - and this valuable evidence may later be sought if the case goes to court and damages are involved.
Unfortunately there is also a down side. These useful little cameras have been used by paedophiles to record their sordid escapades and recently there has been a spate of perverts filming up women's skirts. Unlike old time rolls of film, digital photography leaves no developing traces and can be accomplished on a computer - or on cheap digital printers.
Times have changed from the comic book days of Dick Tracey when he supposedly had a miniature phone built into his shoe. But then the days of Buck Rogers have also actually happened. We have been into space - and a man has actually landed on the Moon.
There are more such miracles to come in the future - and it seems that the future is what is happening right now. Sit tight. Buckle your belt. It will be a wild ride - and just maybe your fondest dreams will become reality in your lifetime !
We live in a different age from the hit or miss days when the only news coverage was by staff reporters and cameramen. Vast numbers of people have a mobile phone with camera capability and they are quick to record the event when something newsworthy happens during their day.
These cameras not only add to news gathering but have become a valuable help in solving crime. Crims running from a mugging or the holdup of a convenience store are likely to find themselves - in full colour - on someone's camera. Even a minor road crash is often recorded by strangers - and this valuable evidence may later be sought if the case goes to court and damages are involved.
Unfortunately there is also a down side. These useful little cameras have been used by paedophiles to record their sordid escapades and recently there has been a spate of perverts filming up women's skirts. Unlike old time rolls of film, digital photography leaves no developing traces and can be accomplished on a computer - or on cheap digital printers.
Times have changed from the comic book days of Dick Tracey when he supposedly had a miniature phone built into his shoe. But then the days of Buck Rogers have also actually happened. We have been into space - and a man has actually landed on the Moon.
There are more such miracles to come in the future - and it seems that the future is what is happening right now. Sit tight. Buckle your belt. It will be a wild ride - and just maybe your fondest dreams will become reality in your lifetime !
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Rescue service sanity.
At long last sanity prevails in the area of this state's rescue services. We have the unusual situation that all three services - police, the fire brigade and the ambulance people all maintain separate rescue divisions. This means each have a pool of trained rescue personnel with no other duties and a fleet of vehicles dedicated to rescue work. The cost of this - and the rescue equipment which must be constantly ungraded - is enormous.
There have been many attempts to rationalize these three divisions into a single entity - but all such attempts have foundered because of a vicious turf war. Nobody wants to give up the glamour role of rescue - and so we often have more than one rescue team at an accident and a heated argument as to who will rescue the injured.
At least a partial resolution has been arrived at. The fire brigade will now assume prime responsibility for providing rescue services during the period 5 PM to 7 AM daily. This will save money because during these hours ambulance rescue is on a " call out " basis - while the fire brigade's rescue units are on a 24/7 readiness basis.
It is not a perfect answer. The missing link is " police involvement ". In many cases - specially road trauma - the police are first on the scene and tend to call their own rescue unit. There is no delegated authority nominated to take charge and as a result this usually depends on the seniority of the leader present from each service.
Ideally, the best answer would be to amalgamate the rescue services of police, fire and ambulance into a single, dedicated rescue unit. This should become an autonomous authority with a single purpose - rescue. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen. Rescue has become political and too many egos would be bruised for such an act of sanity to prevail. A little progress has been made - but there is still a long way to go !
There have been many attempts to rationalize these three divisions into a single entity - but all such attempts have foundered because of a vicious turf war. Nobody wants to give up the glamour role of rescue - and so we often have more than one rescue team at an accident and a heated argument as to who will rescue the injured.
At least a partial resolution has been arrived at. The fire brigade will now assume prime responsibility for providing rescue services during the period 5 PM to 7 AM daily. This will save money because during these hours ambulance rescue is on a " call out " basis - while the fire brigade's rescue units are on a 24/7 readiness basis.
It is not a perfect answer. The missing link is " police involvement ". In many cases - specially road trauma - the police are first on the scene and tend to call their own rescue unit. There is no delegated authority nominated to take charge and as a result this usually depends on the seniority of the leader present from each service.
Ideally, the best answer would be to amalgamate the rescue services of police, fire and ambulance into a single, dedicated rescue unit. This should become an autonomous authority with a single purpose - rescue. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen. Rescue has become political and too many egos would be bruised for such an act of sanity to prevail. A little progress has been made - but there is still a long way to go !
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
A lonely death !
Once again an elderly person has been discovered deceased in rental accommodation - undiscovered for several weeks. This is not uncommon and there have been instances when tenants of Housing Commission accommodation have been reduced to a skeleton remains years after their death.
Such discoveries result in a flurry of activity designed to prevent such happenings. Unfortunately, we live in an age when few know the names of their neighbours - and even fewer take the trouble to see to their well being !
It is evident that protocols that should draw attention to a person who has dropped off the scene are failing. Elderly people on a pension are clients of Centrelink and that agency applies regular checks and balances to determine changes of income and circumstances.
Housing Commission tenants are subject to at least an annual inspection of the premises, and a deceased person obviously does not pay rent. It is inconceivable that the Commission would fail to make an inspection and ignore unpaid rent for years.
Then there is the matter of mail. It would be reasonable for the post person to issue a report if mail remains uncollected for a period of time.
All these factors, plus the scrutiny of those living nearby should be a factor in observing a change that might indicate that all was not well with a person living in the community. The problem is that these days the stress of modern living has removed the duty of care that once existed.
There are so many in the community who have outlived their relatives, or lost touch with their children or other loved ones - or who because of mental illness have become withdrawn - living like hermits amongst the hustle and bustle of modern life.
Welfare agencies have repeatedly implored citizens to spare a thought for those living around them, to observe and watch for the signs that indicate there is a problem - and then to do something about it - from knocking on that persons door to alerting the authorities.
We are usually receptive to such messages - and full of goodwill - but with the stress of modern living the thought fades until we once again read of such a horror in the daily press. Such is life in the twenty-first century !
Such discoveries result in a flurry of activity designed to prevent such happenings. Unfortunately, we live in an age when few know the names of their neighbours - and even fewer take the trouble to see to their well being !
It is evident that protocols that should draw attention to a person who has dropped off the scene are failing. Elderly people on a pension are clients of Centrelink and that agency applies regular checks and balances to determine changes of income and circumstances.
Housing Commission tenants are subject to at least an annual inspection of the premises, and a deceased person obviously does not pay rent. It is inconceivable that the Commission would fail to make an inspection and ignore unpaid rent for years.
Then there is the matter of mail. It would be reasonable for the post person to issue a report if mail remains uncollected for a period of time.
All these factors, plus the scrutiny of those living nearby should be a factor in observing a change that might indicate that all was not well with a person living in the community. The problem is that these days the stress of modern living has removed the duty of care that once existed.
There are so many in the community who have outlived their relatives, or lost touch with their children or other loved ones - or who because of mental illness have become withdrawn - living like hermits amongst the hustle and bustle of modern life.
Welfare agencies have repeatedly implored citizens to spare a thought for those living around them, to observe and watch for the signs that indicate there is a problem - and then to do something about it - from knocking on that persons door to alerting the authorities.
We are usually receptive to such messages - and full of goodwill - but with the stress of modern living the thought fades until we once again read of such a horror in the daily press. Such is life in the twenty-first century !
Monday, 5 March 2007
The " Reverse Mortgage " trap.
Debt consultants are concerned at the growing number of retirees who are failing to adapt to living on reduced income. Some are steadily accumulating massive debt as they try to continue their former lifestyle - and in some cases this has led to suicide from despair.
The finance industry has offered a scheme labelled " Reverse Mortgages " to cater for those who are asset rich - but cash poor. Basically, this enables the owners of high value property such as the family home to borrow against that asset to provide cash to supplement superannuation or pension payments.
It is often referred to as a " loan without repayments ". That is true in the essence that the financier calculates that - due to the age of the borrowers - if financial conditions do not change there is enough equity to sustain the cash flow until the borrower is deceased. At that time, the financier recoups the loan money - plus the interest that has accumulated over the life of the loan.
And thereby lies the danger.
If Australia encountered a sharp rise in inflation and as a result interest rates rose to the level of a decade or so ago - somewhere near 17% - the sustainability of the asset to support the level of debt could quickly reverse - and the borrowers could find themselves without both the home and the flow of supporting cash.
Reverse Mortgages are an idea that could be appropriate in some cases, but borrowers considering them would be well advised to consult a good financial adviser and have the small print explained. Like all things financial, it is a good idea to fully understand what is involved before jumping in the deep end.
The finance industry has offered a scheme labelled " Reverse Mortgages " to cater for those who are asset rich - but cash poor. Basically, this enables the owners of high value property such as the family home to borrow against that asset to provide cash to supplement superannuation or pension payments.
It is often referred to as a " loan without repayments ". That is true in the essence that the financier calculates that - due to the age of the borrowers - if financial conditions do not change there is enough equity to sustain the cash flow until the borrower is deceased. At that time, the financier recoups the loan money - plus the interest that has accumulated over the life of the loan.
And thereby lies the danger.
If Australia encountered a sharp rise in inflation and as a result interest rates rose to the level of a decade or so ago - somewhere near 17% - the sustainability of the asset to support the level of debt could quickly reverse - and the borrowers could find themselves without both the home and the flow of supporting cash.
Reverse Mortgages are an idea that could be appropriate in some cases, but borrowers considering them would be well advised to consult a good financial adviser and have the small print explained. Like all things financial, it is a good idea to fully understand what is involved before jumping in the deep end.
Sunday, 4 March 2007
Calamity overtakes Kevin Rudd.
Just when the Australian Labor Party ( ALP ) finally elected a leader with the flair and charisma to have a hope of being the next prime minister a ghost from his past entered centre stage.
Kevin Rudd was riding high in the opinion polls with poll results indicating the ALP was ahead of the government on preferences - and Rudd was even ahead of John Howard as preferred prime minister.
And then thunderclouds from the west rained on his parade !
Rudd had three meetings with disgraced former West Australian premier Brian Burke, who was a convicted felon who has served time in prison and is now peddling influence from his government contacts, resulting in an investigation by an anti-corruption body. The West Australian government has banned all contact with Burke - and three of it's ministers have been sacked for defying that ban.
The Federal government has gloried in the opportunity to crucify Rudd in the parliament. Rudd apologises and admits that the contact was a poor choice of judgement, but refuses to step down as leader.
He refuses to divulge the reason for the meetings, but there is likely conjecture that they were to garner support at the time he was planning a move to unseat then leader Kim Beazley. His suggestion that he was a mere visitor at a dinner, attended as a guest of his friend Julian Grill - exploded when printed invitations emerged naming Rudd as the honoured guest and reason for the event.
Now a new factor has emerged. Human Services Minister Ian Campbell has come forward and admitted that he also had a meeting with Brian Burke. This happened when Burke attended a meeting - standing in for Grill - to decide future plans for a sports ground in Perth. Campbell offered his resignation - for the good of the party - and prime minister Howard reluctantly accepted it.
This changes the whole context of the situation - and puts Rudd in an impossible situation. If he stands firm and bluffs it out his credibility will be badly damaged. He met with a notoriously crooked ex-politician and this was enough for three Western Australian ministers to be sacked - and a sitting Liberal minister to voluntarily fall on his sword - and yet Rudd refuses to accept punishment.
He may survive - just. But his credibility will be badly damaged - and for him the " honeymoon " would seem to be over.
The ALP has little option than to bluff it out and take flak. Should Rudd do the right thing and stand down - the Labor party would be - if you will permit the pun - left Rudderless. There simply isn't anyone else suited to be leader, much less in an election year.
Kevin Rudd must be wondering what he did to enrage the Gods of politics !
Kevin Rudd was riding high in the opinion polls with poll results indicating the ALP was ahead of the government on preferences - and Rudd was even ahead of John Howard as preferred prime minister.
And then thunderclouds from the west rained on his parade !
Rudd had three meetings with disgraced former West Australian premier Brian Burke, who was a convicted felon who has served time in prison and is now peddling influence from his government contacts, resulting in an investigation by an anti-corruption body. The West Australian government has banned all contact with Burke - and three of it's ministers have been sacked for defying that ban.
The Federal government has gloried in the opportunity to crucify Rudd in the parliament. Rudd apologises and admits that the contact was a poor choice of judgement, but refuses to step down as leader.
He refuses to divulge the reason for the meetings, but there is likely conjecture that they were to garner support at the time he was planning a move to unseat then leader Kim Beazley. His suggestion that he was a mere visitor at a dinner, attended as a guest of his friend Julian Grill - exploded when printed invitations emerged naming Rudd as the honoured guest and reason for the event.
Now a new factor has emerged. Human Services Minister Ian Campbell has come forward and admitted that he also had a meeting with Brian Burke. This happened when Burke attended a meeting - standing in for Grill - to decide future plans for a sports ground in Perth. Campbell offered his resignation - for the good of the party - and prime minister Howard reluctantly accepted it.
This changes the whole context of the situation - and puts Rudd in an impossible situation. If he stands firm and bluffs it out his credibility will be badly damaged. He met with a notoriously crooked ex-politician and this was enough for three Western Australian ministers to be sacked - and a sitting Liberal minister to voluntarily fall on his sword - and yet Rudd refuses to accept punishment.
He may survive - just. But his credibility will be badly damaged - and for him the " honeymoon " would seem to be over.
The ALP has little option than to bluff it out and take flak. Should Rudd do the right thing and stand down - the Labor party would be - if you will permit the pun - left Rudderless. There simply isn't anyone else suited to be leader, much less in an election year.
Kevin Rudd must be wondering what he did to enrage the Gods of politics !
Saturday, 3 March 2007
The lure of wealth.
Sometimes a triumphant news story has the opposite effect of what was intended. This week the media splashed an account of a hugely successful police operation that nabbed a group of drug dealers. The highlight of this story was the discovery and confiscation of over eleven million dollars in illicit profits. The story went on to describe the confiscation of a veritable Aladdin's cave of jet skis, jewellery, luxury motor vehicles - and an incredible gold plated hand gun.
The cameras concentrated on the image of a vast pile of money discovered in the roof cavity of a house in Wollongong. Bundle after bundle of $ 100 and $ 50 dollar notes, neatly wrapped in plastic and amounting to over ten million dollars.
All of this the profit from drug dealing ! How many people in the community will lust after this type of reward - and with it the luxury lifestyle revealed by all those items of such a lifestyle seized by the police ? Even bigger and better than a major win in Lotto ! The crazy thing is that the money discovered in a house roof cavity was funds the dealers simply didn't know what to do with. They had their lifestyle - and the money in the roof was merely surplus funds - waiting until they figured out how to launder it !
Within days a second story followed. This concerned a soldier in the Australian Defence Force who was caught selling five hundred Ecstacy tablets to undercover cops for $ 2500. A search of his premises discovered $ 44,585 in profits stashed away in a cupboard.
These stories are going to tempt many to consider drug trading as a way of getting incredibly rich. There are disincentives in the form of gaol time - but to many the lure of incredible wealth will overcome any scruples about what danger to others is involved in drugs and the risk of incarceration " goes with the territory " as many criminals believe !
Perhaps such stories of police success are not a deterrent when at the same time they reveal the lifestyle that goes with being clever and avoiding detection. For many, a few years living the ultra good life would be ample compensation for a further few years in the prison system.
Time will tell, but this news story is less likely to bring about a reduction in drug dealing !
The cameras concentrated on the image of a vast pile of money discovered in the roof cavity of a house in Wollongong. Bundle after bundle of $ 100 and $ 50 dollar notes, neatly wrapped in plastic and amounting to over ten million dollars.
All of this the profit from drug dealing ! How many people in the community will lust after this type of reward - and with it the luxury lifestyle revealed by all those items of such a lifestyle seized by the police ? Even bigger and better than a major win in Lotto ! The crazy thing is that the money discovered in a house roof cavity was funds the dealers simply didn't know what to do with. They had their lifestyle - and the money in the roof was merely surplus funds - waiting until they figured out how to launder it !
Within days a second story followed. This concerned a soldier in the Australian Defence Force who was caught selling five hundred Ecstacy tablets to undercover cops for $ 2500. A search of his premises discovered $ 44,585 in profits stashed away in a cupboard.
These stories are going to tempt many to consider drug trading as a way of getting incredibly rich. There are disincentives in the form of gaol time - but to many the lure of incredible wealth will overcome any scruples about what danger to others is involved in drugs and the risk of incarceration " goes with the territory " as many criminals believe !
Perhaps such stories of police success are not a deterrent when at the same time they reveal the lifestyle that goes with being clever and avoiding detection. For many, a few years living the ultra good life would be ample compensation for a further few years in the prison system.
Time will tell, but this news story is less likely to bring about a reduction in drug dealing !
The lure of wealth.
Sometimes a triumphant news story has the opposite effect of what was intended. This week the media splashed an account of a hugely successful police operation that nabbed a group of drug dealers. The highlight of this story was the discovery and confiscation of over eleven million dollars in illicit profits. The story went on to describe the confiscation of a veritable Aladdin's cave of jet skis, jewellery, luxury motor vehicles - and an incredible gold plated hand gun.
The cameras concentrated on the image of a vast pile of money discovered in the roof cavity of a house in Wollongong. Bundle after bundle of $ 100 and $ 50 dollar notes, neatly wrapped in plastic and amounting to over ten million dollars.
All of this the profit from drug dealing ! How many people in the community will lust after this type of reward - and with it the luxury lifestyle revealed by all those items of such a lifestyle seized by the police ? Even bigger and better than a major win in Lotto ! The crazy thing is that the money discovered in a house roof cavity was funds the dealers simply didn't know what to do with. They had their lifestyle - and the money in the roof was merely surplus funds - waiting until they figured out how to launder it !
Within days a second story followed. This concerned a soldier in the Australian Defence Force who was caught selling five hundred Ecstacy tablets to undercover cops for $ 2500. A search of his premises discovered $ 44,585 in profits stashed away in a cupboard.
These stories are going to tempt many to consider drug trading as a way of getting incredibly rich. There are disincentives in the form of gaol time - but to many the lure of incredible wealth will overcome any scruples about what danger to others is involved in drugs and the risk of incarceration " goes with the territory " as many criminals believe !
Perhaps such stories of police success are not a deterrent when at the same time they reveal the lifestyle that goes with being clever and avoiding detection. For many, a few years living the ultra good life would be ample compensation for a further few years in the prison system.
Time will tell, but this news story is less likely to bring about a reduction in drug dealing !
The cameras concentrated on the image of a vast pile of money discovered in the roof cavity of a house in Wollongong. Bundle after bundle of $ 100 and $ 50 dollar notes, neatly wrapped in plastic and amounting to over ten million dollars.
All of this the profit from drug dealing ! How many people in the community will lust after this type of reward - and with it the luxury lifestyle revealed by all those items of such a lifestyle seized by the police ? Even bigger and better than a major win in Lotto ! The crazy thing is that the money discovered in a house roof cavity was funds the dealers simply didn't know what to do with. They had their lifestyle - and the money in the roof was merely surplus funds - waiting until they figured out how to launder it !
Within days a second story followed. This concerned a soldier in the Australian Defence Force who was caught selling five hundred Ecstacy tablets to undercover cops for $ 2500. A search of his premises discovered $ 44,585 in profits stashed away in a cupboard.
These stories are going to tempt many to consider drug trading as a way of getting incredibly rich. There are disincentives in the form of gaol time - but to many the lure of incredible wealth will overcome any scruples about what danger to others is involved in drugs and the risk of incarceration " goes with the territory " as many criminals believe !
Perhaps such stories of police success are not a deterrent when at the same time they reveal the lifestyle that goes with being clever and avoiding detection. For many, a few years living the ultra good life would be ample compensation for a further few years in the prison system.
Time will tell, but this news story is less likely to bring about a reduction in drug dealing !
Friday, 2 March 2007
A common education policy.
A rare concurrence is occurring in Australian politics. Both the Federal government and the Federal Opposition agree that this country needs a common education policy !
In a hangover from the early days of Federation when the colonies reluctantly agreed to form a new nation - but each clung desperately to state powers - education became a state preserve - and as a consequence we have the ridiculous situation where six State and two Territory regimes support huge bureaucracies planning and implementing education regimes.
These regimes bear no relation to each other. Even the selection of books as required reading - and on which exams are held - have no common basis.
People with children who change state face a nightmare as bewildered children find themselves facing an education regime totally different from the system they are used to - and as a consequence many bright pupils find themselves disadvantaged.
The suggestion of a common education policy has brought howls of denial from the states and territories. All claim that the system they have in place is far superior - and any change to a common policy would mean " dumbing down " to something inferior.
The real reason for the objections are more personal. Egos are at stake - and so are jobs. If a common education policy is to come into effect the state and territory education regimes will need to be dismantled in favour of a new Federal planning body - which will be formed by representatives from those bodies involved. Obviously this will see a big reduction in the education planning staff in each state and territory - and for the education unions that is anathema.
The fact that both sides of politics agree is an omen that this long awaited benefit will happen - although there will be tough talk ahead to overcome objections from the regimes involved. Australia will certainly benefit from a common education policy in all parts of the country. After all, we are one nation. Why would we need multiple and disconnected education policies ? For once, common sense seems set to prevail !
In a hangover from the early days of Federation when the colonies reluctantly agreed to form a new nation - but each clung desperately to state powers - education became a state preserve - and as a consequence we have the ridiculous situation where six State and two Territory regimes support huge bureaucracies planning and implementing education regimes.
These regimes bear no relation to each other. Even the selection of books as required reading - and on which exams are held - have no common basis.
People with children who change state face a nightmare as bewildered children find themselves facing an education regime totally different from the system they are used to - and as a consequence many bright pupils find themselves disadvantaged.
The suggestion of a common education policy has brought howls of denial from the states and territories. All claim that the system they have in place is far superior - and any change to a common policy would mean " dumbing down " to something inferior.
The real reason for the objections are more personal. Egos are at stake - and so are jobs. If a common education policy is to come into effect the state and territory education regimes will need to be dismantled in favour of a new Federal planning body - which will be formed by representatives from those bodies involved. Obviously this will see a big reduction in the education planning staff in each state and territory - and for the education unions that is anathema.
The fact that both sides of politics agree is an omen that this long awaited benefit will happen - although there will be tough talk ahead to overcome objections from the regimes involved. Australia will certainly benefit from a common education policy in all parts of the country. After all, we are one nation. Why would we need multiple and disconnected education policies ? For once, common sense seems set to prevail !
Thursday, 1 March 2007
The language obstacle to safety !
A man is in gaol, three people are dead and fourteen are injured because of an accident that should not have happened.
On September 5, 2005 a twenty-four seat Hino bus carrying twenty-one Taiwanese passengers attempted to travel the notorious and highly dangerous Jamberoo Valley road . The driver, Hua Chun ( 45 ) had held an Australian driving license for less than three months - and a heavy vehicle driving license for less than five weeks. This driver did not speak or understand English !
The bus crashed at the bottom of a steep grade when it's brakes burnt out. This was because the driver failed to engage low gear or operate the exhaust braking system, required by law when heavy vehicles encounter steep descents. The bus hit the guard rail, toppled over and rolled into the valley below - resulting in death and injuries.
The entrance to the Jamberoo Valley road is well served by signs warning of danger and requiring car drivers to use caution. These signs clearly indicate that the road should not be used by coaches, caravans or heavy vehicles. Because this Chinese driver did not speak or understand English these signs failed to make him aware of the danger he was facing.
Now the question must be asked. Is it reasonable that a person who does not understand English be issued with a driving license - much less a license to drive a heavy vehicle ?
Consensus is that a driving license is reasonable because it relates to a car. Many people with no knowledge of English drive cars in Australia and Australians touring Europe have no problem with the road system - although it should be noted that because English is a universal language many European countries use bilingual road and destination signs.
The sticking point is the issue of a heavy vehicle license. Driving a heavy vehicle is akin to operating a battering ram - and that license also permits a non-English speaking person to drive a coach with many passengers.
The danger is just too great if a driver of a coach or other heavy vehicle is in unfamiliar territory and is unable to be warned of danger because of lack of knowledge of the English language.
It would not be unreasonable to expect a person who wishes to hold such a license to accept that as well as the training to operate such a vehicle a course to become proficient in English would also be a requirement.
Hopefully, this tragedy should cause a rethink of the relevant legislation to ensure that there is no repetition !
On September 5, 2005 a twenty-four seat Hino bus carrying twenty-one Taiwanese passengers attempted to travel the notorious and highly dangerous Jamberoo Valley road . The driver, Hua Chun ( 45 ) had held an Australian driving license for less than three months - and a heavy vehicle driving license for less than five weeks. This driver did not speak or understand English !
The bus crashed at the bottom of a steep grade when it's brakes burnt out. This was because the driver failed to engage low gear or operate the exhaust braking system, required by law when heavy vehicles encounter steep descents. The bus hit the guard rail, toppled over and rolled into the valley below - resulting in death and injuries.
The entrance to the Jamberoo Valley road is well served by signs warning of danger and requiring car drivers to use caution. These signs clearly indicate that the road should not be used by coaches, caravans or heavy vehicles. Because this Chinese driver did not speak or understand English these signs failed to make him aware of the danger he was facing.
Now the question must be asked. Is it reasonable that a person who does not understand English be issued with a driving license - much less a license to drive a heavy vehicle ?
Consensus is that a driving license is reasonable because it relates to a car. Many people with no knowledge of English drive cars in Australia and Australians touring Europe have no problem with the road system - although it should be noted that because English is a universal language many European countries use bilingual road and destination signs.
The sticking point is the issue of a heavy vehicle license. Driving a heavy vehicle is akin to operating a battering ram - and that license also permits a non-English speaking person to drive a coach with many passengers.
The danger is just too great if a driver of a coach or other heavy vehicle is in unfamiliar territory and is unable to be warned of danger because of lack of knowledge of the English language.
It would not be unreasonable to expect a person who wishes to hold such a license to accept that as well as the training to operate such a vehicle a course to become proficient in English would also be a requirement.
Hopefully, this tragedy should cause a rethink of the relevant legislation to ensure that there is no repetition !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)