September 14.

Yesterday, Julia Gillard surprised the nation when she announced the date of this years Federal election - over two hundred days into the future.    This will be the longest election campaign in Australia's history. Another surprising aspect is that the decision was not shared with her caucus members - and this brought  mixed reactions.

Obviously Gillard is trying to stamp her hold on power as a " decisive leader ".   The decision to parachute an Aboriginal woman into the Senate in the Northern Territory was termed a " Captain's pick ", and some see it as " dictatorial ".   A long serving incumbent was ruthlessly sacrificed and the wishes of the ALP branches - were ignored.

Naming election day seems to be a " Hail Mary " tactic.   On all the evidence, the voters have already made up their minds and Labor looks set for the same drubbing it got in several state elections.  Gillard is hoping and praying that the long campaign may deliver a miracle.  Maybe the opposition will make a tactical blunder and she can turn this to her advantage.

It seems certain that there will be a relentless call for Tony Abbott to not only release his policies, but to have them costed.   The longer they are in the public forum, the better chance that the bean counters can disparage the correlation between what the policies will cost - and where the savings to fund them will come from     Both sides of politics will play the usual game of  " spin " in covering up cost disparities.

There seems to be another tactical benefit in setting this election date early.   Should the ALP's prospects continue to look dim as the days recede, the Rudd camp might convince nervous backbenchers that a change of leadership was their only hope.   With the voting date set in concrete, it is too late to change horses in mid-stream - and Gillard feels more secure in her job

Gillard claims that there will be a marked difference between her task of " governing " and the " campaigning "  prelude to the election.   We can certainly expect the government PR machine to be churning out favourable comment on government achievements in the period before the government goes into " caretaker mode " in early August.    This period could be described as the " Clayton election period " -  when the government is free to spend public money to enhance it's prospects - but without the hindrances of law that applies to an election campaign.

It is a bold move - but their are rewards and risks.   Perhaps the greatest risk is the damage that a sustained political bombardment may do to voter attention spans.    Short election campaigns intensify voter attention to the issues - but if this is dragged out mercilessly - that interest may become replaced - by boredom !

On September 15 - we will know whether this was a brilliant tactical move - or a total failure !.

Market Values ?

At intervals of a few years, each home owner receives in the mail a letter from the Valuer General setting the revised value of that persons home.    In fact this valuation has nothing to do with the bricks and mortar of the actual dwelling.  It is an appraisal of what the Valuer General thinks the land it stands on is worth.

That valuation is the base on which the council levies rates and the government charges land tax, but it also bleeds into a host of other charges - such as the Fire Brigade levy and the setting of insurance premiums.   Many people think that these reviews miss the mark because they don't seem to correspond with the actual market values that prevail.

There are wide variations on what the Value General says the land is worth, and what a vacant block on that site would bring at auction - and sometimes that valuation ranges far on each side of reality.    Those that disagree are invited to challenge the valuation, but that is a time wasting and usually frustrating incursion into the labyrinth of bureaucracy - and few bother !

Gripes from home owners have persuaded the New South Wales government to launch an enquiry into the 2.4 million valuations that took place between 2000 and 2012.   This enquiry will look at the confidential data used to arrive at valuations and suggest improvements to the system.

Deciding what a piece of land is worth varies between a buyer and a seller.  That is clearly illustrated by auction results.   If a celebrity moves into a district and builds a mansion, surrounding properties become more attractive and increase in price as a consequence.  Such a presence converts " ordinary " into " fashionable " - and price tags lift accordingly.

This seems to be part and parcel of the controversy over land valuations.   Not only do they decide what sort of council rates bill will be levied, they also reflect the owner's standing in the social pecking order.
Some people rage at what they see as an outrageous valuation that is purely intended to increase their rates bill, while others think their salubrious suburb - in which they paid a fortune because of it's good name - is being denigrated as some sort of socialist conspiracy.

Any sort of valuation relies heavily on the eye of the beholder - and the Valuer General faces an impossible task to please everyone !

" Floodplain " risks !

Two years ago, Queensland suffered massive flood rains and the damage was immense.   Thirty-five people died, and the reconstruction bill topped $ 6 billion.     Now precisely the same areas are under water again.

Floods are a natural part of the Australian weather pattern and Queensland's 2010/11 inundation was not a record.   What is a new factor - is the frequency.   It seems that global warming will deliver a continent more susceptible to both drought - and major flooding.   It seems that there is a new phenomenon to add to that mix - Tornadoes !

We are a country with an ever expanding population.  As a consequence, we have a need for more housing and this is putting pressure on population centres to open up building land - and in many cases these new housing estates are located on flood plains.

Several factors come together to blind governments to the danger this imposes.   Flood plains are flat areas of land and these are the least expensive on which to build roads and facilities.   The biggest need is for low priced housing blocks to keep new homes within the reach of the lowest paid, and as a result this new housing is not elevated.   The most common new dwelling is built on a concrete pad - well below even minor flood level.

This trend is particularly evident in Wollongong.  Several vast new estates are planned to the south/west of the city - and all of them are on flood plains. The long range weather forecasters warn that flood frequency is increasing.   It is possible we will see " once in a hundred years " floods making a visit on a " once in a decade " basis.    Is this the sort of lifestyle we wish to impose on citizens desperate to create a home for their family ?

With careful site selection, some flood plains can consistently deliver floods that reach only about a metre above land level.   A metre of water through any family home is a disaster that costs a huge amount of renovation money, but it is a disaster than can be prevented if builders are prevented from using low lying slab construction in such areas.

An elevated house, using the space underneath for car parking - costs more than using the slab construction method, but that expense returns a rich dividend when a flood strikes - and it saves public money that the government pours into relief efforts once floods subside.   Perhaps a government subsidy to help achieve elevated houses on flood plains would be a money saver on a long term basis.

These proposed new estates bring the opportunity to do the right research - and achieve flood damage reductions for those who will be future residents.   The weather people can determine what level of floods we can expect in the future, and the housing permitted should be designed accordingly.    There is a vast difference between a flood that maroons residents for a day or so, but causes no real damage - and a flood that fills the house with muddy silt, ruins furniture, carpets and electrical items - and makes the home unlivable until relief money restores facilities.

The right planning decisions now will determine what lifestyle our future residents enjoy when the relentless need for housing sees those new estates become reality !

Buyer beware !

The first thing we do when we contemplate some sort of business deal with a stranger is to request they produce some form of ID.    It may be the purchase of a second hand car privately, or maybe they are proffering a personal cheque for something we have offered for sale.    It is wise to verify the identity of who we are dealing with.

The ubiquitous photo drivers license serves as a universal ID document these days.  It serves as a proof of age card to get young people into adult entertainment and venues serving alcohol, and banks, government departments and all manner of service providers require it to verify the applicants identity.

It must come as a shock to many people to discover that document forgers are openly advertising their trade on the Internet - and even more horrifying to learn that their products are so good that they are near impossible to detect alongside the genuine article.

These days, a counterfeit Australian passport will set you back a mere $ 750, and for an extra $ 200 the forgers will throw in an Australian state drivers license and ID card.    If you hope to upgrade your job prospects, University degrees on the stiff parchment of the originals can be had in the various disciplines, and for those seeking entry to RSL clubs and similar institutions, even Military Service certificates can be accurately forged.

The wonders of modern technology - which gave us the I-Pad and the Smart phone - and put a " cheap as chips" -  three in one printer beside our computer - have served the forger well.  Clever people have learned how to work this technology to perfection, and even the forging of currency gets closer and closer to " the real McCoy ".

Of course, the forger's art is illegal, but the anonymity of the Internet makes prosecution difficult because the culprit operates outside national  borders - and how do you track a bandit in cyberspace ?   In the real world, it evolves into " buyer beware ! "

It seems that the only defence available to the public is to consider every form of ID offered as suspect, and delve ever deeper before taking any sort of financial plunge.   Perhaps we will reach the stage when strangers will be questioned to the point of revealing a mutual third party - who can verify identity.

It seems to be the end of our " age of innocence ".    That photo drivers license that has served us so well for many years - has become a victim of the age of technology !

" Invasion " Day !

The vast majority of Australians celebrate January 26 as " Australia Day " in recognition of the arrival of the first fleet, but to many of our Aboriginal citizens - that became " Invasion Day " !

Looked at from the point of view of those who had lived here for thousands of years, the uninvited arrival of people from the other side of the world could be seen as an " invasion ".   They asked no permission and they very quickly proclaimed laws that they demanded the Indigenous residents obey - and enforced those laws harshly.  Little attempt was made to protect the rights and customs of the original residents.

Basically, we set about creating a prosperous country for the white settlers as a trickle of people became a flood.   Minerals were discovered and mines opened.  The newcomers imported horses, sheep and pigs - and much of the land was given over to  agriculture - from which the natives were excluded.  Australia became a country divided - between black and white.

For the next 179 years the original inhabitants were basically ignored.    They were not citizens and were not counted in the census.   They could not get a passport or vote in elections -  and they were forbidden the great Australian custom of having a beer on a hot day !

All that changed on May 27, 1967 when Australia voted in a referendum to right this wrong, and 90.7% of voters bestowed citizenship on our original inhabitants.  At the stroke of a pen, they had the legal rights available to every citizen in this country - but in many ways, nothing changed !

Many Aboriginal people have assimilated into white culture.  They are the people living next door who have children in the local school, have a job and pay taxes.   They are indistinguishable from others in our mixed migrant community, but others try to maintain a traditional life in a remote area - and here the difference in lifestyle becomes pronounced.

Aboriginal housing falls way below national standards, many Aboriginal children do not attend school - or receive a lesser education than their white peers.   Jobs in the bush are scarce, and the " benefit " of citizenship has condemned many to a welfare culture.

Huge amounts of money have been thrown at the problem by various governments, but few improvements have been permanent.  An " angry culture " has developed in some Aboriginal communities and there is a movement to reclaim the land - a legal argument that has had some success in the nation's High court.

The past can not be changed.  We did indeed behave badly with the Indigenous people and that was the normal procedure on planet Earth at that time.  The Europeans - by right of their advance in ship building and force of arms - simply took possession of lands they discovered - as a right !  In many cases, the people of those lands were enslaved.

It is unrealistic to expect all those who have come here since 1788 to get on a ship or plane - and go home. Australia has become one of the great trading nations of the world and it's Aboriginal people have a part to play in advancing it further - and enjoying the prosperity that it's success can bring to it's citizens.

The future for all the citizens that call Australia home - and that includes the original Aboriginal people - will only be achieved if the future is a common purpose where we embrace equality.  To do that, we need to draw a line under the past - and help the Aboriginal people make the transition into what this twenty-first century has to offer.

That can only be achieved if both side - black and white - find common ground in the middle !

Dangerous territory !

David Cameron's plan to let British citizens decide whether the United Kingdom should remain in the Common Market seems the ultimate form of democracy.  Surely that is a matter that can only be decided by a popular vote !

Originally, this " Common Market " was envisaged as a grouping of European countries who would prosper by sharing a market for their goods.  The long term objective was a dismantling of national borders to allow the free movement of citizens, the establishment of a common currency - and perhaps the creation of some sort of " United States of Europe "    To this end, a bureaucracy to set up rules and regulations was created in Brussels.

The sticking point for many Britons is the autocratic stance and ever increasing cost of this control juggernaut.   The GFC has increased it's clout because of the failure of some member states to manage their finances and is now proposing measures that may harm British interests.   It is proposed to implement a " transactions tax " that may shift the centre of financial gravity away from London.

Britain did not adopt the Euro and now many of it's citizens want to put limits on the ability of Brussels to rule their lives.  It seems to be a matter of either limiting the terms of membership, or departing the union entirely - and that will be the choice presented to the voters.

It would be wise to remember a less publicly stated objective of creating a European union.  It was hoped that a mutually dependent and prosperous grouping of nations would have less reason to go to war with one another.

For centuries, Europe has been the scene of countless wars.   They have raged over the acquisition of colonies, the sharing of trade routes - and religion.   Many of those wars were based on the desire of France and Spain to invade England - and reimpose Catholicism at the point of a sword.   Christian relations now seem more settled, but new tensions are brewing between Christianity and Islam.

One fear guiding the creation of the European Union was the prospect of a reawakening of nationalism in Germany.   In the twentieth century, Germany was responsible for two world wars that killed millions - and within the present EU Germany is clearly the most prosperous country - and the roots of National Socialism are still present just below the surface.

This coming referendum could see the dismantling of the EU or it's recreation in another form.   That brings with it danger.  If the German industrial powerhouse finds itself shackled to a bunch of under performing countries it may awaken that old " Master race " concept that has twice sent the world into the most destructive wars in history.

At present, Germany is leaning over backwards to preserve the union.   It is German money that is keeping the EU afloat and the British voting public will need to make a choice between suffering the rule of Brussels - or taking the chance that a disintegrating Europe will revert to it's old habits.

It seems to be a matter of being very careful what you wish for !

The " Drunk Tank " concept !

There seems to be a very real danger that the introduction of what could be called " a Drunk Tank " - will morph into a " bed and breakfast " option for young revellers.   For a start, the police will only convey offenders to a service that will be run by a non government organization.   The standards that apply will be at the discretion of that organization.

It seems that " guests " will be supplied with a bed, pyjamas, showers - and have a nice breakfast in the morning.  Once sobered up, they will receive freshly laundered clothing to see them on their way.  It is likely that access to this sobering up facility will be fairly selective.   The aim is to take care of young men and women under the age of thirty who have ventured into the city night spots, had too much to drink - and need protection from their own brand of folly.

Obviously, the facilities will have number restrictions.  It will not be offered to hostile drunks in fighting mode and those who get to use it's services will be health monitored - and probably targeted by alcohol reduction agencies for follow up.

It sounds too good to be true - and it probably is !    There is a very real danger that a night in this " health facility " may become some sort of " badge of honour " to young and impressionable people.  In particular, it could be an appealing option to those lacking the cab fare to get home after a night out.

We do not want to encourage excess drinking by providing a " soft landing " for drunks.  The original purpose of a drunk tank was to protect those at risk from self harm - and keep them safe from the actions of others until they regained a reasonable measure of sobriety.   A night in " the drunk tank " was not something to be welcomed - and was not usually a pleasant experience !

This could easily backfire.  All it would take is for a few people to start talking up the facility as an experience others " must have " on Facebook and Twitter - and we could see a queue forming for it's services.

The sticking point seems to be the terms set by that " non government organization " that will be the prime provider.   People with good intentions can easily lose sight of the objective to be gained and err too heavily on the side of compassion.   In this case, the police seem confined to the " gatekeeper " role.   They will have the duty of separating the " dangerous drunks " to police cells - and the " good drunks " to the luxury drunk tank.

Perhaps we will learn from this coming experience - but it is also likely that we are entering territory " where angels fear to tread ! "

A " Captain's Pick " ?

Julia Gillard made a surprise announcement that Nova Peris, the first Aboriginal woman to win an Olympic gold medal would head the Labor Senate ticket in the Northern Territory at the coming Federal election.  This almost guarantees a term in the Senate as the two Northern Territory Senate seats are usually split between Labor and the Conservatives.

The announcement dumps sitting Senator Trish Crossin who held this seat for the past fifteen years. Many will beleive that this is a case of " settling old scores " because Senator Crossin backed Kevin Rudd when he challenged Gillard for the prime minister's leadership.

The Prime Minister claims her selection of a candidate as " a Captain's pick ", but this has been done without reference to the ALP branches in the Northern Territory and it will remind many of the ALP's notorious use of it's " N-40 " rule to impose head office candidate selection over local choices.

The ALP previously claimed that it " owned " the Aboriginal vote in Australia, but in recent times Aboriginal people have deserted Labor in droves.  This seems to be a tactical move to shore up Aboriginal support by presenting a candidate who - if successful - would be the first Aboriginal woman to sit in the Senate

It will certainly anger many Labor voting Territorians because Nova Peris is not even a member of an ALP branch and has absolutely no political experience.. The sole reason for her selection - seems to be her Aboriginality.

This could easily backfire !   Many will resent the summary nature of the announcement, without the courtesy of first discussing it will the local branches.   It will also remind many of the claim that Gillard " knifed " Rudd to win the job of Prime Minister - and some will see this further " knifing " of Trish Crossin as a ruthless pursuit of power - and lack of loyalty !

The ALP has been on the nose with voters in both the state and Federal sphere in recent times and one of the promises made by it's political leaders is a return to " democratic " decision making.   No more imposing head office candidates on branches - and no more candidate selection to balance factional representation.

Julia Gillard just trashed that promise - and there are some in her party who will not forgive her !

Dodging the bill !

Australia prides itself on kids getting a free education - but that only applies to primary and secondary school.   Those that go on to university find themselves accruing an education bill and there have been schemes put in place to spread the load.

HECS has been relabelled HELP and the idea is to defer payment of the university bill until the person is in employment - and reaches a salary level when automatic repayments begin. In the 2012/13 year, this repayment salary level has been set at $ 49,450. The average student can expect to leave university with a bill of between $ 20,000 and $ 30,000,

There are rumblings in the government because students now owe a whopping $ 6.2 billion - and there is little hope that much of this will actually be repaid.  The entire scheme was based on the notion that students leave university and enter the workforce here in Australia.   Those that leave the country and seek work overseas escape the repayment obligations entirely.

The government is looking at ways to extend the long arm of the tax man to recover such debts and the entire system of university fees and their recovery will be under review.

It is a complex issue.  University used to be a place for young people, but many older folk displaced from a shrinking job market have taken up university training in the hope of gaining employment opportunities.  In many cases they fail to reach the salary level for repayments - and many die leaving behind an unpaid university bill.

There are also what has been termed " professional students ".   People with an unquenchable thirst for qualifications who go on endlessly studying and never enter the workforce.  Then there are those with academic qualifications who vacate employment to marry or raise a family, and later return to the workforce in a much diminished capacity - and with earnings way below the repayment level.

It seems to be a fact of life that a proportion of HELP fees will be unrecoverable - and written off.   The dilemma for the government is to what extent is this level sustainable ?.   Funding the universities comes from the government's " consolidated revenue " account and represents a big proportion of both Federal and state budgets.   The taxpayer has a right to expect  " fair equity " in it's plan to recover fees.

There is a danger that this problem may influence the allocation of university places and decrease the opportunities for Australian students in favour of those full fee paying students from overseas countries. Australian universities have a good reputation in the fast emerging Asian countries to our north.  It would be tempting to redress the balance to achieve a better economic outcome.

This is both a " fiscal " and a " social " problem.   Solving it will be a test of our claim to be " a clever country " !

" Death by Cop ! "

It is a fact of life that some people commit suicide by creating a situation where the police have no option other than firing their weapons.   Just such a situation seems to have occurred in Bowral on Saturday. It is often referred to as " Death by Cop " for want of a better explanation.

In this case, a twenty-two year old male approached police and claimed to have a gun.  He threatened officers and pushed that threat to the point when they fired in self defence.  The victim is still alive, in hospital in a critical condition.

There will be an exhaustive police enquiry and the officer concerned will be subjected to stress.  Every aspect of the incident will be minutely investigated and the various civic interest groups will seek to have input. In such situations, the usual " Dammed if he did and damned if he didn't " will apply.

One aspect certain to feature will be the question of Taser use.   When Tasers were adopted for police use it was claimed they were less lethal than police pistols.  It was suggested that in many cases they could take down an armed offender in preference to a   "  police bullet. "   It seems certain that the question will be asked - why a Taser was not used in this situation ?

The decision of how to react to a threat is a personal decision that applies to each and every person in a dangerous situation.   In the cold, hard light of an enquiry they are later required to justify that decision.  In many cases, with the benefit of hindsight - they may have chosen a different way of handling the problem.

This is a dilemma that not only applies to police.   The ordinary person - confronting an intruder in their home - has to decide on the degree of force that may be necessary.   We have seen incidents when aggressive drunks have " king hit " innocent people on the streets and that person has died of brain injuries.  A " brain snap " can have vastly unintended results - to both the aggressor and the victim.

The law seems fairly clear on the use of force.   We are all entitled to use sufficient force to prevent our death or serious injury by an aggressor.   The problem is that to get the sanction of the laws that prevail, we must convince an enquirer that our action was necessary in the circumstances that prevailed.

Unfortunately, such decisions are not clear cut.   They will involve the relatives of the deceased - who may see things very differently, and then there are usually independent witnesses.   In the aftermath of shock, some people find their imagination replacing what they actually saw - and that can be damning if they conclude such an impression as fact.

That incident at Bowral will eventually run it's course through the enquiry and conclusion.   It will take time and involve a lot of public money.   The conclusion will probably not satisfy everybody involved, but such is the vagary of the law.   Unfortunately, for the cop involved - that is simply one of the occupational hazards of the job he has chosen as his career !

The " Right " decision !

Countries whose nationals were caught up in the Algerian hostage drama claim to be horrified that Algerian special forces refused to negotiate and launched a raid that broke the siege.  .Privately, they must be delighted that this is not going to drag on endlessly with publicity giving the terrorists the propaganda platform they relish.

Seizing the refinery in a new gas field was a tactic designed to bring pressure on the west to back off from efforts to dislodge Islamists who have set up a base in northern Mali.   The price for releasing western hostages was supposed to be the withdrawal of French troops and standing down an invading army from neighbouring states.

All the advantages would have been with the terrorists.  Hostages from a dozen western countries would have resulted in no common, decisive policy.   The ineffectual United Nations would have become the chief negotiator - and the terrorists are past masters of making outrageous demands and using delaying tactics. No doubt they would have released pictures of hostages held in deplorable condition - constantly under threat of death.

Algeria did what the terrorists least expected.   Special forces hit them unexpectedly - and hard - and as a result at least half of the 132 westerners held were freed.  Unfortunately, eighteen hostages died in the fire fight that followed.  That was a price we had to pay to get a decisive result.

The final assault by Algerian special forces saw the terrorists execute their last seven western hostages, before they themselves met their deaths.  Demolition charges have now been removed from the gas plant and some western hostages hiding in the buildings have emerged.   This is an amazing victory for the Algerian forces, although it came at a price.  In hostage situations, saving the life of all those involved is usually not an option.

When western countries try to save lives by negotiations the Islamists see that as a western weakness.  This time they have been taught a lesson by the resolve of the new Algerian state not to waste time and effort in fruitless talking.   The terrorists have been paid back - in their own coin.

It is a lesson the west would be wise to learn !

Changing times !

Ned Kelly certainly made his mark on the history of this country.  He is probably our most famous outlaw and the fact that he constructed body armour and shot it out with the police made him a legend.  That was a time when the ultimate punishment for murder was to stand on a trap door with a rope around your neck and wait for the executioner to trip the release lever.

A public hanging was not the end of the matter.  Punishment reached beyond the grave and the executed were denied burial in consecrated ground.   Like other executed murderers, Kelly's body was buried in an unmarked grave in the prison grounds, and there it remained until the gaol was closed and those remains ordered to be removed.

Ned Kelly was executed in 1880 and despite the passage of 132 years there was still controversy about what would happen to his interred bones.   DNA testing revealed their authenticity, but Kelly's head was    not buried with his body and today it is described as " missing " !

At the time of his execution, hanging was not the ultimate state revenge available to a court.  British law still contained the penalty of having the deceased " hung, drawn and quartered " - but that penalty was never handed down in Australia.    Probably because the thought of ripping the body apart and consigning parts of it to the four corners of this continent was too daunting a task to be even considered.

We live in changing times.    Today, few murderers serve more than twenty years in prison - and the death penalty has been long abolished.    Theoretically, a particularly gruesome crime could attract a sentence of " life without parole ", but even then the sentence would be subject to later review by appeal judges.

Ned Kelly is being rehabilitated.   The bones of this outlaw legend will at last lay in consecrated ground.  They will be handed back to his family and - following a church service open to all - be interred in an unmarked family plot in the area where his family still lives.    The absence of a marker is intended to prevent his resting place from becoming a shrine for those who today still oppose the rule of law.

Some people still oppose this recognition of Ned Kelly as a person.   The fact that he killed police officers is behind the animosity and his restitution by way of reburial in consecrated ground is bitterly resented.  That opposition is clearly out of step with the customs that now prevail.

Kelly lived in an age when many things on both sides of the law were cruel - and unjust.   It is unfair to judge him on the morality of today when the circumstances that prevailed belonged to a far different era.

He has served his sentence - let him now rest in peace !

Economic Terrorism !

Greens activist Jonathon Moylan issued a bogus press release purporting to be from the ANZ bank announcing that the bank had withdrawn a $ 1.2 billion financing offer for Whitehaven coal.   This news flashed through financial markets and resulted in $ 300 million being wiped off the Whitehaven share price.

Issuing a bogus statement under the name of a company which has not authorised the content is a criminal act  that can incur both a heavy fine and a gaol term.   Moylan is gloating about the financial loss he caused and there is the expectation that criminal prosecution will follow.

What is amazing is the attitude of the political party to whose policies he adheres.   Greens leader Christine Milne  cites his action as part of " the long and proud history of civil disobedience ".   Lee Rhiannon offers her " congratulations " while Sarah Hanson-Young is more circumspect - and comments that she would " not encourage " similar action.

Both Moylan and the Greens seem to think that they have " punished " Whitehaven coal.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The share price quickly recovered once the bogus claim was unmasked. The loss has been borne mainly by institutionalised investors - and that means by the many superannuation managers who try and accumulate funds by investing in mining development.

The sad truth is that the Greens now openly support the use of " economic terrorism " to gain their ends.  Some people may wonder where to draw the line between criminal acts that cause monetary loss on the stock exchange - and the action of terrorists in Mali who kidnap foreign workers and hold them hostage under threat of death to demand governments bend to their will.

The Greens virtually came to life on the back of the Franklin dam issue in Tasmania.    They had a charismatic leader in Bob Brown and had an image as " tree huggers " who were trying to save the forests and the rivers.   Many people gave them their vote - and have not bothered to closely examine their manifesto of promises since making that voting change.

Those that have taken the trouble to look deeper consider the Greens extremists, and a popular phrase describes them as " Watermelons " -  "Green" on the outside - and " red " in the centre.

The Green vote waxes and wanes.  It has been decreasing since Bob Brown announced his retirement and this foray into economic terrorism will cause some supporters to think long and hard about what the Greens really stand for - and what methods they condone to achieve their outcome.

They certainly nailed their colours to the mast when they congratulated  Jonathon Moylan for breaking the law and causing loss to ordinary citizens by a criminal act.    Many who have voted Green in the past considered them a harmless bunch of conservationists.

Now is the time for a reality check because this bunch of extremists is in coalition - and forms part of the government of Australia.

Unintended consequences !

Facebook was a bright idea that made Mark Zuckerberg a very rich man.   His idea was to use the Internet as a " meeting place " where people could exchange information with their friends.  This quickly developed into a competition.   The more friends each person enrolled established their position in the pecking order.

Common sense called for discretion in the personal information offered, but some people overstepped the mark and Facebook became notorious for information over-kill.   Some users found themselves swamped with offers of " friendship " from people who were complete strangers, but Facebook is relatively harmless and a pleasant time waster for many.

Now Zuckerberg has introduced a new search tool called " Graph Search ".   Facebook has cleverly sorted out all the information supplied by users into categories, and the combinations seem endless.  With the click of a mouse you can gain a list of all those who like horror movies - or all those who have contributed their picture - and who have red hair. It seems that this form of introducing categories will continue to expand at the whim of the imagination of the planners.

Like all such innovations, the use to which it is put will fall into positive and negative categories.   Some will see it as a handy dating tool.   If your dream partner is a female of certain physical dimensions who has blonde hair, is aged in the 25 to 30 bracket, has attended university and qualified in the arts and her chosen sport is archery - then the magical dimensions of the net will find her for you.   Of course, this will also open up countless opportunities for stalkers.

Innovation is a double sided coin.   Great ideas advance science, but there is also a dark side.  Just as the Internet opened a library of information for all, it also produced evil minds who use it for plunder and seem to gain pleasure from inflicting pain on others.

Zuckerbergs media announcement met mixed reactions.    The Mandarins of the stock exchange gave it the thumbs down - and Facebook share price dropped.    It is early days - and this Graph Search idea is still in it's infancy.   How it develops and the uses to which it will be put are yet to emerge.

Perhaps a good reason to think long and hard before committing sensitive information for all and sundry to see !

Too big to fail !

When the " Great Financial Crisis " hit the world in 2008,  it was decided that a cluster of giant firms that included banks, insurance companies and the world's biggest car manufacturer were just " too big to fail "  .They were bailed out with public money - and in most cases that money has been repaid and they remain solvent.

We are now facing the second " Great Financial Crisis ".    The world's biggest economy is in trouble !
America spends more than it receives in income, and yet the world is happy to keep servicing that debt. Each financial year the amount owing increases by trillions of dollars, but many commodities are traded only in American dollars and the US Dollar is favoured as " the world currency ".

If that mighty dollar is at risk, it would seem likely that it would be because money markets have become skittish about further lending, but that is not the case.   The risk factor is simply a political brawl between two political parties  who seem hell bent on making their views prevail, even if it results in the world's premier economy being forced into de-fault on it's debts.

In the interests of legality, the politicians who form the US government need to agree to lift the debt ceiling to allow more borrowing to pay social security cheques, veteran benefits, pay for the armed services - and the entire spectrum of US employees who keep the nation's economy functioning.

If that pay stops, mortgages will go unpaid - and many people will simply not have the money to buy food. It would be a disaster of tragic proportions, but it would also be an economic tsunami that would engulf the entire financial world.

The money world relies on trust and confidence.   Shatter that - and you have all the ingredients of " the Great Depression " that caused untold misery in the 1930's.    America may be acting irresponsibly, but world finance seems content to go along for the ride and there is the expectation that fiscal discipline will kick in eventually - and we will all have a " soft landing ".

The problem is personal egos are forcing brinkmanship duels that are taking these issues to a knife edge.  We are seeing less of senators and members of the house who are prepared to compromise and more of hard liners who have abandoned loyalty to their country in preference to partisan ideals.

If both sides of American politics don't back away from the edge they may inflict a wound on the world that will deliver no winners.   It only takes a tiny match to ignite a bonfire - and if American politics miscalculates the reverberations will be terrible.

The biggest danger is the notion held by many American politicians that somehow the American economy is too big to fail - irrespective of what decisions they make.

If history proves them wrong - we all suffer !

Adding insult to injury !

It is almost unbelievable that our Federal government could maker such a colossal blunder as to wrongly inform the 84,000 single parents that they must tear up their pensioner concession cards when they were forced to move from the single parents pension to the dole.

Not only did they lose over a hundred dollars a week in payments, but that card enabled them to get a discount on electricity, phone and similar utility bills, free driving license and car registration, and price relief on medicine.  It further eroded what for many was a total financial disaster.

What is even more unbelievable is the comment from the minister responsible, Human Services minister Kim Carr.  He dismissed this blunder by saying :   "  There are occasions when things go wrong.  This is one of them ! "

Across this entire country, the Centrelink offices deal with over seven million Australians and conducts 135,000 face to face interviews each day,  The decision to force 84,000 Australians  from a superior to an inferior level of sustenance would not have been made lightly.    This was a cabinet level decision - and it is clear that the lofty heads of government botched it - badly !

It was probably a money saving decision to withdraw that concession card - and when the proverbial hit the fan - a very quick reversal.   Nobody in the government seems prepared to admit that and the whole matter is being dismissed as " an error ".

Not good enough !    The people of Australia expect their government to carefully deliberate and make sound decisions.  Some law abiding folk will have carried out the threat of sanctions - and destroyed their concession card.     What is the situation where car registration and driving licenses have fallen due - and the full price has been paid ?    There has been no comment from Kim Carr on restitution !

This debacle does little to inspire confidence that the government decision making process is running smoothly.  Forcing single parents from a pension onto the dole was a major decision that would have involved the senior echelon of ministers.    It is obvious that the concession card withdrawal was a command conveyed to the entire network of Centrelink offices.    It is impossible to simply dismiss such a blunder as " an error ".

And this is an election year !

Courageous Volunteers !

This summer has seen the most dangerous fire conditions n Australia for many years.   The Monsoon is late and as a consequence the sun has baked the " Red Centre " mercilessly - and the prevailing wind has carried that heat south.  All that has stood between disaster and a huge loss of life has been the unswerving efforts of an army of volunteer fire fighters.

This has been the year of the bushfire in every Australian state and in Tasmania the loss of homes has been severe.  What is exceptional is the fact that so far the damage has been restricted to bricks and mortar.  The fire authorities have implemented evacuation plans that have saved lives - even when the fire danger has been elevated to " Catastrophic "..

This response to need is uniquely Australian.   The men and women who don protective clothing and man the fleet of fire vehicles and undertake the dangerous job of fighting fires are " ordinary " people.    They give up their free time to train to a professional standard, and when danger threatens the community they often spend days in the field battling the flames - and this in unpaid work.

The fire fighters - just like their volunteer comrades in the State Emergency Services ( SES ) - are the people who respond when the state has a need.    They fill an economic gap that it would be impossible for the state economy to otherwise fill.   In some cases their employers grant paid leave to cover time away, but in many cases they are self employed - and duty comes at a personal loss of income.

It has been suggested that when Anzac day arrives this year, the men and women who performed so brilliantly in saving the community from fire should don their uniforms and join the Anzac day parade march.  It would be a fitting way to recognise the gift of service they have contributed to saving Australia from disaster.

Some people have voiced disagreement.   They claim that Anzac day is sacred to our war losses, but the spirit of Anzac day widely encompasses all those who face danger for this country - and that danger takes many forms.    The ranks of the Anzac march grow progressively thinner and the time must come when it is no longer the spectacle that draws huge crowds.  We must be practical - and open our way of thinking.

Including the volunteer fire fighters and the men and women of the SES is no slight to those who gave their lives for this country.  If anything, it exemplifies the fact that the spirit of Anzac lives on - and Australians still put their lives on the line  whenever danger threatens Australia.

" Gagging " free Speech !

In an ominous move the New South Wales Premier is considering strengthening the state's anti-discrimination laws to make it easier to gain convictions for " serious racial vilification ".   Section 20 D of the Anti-Discrimination act provides  penalties of $ 5,500, but of the twenty-seven complaints lodged since 1989, not one proceeded to prosecution.   In each case, it was decided that the proof did not meet the standard necessary to convince a court.

It seems clear that this legislative review is aimed squarely at Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt.  Alan Jones caused uproar when he made that famous " died of shame " remark about Julia Gillard's father.  Many people though it was " inappropriate " and Jones was tried in the " court of public opinion " - and suffered penalties far in excess of any $ 5,500 fine.

Mercedes Benz chose to withdraw his cherished top of the model limousine and the radio station he part owned was forced to turn away millions of advertising dollars - and he grudgingly apologised for the comment.    The fact that his audience increased says a lot about the freedom of speech issue.

Andrew Bolt was vilified for suggesting that many fair skinned people of Aboriginal heritage claimed their Aboriginality because of the advantage this now offered.   It is a fact of life that in the distant past many hid the presence of any Aboriginal blood because it was considered a stigma.    Quotas and special legislation to enhance Aboriginal people have reversed that situation.    Surely we are not becoming so thin skinned that the truth has to be suppressed ?

In India, thousands took to the streets to protest the gang rape and murder of a young student woman.  Here in Australia, the people of Melbourne took to the streets in protest when Jill Meagher was raped and murdered.   Are we to see the stifling of comment from those who refer to such perpetrators as " scum " and " vermin " ?

Then there is the sexual oppression of little children by " men of the cloth ".    For over a century it is only the unswerving action of public opinion that have dragged this odious reality into the public domain.    The churches have ducked and dodged, hiding behind " confidentiality agreements " and shifting priests to new parishes - where they continued to offend.    Many parishioners have put the good name of the church before the welfare of children to shut down enquiries to maintain silence.    It is only the public comment of a courageous few that have kept this issue alive - and about to face a judicial enquiry.

The truth is not always palatable.   It usually offends someone and we seem to live in an age when the system  prefers to please everybody, but if we start to tamper with freedom of speech - we do it at our peril.

There is a remedy for injustice that is quite separate to the anti-discrimination laws.  It is the right for any citizen who believes that he or she has been unjustly defamed to take the offender to court and seek both a public apology and financial compensation.

Tinkering with the anti-discrimination laws seems an end run to close down comment by commentators such as Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt.   In the guise of protecting the thin skinned from fair comment, it closes off the right of the public to be advised of events that could be described as " in the public interest ".

We would be well advised to remember that creed that is essential to upholding the right of freedom of speech - which we hold so dear.

" All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing ! "

The tyranny of noise !

One of the disadvantages of living near a main highway is the constant traffic noise.   The roar of heavy trucks makes sleep difficult and recent automotive technology has increased this problem with the introduction of " engine compression braking ".   This is both a safety factor and a method of reducing brake pad wear, but it comes at the expense of an ear shattering increase in truck noise !

One of the stretches of road that engine compression braking use delivers a huge noise problem is Mount Ousley road in Wollongong.   The city of Wollongong is bordered by the sea on one side and by a fifteen hundred foot escarpment on the other.   All traffic in and out of the city  must use a long, steep grind up and down Mount Ousley road - and it is bordered by the suburbs  of Keiraville, Mount Pleasant and Balgownie.

Noise has been a constant problem to the residents of those suburbs.   Noise reduction was the aim when tall concrete noise barriers were installed several decades ago, and back in 2007 another attempt to reduce noise saw the installation of   " Noise Cameras " - devices that not only recorded the noise volume of passing traffic but took pictorial evidence of the actual vehicle emitting that noise.

It seems that in 2009 four hundred letters were sent to the owners of trucks that exceeded noise pollution levels, alerting them that their vehicles were faulty and suggesting methods of bringing them within regulations. No fines were issued - and since then no action has taken place as a result of the evidence these cameras produce.

We are now told that there is no legislation in place in this state to support any sort of prosecution because of this noise problem.   It seems that these cameras are a " toothless tiger " - and neither the previous government nor the present regime had any plans to correct this situation.

The noise factor is steadily increasing.  Port Kembla is being upgraded to replace facilities in Sydney harbour and this is leading to a steady stream of heavy vehicles on Mout Ousley road.    In particular, the law requires heavy vehicles descending this steep section several miles in length to engage low gear - and all modern trucks are now fitted with engine compression braking.

There are signs asking drivers to limit engine compression braking noise in consideration of residents, but that  conflicts with reality.   This technology delivers truck safety and it saves the truck owners servicing money.  We are seeing two incompatible requirements coming together - head on !

This certainly provides a headache for the Transport minister.    It would be disastrous to pass a law outlawing engine compression braking on Mount Ousley road to mitigate noise, but if we have the means to detect noise above what is reasonable by faulty vehicles or bad driving techniques, we should have a law in place to discipline offenders.

On any working day we see an endless stream of heavy vehicles grinding their way down Mount Ousley road in low gear.  As Port Kembla expands, this truck stream will increase - and so will the noise.

The noise cameras are in place - and working.   Now we need legislation to give them " teeth " !

The Sword of Damocles !

When a member of Federal parliament manages to make enemies in both political persuasions, he will be shown no mercy when indiscretions begin to surface.    All our parliamentary representatives are past masters in the art of " bending the rules " when it comes to the generous allowances that go with their jobs.   From time to time there is criticism about living arrangements when absent from the family home for parliamentary business, but these are generally covered on a " nod and a wink " basis.

Peter Slipper earned the animosity of the Liberal party when he defected to serve as the house speaker. He managed to enrage the Labor party when the prime minister defended him publicly, only to have him step down as speaker without making this intention known, leaving her stranded.

Now Slipper faces damaging allegations.   The police allege that on three occasions in 2010 Peter Slipper used a hire car to visit Wineries in the Canberra area and that on each occasion he paid for the hire by using Commonwealth cab vouchers.    It is alleged that these trips were not within the scope of his entitlements and that the destination was concealed by nominating bogus suburb to suburb fictitious trips to accumulate the distance travelled.    It is claimed that this imposed a financial loss to the Commonwealth.

If Slipper is found guilty of these charges, they can have serious consequences for his liberty and financial position.    If they result in a gaol term of more than twelve months he would automatically lose his seat in parliament, and there seems a real risk that a conviction might result in cancellation of the generous parliamentary superannuation that was enhanced by his short term in the speakers chair.    Slipper seems entitled to a pension of $ 157,000 a year - for life !

He is in a tenuous position - with the proverbial " Sword of Damocles " hanging over his head.   His vote is not critical to the survival of the government, but he can expect no help from either side of politics.   This is an election year and when the election is called he would expect to be challenged by others in his seat because of the events that cast doubt on his ability to remain in parliament.

No doubt the public will follow the progress of this court case with interest.    The position of speaker is of high standing similar to cabinet rank, hence Slipper has fallen from high office.   There is the expectation of public disapproval when a person getting a high salary exhibits greed by rorting allowances and this will cast the finger of suspicion at all parliamentary representatives.

Perhaps a case of those who live by the sword - die by the sword !

Decision time !

The latest report warns that Sydney airport will reach maximum capacity much sooner than has been anticipated.   It will face serious " constraints " from 2025 and from that point we can expect this lack of airport capacity to start having an economic effect on the all important tourist industry.

The need for a second Sydney airport has raged for twenty-seven years.   Governments of both political persuasions - both state and Federally - have created plans and prepared cost estimates, only to retreat and shelve the matter because of fear of a public backlash.

Nobody wants a new airport anywhere near where they choose to live.   They are noisy and they create traffic hubs due to the huge number of people who use the facilities.   The main decision seems to be whether a second airport is built within the Sydney basin - or as far afield as Canberra or Newcastle.

There is no doubt that Sydney is the first choice destination when it comes to tourist travel.   It is almost a case of criminal neglect that Sydney still has just a single international airport when Melbourne has two - with Avalon in the process of upgrading to make if a trifecta.   Melbourne must be hoping to make a gain at Sydney's expense because even if an airport site decision was made today - it would be more than a decade before it would be ready for the first plane.

It is a fact of life that no Sydney airport decision will be made in this year.  2013 is an election year - and neither side of politics will wish to go to the public with that Albatross hanging around their neck.    It is also a fact of life that the Greens have a disproportionate power over this decision - in relation to their numbers.

Unless the politicians grasp the nettle and make a firm decision as soon as this coming election is settled it seems inevitable that Sydney residents are going to be stuck with a half gap measure.    The moment lack of capacity starts to strangle the economics that rely on air movement we will see the night curfew lifted and the number of aircraft movements per hour sharply increased - and to make that work runway extensions into botany bay will be increased.

After twenty-seven years of posturing and retreat, making a final decision could be as easy as tossing a coin.  If the second airport is going to be built in the Sydney basin is must either be at Badgery's Creek or Wilton.
Heads or tails could resolve that dilemma - and at least it would start the building process rolling.

The warning is being sounded.   Either make a decision and get work started - or suffer the unpleasant side effects of stretching an existing airport past it's capacity - with both noise and safety a concern for all who live in this city !

New worlds to conquer !

Science estimates that in the Milky Way alone there are seventeen billion planets that roughly approximate the conditions that exist on our earth.   A little like the nursery rhyme about the three bears.    These planets need to be not too hot - and not too cold, and to support the life we know - they must contain water and an atmosphere.

What seems to be the " impossible equation " is - distance.   Most of these planets are many " light years " away.  To reach them, the crew of a space vehicle would need to progress through several generations of being born, living their lives and then dieing during the period it would take to travel from earth to this new world.  At present, that seems an impossible task.

" Impossible " is a definition that has long been defied by mankind.   In 1492 Christopher Columbus set out to find what was on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.   It was the age of great exploration, when the people of Europe found distant lands and claimed them for their country.   Those were risky journeys into the unknown and not all explorers survived.   The ships of that time were fragile by our modern standards.

The next great leap forward was to conquer the skies.   In 1903 the Wright brothers made the first flight in a heavier than air machine.  Within a few years the aeroplane had developed into a weapon of war and from there is morphed into a mode of transport that has shrunk the planet to cross great oceans in a matter of hours.

We have even managed to leave planet earth.  In 1969 Apollo 11 touched down on our moon and the footprints of the Astronauts are still present on the moon's dusty surface.   We have sent space probes to distant planets and established a manned space station in orbit.   Our communication system depends on satellites beaming signals back to earth.    We continue to shrink the age of possibilities and the definition of " impossible " narrows.

It seems that the necessity to colonise some of those distant worlds is a fast approaching imperative.  From the days of Christopher Columbus, when the population of the earth was far less than a billion souls - we have expanded to seven billion - and there are no signs that this expansion is even slowing.    There is a real danger that our earth population may exceed the food supply and when we have a long, hard look at the tribes of the earth - it presents a dismal picture.

It seems we can agree on absolutely nothing.  Even the basics of religion  present wide gulfs and in many cases adherents seem prepared to kill to impose their brand of religion on others.   Greed and self interest colour the decisions of world bodies and in many instances vast populations exist on the edge of starvation while an elite robs the dividend of their labour to maintain an extravagant lifestyle.

Perhaps we will one day defeat the tyranny of distance and create new worlds in the stars.  Unfortunately, we seem destined to export the same problems that make earth a hell for so many people - only now we will introduce a new factor over which to fight.

How long before the will of the most powerful insists on command over both worlds ?

A new level of violence !

Police are concerned at the emergence of a gang of young men in south western Sydney who seem to go on a rampage of senseless violence when they engage in random " home invasions ".    They seem to operate in the small hours of the morning, when residents are asleep in their beds - and they either knock on the door or break into homes and launch damaging physical attacks before stealing money and mobile phones.

The rewards are scant, but on each occasion they deliver physical damage by way of an axe, machete or similar weapon.   One victim was hit on the forehead with the back of an axe with such force that surgeons were required to remove part of his skull.   Others received deep cuts from machete strokes, despite offering no resistance.   It seems that the gang get their kicks out of the fear and physical damage they can inflict and the items they steal are simply incidental.

It seems inevitable that if this continues it will eventually cause the death of a victim.   Descriptions are vague because they wear hooded jackets, but it is thought that some of the intruders are of Pacific Islander appearance and others seem to be eastern European.   On one occasion a hand gun was produced and police believe that this may be the same gang that has held up local businesses in the Aurburn area.

This gang seems to comprise about six teenagers or young adults and there is a very real risk that this pursuit of senseless violence may be fuelling a competitive culture.   There is a growing level of violence that could be associated with competition to be the gang leader and this disregard for consequences makes an escalation of physical assault increasingly dangerous.

The fact that the gang enjoy inflicting pain and injury in greater measure than the monetary rewards of their raids is a sobering thought.   It could indicate a mental condition that leads to the sort of atrocities that brought the Charles Manson gang in the United States to world prominence.The emergence of a gang leader with homicidal tendencies could bring the start of a similar horrifying crime wave.

There is no pattern to these random home invasions and they will be difficult to predict.  It seems to be a defence of beefing up home security - and not responding to a knock on the door without establishing the identity of the caller.   When the slightest doubt exists, don't open the door. - call the cops !

Relief from the summer heat by leaving a window slightly open is no longer an option either.  The random nature of these home invasions spreads the risk to all members of society - in all age groups and both genders.

Fore warned is fore armed - and home owners should remember that robbery is not the prime motive for these crimes.    The objective seems to be to inflict major physical injury to innocent victims.

A very good reason to take home security to new heights !

The " Net " closes !

From today, it becomes a fine able offence to light up a smoke within ten metres of a children's playground, bus stop, sporting field, public swimming pool, taxi stop, or hospital grounds - and just four metres from the entrance to any public building.    Council is moving along an inevitable path to completely banning smoking in the Wollongong Mall.

There is more in the pipeline.   From 2015 the smoking ban will be implemented on all those outdoor eating areas that are presently " smoking permitted ".   It remains to be seen if the people tasked with policing these smoking bans will aggressively start to hand out fines.

Passing laws is the easy part.   Having the fortitude to crack down hard on offenders is the key to making those laws work.   Nobody likes to cop a fine and there will be complaints that smoking falls into the category of " civil liberties " by some people - but the only way to make any law stick is to deliver a " reign of terror " that makes disobeying it " unthinkable ".

There is absolutely no doubt that the use of tobacco shortens the life span of smokers.  Smoking is one of the leading causes of death and treating smoking ailments relates to bed use in all our major hospitals.  The net is closing on smokers, with plain packaging making the product unattractive, to a subtle attitude change that makes a smoker lighting up feel guilty in the court of public opinion.  We are rapidly reaching the stage when the only place a smoker can feel free - is in their own home, and even that is now under challenge when " home " is a unit in a multi-apartment building.   Body Corporates are trying to legally declare entire buildings " smoke free " zones.

Quitting the habit is a new thriving industry.   The majority of smokers know that the habit costs them a lot of money and most agree that it harms their health, but nicotine is relentlessly addictive and breaking it's hold results in failure for many.    Nicotine patches are said to help, but when push comes to shove - most people succeed only when they go " cold turkey " because something stiffens their resolve.  Perhaps a hefty fine for breaking the smoking laws could be the deciding factor !

We have come a long way from the days when people smoked in supermarkets and even banks and doctor's waiting rooms had ash trays available.   Even the driving laws forbid a driver to smoke if there are children present in the car.

Will we ever see the day that the government bites the bullet and declares tobacco an illicit product ?   It would certainly not stop the dedicated smoker and it would add a new product to the underworld of pushers who deal in drugs - but it would provide the incentive for many honest people to break the habit.

There is a big difference between buying a legal product kept under the counter in a supermarket - and seeking out a criminal to obtain your supply with the danger of getting involved in a " police bust ".

Perhaps - some time this century - governments may find the courage to take that final step !

The " Hot Bedding " issue !

The New South Wales state government is considering a law change to give more power to Owner's Corporations to police the by-laws that apply to resident numbers in rental accommodation.  At present, units in the inner city and adjacent to university areas are commonly partitioned to create more bedrooms and in some cases " hot bedding " means each bed is occupied by several occupants on a time share basis.

The present laws are cumbersome.  An owner's Corporation wishing to prosecute a breach must  lay a charge with the Consumer, Trading and Tenancy Tribunal, but if this proceeds to the point of a fine, the money is paid to Fair Trading.  Not a penny finds it's way to the Owner's Corporation, hence that body bears all the costs - and no reward !

Both South Australia and Western Australia have had a law change that allows Owner's Corporations to levy a $ 500 fine for by-law breaches and it is claimed that this has cleaned up problem areas such as noise complaints, hanging laundry on balconies and illegal on site parking.   The question of tenant numbers in relation to bedroom numbers and floor space is a separate issue - and tends to involve owners as much as those renting the premises.

Opportunistic owners know that they can greatly increase income if they pack more people into a unit by way of illegal subdivision.   They will always have willing customers because housing demand outstrips supply.   Desperate people will pay more money for sub standard facilities - because they have no other option.

At present, these owners get away with it because of lax council laws and a cumbersome prosecution system that not only fails to deliver justice, but actually prolongs this illegality by meandering endlessly through the review system.   Dodgy owners know that with the help of a smart lawyer they can delay legal progress indefinitely.

The present thinking seems to be a limit of two adults allowed for each bedroom, but that could bring new problems where the occupants are members of a large family.   It would be easy to end up with a draconian law that prevents a big family from legally living in a dwelling that they actually own.   It will be very difficult to frame a new law that covers each situation - and still prevents dodgy owners rorting the system.

Then there is the matter of policing this limit on tenancy numbers.   That takes us into the murky world of " proof capable of convincing a court " , which raises the access question.    This onus could rightly descend onto the shoulders of council inspectors, but at what cost - and to whom ?    We could easily create a monster - that satisfies nobody and creates more new problems than it solves.

Overcrowding is certainly in need of solution on the grounds of both fire safety and humanity, but putting together the nuts and bolts to achieve success is no easy task.     The law framers would do well to think long and hard before venturing into dangerous waters.

A " Bed Tax " proposal !

All levels of government are strapped for money and it seems inevitable that the bean counters are either thinking of reducing services - or seeking new revenue streams.   That hoary old chestnut - a " Bed Tax " is now being aired as a necessity to pay for the services that tourists require.

The very idea seems to run counter to the aim of making our city a tourist Mecca.  We actually spend money advertising it's charms in tourist magazines and brochures and our business community is geared towards making money from the tourist flow.   Any sort of tax slapped on facilities for tourists will make this area more expensive and less attractive to those we wish to entice.

It seems that the main motivation for this suggestion is aimed at the rubbish left by the New Year's eve fireworks crowd.  Council work crews were busy the next morning sweeping and raking tonnes of discarded drink containers, food wrappers and general garbage strewn over the lawn areas where people had viewed the displays.   It would be a cheap shot to blame this entirely on " tourists ".    The " locals " are just as guilty of leaving rubbish behind.

The council authorities also bleat that tourists cause them loss because of the need to maintain beach areas - and then there is the provision of lifeguard services.   Emptying the bins beachside is a very normal council responsibility - and is the council objecting to saving a tourist life in the surf as opposed to safety for locals ?

It seems that this whole furphy is just a thinly disguised attempt to impose a new tax - and gouge a little more money out of the people who under pin our tourist industry.   It would be easy to impose on the hotels and motels, but it would require the usual bureaucracy intrusion to apply it to every little " bed and breakfast " servicing this south coast holiday spot.

Imposing new taxes brings the danger of comparison.   Once an area gains a reputation as an " expensive place to visit " the tourist flow tends to dwindle.   Of course, the councils fear that this new bed tax idea might grab the attention of the state government - and become an imposition to gain state revenue.  In that case, we would suffer the down side of this bed tax morphing into a " tourist tax " - without council coffers seeing even a penny of that cash flow.

Perhaps it might be a wise move to consider that " let sleeping dogs lay " proverb !

Let sanity prevail !

Wollongong council is gnashing it's teeth and promising draconian measures next year to prevent visitors sleeping overnight in Stuart park.  Crowds from western Sydney as well as locals from distant suburbs congregate at this pleasant park to watch the New Year's eve fireworks - and it has become a custom to bring a pup tent and sleep on the grass until new year's day

It is against local by-laws to pitch a tent or otherwise camp in a park and that offence carries a $ 110 fine.  Council claims it was compassionate this year and issued no fines, but it is threatening to unleash a horde of rangers at the end of 2013 to make sure this does not happen again.

The bean counters and the nay sayers are missing the point.    The city spends public money to put on a big fireworks display to usher in the new year and we should be glad that this attracts visitors to our city.  Unlike the Sydney new year fireworks, there is little public transport to get people here home afterwards - and new year is a time when people celebrate with a few drinks.   Surely, it is preferable for people not to drive and for safety reasons sleeping in the park should be encouraged on this one big night of the year ?

Then there is the commercial aspect.   Those that stay overnight usually spend part of new year's day in this city - and that means spending money for breakfast, touring and the host of activities that keep the tills of our tourist attractions buzzing.

Council would do well to consider the up-side of this tourist influx.   In contrast, those staying overnight on the grass do no harm.   Like any holiday crowd, they leave behind litter, but probably little more than would be left by the midnight fireworks revellers anyway - and there is certainly no permanent damage to the grass or the park facilities.

Wollongong prides itself on being a friendly city that welcomes tourists.  In fact, we spend money trying to lure tourists here and our beaches have become the prime choice of western Sydney because of easy access - and because there are no draconian parking restrictions as apply at most of Sydney's overcrowded stretches of sand.

The police congratulated Wollongong new year revellers for their responsible behaviour and few arrests.
Family groups enjoyed the fireworks - and then settled on the grass in Stuart park to await the dawn and a new day.   They did that without causing any harm and now council is threatening to force them into their cars and make them drive out of the city - because what is perfectly legal in day light becomes an offence when committed in darkness.

The same people pitch the same tents to shelter from the hot sun while claiming a prime position to view that night's fireworks.    That seems acceptable, but the moment the fireworks end the council is hell bent on making them leave.

That attitude seems to lack sanity !

Oops !

There can be few politicians who have not made a public statement that they have immediately come to regret.   Such is the comment that is coming back to haunt Families Minister, Jenny Macklin.

The Federal government has just changed the rules pertaining to single parent benefits. This benefit now ceases when the youngest child beneficiary reaches their eight birthday.  The carer is then transferred to " Newstart " - as " The Dole " is now called - with a massive drop in income.

Minister Macklin fronted a media conference and was asked if she could " survive " on the meagre $ 35 a day paid under Newstart ?     She unequivocally answered " Yes ".   From there it all went down hill !

This remark was pounced on by the Greens and all the welfare agencies that are struggling to help families facing unemployment and financial pressure from rapidly rising energy prices.  It seemed an inappropriate comment from a minister who earns over $ 6,300 a week - and many are demanding that the minister make good on this statement by living for a week on just $ 35 a day.

Of course " spin " was immediately applied.   The information sheet released after the media interview made no mention of this comment.   Those recording the interview claim that her reply was " inaudible " - but the television interview carried the comment - loud and clear !

It seems that the minister is on the horns of a dilemma.    By her own words she has become the defender of an unpopular government policy and seems destined to keep it in the public spotlight.   If she accedes to the many challenges being issued and publicly reduces her living lifestyle to fit in to that $ 35 a day budget, she will draw the attention of countless economists, dietitians, and all manner of folk who have an axe to grind.  Worst of all.   She will make this unpopular benefit drop a focal point of adverse publicity - in an election year !

Politicians facing this sort of problem usually retreat to " the bunker " and stay out of communication for a few days in the hope that it will blow over.    The courageous ones " fess up " and admit that they could have handled the matter better - and ask forgiveness.

It simply reinforces the need for all those in public office to observe one of the basic rules of politics.   Never under any circumstances give a direct answer to any question asked.     The art of the politician is to reply in a manner that evades a firm conclusion - and means different things to different people.

Such is the skill of the politician !

Changed circumstances !

When the clock ticked past midnight on New Year's eve, the 84,000 single parents in Australia receiving the Single Parent Benefit found that their circumstances had changed drastically.   This benefit now ceases automatically when their youngest child reaches eight years old - and the recipient is forced to apply for the " Newstart " allowance.

Basically, " Newstart " is the name now applied to " the Dole ".   What social security is saying is that single parents with an eight year old  are required to go out and get a job, but firstly they will need to make an application and be accepted into Newstart - and then all the conditions that apply will have to be met.

As a job seeker, they will be required to attend interviews and there will be job search requirements that they need to report on a regular basis.  Failure to attend may see even this sustenance withdraws for a period of time as a penalty.   There will be job seeking help, but this will come with conditions that must be scrupulously met.

The sticking point for many is that Newstart pays just $35 a day, much less than the former single parent allowance. Single parents will be expected to dress decently for job interviews, pay fares to get to and from interview sites - and still pay rent and put food on the table to support their family from a sharply reduced income.

The welfare agencies are bracing for an increase in the numbers seeking help.  It seems certain that a decrease of income exceeding a hundred dollars a week will tip many family units over the financial edge.   The Dole has remained unchanged over many years, despite inflation and sharp increases in rents and municipal charges and social workers have regularly claimed that it represents poverty to those delivered into it's clutches.    It was never meant to be generous - but now it is being applied to an ever widening  circle of unfortunates.

The other factor is the limited number of jobs available to those with time limitations.   Finding a job with hours that prevent a child returning from school to an empty house is daunting and it is a fact of life that those who have not participated in the work force for several years usually find their work skills are now lacking.   In many cases, previous work accreditation requires an expensive refresher course before that person can renew such employment - and that is at the worker's expense.

What is surprising is that this rather brutal change of direction has been implemented by a socialist government.   It is very much a matter of " throwing people in to the deep end " to simply curtail a long standing benefit and replace it with conditions that few will be able to immediately meet - and to do that with a disastrous income drop.

Such a change would normally come with " cushion " conditions.   Perhaps an interim period when the education system was used to deliver new skills to enhance employment prospects.    Perhaps a graded benefit reduction over a six month period to ease the benefit recipient back into the workforce.

This change will be imposed unfairly on those from a non English speaking background and those without any work skills who have just emerged from a failed marriage.   They seem destined to be condemned to a life of utter poverty and in some cases may end up homeless people, living rough on the streets with their children.

The government expects these measures to save Treasury $ 728 million.   It would not be unreasonable to think that some of this saving should be diverted to helping the cash strapped welfare agencies provide a little sustenance to get distressed people over the worst of the transition period.

We live in difficult economic times, but Australia has always been a nation that believes in a " fair go ".   We seem to be heading into thinking that is more applicable to the " third world " states that benefit from our generous overseas aid budget !

Political inertia !

It seems to stretch the bounds of reason, but it seems likely that sheer political dogma in the United States may plunge the world into a fresh recession as we welcome in 2013.    The Republicans and the Democrats have dug their heels in and both sides refuse to come to a reasonable compromise to save the nation from falling off what is being called a " Fiscal Cliff ".

It is ironic that this " Fiscal Cliff " is a creature of their own making.  Unable to reach consensus in past years, legislators crafted a scenario too awful to contemplate in the hope that the obvious repercussions would force both sides of politics to sit down and " do a deal ".

The US is facing an ever growing deficit and it needs to gain more income and decrease it's spending.  The sticking point is the ideology between the two sides of politics.   The Republicans utterly reject any form of raised taxation - even on those earning millions of dollars of income.  The Democrats reject any alteration to the welfare state and seek to protect " middle America :" from budget cuts.

Both will suffer if reason does not prevail.   In a matter of hours, taxes will be raised across the board and many forms of welfare assistance will simply cease.   The heaviest blows will fall on the low paid and the unemployed.   Unemployment cheques will cease for many and a range of new taxes will send many employers to the wall - but this will also affect the income of the wealthy.   The public will stop spending and the nation will go into recession - and the sources of wealth for those earning big bucks will be caught in that recession.   Unfortunately, it is inevitable that a recession in the United States will have a flow on effect on world markets.

The answer to this problem is not rocket science.   It is something simply called " compromise ".  Both sides of politics need to give a little - and that means a modest rise in taxation across the board, and a treasonable adjustment of welfare entitlements to achieve the goal of more money in treasury balanced against less of an outflow.

Working for the " common good " was the way politics used to solve problems.   The two sides met in a session of " horse trading " and when the cigar smoke cleared - they would have " a deal ".   It seems that this mood of compromise has dissolved into bitterness and a dedication not to give an inch - and demand that all the concessions come from the other side,

A " last minute " partial move of desperation may temporarily divert the crisis, but it will be a case of once again " kicking the can down the road ".    It will ensure that this same problem divides the nation when the law makers return after the new year break.

Sadly, we seem to be seeing history repeat itself.   By the middle of the last century the United States was the richest and most militarily powerful nation on this planet - but then that was also a status shared by the Egyptian empire at the time of the pyramids, later replaced by the mighty Roman empire - which ruled the known world - and then Spain managed to garner all of South America and colonies in the Bahamas and Pacific ocean areas.

All these empires rose to great heights - and then faded away, and in every case the reason for the decline was inability to govern themselves because of political infighting.   Perhaps the phenomenon we are witnessing is the start of a decline which will see the batons of wealth and power pass into new hands - in what is now being called " the Asian century ".

When " Death " calls !

There are probably few " pleasant " ways to die, but being run over by a train is certainly not one of them.   Two such deaths have occurred recently in New York and in both cases an innocent victim was pushed in the back and caused to fall into the path of an oncoming train.    In one instance, a Korean national was pushed to his death by a mentally disturbed homeless man - and in the other, a woman still mulling over the twin towers attack pushed a stranger to his death because he looked Indian - and she assumed that he would probably be a Muslim.

Unfortunately, the publicity that these incidents have attracted will put this idea into disturbed minds in other parts of the world.   We have seen a similar connection between school massacres in the United States.   Once the first hit the headlines - others followed, sometimes many years apart - but the attraction seems to be the world wide publicity such an atrocity will ensure.    Some disturbed minds are attracted to fame, and if they can not become famous by legitimate means - then " infamous " is an accepted alternative.

Then there is the fatal " Gang rape " incident in India that is making world headlines.   It seems incredible that a public bus would continue it's journey through city streets for forty minutes, while a gang of six drunken men would beat up a young man and his fiancee, gang rape the woman - and finally throw both from the bus while it was still moving.   Apparently, the bus driver was unmoved by this unfolding crime - and did nothing to seek help.

In this instance, the publicity has opened the flood gates and created a backlash that the Indian government is powerless to stop.    It seems that rape is common in India and the police are indifferent to investigating complaints, and when they do - it takes years for the prosecution to wind it's way through the courts and in many cases the judiciary find excuses for this behaviour.     Women are usually held to be partly responsible for their own rape.

Even in enlightened western societies, women have not achieved total emancipation.  They are usually paid less than men for the same work and violence against women is still endemic in the lower social order.  No doubt the Indian government will beef up it's legal code to offer a degree of protection, but the bigger task will be to change attitudes - and that will be measured in generations rather than years.

We live in a violent world and this is the age of communication.   What is happening on the world scene is instantly before our eyes and disturbed minds are informed of new ways to indulge their fantasies.  It is disturbing to read of innocent people being pushed to their death under trains - and this brings the thought that perhaps there is a disturbed mind contemplating such an action on a railway platform in this city.

Hopefully, it will not happen, but we are not immune to the spread of ideas.  Unfortunately, the benefits of modern technology are equally available to those whose intent is evil !