The age of the " Rumour Mill " !

Strange - How a " phobia "  can evolve on the social media network and quicky attain a life of it's own.    Decades ago, children were vaccinated against childhood diseases without question - until someone started a rumour that there was mercury in the vaccine preservative and that this was giving the kids mercury poisoning.   Now that has extended to ADD, ADHD - and a host of other ailments.

There are many people bitterly opposed to the addition of fluoride to water supplies, despite overwhelming evidence that it prevents tooth decay.  People without the faintest amount of scientific knowledge are prepared to accept what some charlatan says and disregard the best tertiary evidence in the land.

We saw another of these " public panics " when mobile phones first burst onto the scene.    The fear was " radiation " but this was quickly ignored by the masses because the advantages of mobile communications was just too great to be rejected.  It is now rare to see a person without a " smart phone ", but the very hint of a new phone tower responder still sees nearby residents erupt in a fury of hysteria.

There are signs that a new wave of " citizen scientists " are about to reject the use of WiFi - on health grounds.   WiFi is making it's way into schools as a means of " quicker - cheaper " communications and that hoary old chestnut of "  radiation " is again raising it's head.

Without doubt, we seem certain to find some parents insisting that they will not send their children into classrooms connected to WiFi - because of health concerns.     The more evidence debunks this supposed connection, the more certain these people become - that they are right and the rest of the world are wrong !

It seems to quickly become a " movement " that attracts others and gains an official title - and becomes adept at using both politics and the media to spread it's message - and demand official action.

Unfortunately, in many cases it actually stops a public benefit from becoming a reality - and can contribute to a drop in community health !

" Euthanasia " becomes reality !

We all have the right to die by our own hand - and it is called " Suicide " !   Many decades ago this was considered a crime and the victim of a failed suicide was put before a court and punished.  In this more enlightened age, that law was dropped - but anyone assisting another person to end their life faces legal peril.

Both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory passed laws that made euthanasia legal, but the Federal government has veto power over Territory law and the legislation was struck down.  Now Tasmania is considering a private members bill to make " assisted dying " legal and the Feds do not have that veto power over the wishes of a sovereign state.   It seems that euthanasia will at last become a reality.

As usual, the devil is in the detail !   " Euthanasia " can mean many things to many different people - and it will be interesting to see just how this law is framed.

Ending ones life can be a messy business if the person seeking death is forced to use uncivilized practices.    Blowing one's head off with a shotgun is distressing for relatives - and someone has the task of cleaning up the mess. 
It would be far better for a person wishing an end to life to be able to consult a doctor - and if able to convince that this wish had been thought through and was reasonable - to obtain a script for a drug that would do the job.

Proponents will use the phrase " Dying with dignity " to support this bill, and surely ending one's life is a personal choice.  Many dread the infirmity of old age and encroaching medical disabilities make " life " a dreadful experience for others.  We are legally entitled to die - it is just a matter of choosing a method to achieve that end.

There will be the usual opposition from the churches and opponents will claim that greedy relatives will " pressure " people to end their lives for personal gain, but a well constructed bill will provide a clear pathway for those considering their life's termination to do so with safeguards in place.

It would be wise to include a reasonable time frame from approach to culmination to eliminate " spur of the moment " decisions.  There are age restrictions on many activities - from drinking to driving - and it would be reasonable if these extended to euthanasia, but that is something that the Tasmanian legislators will have to grapple with.

Opinion polls show that the great majority of Australians are in favour of allowing euthanasia.    At long last - it is about to become a reality !

Legal Aid priorities ?

The concept of " Legal Aid " was designed to bring fairness into the legal system.    When a person is arrested and charged by the police, an entire network of government lawyers swings into action within  the " Department of Prosecutions "  (DPP) to ensure that the prosecution case is skillfully presented in court.

If the prisoner charged has no money and can not afford a lawyer to represent the case, Legal Aid is supposed to bridge that gap by providing a qualified counsel to help in providing a defence.   Usually, this defender is a young lawyer just starting his or her career and because of lack of court experience, one of the most lowly paid in the legal system.

Many people describe it as a " David and Goliath " contest.  A struggling young acolyte just out of law school doing battle with seasoned lawyers who have cut their teeth with years of successful prosecutions in the public domain.
Legal Aid is always short of funds - and in many cases appeals for representation are denied because scarce facilities must be reserved for the more important criminal cases.

It is therefore amazing to find that Legal Aid has been funding the appeals of criminals who have been represented in court, convicted - and sentenced to a long period in prison.    Surely, this must be well outside the scope of priorities envisaged when this scheme was introduced.

Legal Aid funds were used in the appeal by Jill Meagher's killer, Adrian Bayley - who finally confessed to police and led them to where he had buried her body.  He was convicted in court and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison - and this appeal was thrown out after just ten minutes perusal by a judge.

Legal Aid also funded an appeal by gangster Tony Mokbel, convicted of murder charges and sentenced to twenty-two years in gaol.  Amazingly, Legal Aid took on his appeal because Mokbel's assets had been seized under the " Proceeds of Crime " laws - and it was concluded that as a result he could not afford a lawyer.

Legal Aid is a multi-million dollar expense on the public purse.  It seems that the all too familiar " bracket creep " has allowed it to stray into areas where it was not intended to go - and any sort of appeal was outside of those guidelines.

The original intention was to see a person charged with a crime receiving free legal instruction.   All too often, legal ignorance led to the innocent being convicted and Legal Aid was a defence against the well oiled machinery of the DPP.

It is time for a review of the basic rules that apply.   Spending big sums on costly appeals is depriving many first offenders of their right to be represented in court by a person qualified to present their case in the best light - and perhaps earn them a reprieve.

The " Charm " Tactic !

It is almost amusing to watch Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese conduct their campaigns for leadership of the Labor party while scrupulously avoiding even a hint of denigrating one another.   The ALP was left battered and bruised from the spectacle of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd slugging it out in the media.   The party has called a truce to try and repair the damage.

Many in the Labor political spectrum will be nervously awaiting the " Memoir "  Julia Gillard is about to write, covering her " political and personal  journey ".    Safely clear of parliament and with a handsome superannuation income in her pocket, Gillared has no reason to hold back.  It will all depend on whether she chooses to even old scores - and whether she delves into dark corners that her party would prefer to remain veiled.

This leadership tussle will have a direct bearing on which way the ALP leans.  Bill Shorten is a champion of the unions and he can be expected to try and expand union power if he wins.   Anthony Albanese is left oriented and his power base is in the broader rank and file branch system.

Whoever wins will have to faceup to the greatest risk of instability in the party posed by Kevin Rudd.     Many thought he would quietly resign after the election loss, but he has clearly signalled his intention to remain as a back bencher - and that will send shivers down the spine of whoever fronts the party as leader.

Rudd clearly has talent and it seems inevitable that he will have to be considered for a shadow ministry.   He also has unmistakeable ambition - and few in the party would doubt that he hopes to one day reclaim the post of party leader.   As long as he remains in parliament, he will be a " threat " to the stability of the party.

On that basis, the contest between Shorten and Albanese is a fight to attain the " poisoned chalice ".    Whatever directions the new leader takes to reform the party they will always be shadowed by the " elephant in the room ".   Rudd may actually be hated by many of his colleagues, but he still has immense standing with the public and if he ventures an opinion - that will be paramount in the minds of many people.

It seems that the fate of the ALP is in Rudd's hands - for as long as he chooses to retain his hold on power !

" Memories " !

Thinking back on the way " life " used to be, many will remember  when the " Footy " was something that happened on a Saturday afternoon - and the team was a group of local lads proudly representing their home suburb.

In the southern states the game that was played was " Aussie Rules " and in New South Wales and Queensland it was Rugby League, but the principle was the same.   It was a contest between our best - and that " mongrel mob " from another suburb.

The players needed to have a job because there was no money in the game.  It was all a matter of " glory " and the best players from the school teams gravitated to suburban clubs - and some of them became stars and drew admiring crowds whenever they played.   Being one of the local " sporting heros " meant fans shouted you a beer in the pub and you easily got a date with the prettiest local girl.

That is not the way it is today.   In both AFL and League the game has become big business and getting into the team means becoming an instant " celebrity " - and earning a fortune others can only dream about.   It also seems to be an excuse for excessive drinking and outrageous behaviour.

Unfortunately, there is a distinct tendency to distance the clubs from the previous fan base.   In Wollongong, the local " Steelers " team was booted from the competition and a Sydney club was forced on the city as a sort of " joint venture " deal.    It has not been a happy union and many former League fans have drifted away to AFL or Soccer as a result.

Now League is looking at the Cronulla Sharks and suggesting that they may be relocated to Queensland.   " Sharkies " represent the massive Sutherland Shire and were formed in 1967.   They have financial worries and they have been accused of sins related to performance enhancing drugs, but to banish them to the backwoods of Queensland seems a strange way of rehabilitation.

Last year provided a lesson that both League and AFL would do well to consider.   A new soccer team formed north of Sydney and it immediately attracted a startlingly big fan base - and it just went on to become " Mega " from there - winning match after match - and narrowly missing out at the grand final.

Serve the television and gambling industry at the expense of the home supporters of teams - at your peril !    The teams that still have home suburb support have an enormous advantage when it comes to raising money, promoting the game, and - importantly - that feed into the reserve competitions that keep the big clubs supplied with new stars.

Where you want to be in the future has a lot to do with remembering where you came from in the past !

Our deadly streets !

Flak jackets - stun grenades - assault rifles -  two " BearCat " armoured vehicles which some describe as " light tanks ".   That was the scene on the streets of western Sydney this week when police raided a criminal gang that was involved in the drug trade and a wide range of criminal activity that included " extortion ".

We have come a long way from the days when uniformed police with a hand gun for protection knocked on suspect's doors and took them into custody.  There is little difference between the specially trained police assault teams and the army special forces troops that we deploy overseas in battle zones.  The expectation of armed resistance with heavy weapons is now a fact of life since organised crime invaded our cities.

The criminal fraternity has no fear of using weapons to exert it's control.   Rival gangs shoot it out on our streets and the practice of delivering a warning by spraying a rival's house with bullets is a favourite tactic.   Taking the fight to these sorts of people involves the dangers of a real battlefield - and special police squads are trained accordingly.

This week the western world got a warning of what the future might hold when an al Shabab terrorist group stormed a shopping centre in Nairobi, Kenya and began executing non-Muslim shoppers.   These jihadists are on a suicide mission and have no intention of surrendering.   It is likely that the final death toll will exceed a hundred.

It is quite possible that such a scenario may engulf an Australian city if the terrorists turn their thoughts in our direction.   It is impossible to fully guard against such an attack becomes it involves the element of surprise.  We can only hope that we have the trained crews to quickly bring it to an end with the minimum of casualties.

Local and world events underscore the reality that we now live in a dangerous world.   Once Australia seemed safely remote from the worlds " hot spots " - but the tyrrany of distance today provides no insulation from becoming a world headline.

We will always have to contend with local organized crime.  Whether the terrorist threat becomes a reality here by way of a major event depends on what evil minds conjour up in response to situations which probably have no relativity to this country.

Such relativity is usually lacking from the jihadist thought process.

Too many chemist shops ?

Australians are paying more than double what people in the UK and New Zealand pay for Generic medicine.   When the patent expires on a drug developed by one of the giant pharmaceutical companies, smaller manufacturers can produce a copy of that formulae - and the price drops accordingly.  

The price of generic medicine in Australia is governed by an agreement by the Federal government in which the price is eighty percent higher than the market price that chemists pay for their supplies.   This fat margin is creamed off by the chemists - who claim that without it many chemist shops would not be commercially viable.    The loss to the wallets of customers Australia wide amounts to $3 million a day.

It is a fact of commercial life that anything with a decent profit margin attracts competition to share in the loot.    Selling really good coffee brewed by a clever barista has become an Australian habit - and so we have a glut of coffee shops across the entire retail sector.

The average Australian shopping centre probable has an equal number of chemist and coffee shops - and that indicates that both return a handsome profit to their owners.   In the case of chemists, this over supply situation is keeping prices unnaturally high - and is leading to the emergence of a new breed of " discount chemists ".

A new Federal government has taken office and one of the things that should be high on it's agenda is a review of this generic medicine price arrangement.  We should not be paying more than double the prices charged in the UK and NZ, and if that means a thinning out of the number of chemist shops - then so be it !

Every other form of commerce has to adjust their margins to meet competition, and there is no reason chemists should be protected at the expense of the public.   Chemists have long feared the intrusion of the grocery duopoly into their trade.   Retaining unsustainable profit margins indefinitely would tend to make this an eventual certainty.

No doubt there will be a long and loud squawk from the industry if a more realistic price regime for generics emerges, but this is the " real world " and this is also the twenty-first century.

A pricing change for generics is inevitable !

Democracy in action !

Within hours of the polls closing, the result of Federal elections are usually known.   Enough seats are decided by big majorities to give the required numbers, but there always seems to be a few seats that will go down to the wire - and a decision may take days - and in some cases - weeks !

Such is the case in the Federal seat of Fairfax.   The two leading contenders are Clive Palmer of the Palmer United Party and Ted O'Brien of the Liberal National Party.   Sixteen days later and it seems that Palmer is leading - by just thirty-six votes.

The count has been vigorously watched by scrutineers from both parties.  Every voting paper is carefully examined for irregularities and the count is watched over by officers of the Australian Electoral Commission ( AEC ) as the lead changes hands from time to time.   At no stage was the difference more than a mere handfull of votes in a tally from about 85,000 voters.

A final result of less than a hundred votes triggers an automatic recount, but in a close election the distribution of some category of preference votes remain to be distributed.  The winner of this seat is still to be decided - and the final decision is yet days away.

When the AEC declares a winner, that will still not be the end of the matter.  It is probable that the result will be subjected to court action and it may well drag on by way of countless appeals because both sides have ample funds to follow that course of action.

In this case, the fate of the seat of Fairfax has no impact on the final decision of who won government.  Had it been the case in the last election - which delivered a hung parliament - the nation would have been on a knife edge for days following this crucial count.

It is said that the wheels of justice grind slowly.    They also grind with certainty and precision.    When a final result is declared in Fairfax we can be certain that every " i " will be dotted and every " t " crossed to ensure that the decision is what the voters intended.

Progress - or Schism ?

From the day he took office, Pope Francis made it clear that he sought a new direction for the Roman Catholic church.   He walked away from the trappings usually bestowed on a Pontiff and now he has indicated a spirit of renewal by tackling three of the issues that divide his church from the rest of the world.

Abortion - gay marriage - and contraception loom large within the church community as points of contention.   It is unlikely that Pope Francis will suddenly reverse the stance that has existed for centuries, but his comments show a new willingness to compromise - and accept that sin does not mean automatic exclusion from the church community.

The problem is that any change in the dogma of the church will become a point of contention for purists.   When the Catholic church permitted the mass to be celebrated in the language of the country instead of Latin, many rejected this change.  There are still some churches that celebrate mass in a language that few understand.

Similarly, when the church dropped the instruction that Catholics refrain from eating meat on Friday, this was a habit some felt uncomfortable in adopting.  It is noticeable that even today, pubs and clubs that offer " counter lunches " always include a fish dish on Fridays to serve Catholic customers who still observe that custom.

Whether the church likes it or not, gay marriage seems to have become a fact of life.  It is hard to see the church accepting abortion, but the ban on contraception in this overcrowded world does not make a lot of sense - and the vast majority of educated Catholics use it anyway !

That seems to be the sticking point.   " Educated " Catholics in the western world have an entirely different outlook to their less educated brethren in Asia and Africa.   Changes that would be welcomed in this part of the world may be totally rejected elsewhere.

Pope Francis is a brave soul.   If his church is to progress it must shed outdated dogma that no longer has relevance, but in doing this he risks the danger of schism.

That would not be a new experience for the Roman Catholic church.   The Reformation split the church and formed the Protestant ethic and various Orthodox orders exist in other parts of the world.   Roman Catholic congregations are expanding in Africa and Asia, but dwindling in South America and Europe - it's former home ground.

Pope Francis has undertaken a long journey on a very lonely road.  Reform of the Roman Catholic church is a huge undertaking - that is long overdue.  


   

Security " Thieves " !

It seems that we are often our own worst enemy when it comes to guarding access to our cash.   The amount of information we make freely available on Facebook and the other social media networks makes " identity theft " easy for the pirates who plunder our bank accounts.

Most banks and credit card companies ask us to provide an answer to security questions to prove that we are the correct owner of the account any time we need to contact them - and several easily remembered questions are favourites.

" What was your mother's maiden name " ?  is certainly one of them, and  " What is the name of your pet dog or cat " ?  is another.

Both of those can be so innocently included in social chit chat on the Internet, and todays thieves usually research intended targets.  Now it seems that a new form of " phishing " has evolved using the Woolworths logo and described as a legitimate survey of  " customer satisfaction  "  with that trader's services.

The lure is a promised " reward voucher " for filling in a questionaire that asks some seemingly innocent questions.   You might be asked if you usually pay cash - or use a debit or credit card ?   Enquiring as to which bank - or whether Mastercard or Visa is involved -  would not seem unusual, until linking that answer with what you have freely provided on social media connects the dots to enable a raid on your account.

It certainly pays to be vigilant and avoid the suggested question themes offered by financial institutions. Keep in mind that the bandits know about these, so take the time to think up something original that can have no possible connection to anything disclosed on social media.

These " phishing " ploys are hard to resist because there are so many legitimate reward offers for market research on the Internet.   The chance of a free shopping voucher worth several hundred dollars is tempting.   The best policy is to assume that all such approaches are a scam - and consider each question asked from a security point of view.   In most cases, the evil intent becomes quickly obvious.

Theft by deception is now big business in the crime world.  The rewards run into hundreds of millions of dollars and the criminal fraternity includes gifted technicians who are top of their trade and interconnected across many countries.

That is something to keep in mind every time you use social media or respond to an email on the Internet.    During wars the phrase " Loose lips sink ships " was a common warning to promote vigilance.    Today - our bank accounts have become a new war zone - and that same vigilance is essential !

A child safety law !

A lot of people rely on fly screens to safeguard children as a barrier to them falling out of windows, but such accidents feature regularly on the evening television news - and legislation is now passing through state parliament to solve this problem.

This law will require that all windows above the ground floor be fitted with a safety lock that stops the window opening more than 12.5 cm.    The remaining gap will provide ventilation, but make it impossible for the body of a child to fit through the opening.

Like many such laws, the intent is good, but achieving compliance may be an entirely different matter.  It is mentioned that Strata  and residential tenancy laws will be ammended to force owner corporations to fit these devices, but it is likely that childless couples and the elderly living in high rise accommodation will ignore this legislation.

Many will remember the attempts to force safety fencing on the owners of backyard swimming pools.   The onus was thrown onto local councils and compliance was spotty until the regularity of child drownings put teeth into the requirement.

Obviously, the first line of attack will be new homes.  It will probably be mandatory to have these devices fitted before councils can sign off on their required compliance certificate to allow tenancy.   It will also be relatively easy to force this requirement on those dealing in rental properties - but the sticking point will be compliance by the huge number of owner/occupiers who make up the bulk of " suburbia ".

Probably, the government will take the " softly  - softly " approach.  Many responsible parents will see the wisdom of installing safety window locks and willingly comply.   The state Housing Commission will no doubt be required to install this protection across it's entire housing stock of multi level dwellings, hence there will be a rapid improvement in overall safety.

Getting every above ground floor window in New South Wales fitted with this protection is likely to be a slow, hard grind.    Perhaps the services of the insurance industry can be used to help.    It stands to reason that preventing children falling out of windows also stops thieves getting in - and maybe that could be a requirement of insurance cover.

At least this legislation is a step in the right direction.   Every safety device that is installed will be a potential life saved - even if full compliance is some years into the future.

The " Idiocy " factor !

The world has watched a superb example of " engineering ingenuity " as the sunken cruise liner Costa Concordia has been raised to an upright position off the island of Giglio in the Mediterranean.

This recovery operation has so far cost $ 865 million and the ship is now sitting on a specially constructed platform.  There are still months of work ahead to plug holes in the hull and attach air tanks before the ship can be safely refloated - and towed away to a breakers yard to be salvaged for scrap.  The entire operation will probably top a final cost of $ 1.1 billion.

The sheer size of this recovery broke a lot of records.  Costa Concordia was 290 metres in length and weighed 114,500 tonnes.   Sadly, 32 passengers lost their lives when the ship sailed perilously close to shore on January 13, 2012, and the sunken wreck has been lying on it's side for the past 20 months.

Enquiries have divulged many events that contributed to this disaster.   Cruise ships often passed close to Giglio to be a spectacle to help the islands tourist trade and this custom totally ignored the safety regulations that governed shipping channel requirements.

When the ship struck a rock, the passengers were assured that the loss of electricity to power the ships lighting was a " minor emergency " and told to return to their cabins.    Had they been told to don life jackets and go immediately to muster stations, it is likely that no loss of life would have occurred.

The tales of the sea are rife with events that end in disasters.   One of the all time classics was the loss of the Titanic, then the world's greatest and most expensive ship - which hit an iceberg and sank with heavy  loss of life.  It seems she was steaming at full speed in the dark of night - in an area known to have icebergs - in an attempt to break the Atlantic crossing record.

Those that sail in ships expect that they are in good hands, but once again the Costa Concordia disaster shows that the "idiocy factor " is always present.
Someone makes a decision - that in the cold, hard light of a later enquiry seems almost " unbelievable " - resulting in loss of the ship.

That is something to think about any time you think of booking a holiday that involves a ship - or a plane - or even a touring bus.     We are never entirely safe from that unseen " idiocy factor " !

The " Voiceless " Voters !

Australia is one of the few world countries that insists that every citizen above eighteen years of age presents and casts a vote at Federal, State and Council elections.    It is a requirement that you register your name on the electoral roll - and if you fail to vote you may have to pay a fine.

Australia justifies this as a form of " Democracy ".   When all the people vote to select the form of government that will apply, then the people get the government they deserve.    The people who gain the reins of power are those selected by the majority of voters.

Strangely, a very different scenario applies in Australia's biggest city.  Sydney has 20,000 firms registering a business address - and they provide seventy percent of the rate income - but only just 1700 are on the roll and registered to vote in council elections.

It seems a reverse form of  " Democracy " applies when it comes to those who own or operate a " business ".    Being assessed to pay a far higher council rate than those who merely " live " in the city, business people are not required to automatically have their name on the voting roll.    In fact, they have to fight to gain that priviledge !

All sort of obstacles stand in the way.   Some business owners own their premises outright and probably live in a suburb that has an entirely different council.   Others rent the premises in which their business operates, and some both live and work in the same building.

All sorts of issues are decided by council that directly affect the ability of a business to make a profit, and that includes the rules that will apply to parking and street management.   The entire " management " of the inner city is in the hands of the council and it seems that the very people whose livelihood depends on those decisions are " voiceless " !

Change is in the air.   There is pressure to have the local government laws rewritten to make it easier for business owners and operators to get on the electoral roll - and cast their votes.

The people who provide seventy percent of council income have been virtually ignored for many decades.   Getting them on the voting roll will provide a blast of fresh air through the musty corridors of power at city hall !

Spectre of a " Police State " !

In the past decade a gun culture has descended on the streets of Sydney.  The criminal fraternity is matching the police in firearms posession and a network of crime at customs and on the waterfront make it impossible to stop the inward flow of new weapons.

One of the requirements that hinder police is the necessity of obtaining a " search order " before raiding premises to look for weapons.   The police must first get a judge to sign off on that order, and produce " evidence " to substantiate its necesssity.

Criminals diversify their tactics as police tactics start to " bite " !   We are now seeing guns stashed away in " safe houses " and even hidden in supposedly abandoned vehicles left in city streets.   The gun culture is alive and well - as illustrated by the amost daily shootings that occur on the crime scene.

The state government is proposing a law change to make it easier for the police to harass this gun culture.  The present law allows police to search any place or person subject to an order forbidding them to posess guns - without the need for a " search order ".    The only person allowed to issue such a decree is the Police Commissioner and there are just sixty-four such orders current in this state.

This law change would extend that power to any commissioned officer above the rank of Inspector.   We could therefore expect a huge increase in the numbers of those forbidden to have a gun in their posession - and a consequent drop in the need to obtain a search order before a police raid.

Some in the legal fraternity will see this as an end run around a law intended to protect the public from mandatory police searches.   It is yet to be explained what procedures will be in place to justify the issuring of those " no gun posession " orders and what onus of proof will be firstly required.

The civil liberties people will no doubt feel uncomfortable with evidence of other crime collected in these gun searches.   They could easily become " fishing expeditions ".    That requirement to have a judge sign off on a search order was to safeguard the public from police excess.   It's removal opens up a whole new " ball game " !

The legislature needs to move carefully on considering this new power.  There is no doubt that the crime scene has worsened in recent times and the law has to change to accommodate a gun culture, but it would be too easy for the pendulum to swing too far in the opposite direction - and we end up living in a " police state " !

Defining a fine line !

" Zoe's Law " is scheduled for debate in the New South Wales parliament next week and it is causing trepidation because it straddles a very fine line that may be interpreted in different ways.

" Zoe " was a thirty-two week foetus who died in her mother's womb when a heavily drug affected driver ran off the road and pinned the woman to a tree.  The baby's placenta was ruptured, and despite the efforts of doctors, the life could not be saved.

In the eyes of the present law,  Zoe never existed, except as an appendage of her mother's body.   The errant driver could not be charged with either murder or manslaughter because the law does not recognise a new life until the infant takes it's first breath.

Zoe's law seeks to change that.  It suggests a law change to " recognise the existence of a foetus of at least twenty weeks gestation ".   The hesitation of the parliament hinges on just how this law change may be interpreted in the higher courts.

The sticking point is - of course - abortion !   This law change tries to get around that by stipulating that it " specifically exempts anything done in the course of a medical procedure ".

The great majority of legal abortions are done well prior to twenty weeks, but some fear the anti-abortion crowd will seize on this to try and make abortion illegal in the higher courts - and there can be no certainty when it comes to the appeal system and how that applies to the individual thinking of superior court judges.

It is grossly unfair that a perpetrator escapes punishment for the death of a viable foetus caused by  criminal negligence simply because of a vagary of the law, but this could be construed to apply when a pregnancy is medically terminated.

It is impossible to satisfy all shades of public opinion on abortion and the parliamentarians who have a duty to vote on this law will need to carefully think through all the possible aspects of their decision.

At least they have the satisfaction of knowing that the final decision will rest at the highest level of jurisprudence - with the exalted judges of the High Court.

Whatever they decide - eventually a High Court challenge is certain !

Back to the drawing board !

Just when the banks thought they had the security system wrapped up, along comes a new breed of bank bandits who pull off a daring bank raid, right in the teeming CBD of Sydney.

Logical thinking had it that banks were vulnerable to bandits attacking from the public area, hence the installation of " fly up " screens provided an impenetrable wall between the bandits - and the money.

These shrewd bandits did their homework and realised that all that stood between the rear of the tellers area - was a glass shop front window.  Once penetrated, they were behind the " fly up " wall and precisely where the bank keeps it's money.

It also seems that these bandits wanted to make their raid something of a fashion statement.   The stolen car they used to ram their way in through the glass wall was a quarter million dollar Porsche, and the waiting getaway car was a state of the art Subaru WRX.

No guns were used.  Sledge hammers cleared the debris left by the front of the Porsche and the raid was over in less than two minutes.   The whole affair was witnessed by hundreds of stunned pedestrians - and filmed on smartphones by many.

The outcome will be predictable.   Bank security will be pouring over the building plans of their entire branch network.  An amazing number of branches are in malls or on streets where this bank plan is common and  a glass wall is the only barrier to the staff area. It simply never occurred to the planners that this presented an opportunity for thieves, despite ram raids being used to try and access ATM's.

No doubt this security discrepancy will be quickly eliminated, but it does illustrate a fact of life that has plagued the leaders of armies for centuries.  Just when you think you have all bets covered, the other side adopts a new tactic that leads to defeat.

That is a truism that applies to the commercial world as well as the military.  The " smart guys " are to be found on both sides of the moral divide !

Law Reform enigma !

Punishment for crime has been steadily retreating as our legal system becomes more " humane ".    The past usual outcome for murder involved the culprit facing execution and this was the sentence carried out on 114 Australians in the first half of the twentieth century.   Ronald Ryan was the last man executed in Australia as late as 1967.

A Law Reform Commission report has just been handed down by Attorney General Greg Smith and it contains some suggestions that will horrify those who consider our present sentencing laws too lax.   One of these invites comment on the proposal to introduce the prospect of parole for those given a " life " sentence.   It would virtually do away with the notion of " never to be released " as an option for a judge sentencing a particularly vicious crime.

At present, a prisoner applying for parole must wait a full twelve months before a fresh application can be made if that application is refused.   This makes absolutely no sense - and those nearing the end of their custodial sentence need to be pre-conditioned for release into the community.   Flexibility is a better option for those tasked with making such decisions.

There is a curious suggestion about making " Aboriginality " an issue to be taken into account when sentencing options are considered.   The ratio of Aboriginal people in prison is certainly a troubling issue, but surely we are not about to see Aboriginality as an automatic " discount " on time to be served ?

This " Law Reform review " is really a carefully crafted economic document tasked with bringing prison costs under control.    In every past decade, the time felons serve in prison has been decreasing and yet we need more prisons to accommodate the criminals in our ever growing population - and that is putting pressure on the budget.

The " Economic Rationalists " are looking at ways to make the present prison system adequate for the task by decreasing the time  criminals spend under lock and key.   Home detention is one option likely to increase.   The " Bean Counters " will probably opt for decriminalizing a wider drug spectrum and the option of managing those convicted of lesser crimes by the use of " location bracelets " may get wider use.

What seems to have got lost - is the original intention of prison sentencing.   The object to be achieved - was supposed to be rehabilitation - but this has morphed into the " University of Crime " !        So many first offenders leave prison with the networking skills and contacts - and the wide knowledge to advance their earning skills in new criminal pursuits.

We certainly need to keep reviewing the system to achieve a better outcome, but there is a real danger that watering down the penalties will create precedents that will allow clever criminal lawyers to present a compelling case for reductions that put the public at risk.

It would be a sad day if law changes ever resulted in Martin Bryant, Ivan Milat  or Malcolm Naden ever walking the streets as free men !

The chicken ? Or the egg ?

Premier Barry O'Farrell and Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore have agreed on a radical plan to reduce car traffic in inner Sydney by thirty percent.  Australia's biggest city is about to get a return of " Trams " - now termed " Light Rail " -and this plan seeks to make the city a " Pedestrian precinct " by eliminating street parking and loading zones - and introducing more dedicated bike paths.

This has been a long planned dream of green thinking Clover Moore.  The concept has found favour in several major overseas cities and in particular, the people of Holland and several Scandinavian countries have a " bike culture " that has failed to take hold here.

We already have a network of inner city bike paths - and there is no escaping the fact that they are lightly used.  It is a big ask to ban cars and demand that people use bikes or walk - if they come into this city centre.  It would certainly need an extensive network of " hire bikes " to be available because riding from the outer suburbs would be impractical.

Thia is a high risk venture.   Retailers are already under pressure and it is unclear how the abolition of loading zones will meet their needs of stock supply.   If the public do not feel comfortable with this new arrangement and simply redirect their shopping to the suburban shopping malls the centre of this city will wither and die.

The big gamble is whether Sydney folk can be persuaded to swap the car for a bike - and that recalls the old " chicken and egg " conundrum.     Which came first - the chicken ?   Or the egg ?

Will the lack of car parking and the installation of bike paths get people to move on two wheels - or do the present arrangements need to wait until the number of people on bikes make special bike paths a necessity ?

Success or failure will probably depend on whether the planners get their strategy right.   A car free centre will only work if the car/bike exchange can allow car parking and bike hire to occur on the fringes of the CBD - and that will put enormous pressure on the facilities of the suburbs involved.

The " unknown " aspect is whether the average Sydney resident can be persuaded to adopt a continental culture and make the change of thinking that will be necessary for this plan to work.

Further down the track, this will either be the event that ushered in a Utopian dream - or the disaster that set the city back by several generations !

When it becomes " Unfunny " !

There was rage and disgust earlier this year when two Australian radio DJ's made a phone call to a London hospital where the Duchess of Cambridge was being treated for morning sickness.   They purported to be the Queen and the Prince of Wales and tricked the nurse taking the call to put them through to the royal ward.    Within hours, the deceived nurse committed suicide,

It was probably just a silly joke to entertain radio listeners, but sadly the woman taking that call was suffering from a " depressive disorder " and an inquest has suggested that she had made two previous attempts on her own life.   This tends to illustrate the danger of taunting others with what we may think is a " harmless trick " - and which others describe as " bullying ".

Social media has exploded with venues that allow personal comment to be directed at victims while the originator remains anonymous.    In particular, this has become the domain of school children who use Twitter, Facebook and a whole host of similar venues to hurl vindictive comments at those they dislike.

We are seeing an increase in youthful suicides and some of these are a result of harassment which can only be described as bullying.   Those that suffer weight problems, have personality disorders or fall out of favour with their peers can become the target of unrelenting pressure - and really hateful messages from a wide circle of tormentors.

Many well adjusted kids cope with this and take it in their stride, but those with a sensitive nature have difficulty in coping and both school authorities and the medical profession are warning that real and permanent harm is being done - from which some will never fully recover.

Just as that joke phone call had unintended consequences when by pure chance the call was taken by a nurse with an emotional problem,  the deluge of taunts appearing on the Internet each day must be doing emotional damage to those whose emerging personalities have frailties.

We have a problem - and so far - nobody has been able to even suggest an answer.    It is in the nature of some people to bully others that they can intimidate, but we are seeing this taken to extreme when calls for the victim to end their life become common.

In many cases, the perpetrator will claim this was made in jest.     As was the case with that London phone call.    It becomes tragic when the joke becomes " Unfunny " !

" Jaywalking " Blitz !

Motorists have long been the prime target of the state Treasury.    The police are ordered to be merciless in issuing fines and driving a car is like walking through a minefield.   Drive just a whisker over the speed limit and you will be nabbed by a speed camera.   Former " No Standing " signs have been changed to " No Stopping " - and there are few legal opportunities to pickup or set down a passenger - and those fines and loss of demerit points are savage on the motorists wallet.

It is an entirely different matter when it comes to pedestrians.   There are laws pertaining to the use of the streets - but they are unenforced.   Motorists are delayed at  light controlled intersections when pedestrians continue to walk against the red pedestrian light and people dart across busy roads wherever they see a slight traffic break.    This illegality is usually ignored by both the police and council rangers.

The appearance of technology such as smart phones and tablets has introduced a new hazard for motorists.  We are now seeing pedestrians with their eyes glued to that small screen and with their ears deaf to traffic noise moving amongst road traffic - and the incidence of accidents is rising.

It seems that the onus to avoid an accident still rests with the motorist.  The law requires a driver to " at all times drive at a speed which will enable them to stop ".    Even if a pedestrian actually walks into the side of a stopped car - the driver can expect questioning and harassment from the police - as to why this accident was not avoided.

Now it seems that the state government has ordered a crackdown on the practice of " Jaywalking " and operation " Franklin " has selected three police officers to patrol the inner city of Sydney - and hand out fines.

Jaywalking attracts a fine of $ 67 and the officers involved claim it is so prevalent that they have no difficulty in handing out thirty to forty infringement notices every hour.

Three officers in a city the size of Sydney enforcing the jaywalking law is something of a joke.    If we are to change the habits of the pedestrian culture it will require every cop and council ranger in both the inner city and the suburbs to take part in a blitz to widely enforce this law.

Most of those fined are completely unaware that they have infringed a law.  Walking against the red light and darting across city streets has been so prevalent for such a long time that it will take a sustained blitz of inflicting fines - coupled with an advertising campaign to make sure this law is understood - to create change.

Unfortunately, handing out these fines will most likely be resented, but surely this is a case of taking action for the good of those involved.   Otherwise, a change of culture is going to result in an increase of pedestrian deaths.

Motorists would welcome less pedestrian hazards on city streets - and perhaps this would be a good time to extend the blitz to cyclists - and remind them that four wheel laws also apply to those travelling on just two wheels.

The " Senate " Enigma !

On Saturday, the Australian public clearly delivered their verdict on what form of government will wield power in the House of Representatives.   The Coalition romped home with an absolute majority of seats.

At this same election, the form to be taken in the upper house - the Senate - is far from clear.   It will be days before the redistribution of votes from losing candidate parties or individuals will present the final picture, but it looks like the balance of power will be in the hands of perhaps seven Senators - representing various forms of " Independents ".

This balance is likely to include the Liberal Democrats, the Motoring Enthusiast party, Family First, the Australian Sports party, two from the Palmer United party - and possible another independent from South Australia.

It seems that we are back to the sort of " horse trading " that marred the last parliament in the lower house.   There, the swing vote was in the hands of a small number of independents who mercilessly extorted money for projects in their home electorates in exchange for their vote on issues important to the government.

It will be just too tempting for those Senators representing parties that drew a minuscule portion of the overall vote to trade their support on major issues for agreement to their personal wish list.

Probably, the first major clash will come over legislation to abolish the carbon tax.     The coalition rightfully claim a mandate because this was clearly a part of the policy they took to the voters, but both Labor and the Greens are likely to unite in opposition.

This new cabal of independent Senators will need to think long and hard before voting down the policies the Coalition took to the people.  Tony Abbott has clearly signalled that he will not retreat from using a double disillusion of both houses of parliament and take the decision back to the people.

Hopefully, common sense may restore the Senate to it's rightful role - as a house of review.    It is a " State's House " tasked with keeping a balance between the interests of both the big and small states that make up the Australian Federation.

The place for " politics " is usually concentrated in the lower house where legislation to take Australia forward usually originates.    The Senate was never envisaged as a " rubber stamp " to be applied along strictly political lines, but it was also never envisaged as a " political machine " to block legislation purely along the lines of it's political make-up.

A number of new Senators are about to experience a reviewing role bestowed on them by the voters of Australia.   It is hoped that they will use their power wisely and advance the prospects of this country to deliver an ever improving way of life to it's citizens.

They need to be aware that with the title of " Senator " comes a responsibility to act in the best interests of this nation - and not indulge in pure pursuit of political ideology !

Conventional wisdom has it that the lower house is the abode of " politicians ".  -  but the Senate is the place of " Statesmen " !

Forced marriages - Child brides !

The laws of Australia protect the right of it's citizens to choose their own life partner.   Each state regulates the minimum age at which a marriage can legally occur - and forced marriages are illegal.

Unfortunately, customs differ in many other parts of the world, and we now have citizens who have lived under those customs entering Australia as refugees.   As a result, we are seeing a spate of forced marriages - and in many instances young girls are being married off to men of their parent's choice as " child brides ".

Enormous cultural pressures are being brought to bear to make daughters obey their parents wishes.   In some cases, where our education system is making kids aware of their rights, guile is coming into play.    Daughters are being taken on a " holiday " abroad, and when back in the old country they are shocked to find themselves " married " to a person unknown to them.

This opens up the mysterious labyrinth of " cultural expectations " and " honour ".     Sometimes girls are " promised " as future brides to another family before they are born, and should they later reject that union it would impose an intolerable stain on the family's honour.    It is not unknown for fathers or brothers to avenge such a stain by imposing death as a punishment.

The police and the courts are handicapped in imposing Australian law.   Many parents believe that choosing a partner for their children - of both genders - is a " right ", and put children under enormous pressure to obey the customs of their former homeland.    In many cases, their entire social life is dictated by a way of life that is not typically " Australian ".

The only weapon in this cultural war - is " education ", and that applies to both the parent and the child.   Citizenship imposes an obligation to obey the laws of this country and that includes legal customs that may differ from other parts of the world.

The school education system can be a valuable vehicle for making children aware of laws that protect them, and we should be aware that religious schools may abstain from giving advice that differs from the wish of parents.  Such schools must meet standards for legal recognition and instruction in Australian law must be included in the curriculum.

It will be a hard slog to unwind customs that go back many centuries, but time is on our side.  This same clash of customs occurred with the migrant waves that flowed into Australia after the second world war.   Today, descendants are
many times removed from those original settlers - and are at peace with the Australian custom landscape.

A Boon - or a Threat ?

The news that Coles are close to being granted a " banking license " will be greeted with mixed feelings by many people.   An application is before the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority ( APRA ) for a " Deposit Taking Institution license " - which is legalise for " starting a new bank " !

Most people agree that our present " Big Four " banks have too much power and we would be better served if they had more competition, but adding Coles to the mix is a step into the unknown.

It seems inevitable that if Coles get approval to enter banking, Woolworths will be close behind.   We may be on the verge of seeing the " Big Four " become the " Big Six ", but don't expect this new innovation to look anything like the banks we have now.

Half a century ago the banks traded on a very restricted time basis.  They now open longer hours, but little else has changed.   Both Coles and Woolworths are open long hours on a seven days basis - and only really close their doors for Christmas day and Good Friday.    They are ideally positioned to offer the full range of banking services - on an open slather time basis !

Coles and Woolworths are also aggressive traders.   They are quite ruthless in using their power to gain market dominance and their interests have ranged well outside the grocery spectrum.   They are close to gaining a petrol sale monopoly and they have diverged into the insurance field - and Coles now issue  their Coles brand credit card.  Both are battling to gain the hardware dollar - and fast whittling away the number of suburban hardware stores.

It would be most unlikely that a Coles bank - trading under the Wesfarmers name - would be content to remain a simple savings bank.   It would quickly devolve into the full range of banking services - and probably be innovative in entering the home mortgage and general financing field.

The power potential is enormous.  We have already seen how the duopoly has cornered the grocery market and now sells about eighty percent of that market segment.    The move into banking is a further giant step forward - and we need to consider if the public good needs to place a limit on " unlimited expansion ".     Is it possible for a market force to become " Too Big " ?

This news will certainly send tremors through the banking competition, but it will also cause navel gazing in the insurance, conveyancing, legal advice, chemical products, and car dealership fields.    What other interests are the duopoly likely to take interest in providing - and just what sort of behemoth will be see in the future ?

Those are issues that APRA needs to carefully consider before they make a final decision on this application.

Decision Day !

In every city, town and village, today will bring a steady stream of people to claim their right to choose the next government of Australia for a three year term.

We expect this event to pass peacefully.   There may be a few heated words exchanged between supporters of various parties, but it is unlikely that anyone will die.    We do not expect disruptions from car bombs or mass ballot stuffing from corrupt election officials.   Judging by past elections, most citizens will be happy to wait - and watch the results go on the board in the national tally room tonight.

A peaceful national election is not the experience of many parts of the world.  Even having an election at all would be a novelty in some countries.  Even claiming the right to be on the electoral roll can be seen as a death sentence in some countries, and many such elections are a total sham - with the result determined long before the first vote is counted.

There will obviously be a winner - and a loser.    Many people will be elated at the way the election swings - and probably nearly as many dejected because their side lost.   That is the way of politics - and what keeps hope alive is the certainty that three years from now we will again be making a choice.

Whoever wins will have the job of convincing the people that they are making the right choices.  Not everyone will agree.   Politics is divisive, but at the end of each three year term, it is the people who make a judgement.

We live in a dangerous world.  We need to earn a living on the world stage by selling Australian products to create a national income and getting the market mix right is a tricky business.    We forge alliances with other countries and find that some others are hostile to our interests because they see us as rivals - or they disagree with out outlook on world affairs.

We used to be safely tucked away " down under " , but today the world focus is on Asia - and that puts us right in the spotlight.

Good luck to whoever wins the big prize when the votes are counted tonight - and may wisdom allow them to chart a safe course for this great country during the coming  parliamentary term !

Religion - and Sport !

Those watching the cricket this summer may notice that one player has something missing from the Australian team uniform.   Fawad Ahmed will not be displaying the " VB " shoulder patch of the teams sponsor, Carlton and United Breweries.

Ahmad is " not comfortable " wearing an advertisement for a product that conflicts with his Muslim beliefs and the decision to go with his wishes introduces a new element of financial risk to sport.

Carlton and United Breweries are paying over ten million dollars to sponsor the Australian teams in the Test One Day and Twenty20 series.   In accepting this sponsorship, the sport is contracted to displaying the company logo on the teams sporting uniform.    This clash of " sport " and " religion " is about to put stress on the source of the fat pay cheques that those who rise to this playing level receive.

Ahmed is not the only Muslim in the Australian cricket team. Usman Khawaja has  " no objection " to the VB logo and explains that he is an " Australian player " - as opposed to being a " Muslim player ".

All levels of sport and all sporting codes require players to wear the officially sanctioned team uniform - and that includes the logos of the commercial interests who buy sponsorship rights.    Perhaps the time to think about any clash between sport and religion should be made before committing to even trying out for a sporting career.

Wearing a logo is not the same as personally endorsing a product.  It is a legitimate form of advertising a perfectly legal product - and cricket is followed by a mix of people who are divided on their use of alcohol.

Rejecting a logo on religious grounds - and then playing at a venue which is -plastered with advertisements for that same product - is hardly a convincing argument.    It would be more convincing if that player refused to play any sport supported by sponsors with which he did not approve.

" Duty of care " querie ?

Taking a cruise is a growing holiday option but one passenger queries the "duty of care " responsibilities that these ships extend to passengers.

It seems he was walking in a public hallway when a light fitting fell and caused him a minor head injury.  He consulted the ship's doctor who advised him to seek a scan at the hospital in the port the ship was visiting.   He was put in a cab and dispatched to a hospital in Fiji - without his passport or wallet.

When he tried to rejoin the ship the vessel's security people denied him access because he could not show a valid boarding pass.  He felt humiliated and was forced to spend time on the dock until his companion could be located - and vouch for him.

This whole episode had him wondering what would have happened if the ship had sailed without him.   Cruise ships make short stays measured in hours at most ports and his injury could have required a more time consuming investigation.    Because is was caused by a structural malfunction of a ship's fittings, surely he was owed a duty of care by those who had accepted his fare ?

Obviously, travel insurance is a safeguard against the unexpected happening on a holiday, but the worst nightmare that could beset any traveller would be to be stranded in a foreign country - without valid identification or money.   Help could be obtained from the Australian embassy or perhaps a consulate - but it would be a frightening experience that few would welcome.

This traveller is suing the cruise line for compensation.   He found the experience so unsettling that he is unable to do his former high stress job and claims compensation.   The only issue to be settled - is agreement on the money issue involved.

It seems that this " duty of care " issue falls into a grey area that is not stated in travel brochures.   It is certainly something that wise travellers would do well to ponder - and to discuss with loved ones before undertaking similar journeys.

Perhaps the only certain safeguard is to travel in a group and be assured that companions will take the necessary action if a similar misfortune strikes one of their number !

" Renewable " gravesites !

Release of the " Cemeteries and Crematoria " bill will certainly upset a lot of people, but we are fast running out of space to bury the dead and the passage of time sees many old burial grounds become derelict eyesores.

At present, about sixty-five percent of deceased Australians opt for burial and each year this decreases as cremation finds favour.   It is a far cheaper option and scattering the ashes in a rose garden with posterity served by a small brass plaque bestows the necessary dignity to a funeral and it's mourners.

There will be no change to existing cemeteries, but the proposal will introduce " renewable internment " to new burial grounds.   It will offer the option of buying a " leased gravesite " with twenty-five years of residence.  These can be renewed indefinitely - if that is the wish of the relatives of the dead.

In the event that this tenure is not renewed, the remains may be removed and placed in a communal ossuary, or the cemetery may use the " lift and deeper " option.    Dig the grave deeper and relocate the original remains, and bury another person on top.

This plan will cater for those who wish a permanent gravesite and which option is chosen will be a matter of cost.     Obviously the leased gravesite will be far cheaper, but it also seems certain that the rising cost of land in Australia will see permanent gravesites rise to extraordinary levels.

Burying the dead is becoming a victim of our urban environment.   As villages became towns - and towns became cities - the practice of burying the dead in the grounds of the local church became impractical.   The funeral industry is now big business and it needs to adapt it's practices to what people can afford.

No doubt this proposal will draw fire from some religious beliefs and upset families who must make practical decisions on funeral arrangements at a time when their loss is raw, but the present situation is simply untenable - and needs an urgent review.

What is not needed is hysteria and unreasonable rejection.  This is a practical suggestion to solve a problem which every family must face at some time in their lives.

Rising insurance premiums !

The Financial Ombudsman reports that complaints about difficulties with insurance companies increased by thirty-five percent in the past year.  Many of these involved the ever rising price of premium renewals.

Unfortunately, many people lack an understanding of the complex nature of the insurance industry.   Like all other forms of business, it exists to make a profit - and to do that income must exceed the outgoing paid to settle claims.

It is a fact of life that the flooding that devastated parts of Europe this northern summer and the fires that burned down homes around Yosemite in the United States have a direct bearing on what your insurance company demands to insure your home and contents in Wollongong.

The " Never put all your eggs in the one basket " rule applies.   An insurance company that only insured locally could be wiped out if a major catastrophe occurred in that home area.  The insurance industry practices " Re-insurance ".
When the risk in one area gets too big, they spread the risk by buying cover for their risk from other companies across the world.    The bigger the risk, the more they " spread the load " !

That's how the insurance industry started - in China.   Merchants taking their goods to market on the " Silk Road " had rivers to cross.   If a boat overturned and lost it's cargo - that particular merchant was ruined.     Some wise sage devised a plan for a group of ten merchants to divide their cargo equally on ten boats.   The risk was then spread ten ways - and if one boat overturned all made a smaller - and sustainable - loss.

One of the reasons that insurance premiums are rising is the change happening in world weather.   Some blame it on global warming, but we are certainly getting more instances of wilder weather - and that means more damaging bush fires and more catastrophic floods.   We are now seeing the "Tornado" phenomenon appearing in Australia and at the same time the insurance industry is being forced by regulators to define and extend the definition of it's event coverage.    The industry can no longer hide behind the " fine print " in rejecting claims.

So - what does the future hold ?     Probably much more of the same.   It is possible that some form of basic insurance may be mandated by inclusion in council rates notices to even the playing field.   At present, many people do not insure and escape the taxes embedded in insurance premiums to partly pay for fire brigades and similar civic amenities.

At the same time, a total loss in a fire or flood leaves many uninsured destitute.  The sticking point is whether all should be forced to insure, thus lowering the overall risk - and consequently making premiums more affordable.

As Mother Nature continues to go on the rampage, insurance premiums are certain to keep right on rising !

This " Unwinnable " war !

The western world is holding it's breath, waiting on a decision that could see cruise missiles raining down on Damascus in Syria.   Civil war in that country crossed a new threshold when chemical weapons were used to slaughter men, women and children in a civilian suburb.

It seems to be a matter of choosing a battlefield of choice - because war is raging across the entire Muslim world.   In some instances it is war against all that are not followers of Islam, and yet it also an internal civil war between the Sh'ia and Sunni followers of the Prophet.

Islam is at a crossroads !    Both Sh'ia and Sunni have produced firebrands who demand that their " brand " of Islam must govern and that they impose their extreme religious beliefs on all others - and that includes secular Muslims and followers of Christian faiths - who they call " Infidels ".

The death of warriors imposing their views is welcomed because they become " martyrs " and are instantly transported to " Paradise ".   So began the era of the " suicide bomber " and the slaughter of children for the offence of being girls trying to gain an education.   It seems that no form of warfare in unacceptable in the quest for holy victory.

The entire Muslim world is rocked by internal civil war.    Opposing forces are dealing death in Egypt and Syria, and the conflict is raging in Tunisia and Libya.   Armies of religious extremists are on the march across Africa and huge tides of refugees swarm across borders to seek personal safety.   This undercurrent of unrest is simmering in countries where Islam remains the minority.

Sadly, the majority in the Muslim world has a secular outlook.   They are devout in following their religion, but they want no part in installing extremist regimes and they are becoming the victims in this ever increasing civil war.  This has been clearly illustrated in Egypt.   The people revolted to remove a dictator, but in his place they got a religious extremist who was pushing Egypt towards extremism.     The secular majority again revolted, and with the help of the army - are seeking to restore a secular state.

We in the west have made many mistakes.   The internal wars of Islam can not be resolved by outsiders.    This is evidenced by our intrusion into Iraq and Afghanistan.    The religious insanity will continue, long after we have been - and gone !

The big question now is what to do in Syria.    More of the same ?     Or would it be better to remain aloof - and let Islam resolve it's differences - at it's own pace and with no clear winner in sight ?

There is always the risk that something like al Qaeda may be the face of what finally prevails - and that would be a huge risk to the rest of the world, but we must be encouraged to see secular Islam fighting back against extremism.

Perhaps sanity is learning that there is no hope of success in becoming involved in an " unwinnable war " !

Petrol discount price wars !

Yesterday, new laws came into force in New South Wales to control the way petrol prices are advertised on resellers price boards.   It will no longer be lawful to advertise the price that will be charged when a petrol discount docket is offered.   The only price a reseller may display is the price that is available to all motorists.

Many people complain that the previous sign boards were misleading.   They often carried several prices in big letters and needed careful study to understand what conditions applied.

The number of independent petrol stations has been declining and there is a risk that petrol can become a duopoly unless we can establish a more level playing field.    Fair Trading is threatening to police the new rules stringently and infringement fines run to $ 22,000 for an individual or $ 110,000 for a corporation.

This whole question of " shopper dockets " needs a rethink.   On the one hand, discounting is a normal facet of retail trading.   Just about every store on the planet carries signs advertising a " Sale " from time to time and " mark down " prices help stores to move end of season stock.    It is therefore quite legitimate to discount petrol as a normal extension of that trading technique.

The sticking point comes when the item discounted is one of life's essentials and the method of obtaining that discount is not available to other competitors.   In this case, the retailer is able to off-set the " loss " on petrol sales by increasing the margin on items the customer must purchase - to qualify for the petrol discount.

Fair trading laws bar conglomerates from using their combined muscle to drive competitors out of business.   Several years ago, glaring cases emerged where merchandise was being consistently offered way below cost to undersell nearby competitors and drive them to close down.   It was a deliberate and blatant attempt to create a trading monopoly in some shopping centres and a Fair Trading approach caused it to cease.

It seems that a similar excess is starting to appear in the petrol price wars.  We are seeing a discount of forty-five cents a litre being offered and that far exceeds the margin available to any normal reseller of petroleum products.  If a product is being sold at a deliberate loss - to make it imperative for shoppers to gain the means of running their cars - it can also be implied that the tactic is designed to damage competition.

It seems that ending the " below cost " tactics to disadvantage  competing butchers and greengrocers in main shopping centres was the result of Fair Trading reaching an " understanding " with the major players - with the threat of legislation unless sanity prevailed.

A similar " understanding " needs to be reached on the extent of petrol discounting, before the duopoly becomes too big and powerful to be reigned in without a major legislative war that would be damaging to all the parties concerned.

Perhaps this balancing on advertising signs is a shot in the first salvo !

The " Right " to silence !

One of the basic tenets of civil law is the right of the accused to maintain silence when questioned.   It is the duty of those prosecuting to prove guilt rather than the accused to prove innocence, and this right of silence gives protection from " self incrimination  ".

There have been recent moves in political circles to remove this " right " and demand that the accused answer questions or later have evidence claimed but not given at that initial interview disregarded.

It seems that there is a wide disparity between " civil " law and " military " law when it comes to evidence - and the right to silence.   Under military law a person is required to truthfully answer if questioned by a superior officer - and it seems that the police come under this tenet of military law.   Uniformed police are ranked in a military manner and custom dictates that a salute is required from junior officers passing a commissioned officer of higher rank.

Justice Christine Anderson ruled in the Supreme court that police must be given that same right of silence as a matter of justice.    The Police Association has welcomed this law change - which closes the risk of involuntary self incrimination.

This certainly opens the aspect of military law to a wider interpretation.   We have just seen several enquiries concerning the Australian Defence Academy in Canberra and this law change raises the question of whether these military investigations involved the right to silence.

Criminal charges are to be laid in one instance and self incrimination may become an issue in the defence, now that this Supreme court ruling extends the right to silence more widely.

It certainly brings into focus that old adage that " nothing is certain when it relates to the law " !