GP Home Visits !

Another of those spats between the states and the Federal government has broken out over medical costs.   In most areas, local General Practitioners work a roster to provide what they call an " Emergency Home Visit service " at weekends, and sometimes this is also available weekdays after 4 pm.

This advertised service is bulk billed and consequently many who would otherwise make a visit to a hospital emergency room use this GP callout instead, and that is where the costing meets a fork in the road.   Hospitals and their emergency rooms are a state cost.  Medicare - which pays GP reimbursements - comes from the Federal Treasury.

The cost analysis people estimate that each patient presenting at a hospital emergency room costs between $400 and $500 for that visit.    A GP making a home visit out of hours can claim between $127 and $ 150, depending on whether that call is classed as " an emergency ".   It is claimed that the vast majority of such calls do attract that designation, and this compares with the $36.30 a GP receives if they see a bulk billed patient at their practice.

We have over stressed emergency rooms and our ambulance services are under pressure and anything that offers relief is welcome.  This after hours home visit service has been long established and most GP's are under pressure to contribute their time on a roster basis as a public service.  There have certainly been instances where it has saved lives by diagnosing a critical need for a patient to be rushed to hospital, which probably would not have happened had it not been available.  In some cases, making the decision at the weekend to wait and consult a doctor during the working week can be fatal !

Concern is being expressed that this after hours bulk billing service is costing $220 million annually. Most GP's do not normally make weekend or after hours calls and by pooling their numbers to provide this service on a rostered basis the public can be attended by a GP and individual doctors still maintain an uninterrupted lifestyle for most weekends.

Several years ago it was proposed to establish private after hours GP services in the community and clinics for this purpose were to be provided at public expense.   Some plans called for these to be staffed by GP's on the public payroll, while others envisaged the pooling of private practice GP's who volunteered their services on a rostered basis.   Some actually became a reality, but with very mixed results and now they are few and far between.

It would be a disaster if this weekend home visit service were to cease.   It would obviously push emergency room traffic to breaking point and the obvious answer is to reach some sort of funding arrangement between the Feds and the states.   That $36.30 bulk billed fee for a surgery consultation is too low, given the cost of running a practice and the lower $127 call out fee for a weekend home visit is reasonable, given that the doctor must provide transport and in some cases the visit can be very time consuming.   Deciding whether to class the call as an " emergency "  - and claim $150 - is a matter of conscience.

That old adage - " If it 'aint broke, don't fix it "  comes to mind !

An " ID " Requirement ?

The Department of Immigration has spun off a division labelled the " Australian Border Force "  (ABF) which is tasked with weeding out those whom overstay their visa and others in this country illegally.    It made a disastrous start to operations this week.

A badly worded news conference gave the impression that the ABF would be roaming the streets of Melbourne, stopping people at random and checking their immigration status.  This resulted in a huge public backlash and there were comparisons made with the tactics of the old Communist east German " Stasi " !   In panic, this proposed operation was hastily cancelled !

It does raise the question of exactly what can be demanded of us in the way of personal identification, and that harks back to another failed attempt to impose an " identity card " on the citizens of Australia.   That idea suggested that every citizen be required to carry a photo engraved card about the same size and type used for driving licenses which stated their name and address - and this would need to be produced when opening a bank account, applying for a passport or undergoing any legal transaction which required identity to be confirmed.

There were many obvious benefits, but the concept was alien to the Australian culture and it was determined that implementing it was politically impossible.   It was quietly dropped, but this uproar over the ABF will bring it back in many minds and the threat posed by Islamic extremists is such that it may again be resurrected in official circles.

Quite clearly, we are required to carry our driving license with us and produce it on demand when we drive a vehicle in any of the Australian states or territories.   It is a fineable offence to drive without that license and the police are entitled to take an erring driver to a police station and hold them until their identity can be proven.

The law is not so clear when it comes to a pedestrian lawfully going about their business in the streets.  We are not legally required to carry personal  identification and our obligations to identify ourselves vary from state to state.   When police make raids on workplaces known to employ those illegally in the country people are rounded up and held until their identity can be established.  Often, entirely unrelated laws are used to establish a valid holding reason.    A person without money in their pocket could be charged as a " vagrant - failing to provide visible means of support ".

What alarms the civil liberties people is that this " stop and check " procedure will be used as a form of profiling.   The immigration status of a coloured person is much more likely to be demanded than that of a white person, and mode of dress and national characteristics will obviously feature in the selection.

It is also obvious that more than immigration status will be involved.   When the police do a random drug/alcohol roadside test of drivers they run the holder's license details through the police computer and this reveals if there are any arrest warrants current or if that person is on parole - and what conditions apply to parole.   It is likely that this same procedure would apply to an ABF immigration check.

Strangely, we accept this police background check at breath test stations but find it abhorrent that we may be stopped on a public street and subjected to what seems precisely the same procedure.  Double standards apply.    And yet we are very vocal about securing our national borders and tracking down those who remain in the country when their visa expires.

Now comes the usual political fight to determine what tools the ABF may use to do their job, and this will be made even more difficult by the mix of Conservative and Socialist state governments - and their ability to frame ID requirements !

The " Uber " Answer !

It must be clear to any fair minded person that the Uber phenomenon can not go unchallenged indefinitely.We have laws that apply to a regulated cab or taxi industry and a new commercial company has simply ignored these requirements and set itself up in business in competition.

The government restricts the number of taxi license plates in this state and consequently their value has slumped because trade is being siphoned off by Uber.  Drivers earning a living as legitimate cab drivers need to wear a uniform and undergo not only licensing but a background check to ensure they are of good character.  The vehicle they drive must carry the company colour and signage, and it must be regularly checked by Roads and Maritime Services ( RMS ) to be clean and in a roadworthy mechanical state.

Uber is not just a New South Wales phenomenon.  It has aggressively barged into the taxi trade on a world wide basis and it's stock holding is now worth billions.   What many find fascinating is the sheer gall of a startup company recruiting ordinary people and urging them to use their cars to provide a paid private transport alternative - and virtually thumb it's nose at government regulators, the Taxi council, the RMS - and the Police !

The initial expectation was that this would be short lived.  Governments control most professions by way of a licensing regime and it seems unbelievable that ordinary people could set themselves up - completely untrained - as doctors, lawyers, plumbers, builders - or any other of the trades - and get away with it.   And yet, that is exactly what Uber has done - and is still doing !

Now we learn that in Sydney the RMS launched prosecutions against twenty-four Uber drivers for operating a taxi without a license - and were forced to withdraw the cases because they had difficulty obtaining information necessary to support their cases in court.

Are we to believe that what is essentially a " pirate taxi company " can openly run a service in our biggest city and support it with a communication system that allows the public to summon a cab - and that all this is beyond the ability of the authorities to find sufficient evidence to bring the matter to court ?

It seems that Uber is going unchallenged on a world wide basis.   Uber is operating freely in London and New York - and even in Moscow, where anyone who annoys Vladimir Putin finds themselves in court on a trumped up charge and receives a lengthy prison sentence  handed down by a tame cat judge.   What gives Uber phenomenal immunity from the due processes of the law ?

An enquiry labelled the " Point to Point Task Force " was setup to examine and report on the Uber situation and it is suggesting that we need a law change to confiscate the car of any driver charging a passenger for conveyance contrary to the Passenger Transport Act.   It is unclear whether such a confiscation would be for a given period of time, or whether it would be of a permanent nature.

This would seem a reasonable option to control Uber, but to be backed by law it would still be necessary to prove in court that an offence had taken place - namely that the ride was on a fare paying basis.

It will be interesting to see how the state intends to tackle this " evidence " issue.  There is no doubt that a multi billion dollar company will deploy the very best from the legal profession to defend it's position.   If the state fails to prevail, it is hard to see how regulations can be enfored across the wide spectrum of trades and professions.

Uber is really challenging the very concept of government - as we know it !

Gay Propaganda ?

Lurid media headlines will make " Gayby Baby " a must see for many people.  There is nothing like controversy to get patrons streaming through theatre doors.   Oldies will remember a film way back in the 1950's titled " The Outlaw " which starred Jane Russell.   Apparently her cleavage was a bit daring for that day and the Pope was conned into branding it " scandalous " - and declaring it a sin for any Catholic to go to the theatre to view it.   Of course, it broke box office records !

Gayby Baby is an educational film that has a PG rating and it explores this rising world of gay parenting.  It gives thoughtful insight in how same sex couples go about bringing up offspring and how this meshes with the interplay of school, sport and every other aspect of life where their lifestyle differs from that of other " straight "  parents.

What was unusual was that Burwood Girls High school in Sydney intended to suspend ordinary classes and show this film to it's 1200 students, some of whom are as young as twelve years old - and they did not ask the permission of parents.

It generated an upswell of rage and many contended that it was simply " gay propaganda " that was offensive to the moral and religious views of many, and that it was a sinister attempt to promote gay rights by using it as extracurricular viewing by way of compulsory attendance.  This resulted in the plan being instantly cancelled and since the subject has been swirling in media conjecture, with heated argument from both sides of the debate.

The logical outcome is that Gayby Baby will probably be shown in a regular movie theatre which charges a fee and attending a showing will be a matter of choice.  Obviously, those with a distaste for the same sex lifestyle will not encourage their children to attend, and in all probability this film will make an appearance eventually on free to air television    The public will then be able to make it's own judgement on whether this is a genuine attempt to demystify gay parenting - or a sinister attempt to break down standards by the use of gay propaganda ?

Once again we are confronted with the vexing question of parental control on what degree of sexual knowledge can flow to their children through the education system.  There are still a percentage of mothers who find it difficult to prepare their daughters for the onset of menstruation.  Some even oppose personal hygiene instruction in schools which takes care of this problem and religious dogma often conflicts with what is taught in the science curriculum.

Sadly, children who are shielded from the real world are often way out of step with the world their parents inhabit.  The  " Gays " came out of the closet a long time ago and in most schools there are kids who openly talk about their life with same sex parents.   What seems " normal " in the school yard morphs into " forbidden " when they return home.  It must be a confusing life, torn between two cultures and playing different roles to avoid conflict.

For both teachers and politicians it is like tippy toeing through a minefield.   There is a percentage of the public which is completely unbending with their views of morality.  On the other extreme, some households are simply sleeping and feeding stations - and no rules or constraints apply to either adults or children.

It seems that Gaby Baby is just one small step on the learning road to allow children to evaluate life - and make their own decisions.   Eventually, they will be the ones to make these same decisions when it concerns their own children !

A Moral Question !

That magic word " Progress " means different things to different people.  Work on the human genome is making it possible to screen out diseases that are passed from parents to offspring, but it also opens up a range of troubling possibilities that will raise ethics questions.

The IVF process allows a form of screening for genetic defects but Crispr-Cas9 - which is known as Crispr - works on RNA, a chemical messenger involving human DNA.  In short, it allows unprecedented simplicity, speed and precision in snipping out unwanted genes and pasting in new ones in their place.

To some, this must seem like the " Holy Grail " - the ability to ensure that our children are free of diseases such as cystic fibrosis and later stage dementia, but it also introduces the ability to edit human DNA to create a " made to order baby ".  In families of short stature it would be possible to tweak the DNA to produce tall, strapping offspring or edit in desirable characteristics of eye and hair colour.

This opens up new territory.  Medical science now has a way of putting cancer hunting genes into a patient's gene system and virtually building a disease proof person, but we also should respect Newton's law.   To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction !   When we start sorting out DNA to achieve some results we are likely to trigger " unintended consequences " - of a potentially disastrous nature !

There is also the aspect of how Crispr will be used in the veterinary and horticultural field.  The whole of life consists of DNA and now we are the masters capable of altering it to our needs and specifications a host of chilling possibilities emerge.  It seems certain to be used to enhance the profitability of farmed animals and by snipping off DNA and replacing with paste-ons it could result in the creation of an entirely new animal.

Perhaps we are on the cusp of breeding mosquito's that lack the ability of passing on Malaria !  But scientists and geneticists in the defence and armament industries could also see DNA modification as a means of waging war by adding a new component to a nation's natural insect species.

Just imagine if the bees in a target country had aggression added to their DNA, coupled with the ability to spread a deadly disease such an Anthrax.   The world of science fiction comes ever closer, and unfortunately what is possible usually eventually becomes reality.   We are opening a Pandora's Box with this Crispr breakthrough !

No doubt professional associations will put limits on how this may be used, but that relies on a form of ethics that are impossible to fully control.  There are always scientists who refuse to accept limitations, and some countries are lax in what they will allow if they think breaking the rules will deliver them a competitive edge.

It looks like humanity is fast resembling the way we construct documents on our computers using the cut and paste system to arrange the work to our satisfaction.   What troubles many is the absolute certainty that a decade from  now our sphere of knowledge will have expanded exponentially - and Crispr will probably be considered " quaint " !

Thoughtful folk look to the future with a mixture of hope - and dread !

Vindication !

It is said that the wheels of justice grind slowly.  Many Australians have followed the convolutions of what became known as the " Roseanne Catt " case as it progressed through the court system.

In 1989 Roseanne Catt was arrested and charged with the attempted murder of her husband, Barry, by soliciting others to carry out the deed and by administering Lithium poisoning.  In 1991 she was found guilty after a lurid trial and sentenced to a twelve year stint in prison.  She protested her innocence.

Roseanne Catt served a full ten years behind bars and in 2004 her defence team uncovered evidence that suggested that a gun found in her possession had been planted by the investigating detective, who happened to be a close friend of her husband.   As a result she was released and the conviction quashed. The DPP elected not to subject her to a retrial.

What followed was a travesty of justice.  Seeking compensation for those ten years behind bars she encountered incredible resistance from the law.   It was first suggested that she served that time because she refused to publicly accept guilt, which is a requirement for parole.  Had she done what most other offenders do - lie and accept guilt - she would have been granted parole many years earlier.  It was an attempt to shift the blame for years behind bars back onto her own shoulders.

Then the Supreme court issued it's infamous 2011 finding that this woman would be required to " prove her innocence " for compensation to be considered.  Juggling the fine points of the law, it was obvious that the legal system was doing everything possible to hide it's complicity in a badly bungled conviction.

This week the Supreme court overturned it's previous finding and awarded the former Roseanne Catt - now Roseanne Beckitt - $ 2.3 million in compensation, and ordered that it pay her legal expenses, which will be somewhere in the vicinity of $6 million.

If nothing else, this famous case is shining the spotlight on a peculiarity of the legal system that actually demands that a prisoner commit a crime if they hope for an earlier release from prison.
It seems that parole is always consistent on the prisoner admitting guilt and remorse for the crime for which they have been sentenced - and put that in writing in the form of a statuary declaration.

That ignores the fact that making a false claim by way of a statuary declaration is in itself a crime punishable by a term in prison.  This woman has always claimed her innocence and yet she had further punishment  inflicted on her because she refused to criminally sign an untrue sworn declaration of guilt.

It is hardly a vindication for the courts to claim that this is just standard procedure and all prisoners cheerfully sign on the dotted line to gain early release.  Given the malice shown by the courts, it is possible that they might have actually proceeded against her had she signed that document and had it been taken into consideration in this final judgement.

Many will wonder if others remain in prison because their claim of innocence forbids them to make this false declaration of guilt.

Shonky Car Parts !

Decades ago the aviation industry was shocked to discover a network of bogus aircraft spare parts being sold with what appeared to be the correct authentication for installation in the world's passenger jets.   Dodgy parts were even discovered in Air Force One, the President's official aircraft.

It was a chilling discovery.  Mundane items such as nuts and bolts that secure the jet engines slung on pods under the wings are manufactured to precision tolerances and must be the correct balance of steel alloys to have the strength to do the job.  Because of this, each could cost several hundred dollars.  The correct parts come with a seal of authenticity signed by the factory, which must be attached to the plane's servicing record.

Airline safety authorities were horrified to discover a blackmarket industry churning out mild steel versions of such items and introducing them into the spare parts chain with carefully crafted imitations of the proof of manufacture attached.  This led to a crackdown in which the authentication requirements were tightened - and a lot of miscreants served prison terms.

Now we are learning that this same trade is churning out dodgy parts for the car trade.  Toyota has warned owners of it's vehicles to beware of a replacement being sold as a repair for an air bag fault that can injure drivers if the bag is deployed.  It seems that this assembly comes in packaging which contains the Toyota logo and appears to be a genuine Toyota spare part, but it is in fact useless and would not allow the air bag to deploy in an accident.

It is evident that this may be just the tip of the iceberg !   It must be tempting for factories in low cost countries looking for market opportunities to consider producing copies of western goods at a much lower competitive price, or trying to gain a foothold at a higher price by claiming their version is a genuine factory spare part.

In many cases, the buyer simply wastes his or her money because the part quickly fails, but there are many areas of the vehicle that a correctly manufactured item delivers a life or death outcome.  Anything to do with the braking system can be critical and even a badly manufactured exhaust and muffler replacement can allow carbon monoxide to leak into the passenger compartment - and kill it's contents !

Imitation items that do not show a manufacturer's logo are a clear case of " buyer beware " !  A car repairer who fits them to a vehicle and charges the price for a genuine part is a crook who should be prosecuted, but we need the connivance of both Customs and DFAT to crack down at the point of entry to refuse admission of goods falsely branded as genuine factory spare parts.

Right now Customs seizes contraband such as Rolex watches that travellers may be wearing but which are imitations bought abroad, and luxury brands of clothing are carefully scrutinized to separate  the knockoffs from the genuine article, but it is impossible to fully check every freight container passing through our ports.

It seems that the best tactic would be liaison between the car industry, Customs and DFAT to defeat dangerous counterfeiting.  Both the car industry and it's attendant repair industry quickly become aware that dodgy parts are doing the rounds, and these can quickly be traced back to the individual overseas manufacturer.

That should automatically put that entity on a " black list "" that ensures all further consignments face the expense and delay of a full customs check - and where counterfeit is detected - the goods are seized, taken to a landfill and destroyed.

Being " black listed " would quickly become something to be feared.   It would mean that goods of all nature would in future face rigorous checking - and with that the delay that importers dread because sales are often geared to seasonal peaks or buying fads.   It would quickly become a powerful incentive to avoid any branding that could be construed as suggesting that the item is approved by the product brand owner.

Selective methods of import control are probably the best way to stamp out  deceptive goods that pose a public threat !

Insider Trading !

It is very clear what will happen when someone working for a company making expansionist moves gives that information to a third person - who buys shares on the stock exchange and makes a packet when the news breaks and those shares rocket upwards in price.   That's called "Insider Trading " and it comes with a significant prison term.

The present boom in house prices has shone the spotlight on the incestuous relationship between property developers and their place on the decision making panels that set the rules that apply in local government areas.    It seems that the very people who will benefit from rule changes are the people elected to sit as councillors - and make those decisions.

A small change in the rules that apply to new buildings can deliver literally millions of dollars extra profit if it increases allowed building heights or makes a change to floor space ratios, or changes the LEP plan.   This "Local Environment Plan " is the safeguard home owners have that a huge factory will not materialise next door, or lot sizes will not be downgraded to create a virtual favella.

As things stand, a developer sitting on a council is only required to make it known that his or her interest in a development exists when matters relating to it come up for discussion - and decision. The normal safeguards that apply in the stock market are missing when it comes to local government administration.

There are moves to force the amalgamation of the 152 councils that administer New South Wales and the preferred option is for these to become just fourteen super councils.   These amalgamations would introduce economy of scale and seriously reduce the number of actual councillors - and that raises the question of whether people with business interests that are subject to council votes should be distanced from standing for office.

It will also raise the subject of renumeration for holding office.  At present the top earning council bureaucrat takes home $ 475,000 annually - and that is $ 116,000 more than the state Premier. If that fourteen council plan succeeds each instrumentality will be similar in size to our biggest corporations and would need to attract people of talent accordingly.   To do that, we would need to provide a pay scale commensurate to the skills level of the international market.

Over a century ago, holding office as a Mayor or councillor was deemed to be a "civic duty " and attracted no salary.  Often the elected person was a local business owner, usually able to afford the time attending to council affairs and was often rewarded with a civic honour after a long term of service.  Today, running a council requires a level of professional skill that competes with the business world to attract the highly qualified - and the financial reward needs to match that level of attraction.

Unfortunately, most of the public still see local government as an extension of politics.  Many contenders run for office as the proxy of a political party and often the political content of council changes along with the political cycle of government.   It is unlikely that bigger local government will break this nexus.

The opportunity exists with change in the air to install the protocols that apply to the world of business.  That "Insider Trading " provision should automatically exclude from discussion or the vote to any person who has a financial matter before council.   In particular, developers should be barred from holding office under the "conflict of interest " provisions that apply to local government.

A " Third World " Response !

Friday was a very ordinary day in Sydney.   The city did not suffer an earthquake and no major catastrophe occurred to disrupt essential services, and yet an eighty-three year old woman lay in pain on a footpath and waited three hours for an ambulance to arrive.

It was a simple fall caused by the unsteadiness of age and it resulted in a broken arm.  Already suffering from a serious kidney illness this woman was slipping in and out of consciousness and many people who witnessed this accident called 000 and asked for an ambulance - urgently.

The public did all it could to alleviate her distress.   Umbrellas were produced to shield her from the  sun, people brought water for her to sip and when she started to shiver with shock blankets were produced to keep her warm - and repeated calls were made to try and determine why there was no ambulance response as each hour slipped by.

It was evident that there simply were no ambulance vehicles available to respond to this call - and it would have been the same if calls were for a person having chest pains or suffering a stroke - or if a car crash involved life or death intervention to save lives.   For some unknown reason the Ambulance Service of New South Wales was not responding to calls in a reasonable time frame !

We are aware that all is not well within the ambulance service.  There seems to be strife in the upper echelon of management and we hear claims of unreasonable rostering and bullying.  It is evident that problems exist with communications between remote call centres and actual ambulance hubs and sometimes despatches from far flung ambulance stations defy logic when ambulances are unused in stations close to the accident scene.

By far the biggest cause of ambulance delay - is trolley block.  It is not unusual to have a large number of ambulances in a waiting queue outside a hospital emergency department, waiting for hours because overload prevents emergency staff from receiving and treating the patients they are trying to deliver.   In such circumstances, they are required to  stand by and treat those within the ambulances until emergency can cover the situation - and that can take hours.   On a bad day, more that half the city ambulance fleet may be caught in this situation and unable to respond to calls.

There is an obvious answer to this problem.   We either need to expand emergency rooms to deliver a quicker ambulance turnaround - or we need to roster retired ambulance crews or off duty ambulance people to fill the gap and treat this overload outside emergency rooms - freeing the ambulance fleet to respond to emergencies.

Kitting out an ambulance is a very costly procedure.   It is really a mobile hospital and the paramedics are trained to keep people alive until they get to a fully equipped emergency room. In the vast number of serious cases the time factor is vitally important.   Lives are saved if the correct treatment can be given in time - and that is precisely what paramedics are trained to deliver, but to do that they need to get to the patient without delay.

On Friday, Sydney was subjected to a third world medical response - and that is simply not good enough !   No doubt the ambulance service will cite "unusual circumstances " but what is required is a point by point breakdown of what happened - and how it can be prevented from happening again.

The ball is back in the court of the Health Ministry.  If the ambulance service needs change to sort out the problems - then so be it !   If the Health Minister is not up to the job - get another !

Consenting Adults !

Just three letters are said to be the motive force that drives the world - and those letters are S - followed by E - followed by X !   At the same time the Sex industry that underpins the world of advertising is something we claim to be disgusting - and the source of most of this world's troubles.

Of course, selling sex is said to be the world's oldest profession.  It even gets a mention in the bible and over the centuries strenuous efforts were made to stamp it out - to no avail.  In this more enlightened age it is still a crime in some societies and we have the peculiar notion in some countries that those offering sex are within the law, but those accepting that offer are the villains and who will be heavily prosecuted and fined if caught !

It was probably inevitable that inventive minds would couple the Internet with the task of connecting those seeking sex with a partner willing to supply their needs.  There was nothing unusual about that.  The  " Personal " column of most daily newspapers contains paid advertising from those both giving and receiving the favours sought in sexual dalliance.

What was unusual about a company named "Ashley Madison "" was that it specifically sought this interchange between those who were married or otherwise cohabitating with a partner.   It invited those bored with their sex life to consider "having an affair  " !

This broke absolutely new ground.  It promised sexual satisfaction without the compromise usually inherent in a steamy affair.  It would connect two people who both required sex to be discreet  and there would be no commitment after the event.  This company claims to have seventeen million  "clients "" worldwide, one million of them in Australia.

"Discretion "" was the watchword and access was by way of what is termed the "Dark Web " which requires a special browser.  For a while this tantalising  concept kept law and order at bay when a company named "Silk Road "  used it to distribute drugs openly through the mail by using untraceable "Bit " coins to pay for trade.

The Internet was conceived by intelligent minds, but it also spawned equally intelligent hackers who break through security screens and access information at both government and social levels.  It seems that hackers named "Impact Team " penetrated the Ashley Madison website and downloaded client files - which it is now publishing to the embarrassment of all concerned.

Many users were discreet and used a false name, but addresses and telephone numbers needed to be factual and to ensure a satisfactory match users were encouraged to reveal their sexual fantasies in clear detail.  All of this is now in the hands of the hackers.

It has caused a sensation and suspicious partners are trolling through the information freely available trying to identify the partner in their life who they suspect may be "cheating "' on them.

Despite the more open society ushered in by the computer and it's Internet companion, sex remains a preoccupation with many people and the notion that we may be sharing a lover with others - is enraging !    The notion that "Forbidden fruit is sweeter " still applies  - and sex is still writ large in the aspirations of humankind !

A " Graceful " Death !

Geriatric medicine has come under the spotlight with many surgeons appalled that surgery and various procedures are being carried out on patients who are termed "living corpses "!  Often there is pressure from relatives and loved ones to do impractical things as "a last roll of the dice "  in the hope of attaining a last few months - and sometimes just weeks - of living.

Not only is this imposing financial strain on the hospital system it ignores the fact that we humans each have a natural life term and when this is artificially extended it comes at the expense of what we term our "quality of life " !

In particular, many question the worth of transplant surgery for those of advanced years.  We are desperately short of donor organs and the idea of putting a donated kidney into the body of a geriatric patient when others with a full life ahead of them may simply die on the waiting list seems a complete waste of resources.

The continuation of dialysis when an organ has failed means that the patient is being kept artificially alive.  That has practical value if there is the prospect of an organ replacement restoring full mobility to a younger person, but it limits the availability of scarce equipment to others.

Death is an emotive subject that we all must eventually face, whether it relates to loved ones or our own time on planet Earth.   Many people fear death and as a consequence they cling to life and make impossible requests to both doctors and loved ones.   That raises questions that the churches and the medical profession find hard to answer - and often the person concerned is a patient waiting death in a public hospital.

In recent times this matter of death with dignity has been grasped in the public arena.   Many hospitals have established a hospice as an adjunct to their function of saving lives.  These free up desperately needed hospital beds by moving the patient to a facility where every effort will be made to keep them free of pain and where visiting hours are unlimited.   For those on the cusp of death an effort is made to provide both people and surroundings that provide comfort as they slip away from living.

The Hippocratic oath required of all medical people contains a promise to "do no harm "!  Some people contend that artificially extending life by procedures that merely extend the suffering is a breach of that oath while others condone keeping suffering people alive until the last possible moment as the ultimate requirement of a medico.  For many, religion has a bearing on the point of view concerning death.

The law treats this with timidity.  It is an offence to assist a person to die but many doctors withhold treatment to allow suffering to cease and death to reach it's natural conclusion, and this is rarely questioned.   Often, it is done with the concurrence of loved ones.  A compassionate doctor will balance pain relief in the sure knowledge that the doses required will inevitably shorten remaining life but that this tradeoff will enhance that life quality.

This raises the question of whether the aged should be allowed to determine their own demise  at a time of their choosing.   That is already happening and in some countries it has passed the legal boundaries.   It is something the living would do well to give prior consideration - and make their views known to loved ones !

Buying " Off the Plan " !

The Sydney property market is so hot that many people have returned to "buying off the plan " as a means of securing a unit at a fixed price in precisely the suburb and location in which they choose to live.  As one investor discovered - what you get may not be what you signed up for !

This development offered units in an eighty unit building and the one he purchased for $ 600,000 would have "stunning views " and the building itself was described as a " striking architectural concept ".  His corner apartment promised a wrap around patio on two sides.

Somehow between planning and construction the concept "changed " and those eighty units morphed into a much higher one hundred and fifty three unit tower, and his chosen unit shrunk in size.  Instead of being 148 square metres, it condensed to just 92 square metres and the patio was reduced to a single wall facing.

There was no offer of a price reduction, but he was advised that he could withdraw from the sale, but to do so would be at the expense of the upward movement in Sydney property prices that had occurred since he signed the document and locked in his investment.  What he found galling was the "take it or leave it " attitude of the developer who stood to make an extra $35 million from the expanded size of the project.

"Off the plan " follows a very predictable pattern.  A developer obtains a desireable building site and hires an architect to drawup a building plan and submit it to council.  Upon approval, a sales office presents an artists concept of what the building will look like and what views will be obtained from units.  There are usually glamorous depictions of furnished units to entice buyers and sales pressure is immense.  Prospective buyers are assured that all units will sell quickly and the prices offering "can not last "!

This customer faces a dilemma.   His dream apartment has shrunk in size by thirty-six percent and it now probably does not meet the expectations he had when he bought it, but it is still cheap at a price of $ 600,000.   If he walks away from the sale it will probably fetch a higher price for the developer, and he will have to pay more to replace it on the ever expanding Sydney price market.

In many cases, Off the plan precisely follows what is being offered and there are no unpleasant surprises for the buyers, but extraneous factors can come into play.  Usually council restrictions have a lot to do with the size and style of the development being planned, but extensions to the rail network and the implementation of light rail is bringing zoning changes.

It is government policy to increase housing ratios around transport hubs and zoning changes affect council by-laws, usually permitting greater building heights with a consequent increase in housing density.   This particular building is in Lidcombe - and it is likely that both road and rail projects recently approved have been influential in the buildings expansion.

Another option this buyer may consider is to retain the unit with the expectation that selling it later will result in an increased profit.   Unfortunately it is now not the dream property he envisaged and the ever increasing Sydney prices will probably take that further out of reach.

Such is the risk inherent in buying an intangible that awaits construction.   Those who buy an existing bricks and mortar residence know exactly what they are getting.   " Off the plan  "  comes with a risk factor !

The Money Trail !

It seems strange that those who are the subject of an arrest warrant because they have skipped bail or failed to appear in court to face charges still receive welfare payments - including the dole.  It seems that in Australia we continue to finance the lifestyle of those "on the run " !

Across the Tasman the Kiwi's brought in a new law that automatically stopped welfare payments when an arrest warrant applies to a welfare recipient - and of the fifteen thousand such warrants in force when the law applied, more than half were receiving welfare.  A similar law change is being considered here.

It seems likely that this proposal will get a very mixed reception from charities and all those agencies which deal with the lower strata of humanity.  It will probably cut off the money supply to those who are sole breadwinners and have the unintended affect of depriving a spouse and children of food and the necessities of life.   There is also a chance that it will increase the crime rate as desperate people turn to crime to replace lost finance.

There is certainly an incentive to make court appearances more enforceable.  At present a non appearance means the issue of an arrest warrant and that may rest in limbo until the person becomes noticed by the police.  In many cases this can extend from weeks to months - and sometimes - to years.  Often the warrant is only applied when the offender has the bad fortune to be stopped for a random breath test - and a license check.    It is only when a serious issue is involved that the police actually search for the person subjected to an arrest warrant.

Australia's welfare bill of $150 billion annually is expected to blow out to $ 190 billion by the end of the forward estimates and there is constant pressure to implement any measure to reign it in.  This move on welfare would be welcomed in Treasury but the actual implementation could cause some unexpected problems.   We would be wise to first have a long and hard look at the whole application of arrest warrants.

For instance, failing to buy a valid ticket is rife on the rail network and enforcement has been stepped up.  Offenders often give a false name and address - and sometimes authenticate this with a credit card or other document that they have obtained from a rubbish bin.   In due course this unpaid fine would lead to a failed court appearance - and an arrest warrant.   If all forms of welfare are subjected to such cancellation, innocent people may find themselves deprived of their pension or the various levels of entitlement that exist under the broad cover of welfare.

There is a danger that linking arrest warrants to welfare may become a bludgeon that falls on innocent victims.  Magistrates would do well to carefully consider rather than automatically proceeding to issue and both the implementation - and the lifting of that welfare stoppage - would need to be carried out seamlessly - and quickly.

That is a big ask !   The Centrelink juggernaut moves ponderously and slowly and communications between the police, the courts and the bureaucracy generally leaves a lot to be desired.  Rather than a general rule to implement a welfare stop this would be better ordered as a separate measure when a magistrate raises an arrest warrant.

It is a powerful weapon to bring compliance with the law, but better used on a selective basis rather than on a "one size fits all " concept !

A " Shotgun " Wedding !

The 152 local councils that exist in New South Wales are a hangover from a distant era when each village was responsible for keeping it's roads in order, finding somewhere for citizens to dump their rubbish - and organizing  the collection of "nightsoil " in that era before sewerage.

The vast majority of councils are hovering on the verge of bankruptcy.  Their rate income is pegged to the inflation level and works backlogs are reaching unsustainable proportions.  The logic of amalgamations are beyond question, but the men and women who wield power and prestige as mayors and councillors will fight tooth and nail to prevent that happening.

Gaining a seat on council has long been the path of social elevation, and it has also served as a way to higher office.  Serving on council puts a name and face before the public and that often leads to a successful bid for office in the state or Federal government.

Successive state governments have urged councils to at least investigate the savings to be made by sharing machinery and spreading the administration load, but to no effect.  This rejection of amalgamation seems to be fairly evenly spread amongst ratepayers. Many fear that enlarging council areas will install an uncaring bureaucracy - and opt for the status quo  !

In a brave move, the New South Wales state government is proposing to crack the whip and force amalgamation - by decree !   A plan is being considered to arbitrarily sack all councils and appoint administrators to carry the load until the next scheduled local government elections to be held in 2016.  Ratepayers will then be called on to vote for the bigger council covering their area, and their former mayor and councilors will be encouraged to stand for office.

That is a risky political move.  It would be nice if both sides of politics could agree and back the plan - but that is unlikely.   If council amalgamations split along the political divide we are sure to be inundated with hysterical claims that will stampede the public, and yet if nothing is done it is inevitable that the misery that will follow a council financial collapse somewhere in this state will bring home what is involved to ordinary ratepayers.

The plan being considered would reduce 152 existing councils - to just fourteen. Sheer economy of scale comes into the picture.  A significant portion of the rates burden collected by small councils is absorbed in that category called " administration " and then there are the "big ego " projects beloved by so many of those who wear the mayoral chains.

Right now the bean counters are busily counting heads.  A lot will depend on how the political question is settled.  Amalgamation by forcing a "Shotgun wedding " is a fairly brutal way of settling the issue and the government will only take that option if it feels it will be vindicated at the ballot box - and the opposition will face that same uncertainty.    It is possible that a "deal " may be reached - politically !

Of course, the other states will be watching this with more than passing interest.   If our biggest state manages to resolve it's councils  problem it is likely that resolution will be copied elsewhere.   To a degree, this proposal is purely "kite flying ".   From a political point of view it is wise to see what flak such an idea attracts and determine if public minds can be swayed in favour - before committing to a firm course of action.   With that in mind, expect the squawks and squeals of mayors and councillors threatened to be displaced to rise to a crescendo !

The reaction of the media may well decide the issue !

Change the Law !

A driver has not only escaped punishment for driving over the limit with alcohol in his bloodstream, he has sued the police for inflicting a blood alcohol test against his wishes.  It seems that the police noticed him driving erratically just before he turned into his driveway - and when they approached him he was on his home turf.

They insisted he submit to a breath analysis and this returned a reading of 0.121, well over the legal limit, but when the case went to court this driver invoked a clause in the law that prevents police from legally enforcing a breath test on any person who has gained the sanctuary of their own home.  As a result, the magistrate threw out this drink driving charge.

But - It didn't stop there !    This aggrieved motorist sued the police and has been awarded $18,590 damages because they infringed his liberty and acted contrary to the law when they imposed that breath test on him - against his will.

It seems that this is just one of the strange anomalies deeply buried in the law when the states legislated to bring in breath testing to try and contain road deaths attributable to alcohol.  The initial law mandated 0.08 as the legal limit and eventually this was reduced to 0.05 to comply with what was becoming a world standard.

Initially, the civil liberties people were vastly affronted that a law that required a motorist to deliver a breath test served as an invasion of privacy and for a while it could only be demanded after a driver was involved in an accident.   This was when the new 0.05 limit began to deliver results.  Even a minor tailender in the Sydney commuter crawl brought the police to breath test both drivers - and so many were slightly over 0.05 after a big night out.   Many were genuinely surprised to find they were committing a DUI offence.

The civil liberties people really went into high gear when it was proposed to introduce random breath tests.   The very idea of the police stopping traffic and demanding that all drivers submit to a breath test was alien to the Australian culture and the politicians were ducking and weaving to try and mitigate the flak flying in their direction.   Somewhere in the debate in the New South Wales parliament that old "a man's home is his castle " argument was trotted out and as a sop to the enraged this peculiar legal statute became part of the law.

It took a long time for the drink/driving message to sink in and now we have a new menace on our roads - drivers affected by drugs and roadside testing laws are rapidly changing to allow for a dual test to discover the presence of both stimulants.   It is likely that in the future we may face an even more aggressive testing routine to weed out those who are a danger to others when they get behind the wheel of their car.

In today's world, that "home turf " exclusion makes absolutely no sense.   In fact, it becomes an enticement for a driver affected by alcohol to get involved in a police pursuit if they think they can outrun the cops and reach the sanctuary of their own home.   In fact, that simply invokes "Skye's Law " and imposes an automatic penalty far heavier than a DUI fine !

If we have a bad law on the books, the obvious answer is -  change the law !

Fame - by Infamy !

The media loves nothing better than a Tennis Brat kicking up a fuss on court.  All sorts of " experts " crawl out of the woodwork and try to explain the reasons and the player quickly gains a love/hate relationship with the viewing audience.  That plays to the notion that any sort of publicity - is good publicity.

Even people with no interest in tennis will certainly be very familiar with the name - John McEnroe ! Decades ago the audience held it's breath any time he walked onto a court.  He was famous for his tantrums and was well known for dishing out furious tirades at the umpires, heatedly disputing line calls and using play tactics to intimidate opponents.

He was also a very good tennis player and his earnings reached astronomical proportions, and sponsors lined up to throw money at him to back their products.  John McEnroe became a household name on a world wide basis, far in excess of what he might have achieved had he been a mild mannered " gentleman " on the courts.   That was a lesson a lot of people learned - to their advantage !

The sixty-four dollar question is whether Australian tennis player Nick Kyrgios is simply an ill mannered buffoon who is incapable of behaving sensibly on court, or if he is following a carefully managed script to gain fame by using reverse psychology - by way of the path of infamy ?

Rarely does he seem to play a match without incidents.  The slur he directed at Stan Warwrinka was a bit below the belt and didn't go down well with most people, but it certainly gathered media headlines - and perhaps that was the main intent.   Kyrgios is fast gaining a reputation as a cranky player who may entertain the audience with some sort of outburst - and is therefore worth following.   He was soundly booed when he performed in Canada after that Warwrinka incident and as a consequence he hogged the limelight to the exclusion of most other players.

He lost the game, but the media hype far outplayed whoever won that contest.   It seems that infamy brings rewards that are denied to those who play by the rules, and yet there is a fine line between what is acceptable - and when a player brings shame on his country of origin - and brings a cringe mentality to it's citizens.

The world of sport has the capability to discipline for bad behaviour, but they choose not to use it.  That same infamy that makes a contestant noticeable is often the reason fans pay money to buy tickets and put bums on seats to watch to see what will happen this time around.  Many go to games purely  for the expectation that there will be fireworks worth viewing.

Sports people using that tactic need to use the " Goldilocks " measure.  It needs to be " not too rude " and " not too often " to fall into the "  just right " category.   The opportunity for redemption must always be on the horizon, and of course there will inevitably be supporters who condone and explain why this bad behaviour is happening.

Both audiences and the media can be fickle followers.  If this is a carefully crafted scenario for fame it will need to be carefully balanced to hit the " sweet spot  ".    The objective would be to achieve the " good guy " image John McEnroe has held in public minds - many years after he ceased playing tennis !

Safety in Numbers !

It is a fact of life that nobody has ever been taken by a shark when they were swimming between the flags on a beach patrolled by Surf Lifesavers !  The most likely people to suffer a shark attack are those sitting on a surf board waiting for a wave or swimming alone off a beach early in the morning or just before dark - on a cloudy day.

The number of shark attacks in Australian waters has been increasing in recent times and the reason this is happening is not clear.  Sharks follow schools of bait fish closer inshore and certainly surfing is a sport attracting more people and crowded venues results in more diverse surfing spots becoming popular.   There are now more people on surfboards dotted along a greater length of our coastline.

Sharks are a natural predator at the top of the food chain - and seals are high on their diets.  A surfer in a wet suit must have an uncanny resemblance to a seal for a hungry shark looking for breakfast. Perhaps curiosity is another attraction.  Humans way out to sea with their legs dangling below a flotation device would seem similar to the baited method we use when we go fishing !

There are calls for an increase in the use of shark nets off our beaches.  They have been in use for years and some people think they are very effective, but while they do enmesh and kill sharks they also snare dolphins and other harmless sea creatures - and occasionally get tangled with migrating whales.   There is no clear evidence that they save lives.

Surveillance seems our best protection.  Lifesavers watching over swimmers are quick to spot the approach of a shark and clear the water, and air patrols by fixed wing aircraft or helicopters provide cover at popular beaches, but there is no absolute guarantee of safety.  We take a chance whenever we go in the water because we are invading the domain of the big fish and their water skills are far superior to us humans.

Now it is proposed that we deploy "air curtains " to deter sharks.   There is a theory that rising air bubbles make sharks disinclined to swim through such a barrier, but once again the unanswered question is where to locate them to do the most good.   In recent times, the shark problem has not been around highly populated city beaches and most attacks have been at wide locations favoured by surfers and a few local swimmers.   It would not be possible to protect the entire coastline.

The defence industry has done research on shark repellents to protect shipwrecked sailors and downed air crews and some of these are more effective than others, but it is hard to imagine surfers and swimmers strapping on some sort of chemical release pack whenever they go into the water.  That would probably get the same sort of treatment that portable location distress devices have with hikers.  Even when they are available free of charge, people head off into the bush and spark high cost searches because they disregard their own personal safety.

It seems that shark risk is concentrated on the surfing fraternity.  To catch a wave they need to go where the danger from sharks is the greatest and so it becomes a personal decision. It is noticeable that those who survive a shark attack are usually quick to return to the water, hence this is a risk they willingly take - and no guaranteed form of protection is presently available.

When all is said and done, the odds of dieing in a shark attack are remote and probably equate with getting struck by lightning.    The chances contract to near zero for those prepared to swim between the flags at a beach patrolled by lifesavers, and for others the risk can be countered by a few simple precautions.  Never swim near the entrance to a river or creek and avoid the water early in the morning or in the evening - or when there is cloud cover - and more importantly - do not swim alone.
Protection is available along a wide swathe of the Australian coastline with fenced off areas to protect from sharks and there are many rock pools.

And there is that other option - of investing in a home swimming pool !

Lax Safety Laws !

Samsung would certainly rank amongst the biggest one hundred manufacturing companies in the world and there is an expectation that when one of it's products develops a fault that can cause property damage - and even loss of life - the full resources of that company would swing into action to remedy the fault and preserve the company name and image.

Six washing machine models made by the company are capable of catching fire if water enters an internal control panel - and 140,000 of these machines have been sold in Australia.  Samsung issued a recall in 2013 and yet at least half of these washing machines have not been repaired, and so far the fault has resulted in over a hundred house fires.  Fortunately, no loss of life - so far.

This is certainly throwing the spotlight on the laws we have in place to provide consumer protection. There is no doubt that owners of these washing machines can call on Samsung to correct the fault by exercising what are termed "the three R's "  -  Refund - Repair or Replacement, with that option being the choice of the consumer.

The sticking point seems to be the area of responsibility. This recall has been widely advertised, but at least half the owners have totally ignored the warning and it seems that the machines are still being used - despite the risk.    There could be a hundred and twenty thousand time bombs ticking away in  suburban laundries and this may continue indefinitely unless consumer laws are strengthened.

Just to add to this problem, there is mounting concern at the repair method that seems to be approved to rectify the fault.   Instead of replacing the faulty control panel it is being encased in a plastic bag that is taped in place.   There is doubt in some minds that this meets the longevity requirement because washing machines may have a service life measured in decades.

Fault recalls are a common recurrence.  They are usually advertised in newspapers and the onus is on the customer to take the necessary action.  Food and small items need a return to the point of sale and bigger items - such as these washing machines - require notification for a tradesman to call and make the repair or for the "three R's " to apply at the point of sale.   The situation then loses clarity if the end customer fails to respond to the recall.

The whereabouts of these washing machines is easily traceable.  Most would have been invoiced to trading firms like discount warehouses and electrical stores and their invoices would pinpoint end customers.   At the very least, there is an expectation that the owner of every machine would receive personal mail from Samsung advising of the fault and urging rectification.

Obviously, rectification involves a huge cost but that is part of the risk factor that applies to all forms of manufacturing.   The car industry has faced recalls that have run into the millions of units involved and is still sorting out an air bag problem that ranges over the models of various manufacturers.

The fact that this washing machine recall is now two years old and has only garnered about half the faulty units in people's homes is a matter of concern.  No doubt recent publicity will spur more owners to seek rectification, but it seems inevitable that a vast number will just drop off the radar and never be repaired.   There is the expectation that house fires may be a consequence for many future years.

The ball is firmly back in the court of the Consumer Affairs people.  Perhaps recalls need a grading that determines risk to people's lives - and that at the highest risk ratio the manufacturer is required to actively seek out the product and carry out a repair.   It seems that our present consumer protection laws are in urgent need of an upgrade !

Enforcing the Law !

We ordinary citizens often disagree with laws that are passed by parliament and put into effect, but we ignore them at our peril    This week a judge in the district court at Broken Hill chose to ignore a protocol that was legally put in place by the New South Wales parliament and agreed by the Chief Magistrate and senior judges.

Police are now required to wear their holstered firearms when they are attending court and this protocol was put in place because of perceived risks from terrorists and outlaw motorcycle gangs when court cases draw their interest.  Some judges and magistrates opposed this change of custom and while they have wide discretion in many matters within their courtroom - they are expected to obey the law.

In this instance the judge refused entry to an armed officer and insisted that evidence given be by a video visual link from another room in the courthouse.  This drew a comment from the President of the Police Association that "It beggars belief that a judge is not abiding by protocol that ... is there for ( her ) safety ".

This opens an interesting subject of discipline when a judge refuses to accept the protocols that apply to the courts.  It would be expected that this would come within the power of the Chief Magistrate to intervene - and if necessary stand down a judge who refuses to mend his or her ways - and obey the rules that apply.   There are laws in place to remove the judiciary from office but they are complex and require a joint sitting of state parliament and an overwhelming majority vote in favour.

At this same time the DPP is being criticised for "dragging it's feet " and impeding the inquest into the Lindt Cafe siege.  The Silk leading claims that the DPP are being "uncooperative " and have not provided a single brief on time ", and that they are opposing providing evidence on the bail status of Man Monis on "privilege " grounds.

This siege resulted in the death of two innocent people and the shooting of the gunman.  It is essential that all the facts are known so that we are better equipped to deal with future  terrorism when it washes up on our shores.  It is deplorable that the DPP should hide behind privilege and refuse to shed light on how a man with a lot of criminal history was able to get bail when he was already facing court on very serious charges.

Law and order seems to be in disrepute on a wide scale.  ICAC is still smarting over it's reverses in the Margaret Cunneen debacle.    It has been disciplined by no less a body than the High Court and yet it seems to be persisting with the inference that it's actions were valid.  There are no indications of an attitudinal change.

Within the very body tasked with implementing the law there is disquiet that the police bugging saga seems no nearer to settlement - and this is now heading towards two decades of investigation and enquiry.

The perception held by the average New South Wales citizen is that those who administer and sit in judgement on matters of law have far too much freedom to apply the rules according to their own definition of justice.   The law is that enacted by the parliament and overseen at it's peak by the High Court, and yet personal fiefdoms and power factions come into play which distort outcomes and introduce personal prejudice.

Few would now believe that justice will always prevail !

Smokescreen !

It seems that the New South Wales police force is turning itself in knots doing everything possible to avoid solving a crime.   There was rivalry in the deputy commissioner echelon of the police as several contenders jostled to get the top job when Commissioner Andrew Scipione retired.

Somehow false affidavits were put before a judge - who signed off on them - and as a result bugs were placed on the phones and in the offices of over a hundred senior policemen.  Clearly - this was a crime and it resulted in deputy commissioner Nick Kaldos being accused of malpractice and various enquiries have gone absolutely nowhere in well over a decade.  In fact a long running enquiry by the Ombudsman is incomplete - and the Ombudsman is leaving office with no intention of handing down a finding.

Now we are told that the police are bringing in a retired Admiral to conduct full day seminars to "improve communication and leadership skills ", a thinly veiled plot to try and get Nick Kaldos and Catherine Burns to even speak to each other.   Once more the facts are being hidden behind a smokescreen and there seems no intention of ever doing exactly what the police force is supposed to do when a crime is committed - investigate and solve it !

While this imbroglio is hanging in the air the replacement of a retiring Commissioner has been put on hold and he has been asked to stay in the job indefinitely.  Relationships between the top brass at police headquarters remain unworkable and this must surely leach down to the rank and file police doing a difficult policing job on the streets and roads of this state.

It is also obvious that politicians on both sides of the political divide are walking on egg shells and have no wish to horn in on what could lead to a split in the police force resulting in divided factions - and the chaos that could cause.

We are now talking about something that happened about fourteen years ago and which still haunts the corridors of police headquarters.   It seems to be the intention to simply hold endless ongoing enquiries that reach no solution and hope that eventually everyone will tire of it - and it will be safely tucked away in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet marked for " Unsolved cases  " !

Even a basic police rookie fresh out of the Police Academy would be capable of bringing this to closure.   Someone of very senior status devised a plan to incriminate rivals and broke the law in putting it into action.   The judge who signed off on false affidavits knows who that was and a whole variety of technicians were needed to install bugs and carry out surveillance.   These actions could not happen without clear orders being given - and bloodhounds are not needed to follow the trail.

The police in New South Wales are fast becoming a laughing stock.   It is time to bite the bullet and stop pretending this is an insolvable crime - or even that it is just some sort of regrettable misunderstanding and that no crime at all is involved.

It is time that the culprit is unmasked and dealt with - and the innocent party validated.  Anything less is a mockery of justice !

Parking " Hogs " !

Car owners in Australia are right in the sights of the tax collectors.  Before registration they need to buy that ever more expensive Green Slip insurance policy to cover the damage their vehicle may do to other people and when they drive they encounter toll roads and tunnels.   The fuel for their car is heavily taxed and under the guise of safety various entrapment devices take a steady toll on their wallets.

Sydney is Australia's biggest city and it seems to have a love/hate relationship with the car.  Each year the morning and afternoon peak becomes just a little slower and apartment living increases as more people try and cram into the city.   Finding a parking space is tightly policed - and parking fees are becoming another headache for car owners.

Our famous Australian lifestyle is something that we treasure - and the car plays a big part in our adventures.  Caravans have become mobile luxury homes and an ever increasing number of people are taking to the water with trailer borne watercraft - and that is creating a new problem.  Where to park these " joy toys " when they are not in use ?

We now have a compounding problem in suburbia.  Not only are the number of cars per family increasing as the ratio of land sizes decrease and more families live in apartment blocks with limited under building parking, some of these cars need to remain kerbside overnight.  In recent times, lack of onsite parking space has seen caravans, boats on trailers and that old favourite from yesteryear - the family trailer used to take rubbish to the tip - permanently kerb parked.

This is not a problem in areas covered by metered parking or where timed parking is policed by council rangers, but it is fast developing as a point of friction in the outer suburbs where what is called "free parking " is the rule.  In many instances, owners choose to park boats and caravans without thought for neighbours and these block both views and parking space for neighbours own cars - and cause a lot of animosity to develop.

The law is less than helpful.  The present legislation allows for cars, caravans, boats and any sort of trailer to be impounded if it is umoved for ninety days, but of course all the owner has to do is move it as little as one metre to stay within the law.   Proving that an offence has been committed would be a near impossible task for council rangers - and so this law is unpoliced.

There are calls for a law amendment to decrease the time factor to seven days, but that ignores the question of what owners can do to comply with the law.   Most marinas have facilities for storing trailer borne boats, but at great expense and off street parking for caravans would become an entirely new industry.   There is also a big difference between parking something that may be used at very infrequent intervals, and the parking of cars which come and go on a daily basis.

In some parts of the world, registering a vehicle requires the owner to first provide evidence that he or she has secured legal off street parking.  Perhaps such a requirement could be required for the renewal of registration for boats and trailers, but that would certainly come at the risk of decimating both the caravan and boating industries.

We certainly face a growing problem.  Our streets are communal land and if we allow residents to "  hog  " available kerb space for their own use we set a precedent that leads to anarchy.  It seems certain that living space will continue to condense as the "vertical village " replaces individual homes.
The only certainty is that a law change will encourage entrepreneurs to provide the facilities to take care of such little used play equipment until it is needed - at a cost !

Rape !

Rape is an abhorrent crime that women fear.  It occurs in all strata's of society and " date rape " by drink spiking or the use of debilitating drugs is prevalent on the entertainment scene.  Many cases go unreported because of the tactics of defence counsels  in dragging the reputations of victims through the mud in court and usually the offender claims that sex was consensual.  Proving the truth often comes down to simply a clash of verbal evidence.

The courts have cleaned up their act in recent times.  The rules of evidence have been tightened and many victims do not need to physically enter the witness box and may appear via video teleconferencing - and the judiciary are handing down severe sentences to match the gravity of the crime.

Rapists serve their sentence and are then  rehabilitated into society.   They form new relationships with women and in many cases marry and gain a partner. In some cases they blame their offence on the affects of alcohol or drugs, but those that reoffend claim the urge to rape is a medical illness - and some are beyond redemption.  We will never see the end of rape as a crime.

Unfortunately, it gained a new status when it occurs in the Australian Defence Force ( ADF ) following a sordid affair where a group of young men were video taping their consensual encounters with women and distributing this widely - and there were claims that in many cases seniority was used to pressure women to accept unwanted sex in order to proceed to pass levels in their training regimen.   There were dark tales of unreported rape as an aspect of ADF life !

The ADF has certainly come down hard in enforcing protection of women in the three services but it seems there are 181 unresolved cases in which rape is claimed - and some of the alleged offenders have now progressed to senior levels.  In one case, that person now holds the equivalent rank of Colonel and the incident happened over twenty years ago.

There are also 22 cases pending court action and this raises the question of whether dismissal from the service should be an automatic part of the penalty.  An enormous amount of money has been spent training service personnel to the standard required to protect this country.  In civil cases the offender usually returns to work after serving a prison sentence and some argue that similar conditions should apply to the military.

The ADF is training those who will go on to become officers responsible for commanding others in a defence role - and that old requirement that as such they have the status of "an officer and a gentleman " certainly applied when military service was exclusively a male prerogative.  We hold military officers to a higher standard than the rank and file of society and some find it distasteful that an accused rapist should even be considered to hold officer ranking.

This conundrum is now snared both in politics and the conflicting demands of the feminist movement.  There is no doubt that accusations should proceed to court where sufficient evidence exists to reach a possible  conviction, but there is little to be gained by raking over ancient innuendo which lacks any substance to put before a court.

What is needed is a decision to clear the decks and settle the matter.  In particular, the ADF needs to be squeaky clean because the very structure of ranking puts those of lower rank at a disadvantage that does not exist in civilian occupations.   It would be reasonable for any person using their ranking superiority to coerce for sex to automatically face instant dismissal, irrespective of the rank held.

Sex is clearly a negotiation between the people concerned and both should always be on an equal footing.   That is difficult in a structured organization such as the ADF but if the rules are clear - and are rigidly enforced - both sexes can coexist in relative harmony.

It's a Mad World !

It seems we take our life in our hands every time we drive on New South Wales roads because a huge number of other drivers are unlicensed.  Every day the police book at least forty people for driving with a cancelled license and another two hundred P plate holders lose their license each week for demerit points  excess or speeding offences.   When those caught driving without a license appear before a court the usual outcome is the imposition of another fine or the extension of the driving disqualification.  Almost amusingly - failure to pay these fines results in automatic license suspension.

What seems to go unnoticed is the fact that both general car insurance and the compulsory Green Slip accident cover require the vehicle to be driven by a licensed driver for the cover to apply.  This means that ordinary people run the risk of losing help and compensation in recovering from accident injuries if the other drive is unlicensed - and that can deliver financial ruin.   Sadly, there seems no way to keep those unlicensed off the roads because in the majority of cases their attitude simply "doesn't give a dam " !     They consider getting behind the wheel a "right " - and will continue to drive nomatter what conditions a judge imposes.

Many citizens will be mystified by the events that have surrounded  what has become known as the "Margaret Cunneen affair  ".   Margaret Cunneen is a top crown prosecutor and when her son's girlfriend was involved in a minor car accident she was accused of advising her to claim chest pains to require immediate hospital attention, thus avoiding an on the spot breath test.  This claim was denied.

ICAC became relentless in pursuing this investigation and finally the matter went before the High Court, which issued a finding that ICAC had "strayed beyond it's powers " in the Cunneen matter.  One would have thought that a ruling by this country's highest judicial body would have settled the question, but ICAC then flick passed it to the DPP for further investigation and possible prosecution..

To many, this looked to have an aspect of personal animosity and settlement of grudges and as a consequence the ICAC Commission scheduled a hearing and called the head of ICAC to appear before it and answer questions.   It seems astonishing that this Commissioner is refusing to answer and claims that her bosses do not have the power to ask questions about a specific  ICAC investigation .

If the parliament of this state - which appoints the ICAC Commissioner - is deemed to have no oversight of the top investigative crime body and no right to question it's decisions - and the findings of the High Court are to be set aside and ignored - then we have a dangerous situation where a body with great powers is running out of control and is capable of pursuing it's own agenda.

The entire system of justice originated from Magna Carta and consists of overlapping reviews of all decisions reached in the various court levels.    There is the expectation that the rule of law will apply in all circumstances,  and the fact that the state is knowingly making no serious attempt to curb the vast numbers of people putting other citizens at risk by driving without a license is no less serious than a body like ICAC which ignores the law and seeks to impose it's own interpretation of justice at the whim of those directing it's actions.

We are seeing a logical outcome of the lack of constraint between the framing of rules and public expectations in the rorts being  exposed in Federal parliament.   Vast sums of public money have been expended by parliamentarians in what can only be termed junkets or "public holidays " they enjoy, accompanied by their spouses and children.    The fact that these fall within the guidelines that are applied to travel is a sure indication that these rules fall far short of the expectations of those who pay taxes to fund our government.

Now that this Pandora's box has been opened, the public will not be satisfied until firm action has been taken to restore confidence that the rule of law again applies equally - and to all !

The Long Shadow !

It is seventy years since the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in Japan and this was instrumental in ending the second world war.  Today there are recriminations.  Some people think Japan was about to surrender and the bombing was unnecessary, but while it killed a lot of people an enormous additional death toll would have resulted from a invasion of the Japanese home islands.

It is true that Japan's leaders knew that the war was lost, but they were trying to arrange an armistice similar to the ending of the first world war that would not have involved the Allies putting an occupation force into Japan or any form of punishment for the emperor or the nation's war leaders.  That was unacceptable to the Americans - and similar to the events that followed WW1 in Europe - probably meant that we would be fighting a third world war in twenty years time.

There is a degree of horror that most of those that died at Hiroshima were civilians.   That should be judged in context with the numbers who died when the Nazi's bombed Warsaw, Rotterdam, London - and Coventry, and our air fleet battered the cities of Germany into rubble.   War now is not a battle between conventional armies on a distant battlefield.  Total war is what we are seeing in Iraq and Syria and a whole lot of other places on planet Earth - and now there is no distinction between those in uniform - and what were once quaintly termed "civilians "  !

It took a while to sink in following the heady days of victory celebrations, but the bombing of Hiroshima made many thoughtful people realise that we had just demonstrated our ability to extinguish human life on this planet.   A would nuclear war would be a catastrophe that sent humankind back to the stone age - but there was no way to uninvent the knowledge of how to split the uranium atom.

Quickly, five dominant countries armed themselves with nuclear weapons and world leaders formed the United Nations as a means of trying to hold the peace.   Those five gained elevated status by holding the power of "Veto " - the ability to remove both discussion and action on any matter that displeased them.   The world settled into two nuclear armed camps for what was termed the "cold war " !

Today - that nuclear club has been joined by India and Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, and there may be a few more harbouring weapons that have not been tested by actual explosions. A treaty seems to have been successfully negotiated to keep Iran nuclear free for at least the next ten years.

It is almost a miracle that seventy years have elapsed without nuclear weapons being used as a weapon of war - and there have been plenty of wars over that period.  Several times tensions have come to the brink, and each time wise heads have held back, because the destruction would be too terrible to contemplate.   Submarines roam the world's oceans equipped with ICBM's with multiple war heads capable of annihilating world cities and vast nuclear stockpiles stand ready in shore based arsenals.     The nuclear clock stands at a minute to midnight !

The long shadow cast by the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima has done us a favour by demonstrating just what sort of horror a nuclear war would deliver.   That could not have been conveyed by a test somewhere in a desert and the publicity on this seventieth anniversary is reinforcing in human minds just what faces us if the nuclear dragon slips it's leash.

Hopefully, world leaders will retain their sanity and continue to hold back when tensions rise, but the big danger is the sheer irrationality of those who subvert religion and embrace terrorism as a cause to deliver death to all who fail to convert to their view.   Should they get their hands on one of these portable nuclear devices there seems no doubt that they would deploy it without hesitation.

Let us hope our luck holds in the coming seventy years !

The " Education " Mess !

Australian schools are falling behind the education levels attained by our Asian neighbours and yet education costs represent a huge segment of this nation's Federal and state budgets.   NAPLAN was supposed to show us the improvements gained from teaching reform and  a better curriculum - and yet the results just in show that NAPLAN scores are flatlining.  In some instances they are even going backwards.

School principals put the blame on the new generation teachers coming into the classrooms from University.   Many of these newly minted teachers simply lack the training to teach today's phonics - which are an essential for those learning to read and write.   It is claimed that University entrance ATAR levels for teaching of 60 or lower apply and many believe that reaching an acceptable qualification needs an ATAR of at least 80 as the starting point.

Put simply, uneducated teachers are the reason the schools are turning out poorly educated kids and in the present labour market that dooms the victims to lost job opportunities and a lowered quality of life.

Putting this right is going to be a hard task because the changes needed will cross many boundaries and demolish a lot of old shibboleths that vested interests will defend vigorously.  It is obvious that if the Universities are turning out teachers who lack the skills and ability to teach the curriculum applicable in the school system - then we need to take the training regime apart and reinvent it to do the job that is needed.

The powerful teachers unions implacably resist any form of teacher evaluation and the very idea of better pay for teaching results is anathema.  Their mindset is stuck in promotion on the grounds of length of service and uniformity of pay levels.  There is a high degree of militancy and achieving the reforms needed can be expected to face stone walling at every level.

Unfortunately, giving Australia a decent level of education is entirely reliant on politics at both the Federal and state levels.  The states see education as their perogative and yet it also relies on Federal grants, and the concept of a national curriculum to cover the entire country is an essential long past implementation.

To fix this problem the education system turning out teachers needs to be completely remodelled and the teaching unions will have to accept constant teacher evaluation to keep them up to standard - and that means a fight to the death on many fronts.   The sixty-four dollar question is whether the politicians have the stamina to do what is necessary to force this change on both the universities and the schools - or whether it will simply degenerate into party politics - and go nowhere ?

For a start, the states and the Feds need to sop bickering and put together a national curriculum so we are all singing from the same song book.   That makes it easy to plan the teaching of teachers to fit in with that curriculum - and gain a national standard across the entire country.

Teaching is a noble profession and we need to attract the best and brightest if we are going to elevate the output from our schools.   As a profession, teaching needs to deliver pay levels commensurate with the results achieved and teachers need the regard showered on other worthy professions.   We need to make it clear - in salary level and standing - that teaching is not "just a job "  but a profession on the same standard as a doctor, scientist or barrister.

The only way this can be achieved -  is at the political level.  It will take legislation to force change.  As an example, look how NAPLAN has been sabotaged and derided by a teaching union and there will be violent opposition from entrenched positions. It all depends if both sides of politics has the will to agree together and implement an education system that will allow this nation to reach it's potential  !

Unarmed Cops !

Sometimes it is necessary for tradition to get a reality check !  Since the arrival of the first fleet it has been the custom for police officers to check in their firearms whenever they enter a court.  That will cease from Monday !

Most judges and magistrates fought hard against this revision and it was only agreed after nearly a year of discussion between the Police Association and court officials, but finally commonsense prevailed.  The last few decades have seen a very different world emerge.  Restricting police to only carry a baton, OC spray and handcuffs when supervising a courtroom that contains both members of the public, barristers and dangerous criminals is a recipe for disaster.

Many courts have metal detectors guarding their entrance but the public is now well aware that it is possible to "print " a workable handgun that will pass this form of detection without triggering an alarm.   The cases that go before our courts include members of criminal bikie gangs and jihadists that have been caught planning terror raids.  In many cases the public area is flooded with supporters and this obviously raises the risk factor.

Very little has changed in the format of our courts over the past fifty years.  They are venerable institutions in purpose build buildings from a distant age and security was not high on the agenda when they were built.   Today we live in an age where fanatics are prepared to sacrifice their own life to deliver a bomb to an intended target or to free a captured colleague by mounting an armed raid on a prison or a court.   It stands to reason that just such a scenario should be taken into consideration when planning the housing, transport and court appearances of high security prisoners.

We have already experienced an act of terror on our doorstep.   The Martin Place siege was a feared event that finally happened - and it ended in tragedy.   Hopefully, we have learned from that experience and when - rather than " if  " -  terror strikes on our shores a well planned and better oiled rescue operation will swing into action with the "right " people calling the shots !

Logically, our security planning is kept under tight wraps but it is highly likely than the spooks who watch over communications and the security apparatus in place to monitor the bad guys are keeping ahead of the opposition.  Several planned events did not get past the early stages and the operatives were quietly taken down.   So far, Australia has been a safe country when judged on the international scale of terror events.

What is disturbing is the fact that it took many long months of planning to implement a sane and logical need like having police armed when they have duties in court to supervise and guard dangerous people. Both bikie gangs and the terrorist networks have the advantage that when they see an opportunity they can exploit it without delay while we are faced with the onerous task of getting a new law through parliament and persuading those who will be involved that change is necessary.

We need to sharpen the command chain if we are to stay ahead of the opposition  !

Public Housing - New Eviction Laws !

One of the promises made before the last New South Wales election was a review to cleanup  bad behaviour by public housing tenants.  Legislation to achieve that is now passing through parliament and all new tenancies will in future be subjected to a twelve month probationary period and eviction will follow should the department issue three bad behaviour warnings in any twelve month period.

The department is also going after those who understate their income to gain fake rental subsidies. Continuing the tenancy will depend on an acceptable pay-back arrangement to restore the rent lost, and this will not be subjected to endless appeals to various courts.

  Perhaps the most beneficial change is the removal of the need for other tenants to personally front a tribunal and in the presence of the offender give evidence of the conduct that a bad tenant is causing.This introduces a fear factor because those giving such information must return to their tenancy with the prospect of pay-back to them and their family.  A refusal to testify usually means no action is taken - and the bad behaviour continues indefinitely.The collection of evidence will now be undertaken by Commission staff and be presented in court in video format.  The confidentiality of complainants will be respected.

One of the issues causing disquiet is the claim that rapists, paedophiles and violent thugs will  be removed from public housing.  It could be inferred that those who commit crimes that the public find repugnant will automatically be excluded from public housing when they are released from prison, and that would create new problems.  In the past some released prisoners have been hounded and driven from any residence by angry mobs and made virtually homeless.   When a prison term is completed it is complicit with the freedom gained that the ex-prisoner will return to society. In most cases, public housing is the only such option available.

It would be dangerous to exclude specific criminal convictions from the ability of access to public housing.  Our law system is based on rehabilitation and release is after automatic review by a control board.  It makes no sense to release a long serving prisoner if that person is destined to live on the streets and basically exist as a vagrant.   Vagrancy is a crime that can attract an additional prison term.

The vast number of public housing tenants are good people who live and behave in a civilized manner.  Many with criminal convictions mend their ways and become model citizens and it would be unreasonable to totally exclude the risk factor by banning them from public housing tenancy.  It is also unlikely that such a provision would survive a High Court challenge.

Strangely, the public attitude to prisons still belongs in the "lock ém up and throw away the key " era.
Outrage at the news that an escape tunnel has been discovered at our most secure prison housing the Supermax - and disgust that a prisoner at Kirkconnell Correctional centre escaped less than a day after he was housed at that institution.

Kirkconnell is a virtual "open prison " used to condition those about to be released and this escapee is a 23 year old jailed for break and enter offences.   He has demonstrated that he is not ready for release, and he will be shortly recaptured and will serve additional time for that escape - plus the remainder of his original sentence - is a high security prison.   The entire prison system is a degree of punishment and rewards.   Rewards have to be earned - and in some cases risk is necessary to test if conduct is genuine - and this seems to be one of those cases

It would be a pity if well meaning public housing laws inflicted further punishment on those genuinely reformed   !