For reasons that are not clear the New South Wales government changed the status of " No Standing " signs to " No Stopping " on December 1 of last year.
As a result, those who dare even momentarily stop where an unchanged " No Standing " sign is displayed will now cop a fine of $ 185,a sharp increase on the previous $ 75 for exceeding the two minute limit previously allowed.
It is often said that legislation changes introduce unintended results and a glaring example of this relates to Australia Post street side letter boxes.
All such post boxes have " No Standing " stencilled on the side facing the road. The intention was two fold - to allow motorists to briefly stop and post letters, and to provide a space free of permanently parked vehicles to allow Australia Post to clear the mail for sorting and distribution.
This legislative change has presented a bonanza for Council rangers with their cameras recording photographic evidence. Most people are not even aware of the change of status of " No Standing " signs - and few are even aware of the stencil on the front of post boxes.
It would have been nice if the government had paid thought to the reason a brief stop was permitted at post boxes - and introduced a new sign to replace that " No Standing " that now meant " No Stopping ".
Replacing the stencil with " Two minute halt permitted " would have maintained the purpose of the original intention, but then - when did common sense ever become part of government thinking ?
What odds those " No Standing " signs are still displayed on post boxes decades from now ?
Just another example of a civil liberty denied - and a new opportunity created for revenue raising !
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Friday, 6 February 2009
This changing world !
When the first settlers arrived in 1788 crime and punishment were accorded different standards. People could be sent to the gallows - or transported to the other side of the world for what would today be regarded as a " misdemeanour ".
Over time the death penalty began to only apply to murder - and was finally abolished. In it's place a sentence of " life " was supposed to ensure that the convicted person died of old age within the prison system.
Even that got watered down and now " life " usually means a maximum of twenty years - with time off for good behaviour usually resulting in a much earlier release.
In extreme cases a judge may determine that a case is so horrendous that a prisoner " should never be released ", but this has no legal standing and the " truth in sentencing " legislation leaves the sentence interpretation subject to review by a later judge.
Basically, the objective of the courts has changed from punishment to rehabilitation.
It seems that no crime - or very few crimes - are so horrific that rehabilitation can not prepare a prisoner for a change of attitude and the opportunity to once again take their place in society as a free person.
This change of attitude takes no account of the pain and distress the relatives of the victim feel when the perpetrator walks out of the prison gate.
What upsets many people is the knowledge that the prison regime has absolutely nothing to do with justice. It is all a matter of available space - and money !
Keeping a person in gaol is a very costly business and society now seems to prefer sentencing a lot of people to a short stay rather than keeping a lesser number incarcerated for a long time.
It provides the illusion of punishment - and that is what keeps politicians in office.
We have a world financial meltdown and this state is perilously close to being bankrupt. Watch out for a sharply increased " revolving door " attitude to prison sentencing - and more people walking free after a shorter period " inside " !
Over time the death penalty began to only apply to murder - and was finally abolished. In it's place a sentence of " life " was supposed to ensure that the convicted person died of old age within the prison system.
Even that got watered down and now " life " usually means a maximum of twenty years - with time off for good behaviour usually resulting in a much earlier release.
In extreme cases a judge may determine that a case is so horrendous that a prisoner " should never be released ", but this has no legal standing and the " truth in sentencing " legislation leaves the sentence interpretation subject to review by a later judge.
Basically, the objective of the courts has changed from punishment to rehabilitation.
It seems that no crime - or very few crimes - are so horrific that rehabilitation can not prepare a prisoner for a change of attitude and the opportunity to once again take their place in society as a free person.
This change of attitude takes no account of the pain and distress the relatives of the victim feel when the perpetrator walks out of the prison gate.
What upsets many people is the knowledge that the prison regime has absolutely nothing to do with justice. It is all a matter of available space - and money !
Keeping a person in gaol is a very costly business and society now seems to prefer sentencing a lot of people to a short stay rather than keeping a lesser number incarcerated for a long time.
It provides the illusion of punishment - and that is what keeps politicians in office.
We have a world financial meltdown and this state is perilously close to being bankrupt. Watch out for a sharply increased " revolving door " attitude to prison sentencing - and more people walking free after a shorter period " inside " !
Thursday, 5 February 2009
The Forty-two billion dollar question !
Is spending forty-two billion dollars to stimulate the Australian economy a wise move or a step towards financial disaster ?
The government says " yes " - and the Opposition says " no " !
There is no clear answer because this is an economic meltdown that adheres to no known rules and what lays ahead for the men and women of the Australian workforce is yet to be determined by world events.
The government package is a mix of strategies including the revamp of all primary schools, plus a cash injection to wage earners, farmers and small business to get them spending - and keep the economy bubbling along.
The Opposition agrees that we need a spending package, but claims this forty-two billion package is just too big - and too soon !
Both sides of politics could be right - or they could be wrong - and we will not know the answer to that question until whatever happens plays out in the months ahead.
If the government is right and the package squeaks through the Senate with the help of the independents the spending surge may prevent pink slips to a big section of the workforce. Layoffs will certainly have a flow on effect of swelling the dole queues and causing mortgage defaults on a wide basis - and if that can be prevented we may avoid slipping from recession - to the dreaded " D " word - depression !
If the Opposition is right the Treasury will have fired it's guns in one glorious broadside - and be left with an empty ammunition locker. There is a limit to how much we can borrow by way of deficit spending.
The Opposition favours a smaller stimulus now to maintain the ability to further prime the pump once a clearer picture emerges of where the world economy is heading.
Two points of view will be going head to head in a vote in the nation's parliament.
Neither can be viewed as the right choice with any certainty !
Let us hope and pray that whichever prevails has the good luck to be the right choice.
The fate of twenty-two million people in this country hangs in the balance !
The government says " yes " - and the Opposition says " no " !
There is no clear answer because this is an economic meltdown that adheres to no known rules and what lays ahead for the men and women of the Australian workforce is yet to be determined by world events.
The government package is a mix of strategies including the revamp of all primary schools, plus a cash injection to wage earners, farmers and small business to get them spending - and keep the economy bubbling along.
The Opposition agrees that we need a spending package, but claims this forty-two billion package is just too big - and too soon !
Both sides of politics could be right - or they could be wrong - and we will not know the answer to that question until whatever happens plays out in the months ahead.
If the government is right and the package squeaks through the Senate with the help of the independents the spending surge may prevent pink slips to a big section of the workforce. Layoffs will certainly have a flow on effect of swelling the dole queues and causing mortgage defaults on a wide basis - and if that can be prevented we may avoid slipping from recession - to the dreaded " D " word - depression !
If the Opposition is right the Treasury will have fired it's guns in one glorious broadside - and be left with an empty ammunition locker. There is a limit to how much we can borrow by way of deficit spending.
The Opposition favours a smaller stimulus now to maintain the ability to further prime the pump once a clearer picture emerges of where the world economy is heading.
Two points of view will be going head to head in a vote in the nation's parliament.
Neither can be viewed as the right choice with any certainty !
Let us hope and pray that whichever prevails has the good luck to be the right choice.
The fate of twenty-two million people in this country hangs in the balance !
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
World Economic Meltdown !
The world economic meltdown will certainly change the world for many people. Some will find themselves unemployed. Some previously well off people will find themselves applying for the pension - and most people will tighten their belts and reduce spending for fear of what the future holds in store.
Sport seems to be at the forefront of change. We have learned that this region's basketball team will close it's doors and no longer compete in the national league after thirty one years representing Wollongong. The demise of " The Hawks " will leave many fans without a focus of purpose.
Soccer followers have seen a recent national championship side - The Wollongong Wolves " fade from the scene and in both cases of basketball and soccer the reason was a lack of money to support teams at a national level.
There is a very real danger that we may lose St George Illawarra as a representative of this area - and once again the reason will be money.
We have a below standard arena and some people doubt that St George ever had their heart in the merger with the Steelers. The refurbishing of Belmore oval may see St George remain as a Sydney side, and if that happens rugby league will be a dying sport in the Illawarra.
There will still be junior basketball, soccer and league, but it will not be the same without the incentive for players to improve and find glory in a national competition - and there is every chance that Australian rules football will fill the gap. The ARL competition is expanding, and an Illawarra team could be a possibility in the near future.
The organizers of national sports are remiss in letting this happen. Any sport that concentrates teams in Melbourne and Sydney and ignores the remainder of Australia is on a downhill curve. Without regional competition striving for a place in the national teams the pool of talent runs dry - and with it that sport.
It costs big money to field a national team but the rewards for the sport concerned are critical. There are obvious benefits for lowering overall expenditure to finance a broader representation and improve the reach of the game.
That is an argument that seems to be falling on deaf ears !
Sport seems to be at the forefront of change. We have learned that this region's basketball team will close it's doors and no longer compete in the national league after thirty one years representing Wollongong. The demise of " The Hawks " will leave many fans without a focus of purpose.
Soccer followers have seen a recent national championship side - The Wollongong Wolves " fade from the scene and in both cases of basketball and soccer the reason was a lack of money to support teams at a national level.
There is a very real danger that we may lose St George Illawarra as a representative of this area - and once again the reason will be money.
We have a below standard arena and some people doubt that St George ever had their heart in the merger with the Steelers. The refurbishing of Belmore oval may see St George remain as a Sydney side, and if that happens rugby league will be a dying sport in the Illawarra.
There will still be junior basketball, soccer and league, but it will not be the same without the incentive for players to improve and find glory in a national competition - and there is every chance that Australian rules football will fill the gap. The ARL competition is expanding, and an Illawarra team could be a possibility in the near future.
The organizers of national sports are remiss in letting this happen. Any sport that concentrates teams in Melbourne and Sydney and ignores the remainder of Australia is on a downhill curve. Without regional competition striving for a place in the national teams the pool of talent runs dry - and with it that sport.
It costs big money to field a national team but the rewards for the sport concerned are critical. There are obvious benefits for lowering overall expenditure to finance a broader representation and improve the reach of the game.
That is an argument that seems to be falling on deaf ears !
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Brainwashed !
The world has been brainwashed into believing that nuclear power generation is unsafe. A single incident at Chernobyl - which did little long term damage - has been blown out of all proportion to vilify a way of saving the world from global warming.
Burning coal to generate electricity is one of the biggest producers of Co2 gas on the planet, followed by the use of the internal combustion engine to power the car fleet. The move to electric cars will reduce Co2 emissions over the long term, but if we continue to burn coal for electricity the real savings will be much less.
Nuclear power generation is a fact and has worked successfully for generations.
The biggest user if France - with fifty-nine nuclear power plants producing 77% of that country's electricity.
Other major users are South Korea with twenty reactors producing 35% of it's needs, Japan with fifty five reactors producing 28% and the United States with one hundred and four reactors - producing a tiny 19% of it's electricity supplies.
Australia - with about a third of the world's uranium - has no reactors producing electricity.
If we are serious about digging our way out of this economic meltdown hole, and if we really do want to save the planet from global warming - then all logic says that we need to commit the huge amounts of development money being proposed to replacing this nation's coal burning power stations with nuclear facilities.
Forget " cap and trade ". Replacing coal with nuclear and car engines with electric motors will more than substitute the Co2 emission savings likely to occur by carbon trading - without the damage this scheme would cause to our exports and world economic viability.
If major world countries have been able to successfully and safely use nuclear power generation for decades - then a reasonable question would be - " Why can't we ? "
Nuclear waste can hardly be cited as the problem. We live in one of the earth's biggest continents - and a large part of it is uninhabited desert !
It's simply a matter of taking the blinkers off and facing reality. Renewable wind, solar and wave action are decades away from being able to supply base load power and the only sustainable option at present is nuclear.
It's time we got over our paranoia about bogey men under the bed and grasped reality.
The economic meltdown is providing a great chance to make a decision that will not only provide jobs - but secure the future of this great country for centuries to come !
The only question is - whether we have the wisdom to take it !
Burning coal to generate electricity is one of the biggest producers of Co2 gas on the planet, followed by the use of the internal combustion engine to power the car fleet. The move to electric cars will reduce Co2 emissions over the long term, but if we continue to burn coal for electricity the real savings will be much less.
Nuclear power generation is a fact and has worked successfully for generations.
The biggest user if France - with fifty-nine nuclear power plants producing 77% of that country's electricity.
Other major users are South Korea with twenty reactors producing 35% of it's needs, Japan with fifty five reactors producing 28% and the United States with one hundred and four reactors - producing a tiny 19% of it's electricity supplies.
Australia - with about a third of the world's uranium - has no reactors producing electricity.
If we are serious about digging our way out of this economic meltdown hole, and if we really do want to save the planet from global warming - then all logic says that we need to commit the huge amounts of development money being proposed to replacing this nation's coal burning power stations with nuclear facilities.
Forget " cap and trade ". Replacing coal with nuclear and car engines with electric motors will more than substitute the Co2 emission savings likely to occur by carbon trading - without the damage this scheme would cause to our exports and world economic viability.
If major world countries have been able to successfully and safely use nuclear power generation for decades - then a reasonable question would be - " Why can't we ? "
Nuclear waste can hardly be cited as the problem. We live in one of the earth's biggest continents - and a large part of it is uninhabited desert !
It's simply a matter of taking the blinkers off and facing reality. Renewable wind, solar and wave action are decades away from being able to supply base load power and the only sustainable option at present is nuclear.
It's time we got over our paranoia about bogey men under the bed and grasped reality.
The economic meltdown is providing a great chance to make a decision that will not only provide jobs - but secure the future of this great country for centuries to come !
The only question is - whether we have the wisdom to take it !
Monday, 2 February 2009
Social change coming !
The first shot has been fired across the bows of our drinking culture !
Recent statements that anyone drinking more than four glasses of liquor at a single sitting was in danger of seriously harming their health - and that two drinks a day was the maximum drinker's should imbibe is the start of an orchestrated campaign to bring in change to our drinking habits.
It tends to mimic the experience with tobacco !
Fifty years ago nearly half the Australian population smoked. People smoked and shopped at the same time in supermarkets, and there were ash trays in banks, restaurants, milk bars - and even the waiting rooms of doctor's surgeries.
Change was incremental. Bans slowly appeared, making it illegal to smoke on trains and buses, wharfs and ferries. Then this extended to where people were having a meal, and more recently it banned the cigarette from any area in clubs and pubs - and even to your favourite beach or sporting ground.
The percentage of smokers decreased, but with it came a change in social attitudes. A smoker lighting up today feels like some sort of social pariah. Even a smoker in the street gets disapproving looks from those passing by and there is a tendency for many to only smoke in secret.
It seems liquor is the next social change target.
Fifty years from now - or probably a lot sooner - inviting a guest to have a glass of alcohol will probably be a social indiscretion. Indulging in alcohol will seem to indicate a lack of self discipline.
This will not apply to everyone, of course. Just as there are smokers today who couldn't give a damn about the attitude of others, there will be those who over indulge in alcohol, and that will probable still apply to young people - but by and large there will be a change that will see a new attitude adopted.
Change will take many forms. The advertising of alcohol will face new restrictions and it is quite possible that liquor outlets may be forced to black out their windows and remove product displays - as is the proposal to further limit tobacco sales.
The liquor industry will fight tooth and nail to maintain it's market, and that is a big, powerful and very well financed segment - but then so was the tobacco industry.
The winds of change are blowing - and the most likely outcome is that having a few drinks will disappear from the public domain - but be " business as normal " in private !
Recent statements that anyone drinking more than four glasses of liquor at a single sitting was in danger of seriously harming their health - and that two drinks a day was the maximum drinker's should imbibe is the start of an orchestrated campaign to bring in change to our drinking habits.
It tends to mimic the experience with tobacco !
Fifty years ago nearly half the Australian population smoked. People smoked and shopped at the same time in supermarkets, and there were ash trays in banks, restaurants, milk bars - and even the waiting rooms of doctor's surgeries.
Change was incremental. Bans slowly appeared, making it illegal to smoke on trains and buses, wharfs and ferries. Then this extended to where people were having a meal, and more recently it banned the cigarette from any area in clubs and pubs - and even to your favourite beach or sporting ground.
The percentage of smokers decreased, but with it came a change in social attitudes. A smoker lighting up today feels like some sort of social pariah. Even a smoker in the street gets disapproving looks from those passing by and there is a tendency for many to only smoke in secret.
It seems liquor is the next social change target.
Fifty years from now - or probably a lot sooner - inviting a guest to have a glass of alcohol will probably be a social indiscretion. Indulging in alcohol will seem to indicate a lack of self discipline.
This will not apply to everyone, of course. Just as there are smokers today who couldn't give a damn about the attitude of others, there will be those who over indulge in alcohol, and that will probable still apply to young people - but by and large there will be a change that will see a new attitude adopted.
Change will take many forms. The advertising of alcohol will face new restrictions and it is quite possible that liquor outlets may be forced to black out their windows and remove product displays - as is the proposal to further limit tobacco sales.
The liquor industry will fight tooth and nail to maintain it's market, and that is a big, powerful and very well financed segment - but then so was the tobacco industry.
The winds of change are blowing - and the most likely outcome is that having a few drinks will disappear from the public domain - but be " business as normal " in private !
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Protectionism !
The United States is proposing to spend a huge amount of money renewing road and bridge infrastructure as part of it's plan to keep people in jobs. As a result, there has been a call for only American steel to be used.
This raises the spectre of " protectionism " - the very stance that threw world trade into the " Great Depression " of the 1930's.
There is a certain logic in the claim that spending American money to abate a recession makes no sense if Chinese steel is used while American steel plants stand idle. The problem is that once the flood gates of protectionism are opened the world economy takes a fatal hit.
Remember back a few years when Australian citrus growers were tearing out orchards because Californian orange juice was displacing the Australian product on the shelves of Coles and Woolworths supermarkets ?
Economy of scale - and the sheer fact that supply exceeded demand on the American market resulted in prices offering below the cost of production in this country.
There is a saying that " those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it ".
World leaders are meeting in Davos to try and reach consensus on combating the world economic meltdown. High on the list is the hope of reaching agreement on maintaining " globalism " - and not resorting to tariffs and similar means of protecting domestic markets.
Given human nature and the sheer size of the looming trade threat it will be almost a miracle if this can be achieved.
Promises are one thing, but then politics comes into the equation. Nations may agree to maintaining open markets, but protectionism can arrive by the back door.
For instance, contracts for the American restoration work may contain no embargo against foreign steel, but by way of the " nod and wink " system those tendering for work may agree that only local steel will be used on such projects.
This world crisis badly needs statesmen to show resolve and stand firm behind international agreements. Unfortunately statesmen are thin on the ground and all the world has is politicians.
The history books may record that nothing was learned from the 1930's !
This raises the spectre of " protectionism " - the very stance that threw world trade into the " Great Depression " of the 1930's.
There is a certain logic in the claim that spending American money to abate a recession makes no sense if Chinese steel is used while American steel plants stand idle. The problem is that once the flood gates of protectionism are opened the world economy takes a fatal hit.
Remember back a few years when Australian citrus growers were tearing out orchards because Californian orange juice was displacing the Australian product on the shelves of Coles and Woolworths supermarkets ?
Economy of scale - and the sheer fact that supply exceeded demand on the American market resulted in prices offering below the cost of production in this country.
There is a saying that " those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it ".
World leaders are meeting in Davos to try and reach consensus on combating the world economic meltdown. High on the list is the hope of reaching agreement on maintaining " globalism " - and not resorting to tariffs and similar means of protecting domestic markets.
Given human nature and the sheer size of the looming trade threat it will be almost a miracle if this can be achieved.
Promises are one thing, but then politics comes into the equation. Nations may agree to maintaining open markets, but protectionism can arrive by the back door.
For instance, contracts for the American restoration work may contain no embargo against foreign steel, but by way of the " nod and wink " system those tendering for work may agree that only local steel will be used on such projects.
This world crisis badly needs statesmen to show resolve and stand firm behind international agreements. Unfortunately statesmen are thin on the ground and all the world has is politicians.
The history books may record that nothing was learned from the 1930's !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)