It is often said that " nothing is certain when it comes to the law ". All it takes is a judge in an appeal case to have a change of opinion, and what previously seemed certain has a vastly changed application.
So it is with the bankruptcy laws. These were enacted to bring relief to people who got hopelessly into debt and who would otherwise spend their entire lives in grinding poverty. Bankruptcy was supposed to deliver a new start. What money that could be recovered was distributed to those owed - and then a line was drawn across the accounts ledger - and the bankrupt was offered a fresh start.
There is another law on the books that applies to debt - and that is the statute of limitations. If you can dodge paying a debt long enough, the person owed loses the right to take you to court and seek recovery.
Both of these laws were enacted to be merciful, but unfortunately they are sometimes manipulated. A case presently before the courts comes to mind.
Some years ago two champion swimmers had a difference of opinion - and this led to one swinging a punch that broke the others jaw. As a form of punishment, the swimming federation banned the offender from competing in his sport for a period of time.
Fixing that broken jaw required extensive medical intervention and the assaulted sought compensation from the court - and received a judgement to the tune of $ 180,000. This has not been paid - and the loser in the court case is now seeking bankruptcy protection.
The unusual circumstances in this case is the fact that the person seeking bankruptcy is resuming his swimming career - and will most likely be a star Australian athlete at the London Olympics next year. If he wins gold, he will also win instant fame and fortune - and be sought after for lucrative sponsorship deals.
So - we have that line in the ledgers if bankruptcy is granted - providing insulation from future money earned - and denying the compensation granted by the courts from ever reaching the victim of a crime.
It seems to add legitimacy to that comment that " The law is an ass ! "
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Hospital parking enigma !
There are plans to build a much needed new theatre wing at Wollongong hospital. Some question the wisdom of further expansion of this near saturation site and think we should opt for a completely new hospital on a greenfield site with plenty of further expansion room - and just about everybody thinks that the existing hospital is a parking nightmare !
The problem is that the people of Wollongong have yet to shed their " country town " thinking. We still expect to drive our cars to wherever we intend to visit - the hospital, the Mall in the city - the entire CBD - and park at the kerb outside the front door of our place of destination.
That doesn't happen in Sydney - and it has long ceased to happen here since Wollongong became one of the big cities of Australia.
There are endless grizzles that those seeking treatment or visiting a friend in hospital find it difficult to park - and usually end up walking up to three blocks to access the hospital. That has been unnecessary since the installation of the Shuttle bus system. The Shuttle runs at frequent intervals, seven days a week, providing service from early morning until late in the evening - and it is free !
Simply park the car where there is ample parking along the Shuttle route - hop on the bus - and it will drop you right at the hospital door. After the visit, the Shuttle will return you to where your car is waiting to take you home.
The parking problem is that simple !
Unfortunately the staff who work at Wollongong hospital don't always fit into this solution. Shift changes occur at very inconvenient times - often after the Shuttle service has ceased - and walking blocks on deserted streets to reach a car parked far away is not a safe option for women in these troubled times.
The government should consider establishing a car park reserved for hospital staff somewhere along the Shuttle route. This should have a full security fence, and be attended by a security officer at all times.
Staff would be relieved to know that their vehicle is safe and under care, and for those whose shift ends after the Shuttle has ceased, hospital security should have the task of driving them to their car in a hospital provided mini-bus.
There is plenty of room to find a home for an employee's car park along the Shuttle bus route. The only place this is not available - is within the few blocks immediately surrounding the hospital.
The objective should be to rid Wollongong residents of their " country town " thinking when it comes to parking - and to be innovative in providing an answer to the problems confronting the wonderful people that man our hospital.
And the existing Shuttle bus is the key to both problems !
The problem is that the people of Wollongong have yet to shed their " country town " thinking. We still expect to drive our cars to wherever we intend to visit - the hospital, the Mall in the city - the entire CBD - and park at the kerb outside the front door of our place of destination.
That doesn't happen in Sydney - and it has long ceased to happen here since Wollongong became one of the big cities of Australia.
There are endless grizzles that those seeking treatment or visiting a friend in hospital find it difficult to park - and usually end up walking up to three blocks to access the hospital. That has been unnecessary since the installation of the Shuttle bus system. The Shuttle runs at frequent intervals, seven days a week, providing service from early morning until late in the evening - and it is free !
Simply park the car where there is ample parking along the Shuttle route - hop on the bus - and it will drop you right at the hospital door. After the visit, the Shuttle will return you to where your car is waiting to take you home.
The parking problem is that simple !
Unfortunately the staff who work at Wollongong hospital don't always fit into this solution. Shift changes occur at very inconvenient times - often after the Shuttle service has ceased - and walking blocks on deserted streets to reach a car parked far away is not a safe option for women in these troubled times.
The government should consider establishing a car park reserved for hospital staff somewhere along the Shuttle route. This should have a full security fence, and be attended by a security officer at all times.
Staff would be relieved to know that their vehicle is safe and under care, and for those whose shift ends after the Shuttle has ceased, hospital security should have the task of driving them to their car in a hospital provided mini-bus.
There is plenty of room to find a home for an employee's car park along the Shuttle bus route. The only place this is not available - is within the few blocks immediately surrounding the hospital.
The objective should be to rid Wollongong residents of their " country town " thinking when it comes to parking - and to be innovative in providing an answer to the problems confronting the wonderful people that man our hospital.
And the existing Shuttle bus is the key to both problems !
Monday, 5 December 2011
The " Freedom " myth !
The two opposing concepts of " Remand " and " Innocent until proved guilty " are seeing more and more people locked behind bars waiting for trial - and this has jumped 11% since 1994.
There are two basic reasons for applying remand to a person accused of a crime. One is that the person is considered dangerous to others - and the other is that he or she is a flight risk. It seems that the police generally ask for remand as a matter of choice. It is their description of the supposed crime that the magistrate is asked to consider, and at no stage is the wait for justice taken into consideration.
It is not unusual for remanded prisoners to remain in gaol for well over a year, waiting to go to trial.
Trial preparations include the prosecutor preparing a brief of evidence and often this waits on laboratory reports from forensic evidence collected from the crime scene - and this could face very long delays.
The prisoner on remand is virtually serving a sentence, despite there being no conviction - nor the prisoner having had his or her day in court. The prisoner is under lock and key - is served gaol food - is strip searched every time they return from seeing a visitor or a solicitor - and freedom to exercise is strictly limited
In about thirty percent of cases, when the prisoner finally faces court - the decision is acquittal - but there is no apology for this time served, not any form of financial compensation. In other cases, the person may be convicted and the matter settled by way of a fine.
No consideration is given that this person has probably lost a job in an age when jobs are scarce - and time spent in prison can hardly help on a resume when a new job search begins. Prisons are grim places and apart from the danger of physical harm from others, the degradation of being behind bars can cause mental problems that persist for years.
There are calls for the remand laws to be overhauled. As the present system stands, the prisoner awaits the day when the prosecution indicates it is ready to proceed. This puts no pressure on either the police or the prosecutor to hurry the matter - or makes no demand on forensic laboratories to act within a time frame.
There are some cases where remand is essential, but in most others it should be a matter of remand having a very strict time limitation. People should not languish in gaol indefinitely. Once a remand time limit has been imposed the pressure is then on the police and the prosecutor to bring their case to trial - or see the remand prisoner walk free.
Justice delayed - is justice denied !
There are two basic reasons for applying remand to a person accused of a crime. One is that the person is considered dangerous to others - and the other is that he or she is a flight risk. It seems that the police generally ask for remand as a matter of choice. It is their description of the supposed crime that the magistrate is asked to consider, and at no stage is the wait for justice taken into consideration.
It is not unusual for remanded prisoners to remain in gaol for well over a year, waiting to go to trial.
Trial preparations include the prosecutor preparing a brief of evidence and often this waits on laboratory reports from forensic evidence collected from the crime scene - and this could face very long delays.
The prisoner on remand is virtually serving a sentence, despite there being no conviction - nor the prisoner having had his or her day in court. The prisoner is under lock and key - is served gaol food - is strip searched every time they return from seeing a visitor or a solicitor - and freedom to exercise is strictly limited
In about thirty percent of cases, when the prisoner finally faces court - the decision is acquittal - but there is no apology for this time served, not any form of financial compensation. In other cases, the person may be convicted and the matter settled by way of a fine.
No consideration is given that this person has probably lost a job in an age when jobs are scarce - and time spent in prison can hardly help on a resume when a new job search begins. Prisons are grim places and apart from the danger of physical harm from others, the degradation of being behind bars can cause mental problems that persist for years.
There are calls for the remand laws to be overhauled. As the present system stands, the prisoner awaits the day when the prosecution indicates it is ready to proceed. This puts no pressure on either the police or the prosecutor to hurry the matter - or makes no demand on forensic laboratories to act within a time frame.
There are some cases where remand is essential, but in most others it should be a matter of remand having a very strict time limitation. People should not languish in gaol indefinitely. Once a remand time limit has been imposed the pressure is then on the police and the prosecutor to bring their case to trial - or see the remand prisoner walk free.
Justice delayed - is justice denied !
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Your right to disagree !
It seems that big business and politics have two objectives in common. When they hold public meetings any hint of disagreement must be instantly curtailed.
The issue of gay marriage was an emotional issue at this weekends ALP conference at Darling Harbour. Some official speakers opposed extending traditional marriage to same sex couples and these were tolerated. What was not tolerated was heckling from the floor of the conference.
When Penny Wong claimed that " equality would not undermine conventional marriage ", a man who stated that he was a Labor party member shouted " You are wrong ! ". He was promptly grabbed by site security and " invited to discuss the matter outside ! "
There are similar scenes when big business holds annual general meetings. These days there are often angry shareholders at these AGM's who wish to protest and vote down moves to vastly increase the pay of CEO's - and to increase the rewards paid to company directors.
In many cases this largess is despite the company declining to pay a dividend because of losses. It is galling to those who have invested their money and who disagree with the course the CEO has followed, to be prevented from using the meeting to demand a change of course and a better use of resources.
It is all a matter of accountability. Traditionally, in both business and politics items such as the AGM or an annual conference were the time when those running the organisation were held accountable and had to endure criticism. They were " servants " - subject to the directions of those who held voting power.
That no longer seems to be the case. In politics, the " factions " totally ignore the masses. Power is an ever changing exchange of favours with others to advance the " factional credos " that govern their lives. Big business is no different.
It seems that the right to disagree has been curtailed - and if you dare express an opposing view at such meetings - expect a tap on the shoulder from the security people, and an enforced exit from the auditorium.
The law may grant you free speech - getting it is an entirely different matter !
The issue of gay marriage was an emotional issue at this weekends ALP conference at Darling Harbour. Some official speakers opposed extending traditional marriage to same sex couples and these were tolerated. What was not tolerated was heckling from the floor of the conference.
When Penny Wong claimed that " equality would not undermine conventional marriage ", a man who stated that he was a Labor party member shouted " You are wrong ! ". He was promptly grabbed by site security and " invited to discuss the matter outside ! "
There are similar scenes when big business holds annual general meetings. These days there are often angry shareholders at these AGM's who wish to protest and vote down moves to vastly increase the pay of CEO's - and to increase the rewards paid to company directors.
In many cases this largess is despite the company declining to pay a dividend because of losses. It is galling to those who have invested their money and who disagree with the course the CEO has followed, to be prevented from using the meeting to demand a change of course and a better use of resources.
It is all a matter of accountability. Traditionally, in both business and politics items such as the AGM or an annual conference were the time when those running the organisation were held accountable and had to endure criticism. They were " servants " - subject to the directions of those who held voting power.
That no longer seems to be the case. In politics, the " factions " totally ignore the masses. Power is an ever changing exchange of favours with others to advance the " factional credos " that govern their lives. Big business is no different.
It seems that the right to disagree has been curtailed - and if you dare express an opposing view at such meetings - expect a tap on the shoulder from the security people, and an enforced exit from the auditorium.
The law may grant you free speech - getting it is an entirely different matter !
Saturday, 3 December 2011
The " Gay marriage " issue !
There is something almost inevitable about the machinations underway at the Australian Labor party's three day conference at Darling Harbour to neuter gay marriage as an issue.
Damned if you do - and damned if you don't !
The one thing all the party " heavies " are desperate to avoid is a platform change that requires a caucus decision vote to be imposed on all ALP parliamentarians. That would be a moral issue that would result in a few people crossing the floor - and under ALP rules - being expelled from the party.
That could be the final straw that caused Labor to simply disintegrate. The party is already the choice of just three out of every ten Australians - and dangerously close to becoming irrelevant. If Julia Gillard can navigate her way to a " conscience vote " - then the issue of gay marriage will not become law - and the Labor party will survive to fight another day.
What is so obvious to most people is the inevitability of this issue - which has widespread support across all political factions and every strata of society. State after state has approved gay marriage and yet it remains illegal in the Federal parliament. A glance at history tells an interesting story.
Fifty years ago homosexuality was a crime in every Australian state. Prosecution was rare, and when it happened the " family newspapers " of that time were uncomfortable reporting court cases. It was the " unspoken " crime, referred to by " nod and wink ", but otherwise studiously ignored.
It came to prominence in June 1978 when Sydney's gay community held the first Mardi-Gras. The Conservative state government refused to issue a license, and it degenerated into a running fight. Some police tried to drag people off floats. Other police stood aside and did nothing. Huge crowds watched and applauded - and government realised that further refusal would be politically dangerous. The Gay Mardi-Gras became an annual event.
Ever since both civil custom and the courts have been chipping away at the obstacles to the gay scene and it's civil rights protection. Gay couples can adopt children in most states. It is against the law to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. The list goes on - and on !
Gay marriage will not become law at this ALP conference - but it will happen somewhere further down the track - and when it does - the world will not end.
Many religious people will still oppose gay marriage long after it becomes the norm, but when we compare gay rights now to what existed in the 1950's - who would have believed that this country could have made that sort of change - and that the vast majority of people approve ?
Seems to be a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object !
But then - wasn't the Gay Mardi-Gras such an earlier collision ?
Damned if you do - and damned if you don't !
The one thing all the party " heavies " are desperate to avoid is a platform change that requires a caucus decision vote to be imposed on all ALP parliamentarians. That would be a moral issue that would result in a few people crossing the floor - and under ALP rules - being expelled from the party.
That could be the final straw that caused Labor to simply disintegrate. The party is already the choice of just three out of every ten Australians - and dangerously close to becoming irrelevant. If Julia Gillard can navigate her way to a " conscience vote " - then the issue of gay marriage will not become law - and the Labor party will survive to fight another day.
What is so obvious to most people is the inevitability of this issue - which has widespread support across all political factions and every strata of society. State after state has approved gay marriage and yet it remains illegal in the Federal parliament. A glance at history tells an interesting story.
Fifty years ago homosexuality was a crime in every Australian state. Prosecution was rare, and when it happened the " family newspapers " of that time were uncomfortable reporting court cases. It was the " unspoken " crime, referred to by " nod and wink ", but otherwise studiously ignored.
It came to prominence in June 1978 when Sydney's gay community held the first Mardi-Gras. The Conservative state government refused to issue a license, and it degenerated into a running fight. Some police tried to drag people off floats. Other police stood aside and did nothing. Huge crowds watched and applauded - and government realised that further refusal would be politically dangerous. The Gay Mardi-Gras became an annual event.
Ever since both civil custom and the courts have been chipping away at the obstacles to the gay scene and it's civil rights protection. Gay couples can adopt children in most states. It is against the law to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. The list goes on - and on !
Gay marriage will not become law at this ALP conference - but it will happen somewhere further down the track - and when it does - the world will not end.
Many religious people will still oppose gay marriage long after it becomes the norm, but when we compare gay rights now to what existed in the 1950's - who would have believed that this country could have made that sort of change - and that the vast majority of people approve ?
Seems to be a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object !
But then - wasn't the Gay Mardi-Gras such an earlier collision ?
Friday, 2 December 2011
Them - and us !
If ever there was an inappropriate time for increasing the pay of our Federal politicians - it is surely now. The world is teetering on the brink of slipping back into recession. Whole nations in Europe are cutting wages and pensions to try and avert default on their debts - and here in Australia our citizens are being told to tighten their belts - and do more with less.
We face austerity across the board. In this state the police have been told that they will have to make do with less money when they are injured doing a dangerous job. Nurses and most other civil servants are being ordered to take a virtual pay cut - receiving pay increases that are less than the rate of inflation, and most people have not seen a pay increase since at least 2008 - when the GFC commenced.
Of course the politicians will see it differently. They will bleat that they are not directly responsible for determining their own pay. That is decided by the " Renumeration Tribunal ", a separate body that operates at arm's length and is completely independent.
Which raises the question of just who is this " Renumeration Tribunal " ?
Surprise ! Surprise ! It is a body of people - appointed by those very same politicians whose salaries it determines !
It holds reviews at regular intervals - and it's findings also apply to Federal judges and the top tiers of the public service - and it's present largess will take our prime minister's take home pay far in excess of both the president of the United states or the prime minister of Great Britain.
Julia Gillard looks set to be granted an extra $ 90,000 a year, taking her salary to $ 473,000. Tony Abbott will get $ 74,000 extra, taking him to $ 333,000, and the ordinary backbenchers will gain $ 40,000 extra, taking them to $ 180,000 a year.
A big percentage of the Australian work force would be delighted if they could manage to earn just that $ 40,000 a year as their annual salary.
The one thing you will not hear is parliamentarians of disparate persuasions objecting to their salary review - or refusing to accept it.
It is a fact of life that ministers of the government are paid a minuscule salary in comparison with the CEO's of major corporations, but it is pure greed that has allowed those people to inflate their earnings to ridiculous levels. Put plainly - they are not worth the money they are gouging from their companies.
It will not happen - but it would surely be a test on conscience if the entire parliament refused to accept any salary increase - until unemployment was below five percent, the Australian economy had delivered a surplus - and immigration had stabilised at a sustainable level.
That would prove that those we elect to run this country were at least prepared to share the burden of belt tightening with ordinary Australians.
We face austerity across the board. In this state the police have been told that they will have to make do with less money when they are injured doing a dangerous job. Nurses and most other civil servants are being ordered to take a virtual pay cut - receiving pay increases that are less than the rate of inflation, and most people have not seen a pay increase since at least 2008 - when the GFC commenced.
Of course the politicians will see it differently. They will bleat that they are not directly responsible for determining their own pay. That is decided by the " Renumeration Tribunal ", a separate body that operates at arm's length and is completely independent.
Which raises the question of just who is this " Renumeration Tribunal " ?
Surprise ! Surprise ! It is a body of people - appointed by those very same politicians whose salaries it determines !
It holds reviews at regular intervals - and it's findings also apply to Federal judges and the top tiers of the public service - and it's present largess will take our prime minister's take home pay far in excess of both the president of the United states or the prime minister of Great Britain.
Julia Gillard looks set to be granted an extra $ 90,000 a year, taking her salary to $ 473,000. Tony Abbott will get $ 74,000 extra, taking him to $ 333,000, and the ordinary backbenchers will gain $ 40,000 extra, taking them to $ 180,000 a year.
A big percentage of the Australian work force would be delighted if they could manage to earn just that $ 40,000 a year as their annual salary.
The one thing you will not hear is parliamentarians of disparate persuasions objecting to their salary review - or refusing to accept it.
It is a fact of life that ministers of the government are paid a minuscule salary in comparison with the CEO's of major corporations, but it is pure greed that has allowed those people to inflate their earnings to ridiculous levels. Put plainly - they are not worth the money they are gouging from their companies.
It will not happen - but it would surely be a test on conscience if the entire parliament refused to accept any salary increase - until unemployment was below five percent, the Australian economy had delivered a surplus - and immigration had stabilised at a sustainable level.
That would prove that those we elect to run this country were at least prepared to share the burden of belt tightening with ordinary Australians.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
Becoming " the meat in the sandwich " !
The Internet delivered a whole new world of personal communications - and with it the ability to download music and movies at the click of a mouse. Unfortunately it also took us into a dark, gray world of legal uncertainty.
A consortium of film producers is seeking damages from Internet provider iinet because they claim that this provider did not warn those downloading movies that they " may breach copyright ". They cite the lack of such a warning as a form of complicity in encouraging a breach of the law.
An earlier Federal court case on this same subject failed, and if this suffers a similar fate then there is the prospect of the film people resorting to " plan B " - and that should worry all those people who have been enjoying downloaded films.
The music industry adopted a similar " Plan B " some time ago - and this had disastrous results for those who had the misfortune to be randomly picked by a computer for prosecution. The industry went after a handful of ordinary people who had downloaded music without either paying a fee or obtaining permission from the recording studio - and prosecuted them to the max to obtain the ultimate in damages.
Individuals had findings against them to the tune of millions of dollars. Of course there was no hope of the copyright holders collecting even a fraction of this - because the victims were ordinary people with very ordinary assets.
The whole idea was not to collect money, but to create panic in the community and make people too afraid to take the risk - and therefore stop downloading and go back to buying their music from the legitimate music shop.
The problem is that ordinary people have no idea what is legitimate and what is illegal when it comes to obtaining films and music on the internet. Legally much of the trade in intellectual rights - covered by copyright - is yet to be legally explored in the courts, hence what we do today may be subjected to what some distant court decrees tomorrow !
That is a sobering thought when you next sit at your computer - and decide your entertainment needs !
A consortium of film producers is seeking damages from Internet provider iinet because they claim that this provider did not warn those downloading movies that they " may breach copyright ". They cite the lack of such a warning as a form of complicity in encouraging a breach of the law.
An earlier Federal court case on this same subject failed, and if this suffers a similar fate then there is the prospect of the film people resorting to " plan B " - and that should worry all those people who have been enjoying downloaded films.
The music industry adopted a similar " Plan B " some time ago - and this had disastrous results for those who had the misfortune to be randomly picked by a computer for prosecution. The industry went after a handful of ordinary people who had downloaded music without either paying a fee or obtaining permission from the recording studio - and prosecuted them to the max to obtain the ultimate in damages.
Individuals had findings against them to the tune of millions of dollars. Of course there was no hope of the copyright holders collecting even a fraction of this - because the victims were ordinary people with very ordinary assets.
The whole idea was not to collect money, but to create panic in the community and make people too afraid to take the risk - and therefore stop downloading and go back to buying their music from the legitimate music shop.
The problem is that ordinary people have no idea what is legitimate and what is illegal when it comes to obtaining films and music on the internet. Legally much of the trade in intellectual rights - covered by copyright - is yet to be legally explored in the courts, hence what we do today may be subjected to what some distant court decrees tomorrow !
That is a sobering thought when you next sit at your computer - and decide your entertainment needs !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)