The Western world has come a long way since the days when public housing was strictly quarantined a long way away from where the rest of the community lived. Vast estates were built without thought for the facilities needed and as a consequence they were often denied schools, public transport, shops and telephones - until many years later.
There has always been a stigma attached to public housing, despite the fact that the vast majority of public housing tenants are decent people who look after their homes and have nice, well tended gardens. The problem is the small minority who are nothing better than urban outlaws - who break all the rules and try to intimidate their neighbours.
Then there is the tendency of public housing administration to try and localise bad tenants by grouping them in a small cluster of streets. This thinking works on the basis that it is better to have a " problem cluster " than to have them spread more evenly where they will give whole suburbs a " bad name ".
The real problem was the reluctance of public housing authorities to implement the rules that were in place to discipline bad tenants. In the past, it was almost impossible to evict a tenant who refused to pay the rent, turned the yard of a home unto something resembling the local tip, or who was either a convicted, habitual criminal - or an alcoholic or a drug addict - and sometimes - both !
Times have changed. Slowly - and very reluctantly - the laws are being implemented. Those that try to terrorise their neighbours are being given their marching orders - and for the first time this is influencing others to mend their ways. New thinking is being applied to the location of public housing and new estate planning is on a " PPP " basis - a " Public/Private/Partnership ".
Where a new suburb is planned the mix of private and public housing will be on at least a 70/30 basis and it is expected that this mix will result in a lift in standards. At the same time, the design of public housing has moved away from the dreary little three bedroom box to something that fits in well with it's private home surroundings.
Perhaps the greatest change is one of thinking. In the past, many people saw public housing as a " right " - and acted accordingly. That seems to have changed to one of both parties now having " mutual obligations " - and the housing authorities have the " teeth " to ensure that those obligations are met.
Perhaps the day is fast arriving when it will be impossible to distinguish between public and private housing in our new suburbs.
Saturday, 14 January 2012
Friday, 13 January 2012
The Australian car industry enigma !
By world standards, the Australia car industry is small. We produce about 250,000 Australian made cars annually and these support about 50,000 Australian jobs - and this entire industry is concentrated in Victoria and South Australia.
The problem is that what we produce is now not what the Australian public is buying. As recently as a couple of decades ago most Australian families made the decision to buy either a Holden Commodore or a Ford Falcon. The big six cylinder car was king because it suited the size of the average Australian family, and it had the power to pull a caravan or a boat on the holiday scene.
Sales of these two icons have dropped and most car brands have added smaller - and cheaper - cars to their range of products - and these are made in either Korea or India. We are seeing new brands emerging from both Korea and China and these are competing across all aspects of both the size and model range. The buying public have a huge spectrum of opportunity offering when making a decision to purchase - and this will widen further with the inclusion of electric cars - and the widening choice between petrol or diesel engines,
The Australian car industry has seen industry contractions as iconic brands have ceased manufacturing and relied on imports, and now big decisions are facing those that are left in this field. The entire world car industry relies on financial help from host governments and if Australia is still going to manufacture cars - the taxpayer will need to shell out to keep the industry solvent.
The question is - can we compete in this fast changing world market ?
There is no doubt that the end of car manufacturing in Australia would be a crushing blow to our national pride. It would reinforce the idea that Australia has allowed itself to be transformed from a vibrant manufacturing economy - to the world's quarry ! It would probably doom whoever was in political power in Canberra to certain defeat at the next election.
As the remaining car industry in this country ponders the local product question, the economists in Canberra will need to figure whether the jobs are worth saving in relation to what it will cost the economy to keep this industry running.
And the even bigger question. If we abandon car manufacturing as a lost cause, what other source of employment can we lure here to give those fifty thousand Australian workers a new pay packet ?
The problem is that what we produce is now not what the Australian public is buying. As recently as a couple of decades ago most Australian families made the decision to buy either a Holden Commodore or a Ford Falcon. The big six cylinder car was king because it suited the size of the average Australian family, and it had the power to pull a caravan or a boat on the holiday scene.
Sales of these two icons have dropped and most car brands have added smaller - and cheaper - cars to their range of products - and these are made in either Korea or India. We are seeing new brands emerging from both Korea and China and these are competing across all aspects of both the size and model range. The buying public have a huge spectrum of opportunity offering when making a decision to purchase - and this will widen further with the inclusion of electric cars - and the widening choice between petrol or diesel engines,
The Australian car industry has seen industry contractions as iconic brands have ceased manufacturing and relied on imports, and now big decisions are facing those that are left in this field. The entire world car industry relies on financial help from host governments and if Australia is still going to manufacture cars - the taxpayer will need to shell out to keep the industry solvent.
The question is - can we compete in this fast changing world market ?
There is no doubt that the end of car manufacturing in Australia would be a crushing blow to our national pride. It would reinforce the idea that Australia has allowed itself to be transformed from a vibrant manufacturing economy - to the world's quarry ! It would probably doom whoever was in political power in Canberra to certain defeat at the next election.
As the remaining car industry in this country ponders the local product question, the economists in Canberra will need to figure whether the jobs are worth saving in relation to what it will cost the economy to keep this industry running.
And the even bigger question. If we abandon car manufacturing as a lost cause, what other source of employment can we lure here to give those fifty thousand Australian workers a new pay packet ?
Thursday, 12 January 2012
A threat to our flag !
The British government has agreed to let Scotland hold a referendum on breaking away from the three hundred year old amalgamation of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales that became the United Kingdom. It seems likely that this referendum will take place in 2014.
The polls indicate that about 54% of Scots oppose the move, but that is before debate begins and a lot will depend on what happens to the United Kingdom economy - and how the Economic Union Euro crisis evolves - before the people put pen to paper.
Should the referendum succeed - and Scotland leave the UK to become an independent country, it will be necessary for a new flag to replace the Union Jack. This old flag is an amalgamation of the crosses of the four constituents of the union, and without Scotland the flag will be missing the " blue " of the " red, white and blue ".
That would certainly create a problem for Australia, and all those other parts of the world that incorporate the Union Jack in their national flag,
One option would be for Australia to do nothing - and just retain the old Union Jack in the upper left corner as a symbol of from whence this new nation emerged. To many, it would seem odd to retain a flag that no longer applies to the country in which our head of state resides - and it would certainly re-energise the republican debate across Australia.
The issue of becoming a republic seems to have been set aside until the present Queen dies. Considering her age, it may well be that this referendum and that event coincide, hence the question of what flag flies over this country needs consideration now.
Looking back into the distant past, flags originated as heraldic devices that were supposed to carry a message. Our flag contained the Union Jack as a symbol of our origin, and the stars of the Southern Cross and the Federation star represented who we are - and where we are located.
Perhaps if a referendum on the other side of the world dictates a need to change our flag, we should consider a change of message. In recent times we have sought reconciliation with the people who lived here before that first fleet dropped anchor in 1788.
A simple solution to the flag problem would be to replace the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag. In this way we would recognise the Aboriginal people who were here before 1788, and retain the blue background, stars of the Southern Cross and Federation star - to represent those who followed to become citizens of this country.
That could become the ultimate act of conciliation, binding together all the citizens - past and present - of this country we call home.
The polls indicate that about 54% of Scots oppose the move, but that is before debate begins and a lot will depend on what happens to the United Kingdom economy - and how the Economic Union Euro crisis evolves - before the people put pen to paper.
Should the referendum succeed - and Scotland leave the UK to become an independent country, it will be necessary for a new flag to replace the Union Jack. This old flag is an amalgamation of the crosses of the four constituents of the union, and without Scotland the flag will be missing the " blue " of the " red, white and blue ".
That would certainly create a problem for Australia, and all those other parts of the world that incorporate the Union Jack in their national flag,
One option would be for Australia to do nothing - and just retain the old Union Jack in the upper left corner as a symbol of from whence this new nation emerged. To many, it would seem odd to retain a flag that no longer applies to the country in which our head of state resides - and it would certainly re-energise the republican debate across Australia.
The issue of becoming a republic seems to have been set aside until the present Queen dies. Considering her age, it may well be that this referendum and that event coincide, hence the question of what flag flies over this country needs consideration now.
Looking back into the distant past, flags originated as heraldic devices that were supposed to carry a message. Our flag contained the Union Jack as a symbol of our origin, and the stars of the Southern Cross and the Federation star represented who we are - and where we are located.
Perhaps if a referendum on the other side of the world dictates a need to change our flag, we should consider a change of message. In recent times we have sought reconciliation with the people who lived here before that first fleet dropped anchor in 1788.
A simple solution to the flag problem would be to replace the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag. In this way we would recognise the Aboriginal people who were here before 1788, and retain the blue background, stars of the Southern Cross and Federation star - to represent those who followed to become citizens of this country.
That could become the ultimate act of conciliation, binding together all the citizens - past and present - of this country we call home.
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
This " Politically Correct " era !
Opposition Citizenship spokeswoman Teresa Gambaro has received a wall of flak for daring to suggest that people migrating to this country should be taught " lifestyle education " to allow them to fit seamlessly into our communities.
It seems to cross the line of being " politically correct " to even suggest that those who desire to live amongst us should in any way deviate from the customs they normally follow. We once desired all newcomers to learn English so that Australian's would share a common language, but now we have " multiculturalism " - and to make sure there is no need to go to that bother we pay taxes to provide the SBS network giving news and cultural programmes in a full range of languages.
One local custom that works for us is the habit of forming a queue when we need a taxi or expect to board a bus. It simply rewards the first people there to be first in line, but this is totally unknown in some Asian countries. Migrants - or even visiting tourists - who try and rush to the head of the line attract a volley of verbal abuse - and in some cases this can lead to "biffo". Surely, making them aware that there is a cultural difference here would be a way to harmony !
Ms Gambaro was harshly criticised for suggesting that migrants adopt the Australian trend to use underarm deoderant. Older Australians will smile and remember the first wave of European migration after the end of the second world war - when many from both England and Europe were accustomed to a " weekly bath " - which was common in that colder climate - and didn't make the grade in Australia's hot and humid summers. Many of today's migrants come from places where even drinking water is rationed - and body washing is an almost unheard of luxury.
It seems that " political correctness " now extends to judging the events of 1788 by the values that apply to these early years of the twenty-first century. Even suggesting that people change their living habits to somehow conform to an Australian standard is considered so offensive as to bring instant abuse.
And yet so many of those who arrive on our shores with no knowledge of the Australian lifestyle are dismayed when - by ignorance - they offend because they are totally unaware of customs which do not apply from whence they came.
Those who stick to the sheer insanity of political correctness should remember that the greatest gift we can bestow on a newcomer - is the knowledge they need to be comfortably accepted in their new homeland !
It seems to cross the line of being " politically correct " to even suggest that those who desire to live amongst us should in any way deviate from the customs they normally follow. We once desired all newcomers to learn English so that Australian's would share a common language, but now we have " multiculturalism " - and to make sure there is no need to go to that bother we pay taxes to provide the SBS network giving news and cultural programmes in a full range of languages.
One local custom that works for us is the habit of forming a queue when we need a taxi or expect to board a bus. It simply rewards the first people there to be first in line, but this is totally unknown in some Asian countries. Migrants - or even visiting tourists - who try and rush to the head of the line attract a volley of verbal abuse - and in some cases this can lead to "biffo". Surely, making them aware that there is a cultural difference here would be a way to harmony !
Ms Gambaro was harshly criticised for suggesting that migrants adopt the Australian trend to use underarm deoderant. Older Australians will smile and remember the first wave of European migration after the end of the second world war - when many from both England and Europe were accustomed to a " weekly bath " - which was common in that colder climate - and didn't make the grade in Australia's hot and humid summers. Many of today's migrants come from places where even drinking water is rationed - and body washing is an almost unheard of luxury.
It seems that " political correctness " now extends to judging the events of 1788 by the values that apply to these early years of the twenty-first century. Even suggesting that people change their living habits to somehow conform to an Australian standard is considered so offensive as to bring instant abuse.
And yet so many of those who arrive on our shores with no knowledge of the Australian lifestyle are dismayed when - by ignorance - they offend because they are totally unaware of customs which do not apply from whence they came.
Those who stick to the sheer insanity of political correctness should remember that the greatest gift we can bestow on a newcomer - is the knowledge they need to be comfortably accepted in their new homeland !
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
The " Unwanted " !
A case making newspaper headlines tends to illustrate the conflict between what the law requires and what the community expects when it concerns the release from prison of an offender who has served time for the murder of a child.
A man was released in December of 2009 after serving sixteen years for the brutal murder of a young boy. At the time there was an outcry from those connected with the victim and strict parole conditions applied. One of those conditions stipulated that the released offender must not have a close relationship or have any form of control over other children.
The parolee settled in a country town far removed from the crime scene and changed his name. We can presume that he was under some sort of supervision from the parole authorities, and yet somewhere along the line he established a relationship with a young woman - and eventually moved in with her. The sticking point was - this woman had two young children from a previous relationship, and he did not disclose to her the fact that he was a former notorious murderer of a child.
When this information surfaced he was immediately arrested, and he will face court for breaching a child protection order. He may face a short term in prison, but inevitably he will again be released - and it will be impossible for him to return to that country town now that he is known by his new name and all the facts have been disclosed.
It raises the question of just what should happen to those who commit a horrible crime, serve their time - and are then returned to the community !
The law states that when a court delivers a verdict, the sentence must be served - and the person is then released to start a new chapter in their life. Conditions apply, but as we well know integrating anyone guilty of a child crime back into the community can be almost impossible. Public hysteria can lead to vigilante action.
In this case, we are dealing with the unknown. It is quite possible that this man may have become a valued step-father and these two children might have grown to maturity in safety - but it is also possible that the liaison could have led to tragedy. The law required him to walk away from that liaison as soon as he became aware that children were involved, but that is a lot to ask a lonely man trying to establish a new life - and a new relationship.
Fortunately this conflict between the law and society only applies to those who harm children - and such cases are in the minority. Ordinary criminals - and there are plenty of them - ease back into society seamlessly because a different set of standards apply.
It seems that child murder is a crime with a similar ending to the fable of the ghost ship - " The Flying Dutchman " - destined to sail the world's seas indefinitely.
Like that ship - the perpetrators are destined to wander society - unwanted - for an eternity !
A man was released in December of 2009 after serving sixteen years for the brutal murder of a young boy. At the time there was an outcry from those connected with the victim and strict parole conditions applied. One of those conditions stipulated that the released offender must not have a close relationship or have any form of control over other children.
The parolee settled in a country town far removed from the crime scene and changed his name. We can presume that he was under some sort of supervision from the parole authorities, and yet somewhere along the line he established a relationship with a young woman - and eventually moved in with her. The sticking point was - this woman had two young children from a previous relationship, and he did not disclose to her the fact that he was a former notorious murderer of a child.
When this information surfaced he was immediately arrested, and he will face court for breaching a child protection order. He may face a short term in prison, but inevitably he will again be released - and it will be impossible for him to return to that country town now that he is known by his new name and all the facts have been disclosed.
It raises the question of just what should happen to those who commit a horrible crime, serve their time - and are then returned to the community !
The law states that when a court delivers a verdict, the sentence must be served - and the person is then released to start a new chapter in their life. Conditions apply, but as we well know integrating anyone guilty of a child crime back into the community can be almost impossible. Public hysteria can lead to vigilante action.
In this case, we are dealing with the unknown. It is quite possible that this man may have become a valued step-father and these two children might have grown to maturity in safety - but it is also possible that the liaison could have led to tragedy. The law required him to walk away from that liaison as soon as he became aware that children were involved, but that is a lot to ask a lonely man trying to establish a new life - and a new relationship.
Fortunately this conflict between the law and society only applies to those who harm children - and such cases are in the minority. Ordinary criminals - and there are plenty of them - ease back into society seamlessly because a different set of standards apply.
It seems that child murder is a crime with a similar ending to the fable of the ghost ship - " The Flying Dutchman " - destined to sail the world's seas indefinitely.
Like that ship - the perpetrators are destined to wander society - unwanted - for an eternity !
Monday, 9 January 2012
The " tactical " retail war !
The " bricks and mortar " retailers are taking a pasting from the online crowd because of issues like the GST - and ever rising council rates, electricity charges. Without these overhead costs it is easy to undercut traditional shop prices.
Desperate times lead to desperate measures. In trying to claw back lost sales one big retail chain adopted an unfair tactic that brought a $ 750,000 fine from a regulatory authority. It's national advertising gave the impression that a discounted item was available in all it's many stores - but the fine print restricted availability to just one obscure outlet - in a remote suburb.
A similar tactic was recently tried by a national liquor retailer. A brand of cask wine was advertised at a cheap price in national newspapers, but once again the small print revealed that the offer only applied to a single store. So far, no official action has been forthcoming.
One of the biggest advantages the bricks and mortar people have is the ability for the customer to see and physically handle the offered item. The big disadvantage of online selling is the necessity of buying off a catalogue. What you see is often not what you get. Being able to feel the fabric of a garment or to work the mechanism of a mechanical item goes a long way to delivering a buying decision.
We are probably well on the way to seeing the bricks and mortar people establishing their own online operations, and using their retail stores as the delivery point for online purchases. Not only does this eliminate individual freight delivery charges - which often make online purchases less attractive - but it inspires confidence that warranty claims will be hassle free.
There is another huge advantage that the bricks and mortar crowd need to embrace. Online shopping can not individually fit items to each customers needs, nor can it physically show and instruct a customer on how to operate a complex item. Some items lend themselves well to unseen purchases, but others do not and the retail shops would be wise to selectively cater to that segment of the market.
Just as supermarkets evolved by convincing shoppers to wheel a trolley around their aisles and pack their own groceries, retailing in the twenty-first century is undergoing change - and the ones who survive will be those who grasp the advantages that both online and retail stores offer - and combine those benefits.
Savvy customers are there to be wooed. It is just a matter of " thinking outside the nine dots " to win the sale !
Desperate times lead to desperate measures. In trying to claw back lost sales one big retail chain adopted an unfair tactic that brought a $ 750,000 fine from a regulatory authority. It's national advertising gave the impression that a discounted item was available in all it's many stores - but the fine print restricted availability to just one obscure outlet - in a remote suburb.
A similar tactic was recently tried by a national liquor retailer. A brand of cask wine was advertised at a cheap price in national newspapers, but once again the small print revealed that the offer only applied to a single store. So far, no official action has been forthcoming.
One of the biggest advantages the bricks and mortar people have is the ability for the customer to see and physically handle the offered item. The big disadvantage of online selling is the necessity of buying off a catalogue. What you see is often not what you get. Being able to feel the fabric of a garment or to work the mechanism of a mechanical item goes a long way to delivering a buying decision.
We are probably well on the way to seeing the bricks and mortar people establishing their own online operations, and using their retail stores as the delivery point for online purchases. Not only does this eliminate individual freight delivery charges - which often make online purchases less attractive - but it inspires confidence that warranty claims will be hassle free.
There is another huge advantage that the bricks and mortar crowd need to embrace. Online shopping can not individually fit items to each customers needs, nor can it physically show and instruct a customer on how to operate a complex item. Some items lend themselves well to unseen purchases, but others do not and the retail shops would be wise to selectively cater to that segment of the market.
Just as supermarkets evolved by convincing shoppers to wheel a trolley around their aisles and pack their own groceries, retailing in the twenty-first century is undergoing change - and the ones who survive will be those who grasp the advantages that both online and retail stores offer - and combine those benefits.
Savvy customers are there to be wooed. It is just a matter of " thinking outside the nine dots " to win the sale !
Sunday, 8 January 2012
KISS. Keep it simple - Stupid !
Sixty years ago " Marketing " was the buzz word for aspiring executives making their mark in the commercial world and a leading Guru coined the " KISS " phrase to warn against the trend to obfuscation when explaining how a system works.
Unfortunately obfuscation seems to have developed into an art form, specially when it comes to implementing government policy. The moment somebody dreams up a new plan to be foisted on the nation - a veritable army of movers and shakers crawls out of the woodwork and begins to implement rules and regulations - that even Einstein would have difficulty following.
So it is with the very well intentioned " Tele-Health " initiative !
The idea was to simplify the process of country GP's getting their patients a consultation with specialists. As things stood, the country patients usually had to make a long journey to the city and suffer both inconvenience and expense. It seemed less wasteful to set up a tele-conference in which the patient and his or her GP spoke directly to the specialist from the GP's consulting rooms. The GP could order any tests required by the specialist at the local hospital and perform physical testing as the specialist watched.
The Federal government has spent $ 7.2 million to get this scheme up and running, and 1200 country GP's have each applied for $ 6,000 grants to buy the software deemed necessary by the bureaucrats to access the scheme.
The problem is that this software is so complex that many doctors have been forced to undertake further IT training to be able to navigate through the system - and many have found that a better way already exists.
The commercial world produced SKYPE - and this fits neatly into the " Keep it simple - Stupid " paradigm. All the GP's and the specialists have to do is download the free SKPE software onto their computers and they are ready for those tele-conferences that connect their patients with advanced medical help.
All that is needed is a computer with both a camera and sound system - and the Tele-Health system is up and running.
It seems to be a fact of life that anything the government plans seems to get bogged down in complexity and endless rules and regulations. Unfortunately, there are many in the bureaucracy who think they have to justify their existence by taking the longest journey between any two points - as seems to be the case with the official version of Tele-Health.
Perhaps what is needed is a placard nailed to the wall above every government employee's desk - asking - " Does it meet the KISS standard ? "
It could be a way to solving our budget deficit problem !
Unfortunately obfuscation seems to have developed into an art form, specially when it comes to implementing government policy. The moment somebody dreams up a new plan to be foisted on the nation - a veritable army of movers and shakers crawls out of the woodwork and begins to implement rules and regulations - that even Einstein would have difficulty following.
So it is with the very well intentioned " Tele-Health " initiative !
The idea was to simplify the process of country GP's getting their patients a consultation with specialists. As things stood, the country patients usually had to make a long journey to the city and suffer both inconvenience and expense. It seemed less wasteful to set up a tele-conference in which the patient and his or her GP spoke directly to the specialist from the GP's consulting rooms. The GP could order any tests required by the specialist at the local hospital and perform physical testing as the specialist watched.
The Federal government has spent $ 7.2 million to get this scheme up and running, and 1200 country GP's have each applied for $ 6,000 grants to buy the software deemed necessary by the bureaucrats to access the scheme.
The problem is that this software is so complex that many doctors have been forced to undertake further IT training to be able to navigate through the system - and many have found that a better way already exists.
The commercial world produced SKYPE - and this fits neatly into the " Keep it simple - Stupid " paradigm. All the GP's and the specialists have to do is download the free SKPE software onto their computers and they are ready for those tele-conferences that connect their patients with advanced medical help.
All that is needed is a computer with both a camera and sound system - and the Tele-Health system is up and running.
It seems to be a fact of life that anything the government plans seems to get bogged down in complexity and endless rules and regulations. Unfortunately, there are many in the bureaucracy who think they have to justify their existence by taking the longest journey between any two points - as seems to be the case with the official version of Tele-Health.
Perhaps what is needed is a placard nailed to the wall above every government employee's desk - asking - " Does it meet the KISS standard ? "
It could be a way to solving our budget deficit problem !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)