Our iconic national airline is in deep trouble and anticipates that it will make a loss of up to three hundred million dollars in the first half of this calendar year. That is unsustainable and Qantas is planning to shed five thousand jobs and cut two billion dollars from it's overhead expenses to return to profitability.
Unfortunately, solving an airline problem is now mired in politics, and there is every chance that political stone walling will make rescue impossible - and that would be a disaster for Australia. Qantas is one of the world's oldest airlines and has an outstanding safety record. If it were to close it's doors and cease to exist - a vast array of jobs would vanish with it and the " Flying Kangaroo " logo would no longer signify Australia to the world.
One rescue proposal proposed that the Federal government go guarantor for the company's debts - and this has rightly been rejected. Qantas is a public company listed on the stock exchange and signing a blank cheque for it's debts could run to billions of dollars. The precedent this would set would be the sort of thing resorted to by banana republics.
Another request requires changing the " Australian content " rules that require Qantas to be fifty-one percent Australian owned. It is competing against competitors who are owned by other national governments and there is a plan to split domestic and overseas services into separate companies - with the overseas form of Qantas Australian owned and foreign ownership permitted in the domestic arena.
This has been totally rejected by Labor, the Greens and the PUP. On ideological grounds they insist on retaining majority Australian ownership and the unions have taken a hard stance on job shedding. They are talking strike action - and that is the last thing an ailing airline needs when it is fighting for sheer survival.
There is no doubt that the Qantas problem is caused by bad management decisions. In recent times, Air New Zealand was a similar basket case, but a brutal restructure has returned it to profitability - and Qantas can have a similar result if all concerned bite the bullet and go with the changes that are necessary.
The management of Qantas is a matter for it's shareholders. It is a " for profit " company and the people who own it have the right to accept or dismiss the board and management team. It is they who will decide what the future holds and the role of the Federal government will be to make any changes to legislation that is necessary to achieve a recovery plan.
Unfortunately, that looks uncertain. The days when political parties legislated for the public good seem to have long passed. Pure, dogmatic political opposition to one another now holds sway and point scoring is valued way above the issues confronting the country.
It seems that Qantas may become a victim of the political impasse !
Friday, 7 March 2014
Thursday, 6 March 2014
Onus of proof !
Most people would applaud moves to strip drug lords of their flashy cars and opulent lifestyles and put them behind bars for a very long time. The " Proceeds of crime " law is the weapon that makes this happen - but first the culprit must be convicted of a crime. Only then can the police swoop and start confiscating assets - and some clever criminals manage to evade a successful prosecution.
A new law is passing through Federal parliament to replace existing Commonwealth laws and strengthen police powers. It is titled the " Unexplained wealth and other measures " bill and it is aimed at suspected national crime figures living on " dirty money ".
When this becomes law, the police will be able to seize accounting records,bank statements, pay slips and whatever computer hard drives that apply and prevent money from being transferred overseas and out of reach of Australian law. The sticking point is that the accused will not have to first been convicted of some sort of crime for seizure to apply.
It reverses the " Onus of proof " that is the basis of our law system, alongside the tenet that we are " innocent until proven guilty ". Obviously, there is the assumption that this will only be applied to notorious crime figures but a law that allows the police to proceed purely on " the suspicion " of unexplained wealth opens a wide door to abuse.
It legitimizes what are referred to as " fishing expeditions " - where police invent a reason to go through a suspects records in the hope of uncovering evidence of a crime. Basically, it requires every Australian citizen to be fully accountable for every dollar in their possession and every item in their home - and to explain that accountability with relevant records when required by the police.
That is a blunt instrument that can be used as a financial weapon. Not only is it time consuming, but assembling the records to prove innocence drags the matter into the public domain. The finger of suspicion is pointed when others are called to testify and support the collation of evidence that assets were legally obtained - and bought with money that was legally earned.
It has the capability of being used as a " smear " to damage reputations and this could be used to devastating effect in both the business and political worlds. The accused is required to provide the necessary explanations for wealth, but the police are not required to provide a valid reason for demanding that information.
It opens the door for " unintended consequences. " ! Granting any sort of new power in a legal sense is a balance of outcome. Blunting the use of technology by criminals to evade the law is an essential role of law enforcement, but when it creates an avenue to harass ordinary citizens without legal recourse it takes Australian law into the realms of the dreaded " police state " from which many flee to this country as asylum seekers.
Framing this law needs careful use of checks and balances !
A new law is passing through Federal parliament to replace existing Commonwealth laws and strengthen police powers. It is titled the " Unexplained wealth and other measures " bill and it is aimed at suspected national crime figures living on " dirty money ".
When this becomes law, the police will be able to seize accounting records,bank statements, pay slips and whatever computer hard drives that apply and prevent money from being transferred overseas and out of reach of Australian law. The sticking point is that the accused will not have to first been convicted of some sort of crime for seizure to apply.
It reverses the " Onus of proof " that is the basis of our law system, alongside the tenet that we are " innocent until proven guilty ". Obviously, there is the assumption that this will only be applied to notorious crime figures but a law that allows the police to proceed purely on " the suspicion " of unexplained wealth opens a wide door to abuse.
It legitimizes what are referred to as " fishing expeditions " - where police invent a reason to go through a suspects records in the hope of uncovering evidence of a crime. Basically, it requires every Australian citizen to be fully accountable for every dollar in their possession and every item in their home - and to explain that accountability with relevant records when required by the police.
That is a blunt instrument that can be used as a financial weapon. Not only is it time consuming, but assembling the records to prove innocence drags the matter into the public domain. The finger of suspicion is pointed when others are called to testify and support the collation of evidence that assets were legally obtained - and bought with money that was legally earned.
It has the capability of being used as a " smear " to damage reputations and this could be used to devastating effect in both the business and political worlds. The accused is required to provide the necessary explanations for wealth, but the police are not required to provide a valid reason for demanding that information.
It opens the door for " unintended consequences. " ! Granting any sort of new power in a legal sense is a balance of outcome. Blunting the use of technology by criminals to evade the law is an essential role of law enforcement, but when it creates an avenue to harass ordinary citizens without legal recourse it takes Australian law into the realms of the dreaded " police state " from which many flee to this country as asylum seekers.
Framing this law needs careful use of checks and balances !
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
Trial - by Television !
The decision by the government of South Africa to allow parts of the Oscar Pistorius trial to be shown live on television opens an interesting can of worms involving the impartiality of the justice system. Many people will remember events from twenty years ago, when American O.J.Simpson faced court on murder charges and his trial was televised in it's entirety.
There is a similarity here. Both O.J.Simpson and Oscar Pistorius achieved fame on the sporting field, and Pistorius has added fame in the medical sense because he is known as the " Blade Runner ". Both went on trial for murder - and the events surrounding the alleged killings are controversial and widely open to public speculation.
The O.J.Simpson trial at times descended into farce over the fit of a glove. It led to acquittal, but then an " economic " trial followed and Simpson was stripped of his assets when that court delivered a different verdict. It is likely that the trial of Oscar Pistorius will attract a world wide following.
Many people will contend that a murder trial has no place being played out like a television sit-com for the entertainment of the masses. Simpson faced a judge and jury while Pistorius will be tried by a judge alone, but media hoopla will bring public expectations - and this will put pressure on everybody connected to the trial. There will be a tendency for barristers to " ham it up " to burnish their public image.
Whatever happened to the calming influence of a courtroom where strict rules of evidence applied ? A decision was supposed to be made on the evidence alone and any form of theatrics was frowned upon. When a trial is conducted in the public domain the media attitude will influence public thinking and it is quite possible that this will result in people demonstrating in the streets to try and achieve their preferred outcome.
The trial may even intrude into the political arena. This is a " gun death " and the anti gun lobby may use the publicity to enhance their " ban the gun " message. Allowing the trial to be televised is a step into the unknown. A lot will depend on how the television industry reacts and whether this develops into a race for ratings between various channels. If that happens, you can be certain that " breaking news " tactics will be employed to sensationalize events as news items.
This televising decision also sets a precedent. In future there will be pressure for high profile trials to be accorded similar treatment. If nothing else, that will make witnesses reluctant to appear and face the public examination that may reveal factors of their personal lives that they would prefer to keep secret.
The world should have learned a lesson from the O.J.Simpson debacle. Nothing good can come of putting justice into the category of entertainment !
There is a similarity here. Both O.J.Simpson and Oscar Pistorius achieved fame on the sporting field, and Pistorius has added fame in the medical sense because he is known as the " Blade Runner ". Both went on trial for murder - and the events surrounding the alleged killings are controversial and widely open to public speculation.
The O.J.Simpson trial at times descended into farce over the fit of a glove. It led to acquittal, but then an " economic " trial followed and Simpson was stripped of his assets when that court delivered a different verdict. It is likely that the trial of Oscar Pistorius will attract a world wide following.
Many people will contend that a murder trial has no place being played out like a television sit-com for the entertainment of the masses. Simpson faced a judge and jury while Pistorius will be tried by a judge alone, but media hoopla will bring public expectations - and this will put pressure on everybody connected to the trial. There will be a tendency for barristers to " ham it up " to burnish their public image.
Whatever happened to the calming influence of a courtroom where strict rules of evidence applied ? A decision was supposed to be made on the evidence alone and any form of theatrics was frowned upon. When a trial is conducted in the public domain the media attitude will influence public thinking and it is quite possible that this will result in people demonstrating in the streets to try and achieve their preferred outcome.
The trial may even intrude into the political arena. This is a " gun death " and the anti gun lobby may use the publicity to enhance their " ban the gun " message. Allowing the trial to be televised is a step into the unknown. A lot will depend on how the television industry reacts and whether this develops into a race for ratings between various channels. If that happens, you can be certain that " breaking news " tactics will be employed to sensationalize events as news items.
This televising decision also sets a precedent. In future there will be pressure for high profile trials to be accorded similar treatment. If nothing else, that will make witnesses reluctant to appear and face the public examination that may reveal factors of their personal lives that they would prefer to keep secret.
The world should have learned a lesson from the O.J.Simpson debacle. Nothing good can come of putting justice into the category of entertainment !
Tuesday, 4 March 2014
Pension Reform !
It is suggested that the family home now be included in the asset test to determine eligibility for the aged pension. Under the present guidelines, a couple may have assets to the value of $ 279,000 and a single person to $ 196,750 for the full pension, but a part pension will be granted with assets measuring $ 1,110,500 for a couple and $ 748,250 for a single person.
It is a fact of life that many people are asset rich - and cash poor. Including the family home in the asset test would bring the vast majority of home owners into conflict with eligibility. At today's values, few homes would be under that $ 279,000 mark and their owners would therefore be denied the full aged pension.
This draconian suggestion has socialist implications. The socialist movement opposes any form of inheritance. People enter this world with nothing - and the true socialist believer thinks they should exit it in the same state. Most families get comfort from the fact that when their life ends they may give their children a start in life when they inherit items such as the family home.
Over the length of time that Australia has been a self governing country, the family home has occupied a cherished form of protection. Home ownership has been the goal of most young couples and in their early years they usually scrimp and save to put together a deposit. Owning ones own home is probably the apex of financial security.
Obviously, the government is concerned at the ever growing outlay on aged pensions and needs to reform pension laws, but do we really want to force the aged to sell their homes and live on the proceeds - until this dwindling asset base reduces to pension eligibility ?
This is a conflict between reasonable asset limits applied to non home owners - and the extraordinary increase in value that has applied to all forms of housing in the past few decades. The ratio of the value of the average home to the rate of average income has widened to sharply increase the asset holdings of those who do - against those who do not - own some sort of dwelling. If the family home is included in pension eligibility - this gap widens further.
No doubt the bean counters will shuffle figures to try and find a solution, and the obvious answer will probably be an upper limit at which the family home becomes included in the pension asset test. The danger here is that whatever limit applies now, if it is not constantly reviewed it will get out of kilter with reality. Housing prices are subject to price " bubbles " - and in some instances can suffer rapid devaluation, as happened in 2008.
The dilemma for government is that " happenance " has divided Australia into a split money culture. The phenomenon of rising home prices has created paper wealth for those owning their own home and a vast disparity with others. To include homes in the asset test is to " punish " those who made the sacrifices necessary to achieve home ownership - and they will be unrelenting in their political fury.
This is a suggestion that only the brave - or the very foolish - will undertake lightly !
It is a fact of life that many people are asset rich - and cash poor. Including the family home in the asset test would bring the vast majority of home owners into conflict with eligibility. At today's values, few homes would be under that $ 279,000 mark and their owners would therefore be denied the full aged pension.
This draconian suggestion has socialist implications. The socialist movement opposes any form of inheritance. People enter this world with nothing - and the true socialist believer thinks they should exit it in the same state. Most families get comfort from the fact that when their life ends they may give their children a start in life when they inherit items such as the family home.
Over the length of time that Australia has been a self governing country, the family home has occupied a cherished form of protection. Home ownership has been the goal of most young couples and in their early years they usually scrimp and save to put together a deposit. Owning ones own home is probably the apex of financial security.
Obviously, the government is concerned at the ever growing outlay on aged pensions and needs to reform pension laws, but do we really want to force the aged to sell their homes and live on the proceeds - until this dwindling asset base reduces to pension eligibility ?
This is a conflict between reasonable asset limits applied to non home owners - and the extraordinary increase in value that has applied to all forms of housing in the past few decades. The ratio of the value of the average home to the rate of average income has widened to sharply increase the asset holdings of those who do - against those who do not - own some sort of dwelling. If the family home is included in pension eligibility - this gap widens further.
No doubt the bean counters will shuffle figures to try and find a solution, and the obvious answer will probably be an upper limit at which the family home becomes included in the pension asset test. The danger here is that whatever limit applies now, if it is not constantly reviewed it will get out of kilter with reality. Housing prices are subject to price " bubbles " - and in some instances can suffer rapid devaluation, as happened in 2008.
The dilemma for government is that " happenance " has divided Australia into a split money culture. The phenomenon of rising home prices has created paper wealth for those owning their own home and a vast disparity with others. To include homes in the asset test is to " punish " those who made the sacrifices necessary to achieve home ownership - and they will be unrelenting in their political fury.
This is a suggestion that only the brave - or the very foolish - will undertake lightly !
Monday, 3 March 2014
A " Homeless " reprieve !
Each state crafts it's own laws to regulate the use of public space and deter backpackers or the homeless from camping in parks or on beaches. A prosecution that wound it's way from the local court to the Supreme court has delivered a verdict that will prove a major headache for councils.
A homeless man who had lived rough on the streets of Sydney since 1992 was charged under a " No Camping " law with bedding down for the night in Martin Place. The police observed him in a sleeping bag and it seemed to be a very predictable outcome. The magistrate found him guilty and imposed a fine of $ 550, but this man engaged a clever lawyer - and the case went on to the Supreme court.
It seems that the court had problems with the definition of " camping ". While it was agreed that he had spent some time in a sleeping bag, it was also proven that he had walked to a nearby Salvation Army facility to have a cup of coffee and transact some arrangement over a blanket. There was also some doubt over his clothing. He was seen in the same clothes over several days, but witnesses also remembered him wearing a red raincoat on some occasions. The Supreme court decided that these discrepancies cast sufficient doubt for the " camping " charge to be dismissed.
The law system in Australia is based on precedent. The findings of a lower court can be overturned by appeal to a superior court and now every council in New South Wales will need to rethink the statutes they apply to regulate camping - or whatever other use the public may find to do - in public places. It also opens a can of worms if past convictions for this offence become subject to appeal.
For the homeless, it is a timely reprieve. Civic authorities generally like to keep those down on their luck well out of sight. The laws are used with discretion, moving those sleeping rough from the more public parts of the city to areas considered less salubrious. Unfortunately, this creates a greater danger factor from those who prey on the defenceless.
The main benefit from this Supreme court decision is the likelihood that the number of homeless people will be much more apparent to the public - and that will persuade the politicians and the civic authorities to pay more attention to the problem. The vast majority of the homeless are not there by choice. It is not a problem to be ignored !
A homeless man who had lived rough on the streets of Sydney since 1992 was charged under a " No Camping " law with bedding down for the night in Martin Place. The police observed him in a sleeping bag and it seemed to be a very predictable outcome. The magistrate found him guilty and imposed a fine of $ 550, but this man engaged a clever lawyer - and the case went on to the Supreme court.
It seems that the court had problems with the definition of " camping ". While it was agreed that he had spent some time in a sleeping bag, it was also proven that he had walked to a nearby Salvation Army facility to have a cup of coffee and transact some arrangement over a blanket. There was also some doubt over his clothing. He was seen in the same clothes over several days, but witnesses also remembered him wearing a red raincoat on some occasions. The Supreme court decided that these discrepancies cast sufficient doubt for the " camping " charge to be dismissed.
The law system in Australia is based on precedent. The findings of a lower court can be overturned by appeal to a superior court and now every council in New South Wales will need to rethink the statutes they apply to regulate camping - or whatever other use the public may find to do - in public places. It also opens a can of worms if past convictions for this offence become subject to appeal.
For the homeless, it is a timely reprieve. Civic authorities generally like to keep those down on their luck well out of sight. The laws are used with discretion, moving those sleeping rough from the more public parts of the city to areas considered less salubrious. Unfortunately, this creates a greater danger factor from those who prey on the defenceless.
The main benefit from this Supreme court decision is the likelihood that the number of homeless people will be much more apparent to the public - and that will persuade the politicians and the civic authorities to pay more attention to the problem. The vast majority of the homeless are not there by choice. It is not a problem to be ignored !
Sunday, 2 March 2014
Heart transplant breakthrough !
Australia's low number of heart transplants is not entirely due to lack of donors. When a donor heart does become available a desperate race against the clock will decide if a life can be saved. Firstly, pathology must match up the suitability of the donor heart with the genetics of the person who will receive that organ - and that person must be available for immediate surgery. In most cases - all that must happen within just four hours.
Compatibility is critically important to any organ transplant, hence this limits the availability to a distance circle between where the donation occurs and which patients are immediately available. Those on the waiting list are required to have a mobile phone and be ready for an instant dash to the hospital. This four hour factor precludes the matching of patients and donor when one is in Sydney and the other in Perth. Even when both are in the same state, meeting the deadline is not always possible.
It is a tragedy when a donor heart can not save a life because of the time factor limitations. It is good news that the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute has made a breakthrough in extending this transplant time window. They have successfully trialed a cocktail of drugs that has extended the viability of donor hearts from four - to fourteen hours.
This promises to greatly improve successful transplants and lower the chances of rejection. It gives more time for the genetic matching and extends the range of distance. Getting the right organ into the right patient's body will now be much easier to achieve.
Heart research and breast cancer top the list of medical donations from the public and it is these sort of breakthroughs that keep the money flowing. Eventually, science may perfect an artificial heart that makes donor hearts unnecessary, but in today's world the number of people living a useful and happy life with a donor heart beating in their chest is the pinnacle of success in medical progress.
That is the sort of news that impels more people to sign on to be a heart donor !
Compatibility is critically important to any organ transplant, hence this limits the availability to a distance circle between where the donation occurs and which patients are immediately available. Those on the waiting list are required to have a mobile phone and be ready for an instant dash to the hospital. This four hour factor precludes the matching of patients and donor when one is in Sydney and the other in Perth. Even when both are in the same state, meeting the deadline is not always possible.
It is a tragedy when a donor heart can not save a life because of the time factor limitations. It is good news that the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute has made a breakthrough in extending this transplant time window. They have successfully trialed a cocktail of drugs that has extended the viability of donor hearts from four - to fourteen hours.
This promises to greatly improve successful transplants and lower the chances of rejection. It gives more time for the genetic matching and extends the range of distance. Getting the right organ into the right patient's body will now be much easier to achieve.
Heart research and breast cancer top the list of medical donations from the public and it is these sort of breakthroughs that keep the money flowing. Eventually, science may perfect an artificial heart that makes donor hearts unnecessary, but in today's world the number of people living a useful and happy life with a donor heart beating in their chest is the pinnacle of success in medical progress.
That is the sort of news that impels more people to sign on to be a heart donor !
Saturday, 1 March 2014
A logical solution !
When hard times strike a family it becomes necessary to take unpleasant measures to survive. Some family treasures usually have to be sacrificed to solve the cash crisis. This often involves down sizing of cars and houses. The pragmatic accept that hard decisions are necessary - and take them !
Ukraine now has a dangerous crisis on it's hands. Government bungling has drained it's treasury and it is close to defaulting on it's international debt. A popular uprising in the capital has displaced a corrupt president and a new government is being formed. This is far from unanimity because the east of the country is Russian speaking and leans to that country while the western majority wishes to assimilate with Europe.
The Russian president is conducting war games at Ukraine's border and the eastern state of Crimea hosts the port for the Russian Black Sea fleet. Russian history contains a tendency for invasion where countries it regards as satellites stray from the Russian embrace. Russia and the rest of the world gaze across a diplomatic abyss.
This is precisely the reason why the world formed the United Nations. The world body is supposed to step in and resolve such tensions. Resolution usually means " give and take " with all parties having to accept some unpleasant realities for the common good. The Ukraine situation could be resolved with some hard bargaining.
Russia is unlikely to agree to giving up it's port for the Black Sea fleet and it's Russian speaking east wish to remain " Russian ". The United Nations should negotiate a territory for cash swop - similar to the " Louisiana Purchase " that saw part of America purchased from France - in exchange for the billions that Ukraine needs to refinance it's economy. Selling the Crimea to Russia resolves the two outstanding issues.
That is certainly hard medicine for the people of Ukraine. They are giving up part of their country, but exchanging that which does not wish to be a part of their Federation for an injection of funds that will restore the good life for a newly minted Ukraine. Russia has long desired to own the Crimea, hence such an arrangement would solve both problems.
No doubt losing Crimea would stick in the craw of many Ukranian's, but solving problems always comes at a price. The alternative is long years of grinding austerity as the country tries to extract itself from debt and the huge injection of funds would refinance a rejuvenated Ukraine to take it's place as a European country.
What is needed now is quick action, before events deteriorate further and slip past the point of no return.
Ukraine now has a dangerous crisis on it's hands. Government bungling has drained it's treasury and it is close to defaulting on it's international debt. A popular uprising in the capital has displaced a corrupt president and a new government is being formed. This is far from unanimity because the east of the country is Russian speaking and leans to that country while the western majority wishes to assimilate with Europe.
The Russian president is conducting war games at Ukraine's border and the eastern state of Crimea hosts the port for the Russian Black Sea fleet. Russian history contains a tendency for invasion where countries it regards as satellites stray from the Russian embrace. Russia and the rest of the world gaze across a diplomatic abyss.
This is precisely the reason why the world formed the United Nations. The world body is supposed to step in and resolve such tensions. Resolution usually means " give and take " with all parties having to accept some unpleasant realities for the common good. The Ukraine situation could be resolved with some hard bargaining.
Russia is unlikely to agree to giving up it's port for the Black Sea fleet and it's Russian speaking east wish to remain " Russian ". The United Nations should negotiate a territory for cash swop - similar to the " Louisiana Purchase " that saw part of America purchased from France - in exchange for the billions that Ukraine needs to refinance it's economy. Selling the Crimea to Russia resolves the two outstanding issues.
That is certainly hard medicine for the people of Ukraine. They are giving up part of their country, but exchanging that which does not wish to be a part of their Federation for an injection of funds that will restore the good life for a newly minted Ukraine. Russia has long desired to own the Crimea, hence such an arrangement would solve both problems.
No doubt losing Crimea would stick in the craw of many Ukranian's, but solving problems always comes at a price. The alternative is long years of grinding austerity as the country tries to extract itself from debt and the huge injection of funds would refinance a rejuvenated Ukraine to take it's place as a European country.
What is needed now is quick action, before events deteriorate further and slip past the point of no return.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)