Graffiti costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to remove from our rail system. Trains are taken out of service to have painted messages removed and this cost comes from the public purse. The government employs Transit Officers to patrol trains to try and keep graffiti under control - but it seems that the courts have very different ideas on what does - and what does not - constitute " crime " !
A Transit Officer caught an eighteen year old male using a marker pen to scrawl graffiti on the wall of a carriage on a central coast train. He placed this young man under arrest and in retaliation, the culprit head butted him. This led to charges of assault in addition to the illegal act of defacing public property - and the matter went to court.
The magistrate dismissed the assault charge because he contended that the Transit Officer should have taken the culprit's details instead of arresting him. As a result, he deemed the arrest unlawful, and therefore the admission of evidence from the Transit Officer on the assault would be " inadmissible ". The offender pleaded guilty to the graffiti charge - and received a small fine.
What sort of message does that deliver to the army of louts, deviants and muggers that ride our trains and gleefully assault other passengers, ignore laws prohibiting the drinking of alcohol - and pass the time scrawling graffiti on every possible surface ? The worst that can happen if they get caught - is for the officer to demand their name and address - and in many cases they are prepared for that with bogus details.
That used to be the ruse that fare evaders used to avoid convictions. The most station staff at ticket barriers were allowed to ask was for the name and address of the culprit - and as a consequence the debt recovery section faced reams of fruitless searches for people with names like " Donald Duck " that seemingly lived on what were suburban vacant lots.
To be arrested - cuffed - marched off a train and held for an identity check at a police station at least underscores the fact that graffiti is a serious crime that brings consequences. The fact that the offender launches a physical attack on a Transit Officer simply doing his or her duty is inexcusable under any circumstances. If we allow law enforcement to become punching bags at the whim of offenders we have lost control of a civilized society.
Magistrates are allowed " discretion " to ponder circumstances, but there should be no question in the framing of laws as to what they actually mean. Another magistrate - in another court - hearing a case with identical charges might deliver an entirely different verdict. It is time the law makers cleaned up their act and codified the laws to explicitly spell out how they apply.
With this verdict ringing in their ears, it must be difficult for Transit Officers to carry out their duties - knowing that the law will most likely offer them no protection if they are assaulted !
Monday, 7 July 2014
Sunday, 6 July 2014
The " Euthanasia " Controversy !
It is a fact of life that every Australian breaks no law if they commit suicide. Half a century ago, most Australian states did have legislation on their books that made a failed suicide attempt a crime, but few were actually prosecuted. The churches and many religious people are very vocally against the entire concept of " Euthanasia " and they have skillfully cowed the politicians into knocking down any legislation that offers help to those to wish to end their lives.
We have the almost laughable situation that a person who commits suicide is free to do so, but if any other person assists in doing so the courts can throw the book at him or her - and impose a substantial gaol sentence. Now we are splitting hairs to determine the exact definition of that word - " Help " !
Philip Nitschke is the founder of an organization named " Exit International " which seeks a law change to allow those wishing to end their lives to be assisted in their task. Nitschke is a legally registered doctor and he has come under criticism because he made a book available that explains methods of ending life to a forty-five year old Perth man who was apparently in good health, but had his own reasons for terminating further living.
The preferred method of Euthanasia is the drug Nembutal. It allows the person wishing life termination to drift painlessly into a sleep from which they will never awake. It is a banned substance in Australia, but is freely available in Mexico and many other world countries. Heroin and other narcotics are also banned imports, but they are freely available on our streets and there is no doubt that Nembutal slips through our porous customs defences - for those who know where and how to find it.
The anti Euthanasia fanatics are demanding Nitschke be deregistered as a doctor and charged with " assisting " a suicide. It crosses a very fine line when it infers that making information that is freely available in the public domain is interpreted as illegal assistance. The time is fast coming when we need to have a re-think on this whole matter of life - and death. Death is a natural occurrence - and as it can not be made illegal - it needs to be treated with compassion.
We already have passed the half way point with Euthanasia. We have " Hospices " for the terminally ill in which we ease the way out of life for those with diseases such as cancer. We cross a fine line when we use drugs in quantities we know will shorten the existing life span to alleviate the shocking pain the terminally ill are suffering - and we pretend that is not a form of Euthanasia.
If the snooty nosed, Churchy lot have their way, suicide can become a very messy affair. Blowing one's brains out with a shotgun can be distressing for loved ones and friends, and of course some unfortunate person is tasked with cleaning up the mess. Walking in front of a speeding train is another example of life ending that has repercussions. Many a train driver has been forced to give up driving because of the horror witnessed. In so many cases, desperate people have resorted to what amount to " public executions " - like jumping from a high building - that have a profound effect on others.
Polls taken indicate that about eighty percent of the Australian population condone Euthanasia and it has been legalized in several overseas countries. The right to die with dignity - and at a time of our own choosing - is a personal choice enshrined in law. Euthanasia has been winning the battle against a noisy minority who try to impose their personal view.
Freedom to get assistance with this most personal of decisions - is only a matter of time !
We have the almost laughable situation that a person who commits suicide is free to do so, but if any other person assists in doing so the courts can throw the book at him or her - and impose a substantial gaol sentence. Now we are splitting hairs to determine the exact definition of that word - " Help " !
Philip Nitschke is the founder of an organization named " Exit International " which seeks a law change to allow those wishing to end their lives to be assisted in their task. Nitschke is a legally registered doctor and he has come under criticism because he made a book available that explains methods of ending life to a forty-five year old Perth man who was apparently in good health, but had his own reasons for terminating further living.
The preferred method of Euthanasia is the drug Nembutal. It allows the person wishing life termination to drift painlessly into a sleep from which they will never awake. It is a banned substance in Australia, but is freely available in Mexico and many other world countries. Heroin and other narcotics are also banned imports, but they are freely available on our streets and there is no doubt that Nembutal slips through our porous customs defences - for those who know where and how to find it.
The anti Euthanasia fanatics are demanding Nitschke be deregistered as a doctor and charged with " assisting " a suicide. It crosses a very fine line when it infers that making information that is freely available in the public domain is interpreted as illegal assistance. The time is fast coming when we need to have a re-think on this whole matter of life - and death. Death is a natural occurrence - and as it can not be made illegal - it needs to be treated with compassion.
We already have passed the half way point with Euthanasia. We have " Hospices " for the terminally ill in which we ease the way out of life for those with diseases such as cancer. We cross a fine line when we use drugs in quantities we know will shorten the existing life span to alleviate the shocking pain the terminally ill are suffering - and we pretend that is not a form of Euthanasia.
If the snooty nosed, Churchy lot have their way, suicide can become a very messy affair. Blowing one's brains out with a shotgun can be distressing for loved ones and friends, and of course some unfortunate person is tasked with cleaning up the mess. Walking in front of a speeding train is another example of life ending that has repercussions. Many a train driver has been forced to give up driving because of the horror witnessed. In so many cases, desperate people have resorted to what amount to " public executions " - like jumping from a high building - that have a profound effect on others.
Polls taken indicate that about eighty percent of the Australian population condone Euthanasia and it has been legalized in several overseas countries. The right to die with dignity - and at a time of our own choosing - is a personal choice enshrined in law. Euthanasia has been winning the battle against a noisy minority who try to impose their personal view.
Freedom to get assistance with this most personal of decisions - is only a matter of time !
Saturday, 5 July 2014
Damage control !
The threat of a Royal Commission has sent the management of the Commonwealth Bank into a charm offensive to try and mitigate the damage done to it's reputation. Somehow it allowed corrupt financial advisers to steer customers into investments that were good for the bank's profits - and which funnelled huge bonuses into the pockets of those giving the advice - but delivered loss and financial misery to the customers who trusted them with their retirement savings.
It is a sad story of incentives for recommending dubious investment schemes to the very people in face to face contact with the bank seeking advice, and their superiors in the bank looking the other way as this practice swelled their budget achievements and brought accolades. It seems that many of these same people are still with the Commonwealth bank - and some have been promoted and now serve at a much higher level.
The bank has so far been selective in damage control. The " squeaky wheel " syndrome applies. Those that piece together the records to make a compelling case to take to court are quietly reimbursed for part of their losses - in exchange for the promise of no further action.
The pressure for a Royal Commission to probe the whole sordid affair changed all that, but critics complain that it still avoids the action necessary to bring it - kicking and screaming - into full public view. This new policy of reimbursement stays completely under the bank's control - and all outcomes are at the bank's discretion.
For a start, a review of the investments made will only be conducted where there is a request from an aggrieved customer. This will avoid a Royal Commission investigation of the entire spectrum of advice given - and limit the draw down on bank profits. The amount of reimbursement will be in the hands of an independent committee - but once again the people who sit on that committee will be nominees of the bank - and their " independence " is therefore questionable.
The bank terminated the worst offenders amongst it's staff giving dodgy advice, but details are sketchy on what action was taken to remove the possibility of similar malpractice reappearing in the future. The bank naturally wants to settle this matter in the shortest possible time - and with the least publicity it can manage. It seems that reimbursement of loss is at last being seen as a reluctant necessity - with the actual blame being swept under the carpet.
Dodging a full and frank investigation of this scandal will not deliver justice. Many of the victims are now in extreme old age and some may not even be aware that the crash of their investments was other than natural causes. Many could now be deceased, and their families could be unaware of the financial details of their latter days. In all fairness, this is a matter that should be carefully and fully sifted through by an independent body quite separate from the bank which profitted from the outcome.
Only such a course of action will fully restore the trust that Australia's biggest bank has wiped the slate clean !
It is a sad story of incentives for recommending dubious investment schemes to the very people in face to face contact with the bank seeking advice, and their superiors in the bank looking the other way as this practice swelled their budget achievements and brought accolades. It seems that many of these same people are still with the Commonwealth bank - and some have been promoted and now serve at a much higher level.
The bank has so far been selective in damage control. The " squeaky wheel " syndrome applies. Those that piece together the records to make a compelling case to take to court are quietly reimbursed for part of their losses - in exchange for the promise of no further action.
The pressure for a Royal Commission to probe the whole sordid affair changed all that, but critics complain that it still avoids the action necessary to bring it - kicking and screaming - into full public view. This new policy of reimbursement stays completely under the bank's control - and all outcomes are at the bank's discretion.
For a start, a review of the investments made will only be conducted where there is a request from an aggrieved customer. This will avoid a Royal Commission investigation of the entire spectrum of advice given - and limit the draw down on bank profits. The amount of reimbursement will be in the hands of an independent committee - but once again the people who sit on that committee will be nominees of the bank - and their " independence " is therefore questionable.
The bank terminated the worst offenders amongst it's staff giving dodgy advice, but details are sketchy on what action was taken to remove the possibility of similar malpractice reappearing in the future. The bank naturally wants to settle this matter in the shortest possible time - and with the least publicity it can manage. It seems that reimbursement of loss is at last being seen as a reluctant necessity - with the actual blame being swept under the carpet.
Dodging a full and frank investigation of this scandal will not deliver justice. Many of the victims are now in extreme old age and some may not even be aware that the crash of their investments was other than natural causes. Many could now be deceased, and their families could be unaware of the financial details of their latter days. In all fairness, this is a matter that should be carefully and fully sifted through by an independent body quite separate from the bank which profitted from the outcome.
Only such a course of action will fully restore the trust that Australia's biggest bank has wiped the slate clean !
Friday, 4 July 2014
Formulae - for Catastrophe !
It has happened in many other parts of the world. Overcrowded prisons and under staffed supervision have led to riots where fires have raged, hostages have been taken - and the aftermath has been a lot of dead people. It seems that all is not well in the New South Wales prison system.
At present this state's gaols contain 10,917 prisoners and it is expected that the numbers will increase to more than 12,000 by next March. The bail system has just been revised to try and relieve overcrowding but prison officers are warning that even so - the numbers are forcing three prisoners to share cells designed for two and the ratio of officers can be as low as twenty supervising three hundred inmates. As a consequence, pressures are building and prisoners are spending more time locked down than the system allows. There is talk of a ban on receiving new inmates to relieve this pressure.
The public is already expressing concern that the new bail laws are allowing people accused of serious crime to remain free in the community in place of remaining in prison on remand. The government is trying to reign in the ever expanding cost of the prison system and yet the public expectation of curbing crime demands tougher action and a " lock them up " mentality. If judges and magistrates hand down lenient sentences they are criticised and accused of being " soft " on crime.
Perhaps it is time to review this whole aspect of punishment for crime. There certainly are offenders who are dangerous to the public and need to be securely locked away for the full term of their sentence, but do we really need to apply the same criteria to offenders whose crime is driving a car while their license is suspended - or who were caught growing a Marijuana plant in their backyard ?
Secure prisons cost a lot of money to build and to staff. Could the same purpose be achieved by the wider use of " prison farms " - where those convicted of social crimes serve out their time with minimum supervision and a high degree of trust ? Should a prisoner disregard that trust and escape, the penalty would be to serve the rest of the sentence - plus an extension for the escape - within the much less friendly and comfortable confines of the traditional prison system.
It is the loss of personal freedom that chafes most people committed to prison. Many social crimes are more an error of judgement - often where alcohol or drugs are involved - and the offender will gladly trade a lighter sentence under less harsh conditions with the obligation to obey the rules that go with time in a prison farm as an alternative to regular prison.
Such prison farms would contribute to their cost by producing meat and vegetables to supply the state's hospitals and other institutions - including the regular prison system. Not all offenders would be suitable for inclusion in such a scheme, but those that are would certainly take the pressure off our present overcrowded gaols - and put something back into society rather than just become a drain on finances
At present this state's gaols contain 10,917 prisoners and it is expected that the numbers will increase to more than 12,000 by next March. The bail system has just been revised to try and relieve overcrowding but prison officers are warning that even so - the numbers are forcing three prisoners to share cells designed for two and the ratio of officers can be as low as twenty supervising three hundred inmates. As a consequence, pressures are building and prisoners are spending more time locked down than the system allows. There is talk of a ban on receiving new inmates to relieve this pressure.
The public is already expressing concern that the new bail laws are allowing people accused of serious crime to remain free in the community in place of remaining in prison on remand. The government is trying to reign in the ever expanding cost of the prison system and yet the public expectation of curbing crime demands tougher action and a " lock them up " mentality. If judges and magistrates hand down lenient sentences they are criticised and accused of being " soft " on crime.
Perhaps it is time to review this whole aspect of punishment for crime. There certainly are offenders who are dangerous to the public and need to be securely locked away for the full term of their sentence, but do we really need to apply the same criteria to offenders whose crime is driving a car while their license is suspended - or who were caught growing a Marijuana plant in their backyard ?
Secure prisons cost a lot of money to build and to staff. Could the same purpose be achieved by the wider use of " prison farms " - where those convicted of social crimes serve out their time with minimum supervision and a high degree of trust ? Should a prisoner disregard that trust and escape, the penalty would be to serve the rest of the sentence - plus an extension for the escape - within the much less friendly and comfortable confines of the traditional prison system.
It is the loss of personal freedom that chafes most people committed to prison. Many social crimes are more an error of judgement - often where alcohol or drugs are involved - and the offender will gladly trade a lighter sentence under less harsh conditions with the obligation to obey the rules that go with time in a prison farm as an alternative to regular prison.
Such prison farms would contribute to their cost by producing meat and vegetables to supply the state's hospitals and other institutions - including the regular prison system. Not all offenders would be suitable for inclusion in such a scheme, but those that are would certainly take the pressure off our present overcrowded gaols - and put something back into society rather than just become a drain on finances
Thursday, 3 July 2014
Shop Around !
" Loyalty " means different things to different people. In the commercial world, a loyal customer is the person that renews an annual service without question when it becomes due - and is ripe for a profit increase. It works on the " creatures of habit " syndrome. The vast majority of people think that because they stick with the same supplier - year after year - they are regarded as a valued customer and that company will bestow on them the best price as a reward for that loyalty. The exact reverse is usually the outcome.
Very highly paid people devise most companies " marketing strategy " and this calls for the customer base to be constantly expanded. Attracting new customers requires an incentive - and this is usually either a price drop or the provision of an extra benefit that is not available to existing customers. In the vast majority of cases, if an existing customer makes an enquiry as an intending new customer, they will receive a better deal.
In particular, this double standard applies across the range of insurance products offering and the renewal of existing policies are at the forefront. Because a large customer segment renews without question this provides an opportunity to slowly " inflate " the premium and use this to " balance " the lower price obtained by way of incentives offered to new customers.
It is rife in general car insurance policies and has crept into the pricing of compulsory third party insurance needed for annual registration. The " asking renewal fee " invariably contains an increase on last year, and a few enquiries can find a more competitive price from a competitor seeking an increase in market share.
This same situation exists with house and contents insurance. The customer who treats each policy renewal as a " new deal " and seeks a range of alternative quotes for the same cover will undoubtedly save money. In most cases, merely querying the renewal price will bring an offer of a new benefit to keep the customer happy. In this modern world - most terms of trade are " negotiable " !
This " benefits syndrome " even intrudes into the world of finance. Those with a little money on term deposit with the banks receive a notice when the present term is about to expire which gives them a seven day period to instruct the bank on the future of these funds. It advises that should no instruction be forthcoming, the bank will reinvest the capital for the same time period - at a rate appropriate. The rate quoted in this advice is always lower than can be obtained by direct negotiation with the bank.
It seems that those who mistakenly think that loyalty brings with it rewards are believers in a past age. Today - we live in the era of the " bean counters " - and the unwary are the victims of the relentless chase for added profits.
If there is a mantra for the twenty-first century - " Always shop around " would be appropriate !
Very highly paid people devise most companies " marketing strategy " and this calls for the customer base to be constantly expanded. Attracting new customers requires an incentive - and this is usually either a price drop or the provision of an extra benefit that is not available to existing customers. In the vast majority of cases, if an existing customer makes an enquiry as an intending new customer, they will receive a better deal.
In particular, this double standard applies across the range of insurance products offering and the renewal of existing policies are at the forefront. Because a large customer segment renews without question this provides an opportunity to slowly " inflate " the premium and use this to " balance " the lower price obtained by way of incentives offered to new customers.
It is rife in general car insurance policies and has crept into the pricing of compulsory third party insurance needed for annual registration. The " asking renewal fee " invariably contains an increase on last year, and a few enquiries can find a more competitive price from a competitor seeking an increase in market share.
This same situation exists with house and contents insurance. The customer who treats each policy renewal as a " new deal " and seeks a range of alternative quotes for the same cover will undoubtedly save money. In most cases, merely querying the renewal price will bring an offer of a new benefit to keep the customer happy. In this modern world - most terms of trade are " negotiable " !
This " benefits syndrome " even intrudes into the world of finance. Those with a little money on term deposit with the banks receive a notice when the present term is about to expire which gives them a seven day period to instruct the bank on the future of these funds. It advises that should no instruction be forthcoming, the bank will reinvest the capital for the same time period - at a rate appropriate. The rate quoted in this advice is always lower than can be obtained by direct negotiation with the bank.
It seems that those who mistakenly think that loyalty brings with it rewards are believers in a past age. Today - we live in the era of the " bean counters " - and the unwary are the victims of the relentless chase for added profits.
If there is a mantra for the twenty-first century - " Always shop around " would be appropriate !
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
The " Standards " issue !
Todd Carney is a broken man. This twenty-eight year old Cronulla Sharks star has been sacked by his club and Rugby League has made it clear that he will not be allowed to join another club in the League. Other sporting codes had also slammed their doors in his face, and it looks like his playing career is over. From a financial point of view, this will cost him about three million dollars.
There is no doubt that Carney has talent. He is what is called a " play maker " - a player who is constantly " reading " the state of play and seizing the opportunity to start a scoring move when the opportunity presents itself. He has many followers who attend games simply because of his brilliance on the field - but he also has a sorry history that has seen him sacked in disgrace from three League clubs.
The reason he has been given his marching orders from Cronulla stems from a picture that appeared on Facebook. It seems that Carney was socialising at a club when in the men's room the subject of what is called " The Fountain " arose. This seems to be a form of insanity from a movie called " Jackass " in which bizarre actions are performed in the search for humour.
Carney performed the " Fountain " for the amusement of his friends. This consists of directing the urine stream upwards and leaning forward, enabling him to catch the urine in his mouth. It seems that one of his friends had the ever present Smartphone in his hand - recorded the event - and it was soon attracting a high volume of " hits " on Facebook.
Rugby League immediately took offense at what it called a grave departure from " standards " ! The League has been plagued by well paid young men with high levels of testosterone drinking to excess and bringing the game into disrepute. Players are role models and in recent years the League has come down harshly on sex scandals, drunken brawling and any act that attracts adverse media attention. Todd Carney has been at the forefront of a long string of such scandals - and this was deemed to be " the last straw " !
Public reaction to the " Fountain " incident will be mixed. Most will think it repulsive , dirty or a long list of derogatory words, but some will find it funny. Others will note that it was not Carney that put this picture on Facebook. If it was a friend, he probably had no idea the storm and financial loss he was putting in motion.
It also raises the dangers of the world we now live in.
There are few who do not live with an active smartphone in their hand every hour of the day - and that instrument has a camera. Couple that with the host of social media outlets that seem to be " impulsive viewing " for millions of people - and you have an explosive mix.
Carney pushed the limits once too often - and now he is paying the price. Many people will have sympathy for him, and imposing a final and world wide ban on playing further sport is certainly an extreme punishment. It will have others who make their money on the sporting field take a more cautious approach to where - and with whom - they conduct their social life !
There is no doubt that Carney has talent. He is what is called a " play maker " - a player who is constantly " reading " the state of play and seizing the opportunity to start a scoring move when the opportunity presents itself. He has many followers who attend games simply because of his brilliance on the field - but he also has a sorry history that has seen him sacked in disgrace from three League clubs.
The reason he has been given his marching orders from Cronulla stems from a picture that appeared on Facebook. It seems that Carney was socialising at a club when in the men's room the subject of what is called " The Fountain " arose. This seems to be a form of insanity from a movie called " Jackass " in which bizarre actions are performed in the search for humour.
Carney performed the " Fountain " for the amusement of his friends. This consists of directing the urine stream upwards and leaning forward, enabling him to catch the urine in his mouth. It seems that one of his friends had the ever present Smartphone in his hand - recorded the event - and it was soon attracting a high volume of " hits " on Facebook.
Rugby League immediately took offense at what it called a grave departure from " standards " ! The League has been plagued by well paid young men with high levels of testosterone drinking to excess and bringing the game into disrepute. Players are role models and in recent years the League has come down harshly on sex scandals, drunken brawling and any act that attracts adverse media attention. Todd Carney has been at the forefront of a long string of such scandals - and this was deemed to be " the last straw " !
Public reaction to the " Fountain " incident will be mixed. Most will think it repulsive , dirty or a long list of derogatory words, but some will find it funny. Others will note that it was not Carney that put this picture on Facebook. If it was a friend, he probably had no idea the storm and financial loss he was putting in motion.
It also raises the dangers of the world we now live in.
There are few who do not live with an active smartphone in their hand every hour of the day - and that instrument has a camera. Couple that with the host of social media outlets that seem to be " impulsive viewing " for millions of people - and you have an explosive mix.
Carney pushed the limits once too often - and now he is paying the price. Many people will have sympathy for him, and imposing a final and world wide ban on playing further sport is certainly an extreme punishment. It will have others who make their money on the sporting field take a more cautious approach to where - and with whom - they conduct their social life !
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
" Managing " the Dole !
There are suggestions that the " Dole " and other forms of welfare payments be subjected to a " management " regime that stipulates how and where the money can be spent. The most likely form is to quarantine a proportion of each payment onto a credit card which can only be used to buy food, clothing - pay rent - or other approved categories. This would prevent public monies being wasted on alcohol, drugs, gambling or similar social vices.
It raises the question of to what extent it becomes desireable for the heavy hand of officialdom to intrude into the issue of how we run our lives. What becomes the " cut off line " that divides society into those who " live free " - and those who are subjected to life in an " economic prison " ?
This same thinking has " public housing " under the microscope. The present regime restricts rent to just twenty-five percent of a public tenant's income and this is expected to rise to market level as that income rises. It was never intended as a " home for life ", but there are many in society who for various reasons will never be able to hold a permanent job or move from welfare dependency. We either provide them with public housing - or they join the homeless sleeping rough on the streets as a permanent underclass.
We need to think and tread carefully when we consider social change. Australia has been termed " the lucky country " and our standard of living is way above that of many of our neighbours. The living standards of the poor in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and South Africa affront our eyes. People scraping together plastic sheets, timber and scraps of cardboard to fashion a shelter - wherever they can find a space to live.
We see a better class of " slum " in places like Brazil At least the " Favellas " are of a more permanent nature, but they are ruled by outlaw gangs rather than the authorities. All forms of building codes and permits are totally ignored - but an unofficial system of " justice " prevails, and most seem to eat well and they are not dressed in rags. It seems that this disorder is " tolerated " because those in power in that country - have no other choice.
We had a time when things were a little different here in Australia. In the years just after the second world war many people scrimped and saved to buy a building block - and lived for years in a quickly erected garage or a caravan on that block. That would not be tolerated today. We live by more rigid rules and regulations. In place of " do it yourself " home building we saddle ourselves with an almost unimaginable mortgage - for a home our grandparents would have considered a " palace ".
The Australian lifestyle is economically out of balance. It costs more to run this country than we pay in taxes and that can not be ignored indefinitely. We face a day of reckoning, and our spending will need to be reduced - and that will produce winners and losers.
We need to be careful and not turn our backs on those who will never attain the standards of the Australian way of life. If the clock turns too far against them, sheer necessity will force them to turn to a way of life we will consider unpleasant. We would not like to see the establishment of favellas in the boondocks of the outer reaches of Australian cities.
We would do well to remember that necessity breaks all the rules !
It raises the question of to what extent it becomes desireable for the heavy hand of officialdom to intrude into the issue of how we run our lives. What becomes the " cut off line " that divides society into those who " live free " - and those who are subjected to life in an " economic prison " ?
This same thinking has " public housing " under the microscope. The present regime restricts rent to just twenty-five percent of a public tenant's income and this is expected to rise to market level as that income rises. It was never intended as a " home for life ", but there are many in society who for various reasons will never be able to hold a permanent job or move from welfare dependency. We either provide them with public housing - or they join the homeless sleeping rough on the streets as a permanent underclass.
We need to think and tread carefully when we consider social change. Australia has been termed " the lucky country " and our standard of living is way above that of many of our neighbours. The living standards of the poor in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and South Africa affront our eyes. People scraping together plastic sheets, timber and scraps of cardboard to fashion a shelter - wherever they can find a space to live.
We see a better class of " slum " in places like Brazil At least the " Favellas " are of a more permanent nature, but they are ruled by outlaw gangs rather than the authorities. All forms of building codes and permits are totally ignored - but an unofficial system of " justice " prevails, and most seem to eat well and they are not dressed in rags. It seems that this disorder is " tolerated " because those in power in that country - have no other choice.
We had a time when things were a little different here in Australia. In the years just after the second world war many people scrimped and saved to buy a building block - and lived for years in a quickly erected garage or a caravan on that block. That would not be tolerated today. We live by more rigid rules and regulations. In place of " do it yourself " home building we saddle ourselves with an almost unimaginable mortgage - for a home our grandparents would have considered a " palace ".
The Australian lifestyle is economically out of balance. It costs more to run this country than we pay in taxes and that can not be ignored indefinitely. We face a day of reckoning, and our spending will need to be reduced - and that will produce winners and losers.
We need to be careful and not turn our backs on those who will never attain the standards of the Australian way of life. If the clock turns too far against them, sheer necessity will force them to turn to a way of life we will consider unpleasant. We would not like to see the establishment of favellas in the boondocks of the outer reaches of Australian cities.
We would do well to remember that necessity breaks all the rules !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)