Once again there is innuendo that all is not well within the ranks of the New South Wales police force. A young woman was tortured and brutally murdered by a criminal who had serious drug charges mysteriously withdrawn on the recommendation of a senior police officer. As a consequence, there is a witch hunt within the force to determine just how this release happened.
Disturbing facts are coming to the fore. This officer has risen through the ranks despite some behaviour that came close to dismissal from the force. He was involved in a drunken brawl at a cricket match at the SCG and on another occasion he tried to avoid a RBT check and during the escape attempt he crashed a police car. He received reprieves from two police commissioners.
There is also a suggestion that he is homophobic. Openly gay officers now serve in the police and when two gay police served at the same station as this officer they were placed under surveillance because it was suggested there could be drug use. This cost over $ 250,000 in police wages alone, and the eventual finding was that there was "no evidence "of drug use or other misconduct.
Perhaps our expectations of the police are unrealistic. We take ordinary men and women and have them serve a lengthy training period at the police academy. That is supposed to rid them of phobias and prejudices and make them suitable to deliver justice on the streets. We seem to forget that they are also human beings with all those old ingrained beliefs hammered in by religion, politics and the natural cultures of their race of origin.
Wearing the blue uniform of the police force opens many doors of opportunity for reward. A police officer is the recipient of power. His or her decision usually depends on whether a charge will be laid or the matter will be dismissed with a caution. This places the officer in jeopardy when the matter involves a relative or a close friend. All police can be called upon to justify their decisions by an internal police tribunal.
Serving in the police is also a competitive environment. The salary paid increases by rank and each vacancy is hotly contested by the many that are qualified for promotion. Decisions are open to appeal and in many cases the decision rests on the whim of a senior officer and may not follow the usual criteria. Personal loyalties contribute heavily to promotional choices when officers undertake empire building.
The integrity of individual police is protected by the police union and this has a powerful influence on the government. Whenever the government undertakes political action that arouses a section of the public it is the police that they rely upon to keep order and ensure that the streets of the city are safe. The ultimate disaster for any government would be the prospect of a police strike.
The dismissal of a police officer for misconduct is heavily influenced by this police union. In the dark past, some notoriously corrupt police have survived repeated enquiries into their conduct and even survived accusations of murder. Given the numbers involved, it is inevitable that at least a few serving officers are breaking rather than upholding the laws.
That is unlikely to change. The only valid defence is to maintain checks and balances to keep corruption to a minimum. !
Monday, 7 November 2016
Sunday, 6 November 2016
Crime DOES Pay !
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is a government body tasked with keeping a strict eye on the business world. It carefully examines proposed mergers to ensure that these will not result in the creation of monopolies that will corner the market and hike prices, and that the claims made for products are not grossly exaggerated. Its purpose is very much protection for the public.
Unfortunately, once an illegality is identified the penalty for that offence passes out of the hands of the Commission and the case wends its way through the court system, and in many instances the outcome falls short of the expectations of both the Commission and the public. A recent case falls into that category.
A leading paint manufacturer claimed that two of its products had the capability of cooling homes in the summer heat. Prospective buyers were promised that their roof paint would drop temperatures inside a house by up to ten degrees and that wall paint would reduce the heat of external walls by as much as fifteen degrees.
These products were promoted and on sale between 2009 and 2012 and each carried a price premium for the claimed benefits. The sales of roof paint over that period reached 144,00 litres with an extra $ 4.95 added per litre and the wall paint achieved sales of 48,000 litres, with a surcharge of $ 2.20 per litre. The premiums delivered an additional profit of $ 805,600 to that company's bottom lime.
Surprisingly, when the matter went to court the company admitted that it had no reasonable grounds for making those claims. There were no added ingredients and the customers were paying an extra premium above that of the standard product - for absolutely no additional benefit.
To illustrate the thinking disparity between the Commission and the Courts, the penalty imposed on the paint company was a mere $ 400,000, plus the ACCC's legal expenses of $ 150,000- for a total of $ 550,000. Considering that the paint company garnered an exstra profit of $ 805,600 from its deception, it still came out in front by $ 295,600.
Who said crime doesn't pay ? This was clearly a scam to extract a premium price from the public for a promised benefit that did not exist. More to the point, the entire system of justice rests on the thinking that crime is punished by the imposition of a penalty. It is hardly a penalty when the nature of the punishment results in the culprit retaining a benefit from the crime.
Certainly the threat to wrongdoers would be enhanced if the ACCC could mandate that the penalty to be imposed was directly related to the benefit delivered by the crime - and a good rule of thumb would be to impose a doubling of the illicit profit gained by way of the fine.
It is not unusual for manufacturers to claim exotic benefits from their products and the law requires that they must be able to substantiate such claims. A fine doubling the profits gained by such deceptions would go a long way towards ensuring honesty.
It is claimed that " naming and shaming " is in itself a penalty for bogus claims, but many court actions result in a small reference on an inside page of a newspaper - that few notice and even fewer remember.
One of the tenets of justice - is making the penalty fit the crime !
Unfortunately, once an illegality is identified the penalty for that offence passes out of the hands of the Commission and the case wends its way through the court system, and in many instances the outcome falls short of the expectations of both the Commission and the public. A recent case falls into that category.
A leading paint manufacturer claimed that two of its products had the capability of cooling homes in the summer heat. Prospective buyers were promised that their roof paint would drop temperatures inside a house by up to ten degrees and that wall paint would reduce the heat of external walls by as much as fifteen degrees.
These products were promoted and on sale between 2009 and 2012 and each carried a price premium for the claimed benefits. The sales of roof paint over that period reached 144,00 litres with an extra $ 4.95 added per litre and the wall paint achieved sales of 48,000 litres, with a surcharge of $ 2.20 per litre. The premiums delivered an additional profit of $ 805,600 to that company's bottom lime.
Surprisingly, when the matter went to court the company admitted that it had no reasonable grounds for making those claims. There were no added ingredients and the customers were paying an extra premium above that of the standard product - for absolutely no additional benefit.
To illustrate the thinking disparity between the Commission and the Courts, the penalty imposed on the paint company was a mere $ 400,000, plus the ACCC's legal expenses of $ 150,000- for a total of $ 550,000. Considering that the paint company garnered an exstra profit of $ 805,600 from its deception, it still came out in front by $ 295,600.
Who said crime doesn't pay ? This was clearly a scam to extract a premium price from the public for a promised benefit that did not exist. More to the point, the entire system of justice rests on the thinking that crime is punished by the imposition of a penalty. It is hardly a penalty when the nature of the punishment results in the culprit retaining a benefit from the crime.
Certainly the threat to wrongdoers would be enhanced if the ACCC could mandate that the penalty to be imposed was directly related to the benefit delivered by the crime - and a good rule of thumb would be to impose a doubling of the illicit profit gained by way of the fine.
It is not unusual for manufacturers to claim exotic benefits from their products and the law requires that they must be able to substantiate such claims. A fine doubling the profits gained by such deceptions would go a long way towards ensuring honesty.
It is claimed that " naming and shaming " is in itself a penalty for bogus claims, but many court actions result in a small reference on an inside page of a newspaper - that few notice and even fewer remember.
One of the tenets of justice - is making the penalty fit the crime !
Saturday, 5 November 2016
Modern Day Slavery !
It can be argued that a form of modern day slavery is rife here in Australia and that the Fair Work Ombudsman is conducting an investigation that may cause red faces in the boardrooms of some of our biggest corporations.
We are a country that protects workers by stipulating the rate of pay that applies. This is calculated on the number of hours worked and contains "loadings " for overtime or work on weekends and public holidays. Employers are required to keep accurate records of those on their pay roll and these must be available to inspectors on demand.
When we see a national logo on a business it often means that a vast public company is actually conducting its business by way of "franchised " outlets. This is common in the fast food industry, convenience stores and petrol resellers. Each individual outlet operates under the national brand, but is owned by someone who pays to attract customers by using the respect that logo achieves. The staff employed are employees of that person, not of the national company.
Obviously, the cost of paying staff to work that business is a major overhead and the Fair Work Ombudsman has received many complaints of pay deficiencies. In particular, it seems that students from overseas studying in Australia are being asked to work long hours for very sub standard pay. They are vulnerable because under their visa rules they have work restrictions and some employers agree to ignore those rules in exchange for paying well below the award.
We recently had a wage scandal that engulfed many convenience stores working under a franchise. Some operated on a twenty-four hour basis - and they usually also sold petrol. Now one of the major oil companies is in the spotlight and once again it is franchised outlets and the Ombudsman will be examining pay records with the view of launching prosecutions.
The part time adult rate for service station workers who work behind the counter is $ 19.56 an hour, rising to $ 29.34 for the first three hours of overtime. On Sundays, the rate climbs to $ 29.34 an hour and on public holidays to $ 39.12. Those employed on a casual basis are entitled to $ 25.65 an hour, rising to $ 33.34 on weekends.
Some workers claim they are paid as little as $ 13 an hour for all hours worked, and penalties apply if a customer fills a car and drives off without paying. The attendant is required to makeup that loss and it is deducted from their pay.
This pay scam can take several forms. Sometimes the rate of pay is scrupulously correct for the number of hours stipulated on the pay check, but the actual number of hours worked was far in excess of that claim. In other cases the recipient is a "ghost worker ". He or she does not appear on any formal pay documentation - and pay is cash in hand.
This system of "loadings " for weekend work and public holidays is a relic from an earlier age. We are now a twenty-four-seven society and a uniform pay for all hours should apply. Not only would this deliver increased job prospects, many people actually seek unusual working hours to enable them to indulge in sports, study or research activities.
Paying below the hourly rate is a newer form of slavery. Not only does detection result in "name and shame "in the media, it also brings the guilty to court to face charges !
We are a country that protects workers by stipulating the rate of pay that applies. This is calculated on the number of hours worked and contains "loadings " for overtime or work on weekends and public holidays. Employers are required to keep accurate records of those on their pay roll and these must be available to inspectors on demand.
When we see a national logo on a business it often means that a vast public company is actually conducting its business by way of "franchised " outlets. This is common in the fast food industry, convenience stores and petrol resellers. Each individual outlet operates under the national brand, but is owned by someone who pays to attract customers by using the respect that logo achieves. The staff employed are employees of that person, not of the national company.
Obviously, the cost of paying staff to work that business is a major overhead and the Fair Work Ombudsman has received many complaints of pay deficiencies. In particular, it seems that students from overseas studying in Australia are being asked to work long hours for very sub standard pay. They are vulnerable because under their visa rules they have work restrictions and some employers agree to ignore those rules in exchange for paying well below the award.
We recently had a wage scandal that engulfed many convenience stores working under a franchise. Some operated on a twenty-four hour basis - and they usually also sold petrol. Now one of the major oil companies is in the spotlight and once again it is franchised outlets and the Ombudsman will be examining pay records with the view of launching prosecutions.
The part time adult rate for service station workers who work behind the counter is $ 19.56 an hour, rising to $ 29.34 for the first three hours of overtime. On Sundays, the rate climbs to $ 29.34 an hour and on public holidays to $ 39.12. Those employed on a casual basis are entitled to $ 25.65 an hour, rising to $ 33.34 on weekends.
Some workers claim they are paid as little as $ 13 an hour for all hours worked, and penalties apply if a customer fills a car and drives off without paying. The attendant is required to makeup that loss and it is deducted from their pay.
This pay scam can take several forms. Sometimes the rate of pay is scrupulously correct for the number of hours stipulated on the pay check, but the actual number of hours worked was far in excess of that claim. In other cases the recipient is a "ghost worker ". He or she does not appear on any formal pay documentation - and pay is cash in hand.
This system of "loadings " for weekend work and public holidays is a relic from an earlier age. We are now a twenty-four-seven society and a uniform pay for all hours should apply. Not only would this deliver increased job prospects, many people actually seek unusual working hours to enable them to indulge in sports, study or research activities.
Paying below the hourly rate is a newer form of slavery. Not only does detection result in "name and shame "in the media, it also brings the guilty to court to face charges !
Friday, 4 November 2016
Point-to-Point Speed Policing !
When you drive on New South Wales arterial roads you may notice curious gantries with lots of cameras pointing at the traffic passing below. This is part of the point-to-point speed policing system endorsed some years ago by the National Road Safety Strategy for 2011-20.
The concept is quite simple. Those cameras record the registration numbers of vehicles passing below and relay them to a central computer. When the vehicle triggers another camera near the end of the journey an algorithm automatically calculates the time required for the vehicle to travel that distance at the legal speed. If the vehicle reaches that end too soon, it was because of excess speed - and a fine is soon in the mail.
In all other states this system is already working to record the journey speed of all vehicles using the roads covered. In New South Wales the point-to-point safety system is restricted to trucks and other heavy vehicles. Pressure is building to have it apply to cars.
Statistics tell a compelling story. Forty-one percent of road crashes that result in death or serious injury can be attributed to excessive speed. Any driver using the arterial road system and who maintains the legal speed is well aware that many cars whiz past at a much higher speed. The police use radar speed traps to fine errant drivers and try and reduce road trauma.
There is no doubt that if all drivers kept to the posted speed limit we would have fewer crashes, but this point-to-point speed check is not infallible. New South Wales has twenty-five camera gantries covering 6,500 kilometers of arterial road. The trucking industry has devised strategies to beat the system. Those with a need for speed know precisely where these gantries are located - and if they have been speeding - stop for a spell or to have a cup of coffee - to reconcile their arrival at the correct time.
The fact that this system is operating on cars in all other states and not in New South Wales gives an ideal opportunity to evaluate the results. Unfortunately the road toll in all states continues to increase and it seems that point-to-point speed policing simply becomes another hazard to motorists wallets.
It may also contribute to corruption. This system records a speeding car, not a speeding driver. Like red light cameras and roadside speed cameras a conviction depends on the driver of the vehicle identifying themselves. The use of company vehicles shared by multiple drivers and those with a poor driving record who persuade their spouse to take the blame - and the demerit points - corrupt the system
It is even possible that applying point-to-point to cars will increase the volume of unregistered and therefore uninsured cars on the road, and the misery that brings to innocent people with whom they collide. Unpaid fines lead to deregistration and yet many desperate owners continue to drive.
Now that the police have number plate recognition cameras in their patrol cars with the ability to instantly recognise unregistered or reportedly stolen vehicles the crime fraternity has become adept at stealing plates from registered vehicles whose owners are away overseas. This opens a new avenue of driver accountability.
Applying point-to-point to cars in New South Wales seem inevitable. The state could well do with the fines bonanza it will bring and even a small increase in the number of drivers obeying the speed limit will be welcome. Just do not expect the road toll to drop by half !
The concept is quite simple. Those cameras record the registration numbers of vehicles passing below and relay them to a central computer. When the vehicle triggers another camera near the end of the journey an algorithm automatically calculates the time required for the vehicle to travel that distance at the legal speed. If the vehicle reaches that end too soon, it was because of excess speed - and a fine is soon in the mail.
In all other states this system is already working to record the journey speed of all vehicles using the roads covered. In New South Wales the point-to-point safety system is restricted to trucks and other heavy vehicles. Pressure is building to have it apply to cars.
Statistics tell a compelling story. Forty-one percent of road crashes that result in death or serious injury can be attributed to excessive speed. Any driver using the arterial road system and who maintains the legal speed is well aware that many cars whiz past at a much higher speed. The police use radar speed traps to fine errant drivers and try and reduce road trauma.
There is no doubt that if all drivers kept to the posted speed limit we would have fewer crashes, but this point-to-point speed check is not infallible. New South Wales has twenty-five camera gantries covering 6,500 kilometers of arterial road. The trucking industry has devised strategies to beat the system. Those with a need for speed know precisely where these gantries are located - and if they have been speeding - stop for a spell or to have a cup of coffee - to reconcile their arrival at the correct time.
The fact that this system is operating on cars in all other states and not in New South Wales gives an ideal opportunity to evaluate the results. Unfortunately the road toll in all states continues to increase and it seems that point-to-point speed policing simply becomes another hazard to motorists wallets.
It may also contribute to corruption. This system records a speeding car, not a speeding driver. Like red light cameras and roadside speed cameras a conviction depends on the driver of the vehicle identifying themselves. The use of company vehicles shared by multiple drivers and those with a poor driving record who persuade their spouse to take the blame - and the demerit points - corrupt the system
It is even possible that applying point-to-point to cars will increase the volume of unregistered and therefore uninsured cars on the road, and the misery that brings to innocent people with whom they collide. Unpaid fines lead to deregistration and yet many desperate owners continue to drive.
Now that the police have number plate recognition cameras in their patrol cars with the ability to instantly recognise unregistered or reportedly stolen vehicles the crime fraternity has become adept at stealing plates from registered vehicles whose owners are away overseas. This opens a new avenue of driver accountability.
Applying point-to-point to cars in New South Wales seem inevitable. The state could well do with the fines bonanza it will bring and even a small increase in the number of drivers obeying the speed limit will be welcome. Just do not expect the road toll to drop by half !
Thursday, 3 November 2016
Medical Decision Making !
When a doctor tells a patient "You have Cancer " those may be the most terrifying words they will ever experience, but when the doctor goes on to say that the only treatment for that condition is "Chemotherapy " the terror deepens.
Chemotherapy has an evil reputation in the minds of many people. They envisage the total loss of all body hair and reports from those who have experienced such therapy are accounts of misery and endless vomiting. It is an imprecise science. Some people achieve a miraculous cure - and others simply die.
How much and how often chemotherapy treatment is applied to each patient is in the hands of a specialist oncologist. As with most medical treatment, the final balance is decided in the mind of the treating doctor and that is a skill we recognise by the reputations earned by those in the medical profession.
Some men and women go on to become legends because they develop a degree of skill in treating patients that delivers outstanding results. Very often, this is because they dare venture beyond the widely accepted guidelines for treatment and often they are the pioneers of what goes on to become the accepted standard. Whenever they depart from normal practice they risk their professional reputation. Medicine is an unforgiving science.
A parliamentary enquiry in New South Wales is examining the chief oncologist of a leading Sydney hospital who also had outreach clinics at Bathurst and Orange. This senior doctor is accused of ordering under-dosing of over a hundred patients and that this under-dosing caused them actual harm. Some of these patients have since died.
The crux of this enquiry is that the oncologist varied the dose from the guidelines suggested for chemotherapy use. In giving evidence, the senior oncologist testified that in his opinion giving the guideline dose would have had a negative impact and may have discouraged the patients from accepting further treatment.
Clearly, this is a matter of questioning the judgment of a treating physician who adjusted the degree of chemotherapy by taking into account the advanced stage of the disease coupled with the patients ability to withstand treatment. There would be little point causing huge distress to those at the terminal stage by delivering a massive dose just to satisfy the guidelines concept.
What is becoming clear is the rush of colleagues to deny any knowledge of guideline variations because to do so would put their reputations at risk. This senior oncologist claims that his guidelines departures were widely known and accepted in Sydney medical circles and were also practised by others. He reports that his superiors suggested he consider early retirement to avoid what was termed "a coming shit storm "!
The most likely outcome from this enquiry is that this oncologist will be criticised for using his judgment to vary dosage. As a result, the profession will adhere more strictly to the rules and less mercy will be shown in adjusting the chemotherapy dosage to the patients age, condition and likely outcome.
As with such enquiries, the final outcome is much more likely to reach a political conclusion than advance the practice of medicine !
Chemotherapy has an evil reputation in the minds of many people. They envisage the total loss of all body hair and reports from those who have experienced such therapy are accounts of misery and endless vomiting. It is an imprecise science. Some people achieve a miraculous cure - and others simply die.
How much and how often chemotherapy treatment is applied to each patient is in the hands of a specialist oncologist. As with most medical treatment, the final balance is decided in the mind of the treating doctor and that is a skill we recognise by the reputations earned by those in the medical profession.
Some men and women go on to become legends because they develop a degree of skill in treating patients that delivers outstanding results. Very often, this is because they dare venture beyond the widely accepted guidelines for treatment and often they are the pioneers of what goes on to become the accepted standard. Whenever they depart from normal practice they risk their professional reputation. Medicine is an unforgiving science.
A parliamentary enquiry in New South Wales is examining the chief oncologist of a leading Sydney hospital who also had outreach clinics at Bathurst and Orange. This senior doctor is accused of ordering under-dosing of over a hundred patients and that this under-dosing caused them actual harm. Some of these patients have since died.
The crux of this enquiry is that the oncologist varied the dose from the guidelines suggested for chemotherapy use. In giving evidence, the senior oncologist testified that in his opinion giving the guideline dose would have had a negative impact and may have discouraged the patients from accepting further treatment.
Clearly, this is a matter of questioning the judgment of a treating physician who adjusted the degree of chemotherapy by taking into account the advanced stage of the disease coupled with the patients ability to withstand treatment. There would be little point causing huge distress to those at the terminal stage by delivering a massive dose just to satisfy the guidelines concept.
What is becoming clear is the rush of colleagues to deny any knowledge of guideline variations because to do so would put their reputations at risk. This senior oncologist claims that his guidelines departures were widely known and accepted in Sydney medical circles and were also practised by others. He reports that his superiors suggested he consider early retirement to avoid what was termed "a coming shit storm "!
The most likely outcome from this enquiry is that this oncologist will be criticised for using his judgment to vary dosage. As a result, the profession will adhere more strictly to the rules and less mercy will be shown in adjusting the chemotherapy dosage to the patients age, condition and likely outcome.
As with such enquiries, the final outcome is much more likely to reach a political conclusion than advance the practice of medicine !
Wednesday, 2 November 2016
Mixed Messages !
The " Boat People " languishing on Manus Island and Nauru are starting to become an embarrassment to Australia. They were the poor dumb "Bunnies " who were taken in by the people smugglers who told them that Kevin Rudd's promise that they would never be allowed to settle in Australia was a bluff.
There seems no doubt that if the government relented and brought them onto the Australian mainland the people smugglers would again be bringing more of the desperate people waiting in Malaysia and Indonesia to our shores. As a result, the policies issued by the Australian government are intended to deliver different messages - to different people.
Here in Australia we have a very active "Fifth Column " who are urging these refugees to stand firm and reject all offers to return to their homeland or accept transfer to an accepting country. In some cases they have humanitarian motives for giving this advice and for some others it is political warfare to twist the knife into the governments conscience.
The Australian authorities have closed down access to the camps on Nauru and Manus island to try and stifle the activist promoting resistance to any form of settlement, but many of these boat people believe that time is on their side - and eventually pressure from the Australian public will resolve their problem in their favour.
The government is seeking to close off a potential loop hole with its edict that even if these refugees are settled elsewhere and gain citizenship, they will be permanently disbarred from ever entering Australia and have permanent visa refusal, even if the intended visit is for holiday purposes. It sounds draconian - and it is ! They will be lumped together with terrorists and those with a known criminal past.
In some ways this new policy seems to be a desperation measure. These boat people are certainly in an unacceptable form of limbo. The years are rolling by and their children are getting - at best - a rudimentary education, and they are living a type of third world existence. They are human beings who have happened to become the tainted meat in a political sandwich.
The message this policy delivers is intended to draw a line under the Australian fifth columns efforts to promote resistance to resettlement moves. It delivers a form of finality and brings hope that reason will prevail and negotiations with other countries will not be sabotaged.
The people smugglers are eager to resume the huge profits their trade delivered. This new Australian stance will get wide publicity in the media in the countries where refugees are waiting and it is hoped that many will accept that the "Australian door "is now firmly closed - and look elsewhere. It will certainly deal a death blow to the people smugglers lies and promises that things are about to change for the better in Australia.
Unfortunately, permanent visa disqualification will probably make it harder to negotiate resettlement of the people in these camps in other countries. New Zealand had offered to accept a quota, but it is now unlikely to renew that offer. Should a refugee attain New Zealand citizenship it would be untenable to New Zealand pride that such a person be reduced to second class citizenship by such a travel ban.
This move seems a tactical response to try and break a log jam, but it will firstly have to get the nod from the Australian parliament, and be measured against the protocols that exist in International law and under the treaties we have signed with other countries.
Those people on Nauru and Manus island may find no immediate change to their status is likely !
There seems no doubt that if the government relented and brought them onto the Australian mainland the people smugglers would again be bringing more of the desperate people waiting in Malaysia and Indonesia to our shores. As a result, the policies issued by the Australian government are intended to deliver different messages - to different people.
Here in Australia we have a very active "Fifth Column " who are urging these refugees to stand firm and reject all offers to return to their homeland or accept transfer to an accepting country. In some cases they have humanitarian motives for giving this advice and for some others it is political warfare to twist the knife into the governments conscience.
The Australian authorities have closed down access to the camps on Nauru and Manus island to try and stifle the activist promoting resistance to any form of settlement, but many of these boat people believe that time is on their side - and eventually pressure from the Australian public will resolve their problem in their favour.
The government is seeking to close off a potential loop hole with its edict that even if these refugees are settled elsewhere and gain citizenship, they will be permanently disbarred from ever entering Australia and have permanent visa refusal, even if the intended visit is for holiday purposes. It sounds draconian - and it is ! They will be lumped together with terrorists and those with a known criminal past.
In some ways this new policy seems to be a desperation measure. These boat people are certainly in an unacceptable form of limbo. The years are rolling by and their children are getting - at best - a rudimentary education, and they are living a type of third world existence. They are human beings who have happened to become the tainted meat in a political sandwich.
The message this policy delivers is intended to draw a line under the Australian fifth columns efforts to promote resistance to resettlement moves. It delivers a form of finality and brings hope that reason will prevail and negotiations with other countries will not be sabotaged.
The people smugglers are eager to resume the huge profits their trade delivered. This new Australian stance will get wide publicity in the media in the countries where refugees are waiting and it is hoped that many will accept that the "Australian door "is now firmly closed - and look elsewhere. It will certainly deal a death blow to the people smugglers lies and promises that things are about to change for the better in Australia.
Unfortunately, permanent visa disqualification will probably make it harder to negotiate resettlement of the people in these camps in other countries. New Zealand had offered to accept a quota, but it is now unlikely to renew that offer. Should a refugee attain New Zealand citizenship it would be untenable to New Zealand pride that such a person be reduced to second class citizenship by such a travel ban.
This move seems a tactical response to try and break a log jam, but it will firstly have to get the nod from the Australian parliament, and be measured against the protocols that exist in International law and under the treaties we have signed with other countries.
Those people on Nauru and Manus island may find no immediate change to their status is likely !
Tuesday, 1 November 2016
" Smear " Tactics ?
It is said that all is fair in love and war - and some would also include politics. The country with the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen is just days away from choosing the person who will occupy the oval office - and set the course America will take for the next four years.
When the voters go to the polls in early November they will choose between two contenders. It would be hard to pick more opposite types running for office - and this contest has aroused more emotional controversy than is usual in American politics.
The Republican party candidate, Donald Trump is a billionaire businessman who has never held public office. He is offering hope that he can return jobs to American workers by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports and deporting the array of undocumented migrants that have crossed the border from Mexico. He has been vague on how he would deal with other countries in alliance with America - and those hoping for a firm political agenda have been disappointed.
The Democrat contender is Hillary Clinton, wife of former president Bill Clinton, who served as both a Senator and Secretary of State during Barak Obama's first term in office. She certainly is politically experienced, but she comes with "baggage " from her previous dealings in Real Estate and the use of an unsecured private email computer which may have compromised national security.
Trump and Clinton have held three public debates and it is generally contended that Clinton was the marginal winner. Her lead in opinion polls edged slightly further ahead when a tape emerged of Trump bragging to a reporter on his sexual success with women. He dismissed this as "locker room boasting " but it seems to have reversed his popularity with many women voters.
Clinton suffered a controversial investigation by the FBI early in the contest when they examined whether any confidential material had been processed on her unsecured email service, and this was finally cleared. In the final days of the campaign the media were predicting a Clinton win when the FBI Director James Comey made the startling announcement that additional tapes had emerged and that the investigation of Clinton would continue.
Trump is triumphant at this unexpected break in his favour and opinion polls now show the two contestants at level pegging. Clinton is claiming that this sudden investigative announcement is little more than a smear and so far the FBI have refused to divulge just what quantities of emails are involved, nor how long the matter swill take to settle.
It seems that this new email matter has arisen from a rather strange source. The FBI had been probing disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner who was in the habit of sending nude photos of himself to teenage girls. Weiner's wife had been both an employee and confidante of Hillary Clinton, hence the claimed connection in the emails seized.
It seems unlikely that a man who has risen to head the FBI would willingly take action in a smear campaign, but Comey is a registered Republican voter - and this contest has certainly stirred the passions of the voting public to an unusual degree.
It seems certain that whatever the result, this election result will be contentious. Sadly, for the first time in history the losing side may not accept the verdict and this could lead to civic unrest on the streets of the nation.
When the voters go to the polls in early November they will choose between two contenders. It would be hard to pick more opposite types running for office - and this contest has aroused more emotional controversy than is usual in American politics.
The Republican party candidate, Donald Trump is a billionaire businessman who has never held public office. He is offering hope that he can return jobs to American workers by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports and deporting the array of undocumented migrants that have crossed the border from Mexico. He has been vague on how he would deal with other countries in alliance with America - and those hoping for a firm political agenda have been disappointed.
The Democrat contender is Hillary Clinton, wife of former president Bill Clinton, who served as both a Senator and Secretary of State during Barak Obama's first term in office. She certainly is politically experienced, but she comes with "baggage " from her previous dealings in Real Estate and the use of an unsecured private email computer which may have compromised national security.
Trump and Clinton have held three public debates and it is generally contended that Clinton was the marginal winner. Her lead in opinion polls edged slightly further ahead when a tape emerged of Trump bragging to a reporter on his sexual success with women. He dismissed this as "locker room boasting " but it seems to have reversed his popularity with many women voters.
Clinton suffered a controversial investigation by the FBI early in the contest when they examined whether any confidential material had been processed on her unsecured email service, and this was finally cleared. In the final days of the campaign the media were predicting a Clinton win when the FBI Director James Comey made the startling announcement that additional tapes had emerged and that the investigation of Clinton would continue.
Trump is triumphant at this unexpected break in his favour and opinion polls now show the two contestants at level pegging. Clinton is claiming that this sudden investigative announcement is little more than a smear and so far the FBI have refused to divulge just what quantities of emails are involved, nor how long the matter swill take to settle.
It seems that this new email matter has arisen from a rather strange source. The FBI had been probing disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner who was in the habit of sending nude photos of himself to teenage girls. Weiner's wife had been both an employee and confidante of Hillary Clinton, hence the claimed connection in the emails seized.
It seems unlikely that a man who has risen to head the FBI would willingly take action in a smear campaign, but Comey is a registered Republican voter - and this contest has certainly stirred the passions of the voting public to an unusual degree.
It seems certain that whatever the result, this election result will be contentious. Sadly, for the first time in history the losing side may not accept the verdict and this could lead to civic unrest on the streets of the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)