Indonesia - Our Close Neighbour !

For most Australians our understanding of Indonesia is restricted to a visit to the holiday island of Bali.  The Balinese cater to Australian tastes because that keeps the money flowing but relations between the two countries have always been tense.

When Indonesia emerged from Dutch rule at the end of the second world war it's first president  - "Bung ""  Sukarno was openly hostile to Australia.  He often claimed that it was inevitable that his country would eventually invade and rule Australia, but Sukarno backed a Communist insurgency and when a coup failed he was replaced by General Suharto.

Suharto was a strict dictator.  Under his command the army purged the Communist movement and thousands died.  During his rule Portugal walked away from its colony in East Timor and Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam gave Indonesia the nod to invade.  This occupation was brutal.

Both the Indonesian police and the Indonesian military act as independent units within the Indonesian government..  In East Timor they took over money making business opportunities and reduced the   locals to serfdom.   In the inevitable revolt Australia was instrumental in helping the East Timorese gain their freedom.   This created Australian enmity in some higher Indonesian military officers.

Once again a clash between Indonesia and Australia is waiting in the wings because of Indonesian avarice in the half of Papua New Guinea now occupied by Indonesia.  The Morning Star movement is seeking independence and an armed insurgency is in progress.  Officers with the experience of East Timor are now at the top of the Indonesian military hierarchy - and this present spat seems to be mainly prejudice remaining from that era.

The fact that American Marines are training near Darwin is unsettling Indonesia and joint Indonesian and Australian training exercises have been uncomfortably similar to the unrest in Indonesian Papua New Guinea.  A general with an axe to grind against Australia has been quick to halt military ties and claim Australia is recruiting spies from his military personnel.

Wise heads in the Indonesian government will probably hose this down and it will be of short duration, but long term relations between the two countries depends on whether we can obtain religious harmony - and the auspices are not promising.

Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country and it has a secular constitution.  It is also a democracy which elects its leaders.   An Indonesian who happens to be a Christian is running for high office and hard line Muslims have quoted an obscure verse in the Koran which forbids Muslims to put in a positions of power a person other than a fellow Muslim.   When this Christian challenged that status he was accused of blasphemy - which carries a long prison sentence.

What is alarming is the vast crowds hard line Muslims have been able to bring to the streets to support this contention.  Muslims with a secular outlook have been galvanized to demonstrate and to a large extent this is being provoked by the insurgency which has erupted into civil war in the Middle East.

The future relationship between Indonesia and Australia will probably hinge on whether IS can be defeated and Muslim relations with the rest of the world amicably restored.   It is this call for world jihad that is fuelling the present unrest in our near neighbour !

Life's Lucky Lottery !

One hundred and seventy thousand Australians have received a letter from Centrelink accusing them of receiving some form of overpayment, and according to Social Services Minister Christian Porter,  one in every five does not owe any money.

It seems that some bright mind thought up the idea of cross checking the records of the Social Services department with that of other government entities - such as the taxation office.  Unfortunately in this age of the computer this cross check is an automated system which fails to take into account the various anomalies between different forms of record keeping.   The end result is an automatic declaration of guilt and a demand that the excess be repaid.

It is quite possible that the shock of receiving such a demand may push some people to suicide.   In some households it has generated absolute panic and it is not helpful that the phone lines to the Social Security Rights hotline have been jammed with callers trying to get basic information to help them sort out this mess.

Typical of interactions between government departments a row is brewing over conflicting demands. Centrelink is checking back over a six year period while the tax office requires taxpayers to retain their records for just five years.   The number of citizens who lack any form of retained records will be legendary - and the onus of proof is always on the citizen to refute the claimed debt.

Social security is money that comes from the public purse and the authorities certainly have a duty to see that it is distributed legally and according to the prescribed formula but we have so many interpretations that apply to individual benefits that simply running them through a computer is almost guaranteed to produce errors.   In this case, the error is always against the claimant and the department is demanding the return of that money.

Sadly, it is the tone of these demanding letters that strike fear.   Communications from social security that requires some sort of action on the part of the beneficiary always comes with a veiled threat.  It usually suggests that failure to comply within time guidelines may see benefits cease.  The threat of no further payments is implicit on compliance.

No doubt vast numbers of people will find themselves undergoing harrowing interviews in Centrelink offices as they try to sort out these alleged over payments.   Where a genuine error has occurred and there is money owing the recovery process may vary.  Centrelink may simply withdraw funds from a debtors bank account but usually seeks repayment by instalment.

No doubt the bad publicity and public anguish will have political repercussions that will see this over payment crisis swiftly resolved.   Where payments are actually stopped and the restoration takes place by settling the perceived problem the  correspondence from Centrelink offices often leaves beneficiaries seething.

When the stoppage was not the fault of the beneficiary but was a Centrelink interpretation there is never an apology.   Resumption of the benefit is signalled with a message that states  "  You have been granted ......   ".     An occasional tone of contrition would go a long way in repairing ruptured relationships !

Knowing Your Rights !

Here we are just a few days into a new year and it is likely that some of the presents we received at Christmas are not working properly.   Hopefully, the person who gave us that present remembers where they bought it and can find either a receipt or its listing on their credit card account.   It is protected by Australian Consumer Law and if it is faulty we have the right to what is called "The Three R's " - Refund - Repair - or Replacement - and that choice is ours.

Surprisingly, some shopping chains that should know better try and bluff people out of their consumer rights.  They tell the customer that this complaint has nothing to do with them and the item must be returned and negotiated with the manufacturer.    Wrong !   A faulty item needs to be returned to where it was purchased, and the choice of the "Three R's " applies at that point.  But you do need proof that you are returning it to the place of purchase.

Then there is the matter of a "timed "guarantee.   Most manufactured items come with a twelve months warranty but that is in addition to an "implied warranty "that applies to all items.   That demands that the item is safe, lasting, free of faults, of acceptable quality and will perform its function for a reasonable period of time.    If the product does not meet that guarantee you are entitled to a remedy.

An old trick of the trade is for the seller to unpack the returned item and refer the complainant to the usual accompanying notice that instructs that in the event of a warranty claim the item must be returned to the manufacturers factory.  Manufacturers expect to sell their goods in every Australian state and in many overseas countries.   Consumer laws are individual state matters and may not even exist in some overseas countries, hence this general law applies where no consumer law exists.  When the sale takes place in an Australian state, that states consumer law is paramount.

Because negotiating with the manufacturer is time consuming many retailers try and bluff the customer out of their consumer rights.   Usually, making it clear that you are aware of your rights brings compliance, but it is certainly worth lodging a complaint with Fair Trading if a claim is refused.  Sever penalties are imposed on retailers who do not meet their obligations.

Redress does not require a complete product failure to apply.  Many products promise a range of functions and should you find that one of these is not applicable in your area this must be made abundantly clear at the time of purchase.  You have every right to expect all the manufacturers claims to be met.

To add to profit margins, many resellers suggest you take an "extended warranty "cover on your purchase.   You should ask that they fully explain just what is involved in this cover because in many cases you are simply replacing at a cost what is free for the first half of the period covered by your consumer rights.   In the event of a fault in that time, the cost is borne by the insurance company.

These forms of redress do not apply if the customer has simply "changed their mind "and want to return the goods.   Some retailers cheerfully accept returns after the festive season but that is a matter of goodwill, not law.  A brochure fully explaining state consumer law is freely available from any office of Fair Trading.

" Sin " Taxes

It is surprising - to the point of amazement - how little attention the Australian media has given to a law change that took place in America at the same time as their presidential election.  The Americans are given to holding what amount to mini referendums on issues that collect enough signatures to go on the ballot and Californians were asked to make a decision on the legalization of Marijuana.

This presidential election drew world media attention because of the amazing progress billionaire Donald Trump made winnowing through the ranks of contenders for the oval office and his tussle with Hillary Clinton that enabled him to snatch victory.    The world concentrated on the rantings of "the Donald " to the exclusion of other issues.

California is the biggest and most populous American state and it has just turned on it's head the entire American drug  outlook.   The people voted to decriminalize the personal possession on what had been a narcotic that could land you in prison for a life term and in effect make it legal for people to smoke this product for recreational purposes.

America now has a serious conflict between Federal and state law.  Possession or use of Marijuana is still a crime under Federal law and it will be enforced vigorously.  Several smaller states had held similar referendums and the Feds have induced the banking industry to refuse to accept funds generated by this activity.  Now the sheer size of the California reversal makes continuing that stance impractical.

Basically, world thinking seems to equate Marijuana as a recreational drug to equality with alcohol.  Alcohol in moderation is legal and widely tolerated  in most countries and laws come into force when it is used to excess.  Similar restrictions now apply to Marijuana in the blood stream for those driving vehicles.

That Californian decision could be the tipping point.   It is hard to see how a significant portion of the American population can legally use Marijuana as a recreational drug while the rest of the country has prohibition imposed and lawbreakers are condemned to prison terms.   This legal change will probably take hold in other countries.

The tax ramifications are enormous.   The world alcohol industry contributes heavily to the economy of most countries by way of the tax income stream.  This Californian law change entitles individuals to grow a given number of Marijuana plants - for their own consumption.  It is highly likely that Marijuana may actually replace alcohol as the prime recreational substance and if this is not encompassed in the tax stream there will be a serious tax shortfall.

The original decision to restrict Marijuana was probably a knee jerk reaction which has been softening on the world scene. Detection of small amounts here in Australia usually bring just a caution and it seems inevitable that pressure for legalization will now increase.  If the government decides to decriminalize Marijuana use for recreational purposes it would be wise to make sure that the production and distribution are contained within a similar tax structure to alcohol.   It seems that what are often referred to as the "sin taxes " are an integral support of the Australian economy.

The CRISPR Era !

When the American "Manhattan " project split the atom for a long while the technical secret of how that was achieved was shared by a bevy of top world scientists.  Some of them with socialist leanings were unhappy that such a terrible weapon was exclusively in the hands of a western government and leaked the details to the Soviet Union.  Very quickly nuclear weapons entered the arsenals of five of the worlds great powers.

Now a new scientific discovery has been made and there is every chance that it will have an equal impact on the world we live in.   That discovery got the name CRISPR-cas9 and it allows the basic DNA of plants and animals to be subtracted or added to, resulting in a modification of what  each individual plant or animal becomes.

We now have gained the ability to process genetics and this could allow the DNA that results in a disease being removed, and replaced with DNA that delivers entirely different characteristics. We have gained the ability to shuffle the building blocks of life and create beings of our own making.

This discovery appalls some people - and electrifies others.  To some, it takes us where humans have no right to go, and to others it opens the way to a utopia where diseases may be conquered and this earth may be so bountiful that the prospect of famine is banished forever.

What horrifies some religious people is that CRISPR delivers the prospect of what some describe as "designer babies ".   It would be technically possible to introduce DNA changes that result in babies who will grow to a predetermined height and have predetermined hair colour, eye colour and general characteristics completely foreign to both the mother and fathers DNA     There seems to be few basic limitations on what can be achieved with CRISPR.

Any hope that this could be kept a tightly classified secret went out the window when the entire process was written-up in scientific papers and published on the Internet.   To make matters worse, the equipment necessary to process CRISPR can be found in any functioning high school science laboratory and is not of a complicated or expensive nature.

Of course scientists and governments have urged caution and compiled a moral code that they hope will apply to CRISPR technology, but the secret is out and the commercial opportunities will not be lost on individual scientists - who are free to make their own experiments in private.

It also seems likely that CRISPR will be very good to us here in Australia.    The Great Barrier Reef is one of the wonders of the world and it is here on our doorstep - and warmer oceans and bleaching are destroying the coral.   No doubt science will use CRISPR to modify the coral type to accommodate warmer water and the inevitable runoff from farming and mining activities along our northern coast.

There is the expectation that planet Earth will be home to ten billion people by mid century and we are looking to our vast inland for new food production. CRISPR has the capacity to create plants that require less water and at the same time deliver several crop seasons in the one year.   It is quite possible that we may develop an entirely new food type that relishes our dry inland and goes a long way towards becoming our key export.

As we found with the atom bomb, there is no way to backtrack and unlearn scientific discoveries once they are made.  CRISPR is now a fact of life.Now we have to learn to live with whatever it delivers  on the world stage !

Drownings Increase !

The fact that this summer as many people died by drowning as lost their lives in road accidents is delivering a warning that social change is under way in this country.  This spate of drownings sends a clear message that our beach culture is under threat because the automatic assumption that all Aussie kids are great swimmers is becoming a fallacy.

It seems to be a new fact of life that many Aussie kids will undergo their entire schooling years - without learning to swim.  We now live in a much more restrictive society.  Parents are wary of allowing their children too much freedom because of perceived risks and the days of sport practised at school seem to have vanished.

These days most public schools schedule an entire half day under that heading of "Sport" but students are left to leave the school grounds and make their own arrangements.  In the majority of cases they regard this as "free time" and no form of sport takes place.   Organizing any type of communal sport brings with it new problems in Australia's present social mix.

Religious dress codes come into conflict with many sports. Bare arms and legs are forbidden in some cultures and there are other problems that arise in all areas that involve bodily contact.   Guidance in sporting rules does not seem to form a part of todays teacher training.

There is no doubt that social activities for young people are very different from half a century ago.   We are now in the computer age with the advent of sophisticated gaming and fewer kids have the personal mobility of their own push bike, nor roam about in groups on bush or beach outings.  The opportunities to learn to swim are diminishing.

As a result, the typical beach crowd on a very hot day will include a high proportion of non swimmers.   The wise will limit their entry into the water to no more than chest height, but the tendency of Australian beaches to develop a "rip " can bring danger.   Fortunately, many of our beaches are patrolled and rescue quickly follows.

The death by drowning statistics tell a worrying story.   A big proportion of our now adult population was born overseas and many came from landlocked countries where swimming ability would be unusual.  They would be unlikely to seek that skill when making their new life in this country, and having their offspring gain that knowledge would not be high on their priorities.

A study of recent drowning deaths tells a tragic story.   Many occurred on unpatrolled beaches or in areas of a beach far from the patrolled area.    Drownings were also scattered over rivers and remote water holes, where seasonal flooding shifts the risks and where dangerous currents can be hard to identify.  In the majority of cases, a basic swimming skill would have been the difference between life and death.

Perhaps the most basic need is to reintroduce water sport as a required item of school life.   All and every Australian should be automatically taught to swim during their school years to protect them against the dangers of our Australian lifestyle - and no exceptions to that need should be granted.

Self driving cars will eventually drive down the road toll, but to make a swimming skill universal rests entirely in the hands of our education system.

Coastal Erosion !

The release of a new  State Environmental Planning Policy ( SEPP ) is awaited with dread by thousands of property owners in danger from rising sea levels and the increased storm intensity caused by global warming.   For the past few decades there has been a mixed reaction from local  authorities and this past June a violent winter storm actually did major damage to properties fronting the coast at Wamberal and at Sydney's suburb of Collaroy.

The old SEPP in place delivered varying outcomes and this usually revolved around the outlook of individual councils.  In some instances it led to the construction of sea walls to protect endangered property while in others landowners who took their own action to prevent erosion were ordered to remove it.  It was painfully obvious that what had been ignored for years needed to be taken into account by way of a common policy.

Unfortunately, the extent of the problem is hard to quantify.  Rising sea levels may inch slowly upward over several centuries, or the great ice sheets of Greenland may melt away and have them rise by metres in a single century.  This is not merely a New South Wales problem - nor an Australian problem.  The entire world is likely to lose much of its land mass to the sea.

It is not only those lucky people living in homes fronting beaches that face this danger.  Rivers run inland from most Australian cities and when this water rises vast suburbs that have never experienced flooding will be permanently under water.   The entire contour of the Australian continent will change.

That is what makes configuring this SEPP so difficult.  We are trying to slow global warming by reducing the burning of fossil fuels, but the final outcome is unknown.  How far ahead can we prudently plan and that other very important question - who pays for what is needed to be done ?

That question hits the hip pocket nerve of all homeowners.  The first to suffer damage will be those magnificent properties facing onto beaches and these have million dollar price tags and are owned by the rich and successful of our society.   We do have the example of the Dutch in living on land below sea level and protecting it by vast dykes, but much of our coastal land would need to be sacrificed to provide a base for such a protective wall.

Much of the scientific community preach a policy of "retreat " as the only valid way of handling rising seas.   They claim the loss of land is simply a mistake on our part and we must pay the price for our foolishness.  Under that regime no new buildings are permitted in the flood zone and owners enjoy existing homes while they last, but receive no compensation when the sea overwhelms them.  The same policy applies to inland areas  affected by rising river water.

The economics of such a policy predict that the value of such flood affected homes will gradually decrease as the risk increases.  Renovation or extension would be forbidden in this flood zone and should the rise of the seas occur over a long period of time the individual personal losses would be spread over several generations.   The overall loss factor would be too great for governments to even consider compensation.

Most likely the SEPP that will shortly emerge will be some sort of compromise.  It should certainly ban new buildings or major renovations where flood damage is imminent but probably permit protection to minimise short term damage.  The severity of whatever is put in place will probably depend on what political risk eventuates.