High finance is not something the ordinary citizen understands but - hopefully - the government people who control our finances know what they are doing. The only problem is that simple minded folk are coming to believe that " finance " really means pawning the wealth earlier generations generated for this state.
It all started with what seemed like a very reasonable proposition. We badly needed a decent road system to overcome the ever slowing traffic flow in Sydney and the public transport system was not up to scratch. It was argued that if we sold the means of producing and distributing electricity the billions of dollars it would provide would pay for this upgrade.
Unfortunately, Newtons law applied. Work is now well advanced on a splendid arterial road system of widened roads and new tunnels and we have not only returned trams to the streets and complimented them with a brand new metro system to speed the working public to their jobs. But, of course the investors who bought the electricity system and the poles and wires need to also make a profit, and somehow the price we pay for electricity has gone through the roof.
One of the peculiarities of the road system like the West Connex is that despite it being financed from that electricity sale, the public will still be charged a toll to use it. What is even more peculiar is as fast as it is being built, it is being sold off to other investors.
The original concept of using tolls to finance roads worked on the principle that this was a temporary charge which would cease once the road was paid for. The difference now is that another group of investors will pay billions to have toll access to that road and the toll will bring them a profit over a very long period of years.
We now hear that there is doubt about what investors may be prepared to pay for a fifty-one percent purchase of the toll rights for the West Connex. The final cost of construction remains an unknown factor, but sixteen billion has been suggested as the likely outcome. It is suggested that this may be sold for a mere five billion dollars - and the lease period may be extended from 2026 to 2060 to sweeten the deal.
The reason given for this lease extension is doubt that the traffic using the road and paying a toll will be lower than the original estimate. It seems that nobody took into account how those new trams and the new metro will lower the number of people who choose to drive their car on the daily commute. The road system and public transport are actually in competition with one another.
Of course, the sale of the West Connex will mean the government is again flush with money, and once again we can expect more wonderful plans of how new infrastructure will improve or lives.
Unfortunately, all this sounds like a new version of the " magic pudding ". It creates the illusion of a generous helping for everyone - going on forever.
Reality is a little different. Access to these new improvements comes at an added cost !
Saturday, 7 October 2017
Friday, 6 October 2017
An End to the Cemetery !
A hundred years ago there was little other option for the disposal of the dead than to dig a hole six foot deep in consecrated ground. We called that a " Cemetery ". The problem is that land set aside for that purpose in Sydney is fast reaching the point where no further burials will be possible. It will soon reach capacity.
The biggest cemetery in Sydney is Rookwood and the Rookwood General Cemeteries Reserve Trust is looking to buy new land to create new burial sites. One of the sites under consideration is the heritage listed Fernhill estate in western Sydney and this is bitterly opposed by many people, including the New South Wales branch of the National Trust.
Fernhill Estate was once the home of colourful Sydney property tycoon Warren Anderson and it contains the Georgian mansion in which lavish parties were once held. It is considered iconic and owners of surrounding properties are dismayed at the thought that is may be converted into a panorama of ugly headstones and monuments. Every second house in Mulgoa road has a " No cemetery in Fernhill " sign on its front lawn.
The decision rests in the hands of the Minister for Lands, Paul Toole and it is being opposed by two former Liberal politicians who once held that seat, together with both the present member, Tanya Davies and the Minister for Western Sydney, Stuart Ayres. It is quickly building into a movement to end the custom of burials in the confines of greater Sydney.
The problem with cemeteries is - longevity. Graves that are well tended shortly after burial fall into decay as generations pass and eventually old cemeteries become a wasteland. Cremation is fast overtaking burials because it is more efficient and cheaper and memorials that were once hugely expensive works of art are now replaced with a simple plaque or the scattering or ashes in a favoured location.
We are a small population in a giant continent and for cultural and religious reasons it is unlikely that burials will totally cease, but the cemeteries that are available for burial may soon be far away from the Sydney city confines. Land in Sydney is expensive as its use is sought for both industry and housing. A new custom must emerge that those demanding a burial must be prepared to accept a location in what we would now describe as " near country ", possibly a considerable car journey away from the nearest city suburb.
Country towns which avoid the price expansion for land my still continue burial practices and those within reasonable distance of a city may benefit by providing this service, but it seems inevitable that city ordinances may soon legally prevent land acquisition for new cemeteries.
Despite objections, the government approved the recent purchase of Wallacia Golf course by Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries for creation of a new cemetery. It is quite possible that the rejection of this Fernhill proposal will be the turning point where the creation of new cemeteries in Sydney ceases. The funeral industry would be wise to adapt to this change to a distant venue and plan accordingly.
The biggest cemetery in Sydney is Rookwood and the Rookwood General Cemeteries Reserve Trust is looking to buy new land to create new burial sites. One of the sites under consideration is the heritage listed Fernhill estate in western Sydney and this is bitterly opposed by many people, including the New South Wales branch of the National Trust.
Fernhill Estate was once the home of colourful Sydney property tycoon Warren Anderson and it contains the Georgian mansion in which lavish parties were once held. It is considered iconic and owners of surrounding properties are dismayed at the thought that is may be converted into a panorama of ugly headstones and monuments. Every second house in Mulgoa road has a " No cemetery in Fernhill " sign on its front lawn.
The decision rests in the hands of the Minister for Lands, Paul Toole and it is being opposed by two former Liberal politicians who once held that seat, together with both the present member, Tanya Davies and the Minister for Western Sydney, Stuart Ayres. It is quickly building into a movement to end the custom of burials in the confines of greater Sydney.
The problem with cemeteries is - longevity. Graves that are well tended shortly after burial fall into decay as generations pass and eventually old cemeteries become a wasteland. Cremation is fast overtaking burials because it is more efficient and cheaper and memorials that were once hugely expensive works of art are now replaced with a simple plaque or the scattering or ashes in a favoured location.
We are a small population in a giant continent and for cultural and religious reasons it is unlikely that burials will totally cease, but the cemeteries that are available for burial may soon be far away from the Sydney city confines. Land in Sydney is expensive as its use is sought for both industry and housing. A new custom must emerge that those demanding a burial must be prepared to accept a location in what we would now describe as " near country ", possibly a considerable car journey away from the nearest city suburb.
Country towns which avoid the price expansion for land my still continue burial practices and those within reasonable distance of a city may benefit by providing this service, but it seems inevitable that city ordinances may soon legally prevent land acquisition for new cemeteries.
Despite objections, the government approved the recent purchase of Wallacia Golf course by Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries for creation of a new cemetery. It is quite possible that the rejection of this Fernhill proposal will be the turning point where the creation of new cemeteries in Sydney ceases. The funeral industry would be wise to adapt to this change to a distant venue and plan accordingly.
Thursday, 5 October 2017
Essential Services !
We live in a hard old commercial world and while the threat of being thrown into a debtor's prison no longer exists, drastic things still happen when we don't pay our bills. The banks are quick to foreclose if our home mortgage falls into arrears.
There is a vast difference in how commercial firms treat delinquent customers that owe them money. Phone service companies are quick to disconnect services but what we consider " essential services " are treated very differently. Their providers offer many forms of relief, including extended payments to cushion reducing arrears. Government agencies disperse emergency grants where applicants are suffering hardship - and every effort is made to avoid disconnection.
But, when all else fails, it seems that disconnection is the only option. Where these are government supplied services, the rules that apply differently state to state. Unpaid water bills in some states result in a partial disconnection. The supply is reduced to the extent that there is insufficient pressure to use a washing machine or have a shower, but enough remains to gradually replenish the toilet flush or to deliver a glass of water. Legislation ensures that the occupants must never be deprived of the life preserving availability of drinking water and toilets must be flushed at least daily as a hygiene measure.
Obviously, electricity presents a very different problem. It is not possible to provide a partial supply and the supplier has passed from government hands into those of a commercial entity in recent years. The prospect of families with little kids being left in the dark is chilling. In most cases they are left without the means to cook or heat food, keep supplies refrigerated or provide warmth from the cold of winter. This is now a problem putting immense pressure on charitable agencies to whom these people appeal.
The fact that the charge for electricity has doubled in recent years threatens a huge surge of disconnections when we next suffer an economic downturn - and they happen on a very predictable cycle. We are part of the world economy and events in other countries can cause fluctuations in the price we gain from exports or generally disrupt trade to our disadvantage. We are at present suffering static wage levels despite high employment and an ever lowering unemployment pool.
It is reassuring to know that some rules are in place when it comes to electricity disconnection to shield people who rely on life support equipment that is powered by electricity. Several electricity suppliers have disconnected customers despite being aware that such life preserving equipment would cease operating when the electricity supply was terminated. It could deliver a death sentence to the person who relied on that system for life support.
Electricity suppliers in all states are obliged to give at least four full days notice of intended disconnection to allow the customer to make other arrangements. Where these failures have occurred, the supplier has been slapped with a twenty thousand dollar fine for each failure. That seems sufficient to make each supplier stick closely to the rules.
Unfortunately, it does nothing to bring electricity prices into affordability for average people. A lot of people are struggling to pay their power bills and if it surges to a crescendo in an economic downturn it could be fatal for the government. Electricity is an essential service and the government needs to do whatever is necessary to stabilize prices and bring them within reach of the average wage earner. The survival of the government hinges on that happening.
There is a vast difference in how commercial firms treat delinquent customers that owe them money. Phone service companies are quick to disconnect services but what we consider " essential services " are treated very differently. Their providers offer many forms of relief, including extended payments to cushion reducing arrears. Government agencies disperse emergency grants where applicants are suffering hardship - and every effort is made to avoid disconnection.
But, when all else fails, it seems that disconnection is the only option. Where these are government supplied services, the rules that apply differently state to state. Unpaid water bills in some states result in a partial disconnection. The supply is reduced to the extent that there is insufficient pressure to use a washing machine or have a shower, but enough remains to gradually replenish the toilet flush or to deliver a glass of water. Legislation ensures that the occupants must never be deprived of the life preserving availability of drinking water and toilets must be flushed at least daily as a hygiene measure.
Obviously, electricity presents a very different problem. It is not possible to provide a partial supply and the supplier has passed from government hands into those of a commercial entity in recent years. The prospect of families with little kids being left in the dark is chilling. In most cases they are left without the means to cook or heat food, keep supplies refrigerated or provide warmth from the cold of winter. This is now a problem putting immense pressure on charitable agencies to whom these people appeal.
The fact that the charge for electricity has doubled in recent years threatens a huge surge of disconnections when we next suffer an economic downturn - and they happen on a very predictable cycle. We are part of the world economy and events in other countries can cause fluctuations in the price we gain from exports or generally disrupt trade to our disadvantage. We are at present suffering static wage levels despite high employment and an ever lowering unemployment pool.
It is reassuring to know that some rules are in place when it comes to electricity disconnection to shield people who rely on life support equipment that is powered by electricity. Several electricity suppliers have disconnected customers despite being aware that such life preserving equipment would cease operating when the electricity supply was terminated. It could deliver a death sentence to the person who relied on that system for life support.
Electricity suppliers in all states are obliged to give at least four full days notice of intended disconnection to allow the customer to make other arrangements. Where these failures have occurred, the supplier has been slapped with a twenty thousand dollar fine for each failure. That seems sufficient to make each supplier stick closely to the rules.
Unfortunately, it does nothing to bring electricity prices into affordability for average people. A lot of people are struggling to pay their power bills and if it surges to a crescendo in an economic downturn it could be fatal for the government. Electricity is an essential service and the government needs to do whatever is necessary to stabilize prices and bring them within reach of the average wage earner. The survival of the government hinges on that happening.
Wednesday, 4 October 2017
Death by - Salt !
The statisticians tell us that when we ingest too much salt it makes us prone to increased blood pressure and that delivers stroke and hear disease. Salt is linked to the annual death of 1.65 million people who die each year from cardiovascular disease.
The problem is that salt makes food taste better, and for that reason the people who make the food we eat deliberately add salt to enhance the sale of their product. That seems to be a fact of life across the entire food spectrum, but extra salt is particularly prevalent in the " fast food " segment, both what is available at those convenient restaurant chains and in the food we buy and prepare ourselves.
Australia is amongst many world countries that have embarked on a safety programme to reduce the average salt intake by thirty percent by 2025. Pressure is being applied to the food industry to lower the salt content in bread, breakfast cereals, soups, sauces and processed meats. As a result, we are seeing food labels that proclaim that the product is " salt reduced ", but in many cases the salt contend is still at a dangerous level.
Many food manufacturers can point to decreased sales of products that have had salt reduced. Our taste buds seek that tangy salty flavour and if it goes missing we are prone to seek another brand or product that restores the taste. We seem to be perverse creatures who on hot days partake of drinks like beer to satisfy our thirst, and compliment that with salty potato chips or salt encrusted pretzels. The average Australian eats about nine grams of salt a day, nearly double the WHO's limit.
Ask anyone who has had an ominous warning from their doctor and as a result has set out to reduce their salt intake just how difficult that can be. Salt taste is really an addiction. We complain that without salt food is " tasteless " but if we persevere that addiction fades and our taste learns to do without it, but an occasional salt breakout can set the process right back to zero.
Government agencies are reluctant to use legislation to force lower salt levels on the food industry but eventually some sort of maximum standard may be necessary, but so many people have an ingrained taste for salt that they add it as a matter of course whenever they decide to eat.
In any restaurant it is curious just how many people reach for the salt shaker and add salt to whatever food they have ordered. It seems more a reflex action than a result of thought and perhaps it is rooted in that addiction process. The sight of the salt and pepper shakers on the table may prompt the subconscious.
Along with pressure on the food industry to reduce the salt in food products, maybe the answer to the salt problem is to legislate to make it illegal to have salt shakers at any food source. If they were removed from restaurant tables - and unavailable for even requests - a major source of salt ingestion would be removed.
It would also probably result in a lot of angry people. We already know that too much salt will eventually kill us and that too much sugar will have a similar result. But we are a perverse species. Woe betide anyone who tries to force a change of lifestyle to enable us to live longer. We insist on being masters of our own destiny - whatever that delivers !
The problem is that salt makes food taste better, and for that reason the people who make the food we eat deliberately add salt to enhance the sale of their product. That seems to be a fact of life across the entire food spectrum, but extra salt is particularly prevalent in the " fast food " segment, both what is available at those convenient restaurant chains and in the food we buy and prepare ourselves.
Australia is amongst many world countries that have embarked on a safety programme to reduce the average salt intake by thirty percent by 2025. Pressure is being applied to the food industry to lower the salt content in bread, breakfast cereals, soups, sauces and processed meats. As a result, we are seeing food labels that proclaim that the product is " salt reduced ", but in many cases the salt contend is still at a dangerous level.
Many food manufacturers can point to decreased sales of products that have had salt reduced. Our taste buds seek that tangy salty flavour and if it goes missing we are prone to seek another brand or product that restores the taste. We seem to be perverse creatures who on hot days partake of drinks like beer to satisfy our thirst, and compliment that with salty potato chips or salt encrusted pretzels. The average Australian eats about nine grams of salt a day, nearly double the WHO's limit.
Ask anyone who has had an ominous warning from their doctor and as a result has set out to reduce their salt intake just how difficult that can be. Salt taste is really an addiction. We complain that without salt food is " tasteless " but if we persevere that addiction fades and our taste learns to do without it, but an occasional salt breakout can set the process right back to zero.
Government agencies are reluctant to use legislation to force lower salt levels on the food industry but eventually some sort of maximum standard may be necessary, but so many people have an ingrained taste for salt that they add it as a matter of course whenever they decide to eat.
In any restaurant it is curious just how many people reach for the salt shaker and add salt to whatever food they have ordered. It seems more a reflex action than a result of thought and perhaps it is rooted in that addiction process. The sight of the salt and pepper shakers on the table may prompt the subconscious.
Along with pressure on the food industry to reduce the salt in food products, maybe the answer to the salt problem is to legislate to make it illegal to have salt shakers at any food source. If they were removed from restaurant tables - and unavailable for even requests - a major source of salt ingestion would be removed.
It would also probably result in a lot of angry people. We already know that too much salt will eventually kill us and that too much sugar will have a similar result. But we are a perverse species. Woe betide anyone who tries to force a change of lifestyle to enable us to live longer. We insist on being masters of our own destiny - whatever that delivers !
Tuesday, 3 October 2017
The " Capitalist " Economy !
The Australian economy has weathered good times and bad. The aim of the union movement has been to gain better pay for its members by " collective bargaining ". This is very effective when demand for goods is strong and the union can deliver greater productivity in exchange for a fatter pay packet. The usual outcome is an " enterprise agreement " hammered out between the union and the employer that covers both wages and conditions.
Unfortunately, this delivers mixed results. Aggressive unions in key industries have managed to negotiate very favourable pay and conditions for their members, often by using the strike weapon to force the decisions they seek, but weaker unions have not had this same success. There are many industrial segments where pay is low. Usually this is where the work is unskilled and the employer can replace numbers that leave from a vast unemployment pool.
In recent decades the strength of the union movement has been declining. In the past, many industries were referred to as a " closed shop ". The union had the power to insist that all that worked there join the union. That is now illegal and the numbers in unions in Australia has withered away sharply. We still have some very militant unions, but they are clustered in a small number of important industries.
The Australian economy entered a new cycle with the recession that started in 2008. We came out of that better than most other world countries with much less employment loss, but wages have remained flat despite a huge jump in housing costs and increases for essentials such as gas and electricity. Pressure is building to increase the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour.
One of the tenets of the Capitalist system in place in Australia is that employers have the right to make goods by engaging labour at whatever price is dictated by demand and availability. The government maintains a degree of control by the establishment of the Fair Work Commission which ensures that pay meets standards of national accountability and working conditions remain within guidelines. The Fair Work Commission is the umpire which sets the supposedly level playing field between boss and worker.
Now a new eventuality is intruding into that arrangement. Unilever is a giant world company that owns Streets Ice Cream, one of our national brands. Over the years the union covering Streets workers have negotiated award conditions which are contained within an " enterprise agreement " currently in place. Under this, output has not been interrupted by strikes and employment and output has been stable - and harmonious. Many of the work conditions in place were negotiated before the 2008 downturn.
Now Unilever is demanding that this enterprise agreement be terminated - and that working conditions at Streets Ice Cream revert to the award safety net. If that happens, it is estimated that the pay for those working in the ice cream factory will be cut by forty six percent.
This is " Capitalism " in its ultimate form. It seems that Unilever thinks it is paying its workers more than it needs to get the same work done and that there is a sufficient unemployment pool to replace them if they object and leave. Of course their workers have bought homes and established lifestyles commensurate with the pay levels they have been earning in what they considered " permanent " jobs. It is unlikely that they could replicate those same pay and working conditions in the present employment malaise.
There are rumblings that moves to terminate similar enterprise agreements are being heard in other industries where production facilities here are owned by a world wide behemoth with little interest in its workers lives and every intent on improving its bottom line.
A lot depends on how the Fair Work Commission reacts and whether this sends workers fleeing to join unions for their protection. If this pay cut comes into effect many will face the prospect of home loss if they can not pay mortgages and it could lead to a drop in pay and conditions across employment generally. It certainly throws the spotlight on the capitalist system that has always been the basis of Australian employment.
Unfortunately, this delivers mixed results. Aggressive unions in key industries have managed to negotiate very favourable pay and conditions for their members, often by using the strike weapon to force the decisions they seek, but weaker unions have not had this same success. There are many industrial segments where pay is low. Usually this is where the work is unskilled and the employer can replace numbers that leave from a vast unemployment pool.
In recent decades the strength of the union movement has been declining. In the past, many industries were referred to as a " closed shop ". The union had the power to insist that all that worked there join the union. That is now illegal and the numbers in unions in Australia has withered away sharply. We still have some very militant unions, but they are clustered in a small number of important industries.
The Australian economy entered a new cycle with the recession that started in 2008. We came out of that better than most other world countries with much less employment loss, but wages have remained flat despite a huge jump in housing costs and increases for essentials such as gas and electricity. Pressure is building to increase the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour.
One of the tenets of the Capitalist system in place in Australia is that employers have the right to make goods by engaging labour at whatever price is dictated by demand and availability. The government maintains a degree of control by the establishment of the Fair Work Commission which ensures that pay meets standards of national accountability and working conditions remain within guidelines. The Fair Work Commission is the umpire which sets the supposedly level playing field between boss and worker.
Now a new eventuality is intruding into that arrangement. Unilever is a giant world company that owns Streets Ice Cream, one of our national brands. Over the years the union covering Streets workers have negotiated award conditions which are contained within an " enterprise agreement " currently in place. Under this, output has not been interrupted by strikes and employment and output has been stable - and harmonious. Many of the work conditions in place were negotiated before the 2008 downturn.
Now Unilever is demanding that this enterprise agreement be terminated - and that working conditions at Streets Ice Cream revert to the award safety net. If that happens, it is estimated that the pay for those working in the ice cream factory will be cut by forty six percent.
This is " Capitalism " in its ultimate form. It seems that Unilever thinks it is paying its workers more than it needs to get the same work done and that there is a sufficient unemployment pool to replace them if they object and leave. Of course their workers have bought homes and established lifestyles commensurate with the pay levels they have been earning in what they considered " permanent " jobs. It is unlikely that they could replicate those same pay and working conditions in the present employment malaise.
There are rumblings that moves to terminate similar enterprise agreements are being heard in other industries where production facilities here are owned by a world wide behemoth with little interest in its workers lives and every intent on improving its bottom line.
A lot depends on how the Fair Work Commission reacts and whether this sends workers fleeing to join unions for their protection. If this pay cut comes into effect many will face the prospect of home loss if they can not pay mortgages and it could lead to a drop in pay and conditions across employment generally. It certainly throws the spotlight on the capitalist system that has always been the basis of Australian employment.
Monday, 2 October 2017
The Australian tax Hemorrhage !
About fifteen percent of the Australian population are still regular smokers and the crime industry was not slow in seeing the opportunity this presented for illicit profits. Smoking prevention laws have driven the retail price of a packet of twenty Marlboro cigarettes to $ 27 and these can be bought overseas fort just three dollars.
Smuggling tobacco is a lot safer than trying to bring narcotics into this country. The penalties are mild compared to what the courts hand down in drug cases and yet the profits are similar. We have now reached the stage where illicit tobacco is hemorrhaging tax revenues of more than $ 294 million a year.
The problem is that it is a still growing industry. Originally, dodgy smokes were being distributed by shady characters in back lanes but now a very open distribution network has emerged. The rumour mill will direct you to some sort of retail business where cartons of foreign branded cigarettes are available from under the counter in defiance of the law. One such illegal store in Bondi was recently raided and the proprietor handed a $ 72,000 fine for selling tobacco without health warnings.
The market is also widening. Not only cartons of cigarettes flowing into this country, but we now have illegal tobacco farms growing the product for distribution outside the tax regime. This is reaching the market as " chop chop " loose leaf which allows smokers to roll their own. A six hectare crop was discovered in March near the Victorian and New South Wales border and valued by law enforcement as worth $ 15.4 million.
This illegal tobacco industry is now no longer concentrated in a few city outlets. Just about every large country town now has a reseller that is well known to the locals. These are harder for the police to take down because they usually only sell to customers who are personally known to them. This is big business, with fleets of delivery trucks taking care of state wide distribution.
There is no mystery about who controls this trade. The proprietors move easily in the upper echelons of society and flaunt their wealth. From time to time the authorities bust an incoming shipment and this features in the nightly news, but that is just a " business expense " in the eyes of the smugglers. A small " inconvenience " that is quickly rectified.
This illegal enterprise is run on similar lines to the Mafia crime empire. The top people have " clean hands " and are not directly involved in day by day operations. The lesser fry are well compensated for prison time and know to keep their mouth shut. It takes skilful police infiltration to break cases.
The sheer volume of imports coming into this country makes intensive inspection of all cargo impossible. X-Raying of entire container loads is increasing, but it is unlikely that we will ever be in a position to check more than a small portion of whatever enters the country. Tobacco products are bulky, but they are usually described on manifests as a product of similar size and weight.
It seems that tobacco contraband is now a well established industry that is impossible to eradicate - as long as we still have smokers in this country.
Smuggling tobacco is a lot safer than trying to bring narcotics into this country. The penalties are mild compared to what the courts hand down in drug cases and yet the profits are similar. We have now reached the stage where illicit tobacco is hemorrhaging tax revenues of more than $ 294 million a year.
The problem is that it is a still growing industry. Originally, dodgy smokes were being distributed by shady characters in back lanes but now a very open distribution network has emerged. The rumour mill will direct you to some sort of retail business where cartons of foreign branded cigarettes are available from under the counter in defiance of the law. One such illegal store in Bondi was recently raided and the proprietor handed a $ 72,000 fine for selling tobacco without health warnings.
The market is also widening. Not only cartons of cigarettes flowing into this country, but we now have illegal tobacco farms growing the product for distribution outside the tax regime. This is reaching the market as " chop chop " loose leaf which allows smokers to roll their own. A six hectare crop was discovered in March near the Victorian and New South Wales border and valued by law enforcement as worth $ 15.4 million.
This illegal tobacco industry is now no longer concentrated in a few city outlets. Just about every large country town now has a reseller that is well known to the locals. These are harder for the police to take down because they usually only sell to customers who are personally known to them. This is big business, with fleets of delivery trucks taking care of state wide distribution.
There is no mystery about who controls this trade. The proprietors move easily in the upper echelons of society and flaunt their wealth. From time to time the authorities bust an incoming shipment and this features in the nightly news, but that is just a " business expense " in the eyes of the smugglers. A small " inconvenience " that is quickly rectified.
This illegal enterprise is run on similar lines to the Mafia crime empire. The top people have " clean hands " and are not directly involved in day by day operations. The lesser fry are well compensated for prison time and know to keep their mouth shut. It takes skilful police infiltration to break cases.
The sheer volume of imports coming into this country makes intensive inspection of all cargo impossible. X-Raying of entire container loads is increasing, but it is unlikely that we will ever be in a position to check more than a small portion of whatever enters the country. Tobacco products are bulky, but they are usually described on manifests as a product of similar size and weight.
It seems that tobacco contraband is now a well established industry that is impossible to eradicate - as long as we still have smokers in this country.
Sunday, 1 October 2017
Airbng Rental Clearance !
A win for the people who live in apartment buildings and want to use the Airbng rental service to increase their income. An owner/resident has just scored a ruling by the New South Wales Civil Administration Tribunal ( NCAT ) that by-laws imposed by Body Corporates can not " prohibit or restrict " the operation of a lot. That means this applicant can legally rent her unit.
Of course, this only applies to New South Wales and it seems certain that the Tribunals ruling will be challenged in a higher court. Living in an apartment building is very different from living in a free standing house. It is a form of " communal living " and we are still sorting out the rules that apply.
For years, some body corporates totally banned any form of pets. It not only applied to dogs and cats, but was zealously applied to such items as caged Canaries and even gold fish. That has been struck down and residents are now free to indulge their passion for pets, provided they obey reasonable noise and hygiene rules.
Smokers are facing ever more stringent rules and their habit is coming under greater containment. Smoking can be forbidden on open verandas where nicotine laden smoke can infiltrate nearby neighbours windows or pollute other open patios. It is fast reaching the stage that some buildings will be declared entirely smoke free, prohibiting smoking even within the living areas of individual units.
This case which resulted in a tribunal ruling will be controversial, but it will attract support and condemnation in equal measure. The woman seeking to rent her apartment is a 38 year old school teacher and she claims that she gained $ 13,000 last year from rental payments. To many people, such income may be the difference in affordability in becoming a homeowner and a restriction places a limitation on our rights to do what we please within the confines of our own home.
The reason the case went to the tribunal was a complaint from a neighbour. This woman was distressed to encounter total strangers in the communal laundry area and she also objected to men sitting on the neighbouring deck and watching what she was doing in her unit. The fact that her neighbour was a school teacher could result in this happening repeatedly because of the extensive school holidays.
One of the problems is that Airbnb rentals introduce an unexpected living change. When people select a unit and make a purchase they usually make that selection taking into account the type of neighbours and the unit lifestyle. That can not be guaranteed. Real Estate has a constant turnover and areas change due to " gentrification "in some cases and loss of appeal in many others. If the locality gains transport links, many placid, low rise areas suddenly blossom towering high rise and a vastly changed economic spectrum.
The rules that apply to apartment living are far from finalised. The final decision will probably involve the High Court and that may be many years into the future. It may well become a form of purchase agreement applied to individual buildings. Some people may be prepared to pay a higher purchase price for certainty that an embargo is in place to prevent any form of short term renting from becoming a reality.
But such an embargo would need to survive court challenges !
Of course, this only applies to New South Wales and it seems certain that the Tribunals ruling will be challenged in a higher court. Living in an apartment building is very different from living in a free standing house. It is a form of " communal living " and we are still sorting out the rules that apply.
For years, some body corporates totally banned any form of pets. It not only applied to dogs and cats, but was zealously applied to such items as caged Canaries and even gold fish. That has been struck down and residents are now free to indulge their passion for pets, provided they obey reasonable noise and hygiene rules.
Smokers are facing ever more stringent rules and their habit is coming under greater containment. Smoking can be forbidden on open verandas where nicotine laden smoke can infiltrate nearby neighbours windows or pollute other open patios. It is fast reaching the stage that some buildings will be declared entirely smoke free, prohibiting smoking even within the living areas of individual units.
This case which resulted in a tribunal ruling will be controversial, but it will attract support and condemnation in equal measure. The woman seeking to rent her apartment is a 38 year old school teacher and she claims that she gained $ 13,000 last year from rental payments. To many people, such income may be the difference in affordability in becoming a homeowner and a restriction places a limitation on our rights to do what we please within the confines of our own home.
The reason the case went to the tribunal was a complaint from a neighbour. This woman was distressed to encounter total strangers in the communal laundry area and she also objected to men sitting on the neighbouring deck and watching what she was doing in her unit. The fact that her neighbour was a school teacher could result in this happening repeatedly because of the extensive school holidays.
One of the problems is that Airbnb rentals introduce an unexpected living change. When people select a unit and make a purchase they usually make that selection taking into account the type of neighbours and the unit lifestyle. That can not be guaranteed. Real Estate has a constant turnover and areas change due to " gentrification "in some cases and loss of appeal in many others. If the locality gains transport links, many placid, low rise areas suddenly blossom towering high rise and a vastly changed economic spectrum.
The rules that apply to apartment living are far from finalised. The final decision will probably involve the High Court and that may be many years into the future. It may well become a form of purchase agreement applied to individual buildings. Some people may be prepared to pay a higher purchase price for certainty that an embargo is in place to prevent any form of short term renting from becoming a reality.
But such an embargo would need to survive court challenges !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)