The " Trade " Conundrum !

The last two Australian journalists in China have quit that country to avoid arrest on " National Security " grounds.  They sheltered in our diplomatic mission for several days before boarding a plane back to Australia and their removal has imposed a virtual news blackout on events in that country.

The threatened journalists worked for two of Australia's most distinguished news sources, the ABC and the Financial Review.  The Chinese Communist government is adamant that its people will hear and read only the version of world news that conforms with their outlook on the world. Topics that offend are censored and access to the internet is tightly controlled.

Australian trade has been facing restrictions since we demanded an investigation into how and where that coronavirus emerged in China's Wuhan district.  The Chinese were slow to reveal the outbreak and take measures to contain it.  It is thought it made the leap to contaminating humans in a market where bush meat is butchered for human consumption.  China's sensitivity is now denying it had anything to do with the emergence of the coronavirus and it is angrily rejecting any suggestion that an investigation is necessary.

It is noticeable that the trade restrictions China has imposed steer well clear of the base materials that they need to fuel their industry.  The import of our coal and iron ore is unchallenged and they are creating reasons to reject barley and Australian wines on spurious grounds.  This is clearly a " punishment " for continuing to press for that virus investigation.

Our trading links are beneficial to both countries and China clearly sees the wisdom of having its young people exposed to education in the west to broaden their minds.  The money this injects into our universities helps contain the cost for Australian university students.  China is threatening to reduce the numbers studying here as part of its ill will against Australia.

This Chinese reaction against our economic interests invites retaliation.  Chinese journalists in Australia have been interviewed by ASIO  and the visas of two Chinese academics were cancelled.  Clearly, this was a tit for tat measure in response to two of our journalists  being kicked out of China.  Where the relationship between the two countries goes from there depends on the next moves.

A trade war with China would be to our disadvantage.  The advent of " globalization " saw many manufacturing jobs in Australia go to China and that country is now the source of most of our imports.  At the same time, China is clearly interfering in our internal affairs and stealing trade secrets.  Beijing has agents here which constitute a massive spy network and much of the hacking into our industrial base originates from Beijing.

India - with a population similar to China - is fast emerging as a new manufacturing super power. One of the advantages is that it is closer to Australia and trade does not have to cross the Chinese claim to the South China sea.  We would be wise to cultivate trade relations with this emerging super power to replace the trade loss that will eventuate if relations with China continue to sour.

China has a tendency to try and bully other nations by way of its industrial clout.  We would be wise to stand firm against this form of Chinese aggression even if it slows our recovery from the coronavirus. We are a food producing country in a world rapidly facing a food shortage  !

Understanding the " Koala '' Issue !

There is no doubt that Gladys Berejiklian is a very tough lady.   When the NSW Nationals  threatened to walk out of the coalition and sit on the crossbenches she issued an ultimatum.   She gave them the weekend to think about it and made it clear that at 9 am on Monday she would relieve National ministers of their portfolios and appoint Liberals as their replacement unless that threat was ended.

National state leader, John Barilaro wisely accepted defeat and so ended the prospect of a divided government at a time when unity is essential to repair the damage this pandemic has done to the state economy.  How John Barilaro comes out of this encounter is the great unknown.  It was a humiliating backdown that leaves his leadership in doubt.

The issue that provoked this standoff - was Koalas.  They are now an endangered species and the state is passing legislation to protect their habitat.  The Nationals are protesting that this is too extreme and will stop farmers from managing their land.

The extreme bushfires that ravaged New South Wales last summer killed thousands of Koalas and there is the expectation that similar conditions caused by global warming will result in similar fire conditions in the future.  The relentless encroaching into the forests to house our ever growing population is shrinking Koala habitat and without change they will become extinct in the foreseeable future.

One experiment to create a Koala sanctuary involves eradicating cats, foxes and domestic dogs from a vast acreage and fencing the property to keep such predators from returning.  The obvious drawback is that the scheme will also prevent the captive Koalas from mating widely to increase their bloodlines and this bush oasis will not be immune to fire.  The majority of summer fires are caused by lightning strikes and a Koala sanctuary is as prone to those as the rest of the countryside.

The deciding factor is fire intensity.  Last summer was the aftermath of a long drought and the bush was tinder dry.  The fire fronts were enormous  and they were burning from ground level to the height of the tallest trees, and they were virtually unstoppable.  That sort of fire season usually happens at regular intervals unless we take the precaution of reducing the fuel load by controlled fires  when the conditions are right.

If we are going to save the Koalas we need to take a new approach to bushfires.  The Aboriginal people here before us were better fire managers because they regularly used fire to reduce the hazard and that was in their own interest.  A freshly burned area quickly rejuvenated and that fresh young grass attracted Kangaroos and Wallabies - which was their food source.

We need to use fire to tame fire.  We need a plan to regularly burn state forests when the conditions allow a controlled fire to eradicate ground base litter.  The fire services should start these fires from the air, with incendiary matter dropped from aircraft and we would need to get used to the smoke these clearing fires would generate.   There would be times when conditions changed and these fires got out of control, but it is the only way we will ever eliminate the destruction fires caused so widely last summer.

Bush Koalas can survive fires that move at ground level and the only. real hope of preventing their extinction is to create forest safety to prevent catastrophic bushfires.  A controlled fire is a safe fire. - and that is something that farmers understand.

The " Bandit Banks " !

 When the second world war ended there was a move by Ben Chifley's Labor government to nationalise the banks  in Australia.  If that had been achieved there would have been just one bank offering its services to the Australian public, and that would have been the Commonwealth bank.

That was a time when more than a dozen very different banks were actively trading in Australian cities, plus state banks representing the various states and territories.  Over the years, acquisitions thinned their ranks, until now we have gravitated to the " big four " mega banks which work in lockstep  There is little difference in the trading policy of those mega banks and their offerings to the public.

Many of the building societies and credit unions that offered a more personal banking service to the big banks have made the move and become banks in their own right, but they lack the size and depth of  credit to move in the field of high finance.  There is not a shadow of doubt that banking is dominated by the power of the " big four ".

Unfortunately, these mega banks are cutting back on the services they offer.  Initially, they replaced branches with ATM's and now ATM numbers are dwindling and the hours that branches open are about to be reduced.  The banks are retreating from face to face communication with their customers and insisting that movement be done online, but they are not updating services to make that easy.

When a term deposit matures, renegotiating its renewal requires an actual signature on a piece of paper.   It can not be renewed by phone or email and a seven day time frame from the date of maturity is required.  If you miss that requirement, the bank automatically renews it for the term length of the previous  arrangement, at an interest rate less than you would be offered if you personally negotiated and signed that paper with your banker.

The mail service no longer guarantees a prompt delivery of letter services and this coronavirus lockdown makes it difficult for many people to physically attend at their bank.  The banks claim a keen interest in providing services to their customers, and then rob them blind with an inferior interest rate by imposing difficult trading requirements.

There are still many older folk who stick with the bank passbook system.  They have their pension paid into their savings account and draw their needs in cash.  Interest rates have crashed and now saving accounts with a balance of a few thousand dollars get no interest payments at all, but the banks use that money to attract profits for themselves.

Usually, it is the same people getting no interest on the money they have in a savings account that are paying high interest on what they owe on one of the credit cards the banks are dispensing so freely.  The banks demand high interest because this is " unsecured credit " and they claim it has a high risk factor. They also seem to be attracting delinquent credit card users by offering a long interest holiday to those who switch to their banking services.

The recent Royal Commission  on banking was very critical of the morals and ethics of the big four banks.  Very little has changed in the thinking that underpins banking, nor will it change until those old building societies and credit unions build the strength to seriously challenge those big four for their customer base.

A " Family " Tragedy !

 It would be helpful if a lesson was learned from the death of four people who were not well served by the laws and services that are put in place to offer protection.  John Edwards was a violent man and his wife and two teenage children were afraid of him.  The marriage broke down and his wife sought the protection of the Family Court.

Despite a thirty year history of domestic violence well documented by the police, the Family Court insisted on imposing  a limited contact order to allow Edwards to visit his children.  As a result,  fifteen year old Jack and  thirteen year old Jennifer were ordered to attend what were termed " psychologist " meetings with their father.

This was despite the court learning that Jack kept a cricket bat in his bedroom as protection from his father and Jennifer was afraid to turn her back in case of a violent assault.  All the elements were in place to bring about the tragedy that followed.

Olga Edwards worked as a solicitor for a city firm and her estranged husband visited their home when the children were alone.  He came armed with a gun and he shot and killed both his own son and daughter, and later ended his own life.  Some months later, Olga's life ended by her own hand.

We have very strict firearm laws in place since the Port Arthur massacre and yet 67 year old John Edwards had no difficulty getting a shooters license that allowed him to buy a gun and ammunition.  His access to his estranged children was facilitated by a Family court threat that the children would be removed from their mother's care if she did not force them to attend these appointments.

It is all too easy to look back in retrospect and see what action should have been taken, but violence is all too often the outcome when relationships sever.  It seems that the Family court made the mistake of  down grading the incidents of violence against the children as simply  " heavy handed parenting ".   The actions of the Family court facilitated ongoing contact and did not facilitate the clean break that was required.

No doubt there will be an intensive investigation of why a man with a history of domestic violence was allowed to gain a license to buy and own a gun.   Murder can be accomplished with many lesser weapons, but a gun distributes absolute power against which there are few means of defence.  All too often a gun delivers multiple killings.

Another aspect of this tragedy is the fact that Olga Edwards is a trained solicitor and worked for a legal firm in the city, and yet despite her knowledge of the law and expertise she was helpless to protect her children against an estranged husband with a history of violence.   The safeguards we put in place - the Family court and the police - failed her.   What hope would an ordinary woman without that legal training have of avoiding a similar tragedy.

Edwards was a man with a compulsive personality He was over bearing in his attitude to others and this surfaced in his contact with the teachers guiding his children at school. There was overwhelming evidence - and this was ignored.  The Edwards children and their mother will not have died in vain if there is a positive response to put in place safeguards that really work  !

" Journalism " On Trial !

 Australian Julian Assange is facing court in London to try and stop the American government from having him extradited into their hands.   If that happens they will prosecute him on charges which may see him serve sentences of one hundred and seventy five years imprisonment, which is virtually a death sentence

Assange is the publisher of a news magazine named Wikileaks. which published stories from stolen US military data America had labelled " Top Secret ".  This was gleaned by way of an American serviceman who worked in data transfer who copied the material he handled and passed it on to Wikileaks. That serviceman has been court marshalled, jailed - and rehabilitated.  He is now a free man.

Assange found himself facing a dubious rape charge in Sweden which saw him arrested in London.  He absconded while on bail and took refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy, from which he held press conferences and stayed out of reach of the law for six and a half years.  Eventually, his mental health deteriorated to the extent that this benefactor had him expelled.  The British held him in prison on the basis of that breach of bail matter while the American extradition case proceeds.

There are big crowds of people demonstrating outside the Old Bailey court in London and demanding Assange be freed.  At issue is the information Wikileaks brought to public attention.  It gave clear evidence of illicit military American action overseas in which civilians were killed and which was covered up by the US government.  It certainly embarrassed the US administration, which has never wavered from attempts to make Assange pay for that intrusion.

The issue revolves around morality.  The Americans acted illegally under international law and Assange is a journalist.  He looks like spending the remainder of his life in prison for the crime of speaking the truth about something a foreign government wished to keep secret.  If that is allowed to happen, what other journalists face danger in their profession for writing true stories that offend serving governments and which reveal breaches of the law by the very government trying to silence journalists ?

The Australian government has said little while an Australian citizen faces charged overseas.  We are friends of both Britain and America, and obviously we have out own dirty little secrets hidden away and which we would not like to be revealed.  It would be very convenient to do nothing and let Assange pay the price for doing the job expected of journalists.

Governments hide behind " National Security "  in hiding secrets they wish to keep from public knowledge, but is that any different from outing a bandit who is stealing public funds and making him or her pay for that crime  ?   We claim to offer protection to the whistle blowers, but Assange simply revealed illicit military activity that caused the death of innocent people - and which went unpunished.

This American pursuit of Assange is a matter of spite and a wish to be vindictive.  He is a public figure they wish to bring down as a warning to other journalists.   There is also a lot of other unpublished matter held by WikiLeaks which may be used as a bargaining point if Assange goes to trial in America.

The outcome of that case in the Old Bailey will have a heavy impact on how journalists view their job freedom, depending on the outcome !

Mortgage Debt !

The price of homes in  New South Wales has eased slightly but it is still a very healthy market and people who have deferred their mortgage payments because of work interruptions caused by the coronavirus lockdown would be very wise to take stock of their options.

Most relief has been granted on a six month basis, and that period is scheduled to end later this month.  Already, the banks are urging customers to start repaying their loans and many have already responded. The banks are being realistic. and even a part payment of the agreed monthly term is usually acceptable because the deficit will eventually be added to the length of the loan.

The worst possible scenario will come when the recovery gains pace but still leaves a substantial job deficit.  There are predictions of a vast pool of the unemployed that may take several years to deplete, and obviously the situation of those with a home mortgage will become untenable.  It is important that action be taken by the mortgage holder and not left until it becomes an action by the bank.

There is a very good chance that there will be many people unable to resume their mortgage payments because  they are unemployed and it is inevitable that this will bring a glut of foreclosures.  The price of homes is heavily influenced by the balance between supply and demand and that is a situation that forces prices downward.  Buyers flee the market in the expectation that the asking price will descend even lower.

Usually, it is the banks that are very unhelpful when this sort of situation occurs.  Their prime concern is to recover the money outstanding in the unpaid loan, or  to limit the loss if that can not be gained in the selling price.  The mortgage holder's equity usually disappears in that situation.

The banks are in the money business and have little experience in handling real estate. Homes gained by way of foreclosure are usually dumped back on the market with the garden untended and the lawns uncut. A foreclosed home has a certain " look " that excites buyers to drive a hard, price bargain.

The greatest danger comers to mortgage holders who are now middle aged and have been paying off a home for some years.  They have considerable equity in the home they live in, but poor prospects of a job during this recovery.  They might be wise to put the home on the market and regain that equity while market conditions remain suitable.

Unfortunately, many people in that position struggle on with a mounting debt until a foreclosure is inevitable. They are hoping for a miracle, but unfortunately these economic downturns are cyclical and run a predetermined course.

The wise would take a practical appraisal of their financial position, and act accordingly.  It is the clever people who think - and then act on it !

The Religious Divide !

Pity the New South Wales politicians who are trying to put together  legislation that will be acceptable in ending religious conflict.  At the heart of the matter is the notion of " religious freedom ", which means very different things to different  people.

The one thing that seems to be universally accepted is that no person should face discrimination in the workplace or in sport simply because of the religious beliefs they hold.  In a very broad brush approach, that would make it unlawful to discriminate against an employee for their religious activity, providing they did not  " actively criticise " their employer or cause " direct and material " financial detriment to their employer.

That comes into immediate conflict with what many people term the " right of free speech ". What happens when someone with celebrity status because of the sport they play actively condemns the lifestyle of team mates or opposing teams because the beliefs they hold do not accord with the beliefs of his or her religion  ?

We have the real life situation of a prominent rugby league player who openly seeks media attention with the claim that other players leading a " gay " lifestyle will spend eternity in Hell because that lifestyle conflicts with his religious beliefs.  As a result he has been suspended from play because of the damage caused to his sport.  That gay lifestyle is legal in Australia.

This " religious freedom " concept also extends to activities such as religious schools.  Do they have the right to discriminate by choosing pupils only from their religious base and employ teachers who hold those same religious beliefs  ?  Such religious schools charge fees, but often that fee is heavily subsidized by the church.

No religion enjoys preference in Australia and citizens are free to follow the religion of their choice. It is a fact of life that a growing percentage of the population now refutes claims that they belong to any nominated form of religion.  The " gay marriage " referendum clearly indicated the schism that now divides the position of most churches with the broad masses of people.

Religion is supposed to be the private choice of individual people and most religions claim the right to preach and extend the numbers of their flock, but in many forms that preaching is offensive to others. What the politicians are seeking to do is  create a set of rules that will limit that offence within reasonable boundaries.

That seems to be an impossible task unless that right of free speech is curtailed and that would involve media restrictions imposing limits on news reporting.   Perhaps imposing a limit on what can be reported  in the media would be the only option available to politicians.  Without the media trumpet, such stories quickly fade and die.

It has long been a tenet of polite conversation that the subjects to be avoided are politics and religion. Legislating that into law may be the only way this problem is solved !