It seems that the era of rank and file branch members choosing the candidate to represent the Australian Labor party at state or Federal elections is now a distant memory.
Rule N-40 allows head office to step into that role - and parachute in a distant candidate of their choosing to satisfy the incestuous needs of the various factions to maintain their numbers.
Such was the case in the Wollongong electorate of Throsby when union heavy weight Jennie George was parachuted in, despite the objections of the branches. She went on to hold the seat for three terms - and has proved to be both popular and effective, but now she is considering retiring.
Another union heavy weight is touted as her replacement - to maintain the faction balance and satisfy the " left " numbers game.
Stephen Jones has no connection with Throsby, a " safe " Labor seat with a margin of I6.5%. It's quite possible he would win the affection of voters and may prove to be a worthy representative. No doubt some will recall the fact that Jennie George was a Melbourne woman whose only experience of Wollongong was attending a conference here in the dim, dark, distant past. She bought a home here, knuckled down - and earned her spurs as our member.
That may be so, but the whole concept of democracy is choice - and that is something the ALP is consistently taking away from the people who fill in voting forms.
Politics is moving away from the wishes of the average man or woman to choose their representative. The party rules supreme and the factional mix dictates who will be nominated.
The ALP will probably get away with it once again, but there have been rumblings at this blatant disregard of a democratic choice, and the power brokers would do well to remember Cunningham - when a disastrous " parachute " choice had one of the safest of safe Labor seats reject the " ring-in " and turn their backs - and vote in the first Green member of the lower house of parliament.
Like a rubber band - choice can only be stretched so far - and then it breaks !
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Friday, 30 October 2009
Medicine - and superclinics !
Many doctors have reservations about the Federal government plan to spend $ 275 million to create eight " superclinics " in New South Wales - one of them in Shellharbour.
It is almost " a tale of two cities ". There seems to be an ample supply of general practitioners in the northern suburbs of Wollongong, and yet in Shellharbour they are in short supply - and seeing a doctor involves a very long wait.
The idea of herding whatever doctors are available into some sort of superclinic tends to break the nexus between doctor and patient.
The theme of a superclinic is that " you will be allocated a doctor " - but not necessarily the doctor you usually see, who knows your past history, temperament, foibles - and in whom you have faith and confidence.
Superclinics have about them that aura of " socialised medicine " !
Unfortunately this seems to be the way the world is heading. The day of the " corner store " is over and we now buy our groceries at a supermarket. The number of family owned, friendly filling stations is dwindling and being replaced by oil company sponsored mega petrol sellers owned by those supermarket chains - and the era has ended when milkmen, bread delivery girls and a host of other services delivered house to house in the suburbs.
It looks like " take a number, sit and wait " will be imposed on those areas where doctors do not choose to site their practices. Unfortunately this will exacerbate the difference between " good " suburbs - and " the others " !
One more reason why there is a big difference in house prices.
People prefer to live where a civilized range of services is offered !
It is almost " a tale of two cities ". There seems to be an ample supply of general practitioners in the northern suburbs of Wollongong, and yet in Shellharbour they are in short supply - and seeing a doctor involves a very long wait.
The idea of herding whatever doctors are available into some sort of superclinic tends to break the nexus between doctor and patient.
The theme of a superclinic is that " you will be allocated a doctor " - but not necessarily the doctor you usually see, who knows your past history, temperament, foibles - and in whom you have faith and confidence.
Superclinics have about them that aura of " socialised medicine " !
Unfortunately this seems to be the way the world is heading. The day of the " corner store " is over and we now buy our groceries at a supermarket. The number of family owned, friendly filling stations is dwindling and being replaced by oil company sponsored mega petrol sellers owned by those supermarket chains - and the era has ended when milkmen, bread delivery girls and a host of other services delivered house to house in the suburbs.
It looks like " take a number, sit and wait " will be imposed on those areas where doctors do not choose to site their practices. Unfortunately this will exacerbate the difference between " good " suburbs - and " the others " !
One more reason why there is a big difference in house prices.
People prefer to live where a civilized range of services is offered !
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Safety not assured !
When you hop on a ferry in Sydney harbour you have every expectation that you will arrive safely at your destination. The chance that the ferry will sink halfway to Manly is certainly remote.
You are assured that the vessel will be in prime condition - and that it has been subjected to regular inspections and holds all the necessary certificates.Unfortunately that is not guaranteed in other parts of the world.
In nearby Tonga seventy two unfortunate passengers met an untimely death when the ferry they were travelling on - the Princess Ashika - suddenly sank. An investigation has revealed that this vessel was literally " a floating death trap ". It was riddled with rust - had gaping holes - and would not have passed even the most rudimentary sea worthiness inspection.
Unfortunately this is not an isolated instance. Unsafe - and often over crowded - ferries and ferry disasters are common in countries that Australians visit on holiday. Such sudden sinking's and consequent loss of life occur regularly in the Philipine's, Indonesia - and other Pacific island countries.
It is a warning to approach any foreign ferry travel with extreme caution. It would be a good idea not to assume that safety regulations are in place and to carry out a personal inspection of the vessel before boarding. Even if it appears sound, the number of people being carried should be of concern.
The best advice is probably - " When in doubt - don't ! "
Unfortunately, in countries where ferry safety is lax, air safety usually has a similar record.
That seems to be a big plus for having a holiday within Australia - or if you must go overseas - choosing a country with a similar safety regime to that which applies here.
You are assured that the vessel will be in prime condition - and that it has been subjected to regular inspections and holds all the necessary certificates.Unfortunately that is not guaranteed in other parts of the world.
In nearby Tonga seventy two unfortunate passengers met an untimely death when the ferry they were travelling on - the Princess Ashika - suddenly sank. An investigation has revealed that this vessel was literally " a floating death trap ". It was riddled with rust - had gaping holes - and would not have passed even the most rudimentary sea worthiness inspection.
Unfortunately this is not an isolated instance. Unsafe - and often over crowded - ferries and ferry disasters are common in countries that Australians visit on holiday. Such sudden sinking's and consequent loss of life occur regularly in the Philipine's, Indonesia - and other Pacific island countries.
It is a warning to approach any foreign ferry travel with extreme caution. It would be a good idea not to assume that safety regulations are in place and to carry out a personal inspection of the vessel before boarding. Even if it appears sound, the number of people being carried should be of concern.
The best advice is probably - " When in doubt - don't ! "
Unfortunately, in countries where ferry safety is lax, air safety usually has a similar record.
That seems to be a big plus for having a holiday within Australia - or if you must go overseas - choosing a country with a similar safety regime to that which applies here.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Parole enigma.
When a judge hands down a sentence for a major crime the term of incarceration usually pleases nobody. Some people think the prisoner should never be released and the judge sets both a maximum and a minimum sentence. The minimum is seen as a reward should the prisoner show contrition - and obey the rules and be of good behaviour.
Phillip Choon Tee Lin has now served eighteen years - the minimum of a twenty-four year sentence for the murder of heart surgeon Doctor Victor Chang. It was a grisly murder of a much loved pioneer of life saving surgery and now it is proposed that Lee be released on parole - and deported to his native Malaysia.
According to the prison authorities, Lee has been a model prisoner. He has shown remorse, obeyed prison rules and given his gaolers no trouble.
It is natural that many people are enraged at the prospect of parole, but then they would probably be equally enraged if he completed his twenty-four year sentence and was automatically released.
The problem is that the murder of an internationally respected leader of heart surgery is seen as an attack on the very foundations of the civilization we hold so dear - and to many no amount of gaol time would be an adequate sentence.
If the victim of this murder had been a citizen unknown to the public then this matter of parole would pass without question. People get parole every day of the year and criminals pass back into society without question.
It is unfortunate that because of the fame of the victim the intent of the justice system is about to be distorted. Lee will probably serve more time in prison - and his remorse and good behaviour will serve for nothing.
Whether the original sentence was adequate is a moot point !
What is an issue is that media publicity and public outrage is going to influence the outcome of what is supposed to be removed from the public arena and put in the hands of an experienced judge.
Justice extended to appease public opinion could be seen as justice denied !
Phillip Choon Tee Lin has now served eighteen years - the minimum of a twenty-four year sentence for the murder of heart surgeon Doctor Victor Chang. It was a grisly murder of a much loved pioneer of life saving surgery and now it is proposed that Lee be released on parole - and deported to his native Malaysia.
According to the prison authorities, Lee has been a model prisoner. He has shown remorse, obeyed prison rules and given his gaolers no trouble.
It is natural that many people are enraged at the prospect of parole, but then they would probably be equally enraged if he completed his twenty-four year sentence and was automatically released.
The problem is that the murder of an internationally respected leader of heart surgery is seen as an attack on the very foundations of the civilization we hold so dear - and to many no amount of gaol time would be an adequate sentence.
If the victim of this murder had been a citizen unknown to the public then this matter of parole would pass without question. People get parole every day of the year and criminals pass back into society without question.
It is unfortunate that because of the fame of the victim the intent of the justice system is about to be distorted. Lee will probably serve more time in prison - and his remorse and good behaviour will serve for nothing.
Whether the original sentence was adequate is a moot point !
What is an issue is that media publicity and public outrage is going to influence the outcome of what is supposed to be removed from the public arena and put in the hands of an experienced judge.
Justice extended to appease public opinion could be seen as justice denied !
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Bail law dilemma !
Over a year ago there were calls for bail laws to be tightened. Courts were becoming a revolving door - with young offenders committing further crimes as they were repeatedly granted bail. As a result, the law changed and more offenders found themselves behind bars.
Now there are calls for bail laws to be eased. Juvenile detention centres are full and overflowing - and some of the blame for this can be sheeted home to the state government's decision to close and abandon the excellent Wollongong facility.
More offenders find themselves on remand because they either can not meet bail conditions - or they have breached bail by committing further offences - the very reason bail laws needed tightening in the first place
Perhaps this is a good time to look beyond bail and examine the sentencing system.
Four out of every five offenders who face court do not get a custodial sentence. In many cases, they spend more time on remand in a gaol than they would expect to receive as a sentence for the crime committed.
Those that exercise their right to plead innocent and defend themselves often do more gaol time than those who simply plead guilty - and have the matter settled on the spot.
What we have is an untenable bail/court/sentencing system that is neither dispensing justice or serving the public.
Time to go back to square one - have a long, hard look at the entire mess - and devise a system that actually works.
What we have at present is a hangover from a long past century. Time it was dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century !
Now there are calls for bail laws to be eased. Juvenile detention centres are full and overflowing - and some of the blame for this can be sheeted home to the state government's decision to close and abandon the excellent Wollongong facility.
More offenders find themselves on remand because they either can not meet bail conditions - or they have breached bail by committing further offences - the very reason bail laws needed tightening in the first place
Perhaps this is a good time to look beyond bail and examine the sentencing system.
Four out of every five offenders who face court do not get a custodial sentence. In many cases, they spend more time on remand in a gaol than they would expect to receive as a sentence for the crime committed.
Those that exercise their right to plead innocent and defend themselves often do more gaol time than those who simply plead guilty - and have the matter settled on the spot.
What we have is an untenable bail/court/sentencing system that is neither dispensing justice or serving the public.
Time to go back to square one - have a long, hard look at the entire mess - and devise a system that actually works.
What we have at present is a hangover from a long past century. Time it was dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century !
Monday, 26 October 2009
A slippery slope !
There was a certain inevitability about Kevin Rudd's " Indonesian Solution " to our refugee problem !
The Greens and other welfare minded organizations are complaining that the Indonesian facilities for housing our refugee rejects are way below the standards they would expect if they were being held in Australia.
Rudd's answer is to pledge further assistance to " International Refugee agencies " to upgrade these facilities.
That is the first step on a very slippery slope - and it needs long and careful thought about the likely consequences.
Australia is a first world country - Indonesia is not !
Detention facilities here have standards commensurate with the Australian way of living. Hot water for showers is available 24/7. Meals are adjusted to accommodate religious requirements. There is entertainment by way of TV and libraries. Medical help is always immediately available - as are counsellors - and those detained have access to legal advisers.
It would be very easy to create detention centres in Indonesia where facilities are way and above the standards the Indonesian population receives from it's government, and that could only foment resentment - at both governments.
Indonesia has problems with restive members of it's own community and has a problem containing it's own incoming refugee flow. If we create a higher standard of detention for those privileged ones whose aspirations were to live in Australia - then we are creating a double standard - to our detriment.
The reason both countries incarcerate illegal settlers is to try and slow the flow of boat people - and allow the lengthy investigative process to separate genuine refugees from those simply seeking a better life.
The fact that Australian immigration holding centres are light years ahead in luxury - in comparison with the conditions at home - is one of the reasons boat people take the risk of death on the high seas.
Once we start duplicating these in Indonesia we not only provide a migration incentive, but we showcase the differing standards between the Australian and Indonesian lifestyles - and that can only create resentment in Indonesian minds !
The Greens and other welfare minded organizations are complaining that the Indonesian facilities for housing our refugee rejects are way below the standards they would expect if they were being held in Australia.
Rudd's answer is to pledge further assistance to " International Refugee agencies " to upgrade these facilities.
That is the first step on a very slippery slope - and it needs long and careful thought about the likely consequences.
Australia is a first world country - Indonesia is not !
Detention facilities here have standards commensurate with the Australian way of living. Hot water for showers is available 24/7. Meals are adjusted to accommodate religious requirements. There is entertainment by way of TV and libraries. Medical help is always immediately available - as are counsellors - and those detained have access to legal advisers.
It would be very easy to create detention centres in Indonesia where facilities are way and above the standards the Indonesian population receives from it's government, and that could only foment resentment - at both governments.
Indonesia has problems with restive members of it's own community and has a problem containing it's own incoming refugee flow. If we create a higher standard of detention for those privileged ones whose aspirations were to live in Australia - then we are creating a double standard - to our detriment.
The reason both countries incarcerate illegal settlers is to try and slow the flow of boat people - and allow the lengthy investigative process to separate genuine refugees from those simply seeking a better life.
The fact that Australian immigration holding centres are light years ahead in luxury - in comparison with the conditions at home - is one of the reasons boat people take the risk of death on the high seas.
Once we start duplicating these in Indonesia we not only provide a migration incentive, but we showcase the differing standards between the Australian and Indonesian lifestyles - and that can only create resentment in Indonesian minds !
Sunday, 25 October 2009
A privacy invasion !
Nobody would object to drug and alcohol testing of " safety critical staff ". We would want to be absolutely sure that the person who drives our train to work, or flies the plane taking us to Bali was cold sober or not withdrawing from a drug binge.
It seems that random testing is now being extended to " all staff " by some companies, and that includes the people on the order phones, secretaries - the guy who mows the lawns - and even the tea lady.
There is a real danger that this can lead to a privacy invasion resulting in promotional opportunities being compromises - simply because a person has shown signs of recreational drug use or a harmless one-off indulgence with alcohol.
A career could be blighted because a family birthday celebration resulted in a few drinks more than usual - or a person on holiday smoked a joint to see what this Marijuana thing was all about !
A full license holder must stay under 0.05 to legally drive a car. A " safety critical " person must be under 0.02 to work, but does this mean that an office worker is " unreliable " if he or she has a reading somewhere in that range ?
Marijuana stays in the blood for up to three weeks. This is detectable, but has long lost potency. There is a real danger that a " wowser " boss would discriminate against an employee because of a personal objection to what most people consider to be " a normal lifestyle ".
What may seem a " good idea " can have unexpected consequences. Perhaps a blanket test for all employees is not fair unless it also contains a scale under which any minor reading is shown as a negative.
Otherwise, a person well within legal limits can suffer discrimination !
It seems that random testing is now being extended to " all staff " by some companies, and that includes the people on the order phones, secretaries - the guy who mows the lawns - and even the tea lady.
There is a real danger that this can lead to a privacy invasion resulting in promotional opportunities being compromises - simply because a person has shown signs of recreational drug use or a harmless one-off indulgence with alcohol.
A career could be blighted because a family birthday celebration resulted in a few drinks more than usual - or a person on holiday smoked a joint to see what this Marijuana thing was all about !
A full license holder must stay under 0.05 to legally drive a car. A " safety critical " person must be under 0.02 to work, but does this mean that an office worker is " unreliable " if he or she has a reading somewhere in that range ?
Marijuana stays in the blood for up to three weeks. This is detectable, but has long lost potency. There is a real danger that a " wowser " boss would discriminate against an employee because of a personal objection to what most people consider to be " a normal lifestyle ".
What may seem a " good idea " can have unexpected consequences. Perhaps a blanket test for all employees is not fair unless it also contains a scale under which any minor reading is shown as a negative.
Otherwise, a person well within legal limits can suffer discrimination !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)