It seems that Green's leader Bob Brown has lost touch with the constitution of Australia and the system of parliamentary democracy. He says that the Greens will not accept that Tony Abbott has a " mandate " to repeal a carbon tax - even if he wins a Federal election and in doing so presents that choice to the voters.
We had a Federal election last year and the issue of a carbon tax was supposedly settled as an issue. Tony Abbott campaigned on the promise of opposing a move to tax carbon, and Julia Gillard made a solemn promise that " there would be no carbon tax from her government ".
What the Greens seem to be saying is that they - and they alone - will decide on the carbon tax issue, and even if the people of Australia reject the plan by voting in Tony Abbott as prime minister - the Greens will not accept the verdict of the Australian people.
This is the absolute height of arrogance. Another prime minister - back in 1975 - decided to ignore the constitution and refused to take an impasse to the people - and was sacked from office. It is the understanding of parliamentary democracy that the winning side in an election has a " mandate " if what they propose to do is a plank in the platform that they take to the people before that election.
The Greens are skating on very thin ice. The idea that their plans for this country will be implemented by force despite the vote of the people is reminiscent of events back in 1975. The Greens have gained support in recent years - but they should remember a similar event when the Australian Democrats held the balance of power in the Senate.
Arrogance - and moving against the tide of opinion - saw them disappear without trace. A similar fate await the Greens if they decide to butt heads with the constitution !
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Those hidden taxes !
The proposal to slap a ten dollar entry fee on Killalea State Park sounds like " double dipping " to many people. We already pay taxes to provide recreational areas for all - and yet what has been a free entry for years is now going to cost us money.
It can be argued that this is simply " user pay " being applied, and that other state parks attract an entry fee of between $ 7 and $ 10, but the plan to include Killalea raises the whole question of entry fees for public land.
This has inched forward to include city parks when several councils in areas surrounding Sydney harbour decided to demand a fee from people who wished to enter those parks to watch the New Year fireworks.
Obviously, this would quickly extend to other events - such as the start of the Sydney/Hobart yacht race.
It raises the principle of just what facilities should governments and councils freely provide for all the citizens.
In the case of Killalea - this is a charge to visit a beach ! It is called a " State Park " but in reality it is a very nice beach with spectacular surfing waves. Why don't we drop that " State Park " name and call it what it is - simply a beach - and drop that entry charge ?
It is coming a long way from the practice of some charities to hold fund raising events in parks and ask the public for a " gold coin " entry - which is a request and not a demand.
There is no " please " when entry consists of a boom gate manned by a uniformed guard - and that is what seems to be planned for Killalea.
It can be argued that this is simply " user pay " being applied, and that other state parks attract an entry fee of between $ 7 and $ 10, but the plan to include Killalea raises the whole question of entry fees for public land.
This has inched forward to include city parks when several councils in areas surrounding Sydney harbour decided to demand a fee from people who wished to enter those parks to watch the New Year fireworks.
Obviously, this would quickly extend to other events - such as the start of the Sydney/Hobart yacht race.
It raises the principle of just what facilities should governments and councils freely provide for all the citizens.
In the case of Killalea - this is a charge to visit a beach ! It is called a " State Park " but in reality it is a very nice beach with spectacular surfing waves. Why don't we drop that " State Park " name and call it what it is - simply a beach - and drop that entry charge ?
It is coming a long way from the practice of some charities to hold fund raising events in parks and ask the public for a " gold coin " entry - which is a request and not a demand.
There is no " please " when entry consists of a boom gate manned by a uniformed guard - and that is what seems to be planned for Killalea.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
A " Tooth Fairy " promise !
Julia Gillards promise that nine out of ten households will be fully compensated for the carbon tax can be taken as a " political " promise. Anything to get the average person to go along with the government's wishes - and no legal obligation to keep any promise that is made.
If this carbon tax is implemented it will have a huge impact on the Australian economy - and there will be many unintended consequences that economists do not plan when looking into their crystal ball. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that there will be price rises as a consequence - and therefore the amount of compensation can not be accurately predicted at this time - when the price of carbon has not yet even been established.
It is the oldest trick in the world for governments to promise - and deliver - a benefit which seems adequate at the time it is delivered, but which quickly falls behind rising costs when it is not revised to keep relevant with inflation.
This carbon tax looks like being implemented against the wishes of the majority of the citizens and there is no way it's impact on jobs, industry and household budgets can be accurately forecast. There will probably be some new " green "jobs created, but will they compensate for jobs lost when some other industries are forced to cut back ? That is as good a question as to whether this promised compensation will still be adequate twelve months down the track after the carbon tax is installed.
The citizens have a right to be cynical. Promises made by politicians - and whatever government is in power consists of politicians - are about as relevant as expectations of wealth from the Tooth Fairy !
If this carbon tax is implemented it will have a huge impact on the Australian economy - and there will be many unintended consequences that economists do not plan when looking into their crystal ball. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that there will be price rises as a consequence - and therefore the amount of compensation can not be accurately predicted at this time - when the price of carbon has not yet even been established.
It is the oldest trick in the world for governments to promise - and deliver - a benefit which seems adequate at the time it is delivered, but which quickly falls behind rising costs when it is not revised to keep relevant with inflation.
This carbon tax looks like being implemented against the wishes of the majority of the citizens and there is no way it's impact on jobs, industry and household budgets can be accurately forecast. There will probably be some new " green "jobs created, but will they compensate for jobs lost when some other industries are forced to cut back ? That is as good a question as to whether this promised compensation will still be adequate twelve months down the track after the carbon tax is installed.
The citizens have a right to be cynical. Promises made by politicians - and whatever government is in power consists of politicians - are about as relevant as expectations of wealth from the Tooth Fairy !
Monday, 27 June 2011
Good idea - lousy implementation !
The idea had great merit. Sydney is becoming an overcrowded city and the government is prepared to pay residents to relocate to regional cities - but both Newcastle and Wollongong have been included in this $ 7000 offer.
So - we have the farcical situation that if a resident of Wollongong decides to move to Shellharbour or Kiama - the public purse will cough up a $ 7000 bounty. Neither Newcastle or Wollongong are part of Sydney and neither are overcrowded - so why has this scheme included them ?
It might have made more sense to exclude Newcastle and Wollongong from a destination for those fleeing Sydney so that these big regional cities would not hog the distribution of new households to the smaller cities which are in need of stimulating new growth - but that is not the way this scheme has been orchestrated.
Basically, you can get a $ 7000 handout by simply relocating from one part of what is really " greater Wollongong " to another part of the city, which simply goes under the name of the suburbs of Shellharbour or Kiama. Or as the people of Shellharbour might argue - to the city of Shellharbour from it's suburb of Wollongong !
The rules are quite clear. This plan has a four year life span and is expected to cost $ 280 million. It will be capped at a capacity of 40,000 households - and to be eligible a resident must sell a house in the target location - and buy a house in an approved regional area.
By all means try to reduce the spiralling population of Sydney and advantage the regional cities in desperate need of growth - but to include the next two biggest cities in this state who have no size problems - is simply ludicrous !
So - we have the farcical situation that if a resident of Wollongong decides to move to Shellharbour or Kiama - the public purse will cough up a $ 7000 bounty. Neither Newcastle or Wollongong are part of Sydney and neither are overcrowded - so why has this scheme included them ?
It might have made more sense to exclude Newcastle and Wollongong from a destination for those fleeing Sydney so that these big regional cities would not hog the distribution of new households to the smaller cities which are in need of stimulating new growth - but that is not the way this scheme has been orchestrated.
Basically, you can get a $ 7000 handout by simply relocating from one part of what is really " greater Wollongong " to another part of the city, which simply goes under the name of the suburbs of Shellharbour or Kiama. Or as the people of Shellharbour might argue - to the city of Shellharbour from it's suburb of Wollongong !
The rules are quite clear. This plan has a four year life span and is expected to cost $ 280 million. It will be capped at a capacity of 40,000 households - and to be eligible a resident must sell a house in the target location - and buy a house in an approved regional area.
By all means try to reduce the spiralling population of Sydney and advantage the regional cities in desperate need of growth - but to include the next two biggest cities in this state who have no size problems - is simply ludicrous !
Sunday, 26 June 2011
Kid's sports - age or size ?
The traditional way of grading kid's in sporting contests has been age. This incorrectly assumes that kids of an equal age - are also equal in size and weight, and today that is a very wrong assumption. It may have been roughly a measure when the Australian population background was from England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales - but that is no longer the case today.
We are now seeing a huge disparity in weight and height between kid's of a similar age, and this is having a negative effect on sport. Many parent's are reluctant to allow their kids to compete in contact sport because of the chance of injury and this is also a disincentive for smaller kids to put themselves at risk.
We are now a mixed, multicultural population and ethnicity has a bearing on body size. How do you compare kid's from a Polynesian background who tend to be giants - with kid's from an Asian culture such as Vietnam - who are so much smaller - and expect them to compete on equal terms on a sporting field ?
There are calls to dump age as the criteria and develop a new measure which takes into consideration the weight and size of those expected to compete together, but this would obviously introduce new challenges.
Body size and mental maturity have little in common. Just as kid's school classes grade mental learning on an increasing scale, so tactics on the sporting field are geared to mental development.
An older kid - several years more advanced than a younger kid of the same size - would have an added advantage in a skill contest, and yet they would be considered equal by a comparison of body size. There would also be another factor to be taken into consideration - and that would be the type of sport involved.
Kids playing Rugby football have a distinctive size advantage if they are big because of the tackling involved in that game, while those playing Soccer may have an advantage over a bigger opponent because of a speed advantage and absence of brute force tackling.
Pity the sports administrators who have to work out some better form of grading. The probable answer is to retain the age system, but with the provision that the twenty-percent of players who form the extremities of too big or too small be encouraged to choose a different sport where size does not matter. Perhaps swimming or tennis rather than a contact sport !
Whatever system evolves, it is certain to raise new contentions !
We are now seeing a huge disparity in weight and height between kid's of a similar age, and this is having a negative effect on sport. Many parent's are reluctant to allow their kids to compete in contact sport because of the chance of injury and this is also a disincentive for smaller kids to put themselves at risk.
We are now a mixed, multicultural population and ethnicity has a bearing on body size. How do you compare kid's from a Polynesian background who tend to be giants - with kid's from an Asian culture such as Vietnam - who are so much smaller - and expect them to compete on equal terms on a sporting field ?
There are calls to dump age as the criteria and develop a new measure which takes into consideration the weight and size of those expected to compete together, but this would obviously introduce new challenges.
Body size and mental maturity have little in common. Just as kid's school classes grade mental learning on an increasing scale, so tactics on the sporting field are geared to mental development.
An older kid - several years more advanced than a younger kid of the same size - would have an added advantage in a skill contest, and yet they would be considered equal by a comparison of body size. There would also be another factor to be taken into consideration - and that would be the type of sport involved.
Kids playing Rugby football have a distinctive size advantage if they are big because of the tackling involved in that game, while those playing Soccer may have an advantage over a bigger opponent because of a speed advantage and absence of brute force tackling.
Pity the sports administrators who have to work out some better form of grading. The probable answer is to retain the age system, but with the provision that the twenty-percent of players who form the extremities of too big or too small be encouraged to choose a different sport where size does not matter. Perhaps swimming or tennis rather than a contact sport !
Whatever system evolves, it is certain to raise new contentions !
Saturday, 25 June 2011
The wheels of justice !
A news story in today's paper recalls memories of a massacre on a Melbourne street way back in 1987. On that day a gunman killed seven people and wounded a futher nineteen - and this became known as " the Hoddle street massacre ".
The gunman was nineteen year old Julian Knight and he was sentenced to life imprisonment - with a minimum of twenty-seven years before becoming eligible for parole - which milestone will be reached in 2014.
Knight is launching a court appeal, claiming that he is the only " lifer " still housed in a maximum security prison, and that because of this he can not be placed in classes to teach " resocialisation " - a prelude to a successful parole bid.
He has been granted the right to make this appeal - but hopefully those tasked with making a decision will proceed with caution !
They would be wise to fully investigate why Knight is still in maximum security ? Parole is not an automatic release when a minimum sentence has been served. The parole board must be satisfied that the prisoner is not likely to reoffend and has a changed attitude of remorse for the crime committed.
Perhaps Knight's attitude is the reason he is still in maximum security - and if this is so then any hope of release should be out of the question - despite the time served.
" Hoddle street " was a horrific crime. We would want to be sure that it could not be repeated by the same offender !
The gunman was nineteen year old Julian Knight and he was sentenced to life imprisonment - with a minimum of twenty-seven years before becoming eligible for parole - which milestone will be reached in 2014.
Knight is launching a court appeal, claiming that he is the only " lifer " still housed in a maximum security prison, and that because of this he can not be placed in classes to teach " resocialisation " - a prelude to a successful parole bid.
He has been granted the right to make this appeal - but hopefully those tasked with making a decision will proceed with caution !
They would be wise to fully investigate why Knight is still in maximum security ? Parole is not an automatic release when a minimum sentence has been served. The parole board must be satisfied that the prisoner is not likely to reoffend and has a changed attitude of remorse for the crime committed.
Perhaps Knight's attitude is the reason he is still in maximum security - and if this is so then any hope of release should be out of the question - despite the time served.
" Hoddle street " was a horrific crime. We would want to be sure that it could not be repeated by the same offender !
Friday, 24 June 2011
A bad miscalculation !
Last month an acting Supreme court judge was involved in a car accident between his vehicle, a truck and another car. The police attended - and breath tested all the drivers. The judge blew 0.168 roadside - and 0.121 later at the police station. He was arrested and charged with DUI.
This week the case came to court - and the magistrate was astonished when the judge failed to appear. Instead, his solicitor entered a " guilty " plea - and told the court that the judge was on holiday - in Japan.
This is peculiar conduct from a man so well versed in the law as a judge of the Supreme court. Driving under the influence of liquor is not a misdemenor. It is classed as a criminal offence - and even a first time so charged carries a penalty of a heavy fine or a period of incarceration - or both.
It is possible that the judge hoped the matter would proceed to punishment and because of his position in the legal fraternity he would be treated lightly - and that any publicity would have abated before his return from Japan.
If so, he was mistaken.
The magistrate took unbrage at the non-appearance. He accepted the guilty plea and cancelled the judge's license - but held the matter over to a later date for sentencing - when the judge will be required to appear in person to hear his judgement.
The decision to go on holiday may have repercussions. It was an act of unforgiveable rudeness - and it could result in a few days in the slammer - just to introduce a note of humility !
This week the case came to court - and the magistrate was astonished when the judge failed to appear. Instead, his solicitor entered a " guilty " plea - and told the court that the judge was on holiday - in Japan.
This is peculiar conduct from a man so well versed in the law as a judge of the Supreme court. Driving under the influence of liquor is not a misdemenor. It is classed as a criminal offence - and even a first time so charged carries a penalty of a heavy fine or a period of incarceration - or both.
It is possible that the judge hoped the matter would proceed to punishment and because of his position in the legal fraternity he would be treated lightly - and that any publicity would have abated before his return from Japan.
If so, he was mistaken.
The magistrate took unbrage at the non-appearance. He accepted the guilty plea and cancelled the judge's license - but held the matter over to a later date for sentencing - when the judge will be required to appear in person to hear his judgement.
The decision to go on holiday may have repercussions. It was an act of unforgiveable rudeness - and it could result in a few days in the slammer - just to introduce a note of humility !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)