This is an oldy but a goody and worth remembering as we line up to vote:
"CHOICES........................
While walking down the street one day a "Member of Parliament" is
tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter.. 'Before you settle in, it seems
there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts,
you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'
'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is
have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose
where to spend eternity.'
'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.
'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down,
down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle
of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in
front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked
with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him,
shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while
getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and
champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who
has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good
time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator
rises....
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St.
Peter is waiting for him.
'Now it's time to visit heaven.'
So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving
from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good
time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St.
Peter returns.
'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now
choose your eternity.'
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have
said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would
be better off in hell.'
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down
to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren
land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and
putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. 'I
don't understand,' stammers the MP. 'Yesterday I was here and there was
a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank
champagne, and danced and had a great time.. Now there's just a
wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
What happened?'
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, 'Yesterday we were
campaigning... ...
Today you voted.'
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Do you understand the state of Health?
If health is one of the issues that you are voting on this election then you need to listen to both of the below interviews. Regardless of what you think of Alan Jones, the content of this interview is very informative. The interview is with Dr John Graham – the head of the medical council at Sydney hospital – and Dr John McIntosh – from Mackay
Original Audio can be found here: http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41
Broadband
I am 26 years of age, I have been renting for 5 years, at none of the apartments (5 different places) I have rented have I ever had a land line telephone, at none of the apartments have I ever had fixed line Internet, yet I use the Internet every day and night, I also make phone calls every day and night.
The company I work for is in the construction industry, 90% of the site based staff we employ don't know how to use a computer (regardless of age), most don't have a computer in their home, most have no desire for this to change.
Knowing my demographics and the demographics of those that work with me I believe my small sample is representative of the spread across society. I also understand the importance of high speed internet for business, as at times the restriction of speed can be an issue (but this is very rarely), obviously other industries are different.
What I refuse to accept is the Labor party belief that we need high speed Internet connected to every household. The take up simply won't exist, it will not be used by the vast majority of the nation. It is my belief that the CBD of all major sites should have high speed Internet, areas like Chatswood and Parramatta (and the equivalents in other states) should be included in that. Regional centres like Woolongong, Newcastle, Tamworth, Bathurst etc. should be connected to the network. However the suburbs and smaller towns should be driven by demand.
You are a fool if you believe that Western and South Western Sydney needs fibre optics to every house, you are a fool if you believe that every house in the leafy Eastern Suburbs or North Shore needs fibre optics connected to every house, you are a fool if you believe that every business needs high speed broadband to function. You are a fool if you believe that the largest Government infrastructure project ever undertaken in Australia should be implemented with out a comprehensive business plan, without a cost benefit analysis and without proper scrutiny and consultation. Senator Conroy and former Prime Minister Rudd cooked this system up, they are the geniuses that also cooked up the Internet filter which the IT industry has broadly condemned. The broadband plan was created by the kitchen cabinet that was dumped by its own party, we can't sit back and let this plan become reality without putting in through proper scrutiny.
However I think come this Saturday, the very people that will NEVER subscribe to the high speed broadband at their homes or work place are going to be the very people that will commit us to this ill conceived idea.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Dear Ms Gillard
There has been a lot of rumbling from with in the Gillard camp about media coverage of her partner, her appearance and her lack of children. Suck it up princess!
If you stand in front of a crowd of people or in front of TV cameras with the hope of maintaining the attention of those before you then you MUST have something of substance to say. You MUST treat them with respect, you MUST be clear and honest, and you MUST NOT treat them like fools. Don’t stand in front of me, hoping to gain my trust while hiding your true thoughts, don’t hide behind comments like “cabinet in confidence” when you really mean “no comment” because the truth is too embarrassing. If you can’t hold a room’s attention long enough before their minds drift off and start noticing things like your nose, your earlobes or your lack of children, then you are doing a poor job. Worried about people speaking about your appearance and your partner? Then give them something to talk about, inspire them to have faith in you, capture their imagination, don’t bore us to death and then complain when you lose us, it is like a school teacher who has an ADHD kid who keeps mucking up in class, is it the kids fault for not being engaged and challenged or the teachers?
The media is tired of the circles you are speaking in, they are tired of the drivel you force them to sit through. How about you stop treating those forced to report on you like fools, stop trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, start being honest about what you truly believe and deliver rhetoric with substance, then possibly people would focus more on what you have to say... and not your ever reddening hair.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Is Nuclear power the answer?
Recently I attended a breakfast which posed the question "Is Nuclear power the answer?" Martin Thomas AM FTSE Hon FIEAust FAIE, a member of the 2006 Taskforce on Nuclear Energy (UMPNER) and Chairman of Dulhunty Power Ltd addressed the gathering. His notes can be found here:
http://www.gabrielleupton.com.au/is-nuclear-power-the-answer/
The UMPNER report can be found here:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/66043
It is way past time that everyone becomes properly informed on the debate. For far too long misinformation and scare campaigns have been dominating the debate, very few people know any of the facts while maintaining strong opinions on nuclear energy. Please read what is contained in the two links above, and watch the TED debate I have also posted.
http://www.gabrielleupton.com.au/is-nuclear-power-the-answer/
The UMPNER report can be found here:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/66043
It is way past time that everyone becomes properly informed on the debate. For far too long misinformation and scare campaigns have been dominating the debate, very few people know any of the facts while maintaining strong opinions on nuclear energy. Please read what is contained in the two links above, and watch the TED debate I have also posted.
Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy? | Video on TED.com
Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy? Video on TED.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
They have got to be kidding!
I am in utter disbelief at the pathetic low Kristina Keneally, Barry O’Farrell and that other one who comes from a party that should stop pretending they are a serious home for a protest vote, Lee Rhiannon from the Greens, have stooped.
In the lead up to a by-election which has been brought on by the corruption of a NSW state Labor politician (Karyn Paluzzano), Lee Rhiannon acted on a brain explosion and challenged Mrs Keneally and Mr O’Farell to a debate on Twitter. In an attempt to look young, cool and relevant they accepted. This is the first time that Twitter has been used for this purpose in Australia. I have a desire for an increase in debate in our society, a desire to see an increase in accountability of those who represent us, a desire that those who represent us actually represent their electorate’s views or at the very least act in the best interests of those that elect them. However a Twitter debate uses the cover of promoting democracy through debate to actually erode further the strong foundation that is crucial to all democracies; the belief in the system by the citizens.
I don’t understand why the “debate” or question and answer session or whatever it was, was the leaders of those three parties. If it was a debate for the by-election then why wasn’t the debate by the candidates standing for election in the by-election? Or is it a case of the candidate is irrelevant, it is only the leader of the Party that counts and the local representative is just there for show? But if it was a debate by the leaders of the major political parties in our state, why weren’t the Nationals included? Or even the Shooters party? On a brief count of the members of the NSW Parliament there are:
Independent 7
Greens 4
Nationals 18
Labor 69
Liberal 32
Shooters 2
Family First 1
CDP 1
So if it is a leaders debate the Greens have no more right to be included than the Shooters Party, Family First or the CDP if we are going to include the one member parties then all the independents should have been included. So it must have been a debate for the by-election which takes us to the question, who is actually standing in this election on Saturday? I doubt the majority of those being asked to vote will have a clue.
I said in a recent update that I was tired of the constant self promotion of those who are elected to represent us. I am sure that if each of us were running a business and we had employees who each time they communicated with us they spent the majority of the time saying how good of a job they are doing and how poor of a job the others are doing, while being incompetent, we would fire them pretty quick. Twitter has its use and its places as a communication/social network medium, yet I don’t think any great insight, of any depth can come from a political debate held on Twitter. Rhetoric without substance should be the domain of taxi drivers, not decision makers.
http://www.tallyroom.com.au/penrithdebate has a transcript of the debate.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
"Machiavellian manoeuvrings"
There is an article in today's SMH that is a very good read. For those that have been fortunate enough to hear me dribble on about the self serving, spineless, incompetant, convictionless and at times pathetic representatives that sit in Parliaments across the country. Please read this article as it articulates many of my sentiments.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/spin-is-no-match-for-debate-in-a-democracy-20100609-xwq3.html Richard Torbay is the independent member for Northern Tablelands
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/spin-is-no-match-for-debate-in-a-democracy-20100609-xwq3.html Richard Torbay is the independent member for Northern Tablelands
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
HOW MUCH SHOULD WE SPEND TO SAVE YOUR JOB?
I believe it was a lesson learnt in the very early stages of Economics in high school, maybe in the first week of classes; Cost vs. Benefit. For those that missed that class, a Cost vs. Benefit analysis (CBA) involves collating the total expected benefits of a decision and the total expected costs and then comparing them to those of other actions or decisions which could be made. This type of analysis is done in banking and all forms of business everyday, either formally or informally. I don’t see how a financial decision of any significance could be made without a CBA being carried out as a minimum.
The BER program has been getting more than its share of criticism by politicians, talkback radio hosts and various sections of the media. The program has had a profound benefit for schools and their communities. The scheme was not an infrastructure scheme, it was a stimulus scheme. “BER is a key element of the Australian Government’s $42 billion Nation Building - Economic Stimulus Plan, which aims to provide economic stimulus by supporting employment through local infrastructure projects.” (http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/buildingtheeducationrevolution/Pages/default.aspx)
Considering the program is not a building program and it is a stimulus program, the basis for which the program is judged is by how many jobs it created in the economy and what was the flow on economic benefits. The value for money argument only carries weight if you consider it in the context of stimulus and not the end use of the project. I have done my best to find the total benefits (monetary and non-monetary) of the scheme and the total costs of the scheme (including restriction on future employment opportunites due to government debt) as would be needed in carrying out a CBA but I don't think they exist. Gillard and Rudd can’t tell you the total cost per job they saved and I don’t think that is good enough. They may have made a great financial decision to run with this scheme. But who knows?
My gripe with the now cancelled insulation scheme is slightly different to what has been reported in the media. While the deaths are shocking, the house fires are inexcusable and the rorting criminal, in the context of stimulus none of these things are really relevant. My concern is; why was the scheme ever implemented in the first place? What was the stimulus benefit? I have tried pretty hard to find treasury documents that show that the money spent on installing insulation is going to produce benefit X. I am yet to find one.
Questions which I would expect to be relevant for an insulation scheme are: What is the cost saving in energy bills per year? What are the dollar values of the environmental benefit? But these are only relevant as side points in the context of stimulus. The real questions are: How many jobs were prevented from being lost? What was the flow on benefit to other parts of the economy?
As an electorate we are asked to vote for who we believe is best going to represent our community and who we believe will make the most beneficial decisions. I can’t tell you and I don’t think anyone outside of Treasury can either (and probably not inside of Treasury), if the total cost of the stimulus, including the cost of the loss of life, the cost of the house fires, the cost of the rectification works, the destruction of industries (the insulation and school building industry will now move to recession once the stimulus runs out) will exceed or be less than the total benefit to the community. However the success of the stimulus has nothing to do with all those points. The success of the scheme rests solely on this: if all those jobs saved were allowed to be lost, would the costs of welfare and economic recovery have outweighed the total costs of the stimulus scheme? Was the debt we are in worth saving your job? Did it actually save it?
The BER program has been getting more than its share of criticism by politicians, talkback radio hosts and various sections of the media. The program has had a profound benefit for schools and their communities. The scheme was not an infrastructure scheme, it was a stimulus scheme. “BER is a key element of the Australian Government’s $42 billion Nation Building - Economic Stimulus Plan, which aims to provide economic stimulus by supporting employment through local infrastructure projects.” (http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/buildingtheeducationrevolution/Pages/default.aspx)
Considering the program is not a building program and it is a stimulus program, the basis for which the program is judged is by how many jobs it created in the economy and what was the flow on economic benefits. The value for money argument only carries weight if you consider it in the context of stimulus and not the end use of the project. I have done my best to find the total benefits (monetary and non-monetary) of the scheme and the total costs of the scheme (including restriction on future employment opportunites due to government debt) as would be needed in carrying out a CBA but I don't think they exist. Gillard and Rudd can’t tell you the total cost per job they saved and I don’t think that is good enough. They may have made a great financial decision to run with this scheme. But who knows?
My gripe with the now cancelled insulation scheme is slightly different to what has been reported in the media. While the deaths are shocking, the house fires are inexcusable and the rorting criminal, in the context of stimulus none of these things are really relevant. My concern is; why was the scheme ever implemented in the first place? What was the stimulus benefit? I have tried pretty hard to find treasury documents that show that the money spent on installing insulation is going to produce benefit X. I am yet to find one.
Questions which I would expect to be relevant for an insulation scheme are: What is the cost saving in energy bills per year? What are the dollar values of the environmental benefit? But these are only relevant as side points in the context of stimulus. The real questions are: How many jobs were prevented from being lost? What was the flow on benefit to other parts of the economy?
As an electorate we are asked to vote for who we believe is best going to represent our community and who we believe will make the most beneficial decisions. I can’t tell you and I don’t think anyone outside of Treasury can either (and probably not inside of Treasury), if the total cost of the stimulus, including the cost of the loss of life, the cost of the house fires, the cost of the rectification works, the destruction of industries (the insulation and school building industry will now move to recession once the stimulus runs out) will exceed or be less than the total benefit to the community. However the success of the stimulus has nothing to do with all those points. The success of the scheme rests solely on this: if all those jobs saved were allowed to be lost, would the costs of welfare and economic recovery have outweighed the total costs of the stimulus scheme? Was the debt we are in worth saving your job? Did it actually save it?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The Iraqi Information Minister has returned!
In breaking news it has been revealed that the Australian Government has employed a new public relations manager. The new role will be known as the Information Minister, yet strangely enough the role will not be filled by an elected official but will be a hand picked appointee. It was announced this morning that the role will be filled by Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.
If that name is familiar to you, it should be. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf came to international attention during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at that time he was the Iraqi Minister of Information. During the initial invasion, Al-Sahhaf gave daily press conferences. He was renowned for his accuracy of reporting and the ability to get clear, unbiased information out to the world and Iraqi people.
Memorable moments of his career include such quotes as "They are not in Baghdad. They are not in control of any airport. I tell you this. It is all a lie. They lie. It is a Hollywood movie. You do not believe them." At another time he said "Today I have visited whole Baghdad city, no invaders found. You go and see how we have ousted them from this city. They are crying outside and waiting to receive bullets. They will be killed shortly." this was said as US tanks were rolling down the streets a couple of blocks from his press conference.
Mr Rudd has announced his appointment saying that due to the Australian public's desire for information we have reached a point where a full time information liaison is needed and that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf is the most qualified for this role. All future questions on policy must be directed to the new Minister, Mr Rudd and his government will no longer be making any form of public announcement.
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf has hit the ground running stating that all insulation fires were not actually taking place, that the media was using file footage from the Hollywood movie "Backdraft". He has assured the public that we are in a state of emergency, "the advertisements produced by the mining companies are expressing an opinion which is contrary to Mr Rudd, such expression and rational thought is confronting and dangerous and must be stopped." Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf will be making daily announcements on all policy issues until Mr Rudd believes that the public has understood that he knows best and ceases asking questions.
For further information on Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
If that name is familiar to you, it should be. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf came to international attention during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at that time he was the Iraqi Minister of Information. During the initial invasion, Al-Sahhaf gave daily press conferences. He was renowned for his accuracy of reporting and the ability to get clear, unbiased information out to the world and Iraqi people.
Memorable moments of his career include such quotes as "They are not in Baghdad. They are not in control of any airport. I tell you this. It is all a lie. They lie. It is a Hollywood movie. You do not believe them." At another time he said "Today I have visited whole Baghdad city, no invaders found. You go and see how we have ousted them from this city. They are crying outside and waiting to receive bullets. They will be killed shortly." this was said as US tanks were rolling down the streets a couple of blocks from his press conference.
Mr Rudd has announced his appointment saying that due to the Australian public's desire for information we have reached a point where a full time information liaison is needed and that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf is the most qualified for this role. All future questions on policy must be directed to the new Minister, Mr Rudd and his government will no longer be making any form of public announcement.
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf has hit the ground running stating that all insulation fires were not actually taking place, that the media was using file footage from the Hollywood movie "Backdraft". He has assured the public that we are in a state of emergency, "the advertisements produced by the mining companies are expressing an opinion which is contrary to Mr Rudd, such expression and rational thought is confronting and dangerous and must be stopped." Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf will be making daily announcements on all policy issues until Mr Rudd believes that the public has understood that he knows best and ceases asking questions.
For further information on Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Monetary policy- is it time to take it off politicians?
Following on from my previous blog on the style of politician/policy that is thriving under our current system, promoted by the 24hr media cycle. I encourage you all to read the following article:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2908995.htm
I believe there is serious merit in the arguments put forward in the article. It is definitely worth discussion.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2908995.htm
I believe there is serious merit in the arguments put forward in the article. It is definitely worth discussion.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Does it annoy you?
Politics in Australia annoys me. Most politicians annoy me. The community’s acceptance of the state of politics and the skill level of our politicians annoys me. Here is why:
When elected governments have an issue that they took to the election as a promise we will hear talk of how they have “a mandate for change”, “a mandate for action” which is fair enough given the Collins dictionary defines mandate as “the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory”. Yet when they are breaking a promise, the word mandate and all its meaning vanishes. It is my belief that political parties contesting election should publish all the issues they are seeking a “mandate” on before the election in a clear and simple format, free of spin. That list then needs to be monitored and have the outcomes recorded against each issue stating what has happened, what is planned, why nothing has happened and will anything happen. I’m tired of promises being made, forgotten, distorted and buried.
I’m tired of the 24 hour media cycle, the politics it promotes and the style of politician that thrives under it. It is an incredibly lazy system that we have allowed to develop. The cycle is promoted by the media advisors of the parties in an attempt to keep their party in the headlines, it is sold to us by the media as what we want, when in reality the reason they are on board with the 24 hour cycle is that it lets them do very little work. All a journalist needs to do these days is take the press release, throw in a few lines of padding about things that don’t matter, then add a headline and presto, you have an article. Why search for the full facts? Why do any real analysis? Why ignore the spin and self-promotion that is hidden in all the press releases, the media advisors have given you a “just add water story” so that is all they need to do. This has led to society being inundated with announcements, headlines, promises, facts and figures, all unchecked all with very little analysis and even less substance. This inundation has lead to accountability being a forgotten word. Politicians are no longer held accountable for the truth and consequence of what they say and do, as society is so confused and swamped by what they have actually said. They are only held to account by their party on whether what they have said has resulted in a positive outcome in the polls.
What this means is we are left with a system that is inundated with fame seeking politicians and sitcom sized problems, problems that create headlines, get the politicians in the spotlight and make it appear to the electorate like our elected representatives are earning their keep. This has lead to simple solutions for simple problems and no one watching what is happening to the complex problems. If we want our society to thrive, we need to remove the celebrity of politics, stop allowing politicians to appear in our nightly news bulletins and front page stories as a daily occurrence. Only put them in our papers if what they have done truly warrants the front page, only interview them if they have something of substance to say. We need to stop applauding mediocrity, start applauding them for what they are elected to do, that is, make tough decisions, act on the behalf of their electorate, and work their backsides off for the good of the country and not for the good of the next election. If you want to be a celebrity, go win a Logie, don’t become a politician.
When elected governments have an issue that they took to the election as a promise we will hear talk of how they have “a mandate for change”, “a mandate for action” which is fair enough given the Collins dictionary defines mandate as “the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory”. Yet when they are breaking a promise, the word mandate and all its meaning vanishes. It is my belief that political parties contesting election should publish all the issues they are seeking a “mandate” on before the election in a clear and simple format, free of spin. That list then needs to be monitored and have the outcomes recorded against each issue stating what has happened, what is planned, why nothing has happened and will anything happen. I’m tired of promises being made, forgotten, distorted and buried.
I’m tired of the 24 hour media cycle, the politics it promotes and the style of politician that thrives under it. It is an incredibly lazy system that we have allowed to develop. The cycle is promoted by the media advisors of the parties in an attempt to keep their party in the headlines, it is sold to us by the media as what we want, when in reality the reason they are on board with the 24 hour cycle is that it lets them do very little work. All a journalist needs to do these days is take the press release, throw in a few lines of padding about things that don’t matter, then add a headline and presto, you have an article. Why search for the full facts? Why do any real analysis? Why ignore the spin and self-promotion that is hidden in all the press releases, the media advisors have given you a “just add water story” so that is all they need to do. This has led to society being inundated with announcements, headlines, promises, facts and figures, all unchecked all with very little analysis and even less substance. This inundation has lead to accountability being a forgotten word. Politicians are no longer held accountable for the truth and consequence of what they say and do, as society is so confused and swamped by what they have actually said. They are only held to account by their party on whether what they have said has resulted in a positive outcome in the polls.
What this means is we are left with a system that is inundated with fame seeking politicians and sitcom sized problems, problems that create headlines, get the politicians in the spotlight and make it appear to the electorate like our elected representatives are earning their keep. This has lead to simple solutions for simple problems and no one watching what is happening to the complex problems. If we want our society to thrive, we need to remove the celebrity of politics, stop allowing politicians to appear in our nightly news bulletins and front page stories as a daily occurrence. Only put them in our papers if what they have done truly warrants the front page, only interview them if they have something of substance to say. We need to stop applauding mediocrity, start applauding them for what they are elected to do, that is, make tough decisions, act on the behalf of their electorate, and work their backsides off for the good of the country and not for the good of the next election. If you want to be a celebrity, go win a Logie, don’t become a politician.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Quick look over there it's Elvis!
Well done to Mr. Rudd and Mr. Swan on producing an election year budget disguised as a budget designed by fiscal conservatives. Those that think the stage managed show that is the federal Labor party has produced a sensible budget, designed as a plan for recovery, a plan to return to surplus, a budget that wasn't designed with the sole intention of laying the foundations to paint themselves as economically trustworthy, fiscal geniuses, should keep their heads buried in the sand so I can kick them up the backside!
Recently Mr. Rudd scrapped the plan to build 260 child care centres (when originally announced his plan got him plenty of positive press), but wait for it here is the best bit, this is actually genius. Our cities are in need of new child care centres in our population dense areas, canceling this plan, will lead to an increase in cost as demand is not met, under this budget Mr. Swan has then increased the cost of child care further by reducing the child care rebate. The effect of this double increase will cause thousands of families to be priced out of child care, it will lead to the cost vs. benefit of mothers/fathers returning to work tipping in the way of cost, which will reduce the amount of people looking for work, which reduces unemployment. Boom! Pure genius, it will reduce demand on child care and reduce unemployment.
Without diving deep into the numbers breakdown, Mr. Swan has introduced personal income tax cuts, YAY WE LOVE TAX CUTS, but are we really getting tax cuts? The budget papers show that revenue on income tax is forecast to rise from $120 billion this year to $174 billion in four years time, this is mainly due to the growth rate causing bracket creep, and no adjustment to the brackets other than the tax free threshold increase (which will be eaten by bracket creep)
There has been $1billion removed from our foreign aid budget, yet we are still committed to our target of 0.5% of national income committed to foreign aid/development by 2015/16. If we hit that target, the projected budget surplus won't be occurring.
The most interesting part of this budget is the figure which is not there at all. The $42billion National Broadband Network is not in the budget. Mr. Swan said in his speech last night "The Government has made appropriate provision in the Budget for the roll-out of NBN, subject to a final response to the implementation study". In my books that is false accounting, they plan on spending $42billion, but as they see it as an income producing investment, they have left it out of the books. But hold on a second, what happens if the $42billion blows out, what happens if the return on investment targets are not met? what if? what if?
THERE WILL BE NO BUDGET SURPLUS, saying so is misleading, in fact it is fraudulent! Mr. Swan and Mr. Rudd stop marketing yourselves as something you are not, you are not brilliant economic managers, you are not fiscal conservatives. You lie, you deceive, you are brilliant at using smoke and mirrors!
Recently Mr. Rudd scrapped the plan to build 260 child care centres (when originally announced his plan got him plenty of positive press), but wait for it here is the best bit, this is actually genius. Our cities are in need of new child care centres in our population dense areas, canceling this plan, will lead to an increase in cost as demand is not met, under this budget Mr. Swan has then increased the cost of child care further by reducing the child care rebate. The effect of this double increase will cause thousands of families to be priced out of child care, it will lead to the cost vs. benefit of mothers/fathers returning to work tipping in the way of cost, which will reduce the amount of people looking for work, which reduces unemployment. Boom! Pure genius, it will reduce demand on child care and reduce unemployment.
Without diving deep into the numbers breakdown, Mr. Swan has introduced personal income tax cuts, YAY WE LOVE TAX CUTS, but are we really getting tax cuts? The budget papers show that revenue on income tax is forecast to rise from $120 billion this year to $174 billion in four years time, this is mainly due to the growth rate causing bracket creep, and no adjustment to the brackets other than the tax free threshold increase (which will be eaten by bracket creep)
There has been $1billion removed from our foreign aid budget, yet we are still committed to our target of 0.5% of national income committed to foreign aid/development by 2015/16. If we hit that target, the projected budget surplus won't be occurring.
The most interesting part of this budget is the figure which is not there at all. The $42billion National Broadband Network is not in the budget. Mr. Swan said in his speech last night "The Government has made appropriate provision in the Budget for the roll-out of NBN, subject to a final response to the implementation study". In my books that is false accounting, they plan on spending $42billion, but as they see it as an income producing investment, they have left it out of the books. But hold on a second, what happens if the $42billion blows out, what happens if the return on investment targets are not met? what if? what if?
THERE WILL BE NO BUDGET SURPLUS, saying so is misleading, in fact it is fraudulent! Mr. Swan and Mr. Rudd stop marketing yourselves as something you are not, you are not brilliant economic managers, you are not fiscal conservatives. You lie, you deceive, you are brilliant at using smoke and mirrors!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Kristina Keneally- Union Puppet or Dame in Shining Armour?
“I am nobody’s puppet, I am nobody’s protégé, I am nobody’s girl"
Kristina Keneally, December 2009
When Nathan Rees was forced out of the pole position in December last year, his outgoing gift to the NSW Opposition, and warning to the NSW public, was the promise that whoever replaced him would be just another union ‘puppet.’
Over the following four months the new Premier, well coiffed and media savvy, fought hard to shake that image.
She spent the summer travelling around the state, being seen at every flood; fire; school opening; down mines; drought affected areas; effortlessly riding her bike to Parliament, sipping desalination plant water as if it were expensive Sav Blanc.
She tried hard to distance herself from her tainted Government and create what has become known as ‘Brand Keneally.’
And slowly but surely, the rumble around town became more positive, people starting to talk about the ‘hot’ new Premier.
Women wanted to be her, and men, well, wanted to be with her. The tide began to turn from the negative obsession with the Labor Government to one, for long suffering Labor supporters, of almost nervous hope.
Aussies love to back an underdog and Keneally had underdog qualities.
The odds of her surviving the public’s fierce scrutiny were not good. A woman with a much criticized, stubborn American twang that refused to leave her despite years of speech classes, she was pushed into the limelight to try and resurrect a Government everyone had long ago lost hope in.
Considering the rabble that is her Government and the stench left from the corruption that plagued Labor since before the doomed Morris Iemma took over the reins in 2007, even the most die hard Liberal will agree she has done pretty well.
Kristina Keneally has come out looking disturbingly dame-in-shining-armouresque like.
That is, perhaps, until now.
For anyone that actually follows the daily ins and outs of state politics in NSW, Monday May 3rd 2010 should be a day to remember, the day Nathan Rees’s puppet prediction came true.
Or at the risk of being over dramatic, at least the day Kristina dropped the polished guise of being a stand-alone player.
Kristina Keneally was invited by the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group (NCIG) to officially open the new $1 billion coal loader. The coal loader will shift up to 30 million tonnes a year and provide jobs to around 800 people for two to three years.
New infrastructure and more jobs is exactly what this broke and struggling state needs. After recently wasting $500 million on the failed CBD Metro project the Premier should be welcoming this huge contribution to the economy with arms wide open.
Yet the opening was snubbed by Kristina Keneally and her entire Cabinet.
Why?
Because the Maritime Union of Australia lobbied her to boycott the opening, citing problems with collective union work agreements.
The questions this raises are;
- Does this spell the beginning of the end of Kristina being able to keep the unions at arms length?
- Was she right in boycotting this event at the behest of the unions and a workplace agreement?
- What power does Government have to intervene in work place agreements?
My prediction?
Unfortunately for Kristina, despite her most valiant efforts, she has already stumbled and will ultimately either be dragged down by union bullies, or else fall at the hands of the mistakes made by her stale and corrupt Government.
Kristina Keneally, December 2009
When Nathan Rees was forced out of the pole position in December last year, his outgoing gift to the NSW Opposition, and warning to the NSW public, was the promise that whoever replaced him would be just another union ‘puppet.’
Over the following four months the new Premier, well coiffed and media savvy, fought hard to shake that image.
She spent the summer travelling around the state, being seen at every flood; fire; school opening; down mines; drought affected areas; effortlessly riding her bike to Parliament, sipping desalination plant water as if it were expensive Sav Blanc.
She tried hard to distance herself from her tainted Government and create what has become known as ‘Brand Keneally.’
And slowly but surely, the rumble around town became more positive, people starting to talk about the ‘hot’ new Premier.
Women wanted to be her, and men, well, wanted to be with her. The tide began to turn from the negative obsession with the Labor Government to one, for long suffering Labor supporters, of almost nervous hope.
Aussies love to back an underdog and Keneally had underdog qualities.
The odds of her surviving the public’s fierce scrutiny were not good. A woman with a much criticized, stubborn American twang that refused to leave her despite years of speech classes, she was pushed into the limelight to try and resurrect a Government everyone had long ago lost hope in.
Considering the rabble that is her Government and the stench left from the corruption that plagued Labor since before the doomed Morris Iemma took over the reins in 2007, even the most die hard Liberal will agree she has done pretty well.
Kristina Keneally has come out looking disturbingly dame-in-shining-armouresque like.
That is, perhaps, until now.
For anyone that actually follows the daily ins and outs of state politics in NSW, Monday May 3rd 2010 should be a day to remember, the day Nathan Rees’s puppet prediction came true.
Or at the risk of being over dramatic, at least the day Kristina dropped the polished guise of being a stand-alone player.
Kristina Keneally was invited by the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group (NCIG) to officially open the new $1 billion coal loader. The coal loader will shift up to 30 million tonnes a year and provide jobs to around 800 people for two to three years.
New infrastructure and more jobs is exactly what this broke and struggling state needs. After recently wasting $500 million on the failed CBD Metro project the Premier should be welcoming this huge contribution to the economy with arms wide open.
Yet the opening was snubbed by Kristina Keneally and her entire Cabinet.
Why?
Because the Maritime Union of Australia lobbied her to boycott the opening, citing problems with collective union work agreements.
The questions this raises are;
- Does this spell the beginning of the end of Kristina being able to keep the unions at arms length?
- Was she right in boycotting this event at the behest of the unions and a workplace agreement?
- What power does Government have to intervene in work place agreements?
My prediction?
Unfortunately for Kristina, despite her most valiant efforts, she has already stumbled and will ultimately either be dragged down by union bullies, or else fall at the hands of the mistakes made by her stale and corrupt Government.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Is IVF a human right? Should prisoners receive it?
(excuse the length, I will edit posts down in the future)
Earlier today I was sent the following article by Crocoduck, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/04/2889821.htm (please do read it before reading on)
While brief in detail I found the article/case raised a couple of interesting questions:
1. Should prisoners be allowed to continue IVF while in custody?
2. Is IVF a human right?
Following is my initial thoughts and response:
" Would she have the right to conjugal visits?
Was she trying IVF before she went in?
Is it a key human right to fall pregnant?
If she was 23 would the court even entertain the idea?
Without thinking to hard about it I think it should not be allowed.
Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent.
Ok I guess the argument is she is going to miss out by a matter of months, that the punishment shouldn’t hang over her head for the rest of her life. But where do you cut it off? If she had 18months remaining? 3 years? 5 years?
I would need to see the full case details.
Eg. Lets say she has been undergoing IVF for a number of years, she was sent to prison yesterday for a 12month non parole period. She goes over the age barrier in 7 months. Does the punishment of potentially missing out on falling pregnant make the punishment not fit the crime?
I think she should apply to the IVF (board? Hospital? Judge) to allow to undergo 7 months of IVF once she gets out.
I am pretty certain she can go overseas and have IVF after age 46… so the right is still there. However her crime may make travel difficult"
I then sent the email to two female friends. Both in their mid twenties, both well educated and luckily for me and you, both quite opinionated.
The first replied with this:
"hmm I know it may seem obvious that she's been trying for a kid her whole life but I would still first ask - has she had kids before?
can she even afford to have kids/ a kid if she's in court for welfare fraud?
If the answer is she hasn't ever been able to, has been waiting for yrs, spent all her money on IVF etc... then I'd be sympathetic to allowing her out for IVF.
But if she already has a few and can't afford to keep them then it's a nay from me"
The second friend pulled out the big guns:
"She definitely shouldn't get access.
Women seeking access to IVF can be split into two groups.
1) women who have healthy eggs but need IVF for other reasons (i.e. can't conceive naturally, partner has poor sperm count);
2) women who could conceive (healthy womb) but aren't producing eggs any more or whose eggs are damaged
Given she is 46, it is highly likely she is in the later category and would require egg donation. This is where the issue gets more complicated.
The demand for egg donors greatly outstrips supply in Australian clinics (women reluctant to donate eggs).
At the moment, we ration this imbalance of supply / demand, by basically putting women on a wait list, which means younger women can wait a very long time before receiving an egg. I think that's a poor approach. I think if you are single or over 40, you should be much lower preference to a woman who is younger and in a stable relationship. If there was an excess of eggs, maybe you wouldn't have to think like that, but the fact is that woman taking an egg from a more worthy recipient.
To avoid confusion, by "worthy" I don't mean that woman is less moral or a worse person than others (I don't know the circumstances around her sentence), however she clearly doesn't have the capabilities to provide a safe and stable environment for child. The government should be discouraging women getting pregnant in those circumstances, not funding them."
I then sent friend 2 my response (as shown above)"
Friend 2 continued,
"Agree very much on this point "Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent."
In response to your questions: is it a key human right to fall pregnant? I say no.
I think it is a human right to be able to conceive without government interference, however I don't believe the government is in any way obligated to facilitate your pregnancy. Given the limited supply of resources for both money (to fund IVF) and donor eggs, I think the government needs to take a view as to who they should assist in falling pregnant and who they shouldn't.
Regarding the recent email you just sent, let me explain what I mean by my view that "she clearly doesn't have the capabilities to provide a safe and stable environment for the child".
Children need stability, both financially and emotionally, so they are able to develop in a safe environment. It's also clearly advantageous if they are raised by a parent who respects societies laws, as that respect tends to be inherited and creates more law-abiding citizens (conservative view, but true).
Given this woman was conducting welfare fraud and has been in jail, she
- is unlikely to be financially stable
- is unlikely to be in a committed relationship
- clearly has little respect for society and other citizens (i.e. tax payers who funded her)
The "committed relationship" point isn't because I have an issue with unmarried women (clearly), but because children whose mothers have a high turnover of partners (and this women certainly falls into this demographic) are considerably more likely to be sexually abused.
In short, whilst you can never 100% predict how some one will perform as a mother (i.e. she could clean up her act and be a wonderful mum), the indicators point to that fact she will likely provide terrible conditions in which to bring up a child. I don't want a government to go out and sterilize her, but should community resources be put towards assisting her conceive? Clearly not"
I forwarded this reply onto Crocoduck, whose reply to friend 2 was:
"You have extrapolated so much presumed history about this woman from absolutely no information other than she is serving a sentence for welfare fraud that it is bordering on the fantastic (in the true sense of the word). And besides, whether she fits your presumed demographic or not, the legal issues aren’t anything to do with the suitability of her as a parent. The government doesn’t means test the baby bonus after all! Never one to go the ad hominem, but as an aside, your comment that a high turnover of male partners means that a child is “considerably more likely to be sexually abused” is intellectually insulting.
There is no issue here that the effect of prohibiting her access to IVF is akin to state-sanctioned sterilisation. The considerations are focused on whether the state ought to allow those incarcerated to enjoy the liberties of the free. Curtailing civic rights (beyond mere imprisonment) of prisoners is not foreign to Australia where prisoners serving sentences for three years or more aren’t allowed to vote in government elections. The question remains: Is IVF something a prisoner is entitled to receive?"
This is where I stopped the discussion in a quest to find out more information. This is what I have found.
The prisoner was sentenced to 3 years in prison with a non parole period of 18 months.
She had "At varying times from 1984 to 1998, Ms Castles claimed single parenting payments while living with her husband.
From 2000-2006, she also claimed Newstart Allowance under a fake name while receiving payments in her own name." http://frankston-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/frankston-woman-jailed-for-welfare-fraud/
The prisoner already has two children, one of whom appears to live with her in the jail. She has had 24 unaccompanied visits outside the prison. She is allowed conjugal visits and can go home accompanied once every four weeks. She will be eligible for home detention in 6 months. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/trial-to-decide-prisoners-right-to-ivf-treatment-20100504-u5gi.html
There has been four births inside the jail this year. The prisoner "alleges authorities have broken the Charter of Human Rights.
"It is unlawful for (prison authorities) to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right," lawyers for Castles argue. "The charter provides that Kimberley has the right not to have family unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with ... It is unlawful discrimination to prevent Kimberley from accessing the treatment which she requires to conceive." Further submissions say the charter gave Castles the right to choose the size of her family despite her imprisonment. It also gave her daughter the right to have a sibling and her partner the right to have another child. Ms Castle's barrister, Ron Merkel QC, argues Castles' infertility is a medical condition and should be treated through IVF. "The power the department has is the ability to destroy her reproductive health and to bring it to an end for no reason. This power is being abused.The Department of Justice seems to have a adopted a one-child policy," Mr Merkel said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/jailbird-pleads-for-ivf-chance/story-e6frf7jo-1225860814603
I am interested to hear what Crocoduck, friend one and friend two have to say about this new information. Personally I think the barrister's arguments are ridiculous. The prisoner systematically abused the welfare system for a number of years. She knew it was illegal, she knew if caught there would be consequences. She now needs to deal with those consequences. As I said above- Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent.
Instead of changing the rules inside the prison, why doesn't she instead challenge the cut off being set at 46? or is that another bag of worms for another day?
Earlier today I was sent the following article by Crocoduck, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/04/2889821.htm (please do read it before reading on)
While brief in detail I found the article/case raised a couple of interesting questions:
1. Should prisoners be allowed to continue IVF while in custody?
2. Is IVF a human right?
Following is my initial thoughts and response:
" Would she have the right to conjugal visits?
Was she trying IVF before she went in?
Is it a key human right to fall pregnant?
If she was 23 would the court even entertain the idea?
Without thinking to hard about it I think it should not be allowed.
Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent.
Ok I guess the argument is she is going to miss out by a matter of months, that the punishment shouldn’t hang over her head for the rest of her life. But where do you cut it off? If she had 18months remaining? 3 years? 5 years?
I would need to see the full case details.
Eg. Lets say she has been undergoing IVF for a number of years, she was sent to prison yesterday for a 12month non parole period. She goes over the age barrier in 7 months. Does the punishment of potentially missing out on falling pregnant make the punishment not fit the crime?
I think she should apply to the IVF (board? Hospital? Judge) to allow to undergo 7 months of IVF once she gets out.
I am pretty certain she can go overseas and have IVF after age 46… so the right is still there. However her crime may make travel difficult"
I then sent the email to two female friends. Both in their mid twenties, both well educated and luckily for me and you, both quite opinionated.
The first replied with this:
"hmm I know it may seem obvious that she's been trying for a kid her whole life but I would still first ask - has she had kids before?
can she even afford to have kids/ a kid if she's in court for welfare fraud?
If the answer is she hasn't ever been able to, has been waiting for yrs, spent all her money on IVF etc... then I'd be sympathetic to allowing her out for IVF.
But if she already has a few and can't afford to keep them then it's a nay from me"
The second friend pulled out the big guns:
"She definitely shouldn't get access.
Women seeking access to IVF can be split into two groups.
1) women who have healthy eggs but need IVF for other reasons (i.e. can't conceive naturally, partner has poor sperm count);
2) women who could conceive (healthy womb) but aren't producing eggs any more or whose eggs are damaged
Given she is 46, it is highly likely she is in the later category and would require egg donation. This is where the issue gets more complicated.
The demand for egg donors greatly outstrips supply in Australian clinics (women reluctant to donate eggs).
At the moment, we ration this imbalance of supply / demand, by basically putting women on a wait list, which means younger women can wait a very long time before receiving an egg. I think that's a poor approach. I think if you are single or over 40, you should be much lower preference to a woman who is younger and in a stable relationship. If there was an excess of eggs, maybe you wouldn't have to think like that, but the fact is that woman taking an egg from a more worthy recipient.
To avoid confusion, by "worthy" I don't mean that woman is less moral or a worse person than others (I don't know the circumstances around her sentence), however she clearly doesn't have the capabilities to provide a safe and stable environment for child. The government should be discouraging women getting pregnant in those circumstances, not funding them."
I then sent friend 2 my response (as shown above)"
Friend 2 continued,
"Agree very much on this point "Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent."
In response to your questions: is it a key human right to fall pregnant? I say no.
I think it is a human right to be able to conceive without government interference, however I don't believe the government is in any way obligated to facilitate your pregnancy. Given the limited supply of resources for both money (to fund IVF) and donor eggs, I think the government needs to take a view as to who they should assist in falling pregnant and who they shouldn't.
Regarding the recent email you just sent, let me explain what I mean by my view that "she clearly doesn't have the capabilities to provide a safe and stable environment for the child".
Children need stability, both financially and emotionally, so they are able to develop in a safe environment. It's also clearly advantageous if they are raised by a parent who respects societies laws, as that respect tends to be inherited and creates more law-abiding citizens (conservative view, but true).
Given this woman was conducting welfare fraud and has been in jail, she
- is unlikely to be financially stable
- is unlikely to be in a committed relationship
- clearly has little respect for society and other citizens (i.e. tax payers who funded her)
The "committed relationship" point isn't because I have an issue with unmarried women (clearly), but because children whose mothers have a high turnover of partners (and this women certainly falls into this demographic) are considerably more likely to be sexually abused.
In short, whilst you can never 100% predict how some one will perform as a mother (i.e. she could clean up her act and be a wonderful mum), the indicators point to that fact she will likely provide terrible conditions in which to bring up a child. I don't want a government to go out and sterilize her, but should community resources be put towards assisting her conceive? Clearly not"
I forwarded this reply onto Crocoduck, whose reply to friend 2 was:
"You have extrapolated so much presumed history about this woman from absolutely no information other than she is serving a sentence for welfare fraud that it is bordering on the fantastic (in the true sense of the word). And besides, whether she fits your presumed demographic or not, the legal issues aren’t anything to do with the suitability of her as a parent. The government doesn’t means test the baby bonus after all! Never one to go the ad hominem, but as an aside, your comment that a high turnover of male partners means that a child is “considerably more likely to be sexually abused” is intellectually insulting.
There is no issue here that the effect of prohibiting her access to IVF is akin to state-sanctioned sterilisation. The considerations are focused on whether the state ought to allow those incarcerated to enjoy the liberties of the free. Curtailing civic rights (beyond mere imprisonment) of prisoners is not foreign to Australia where prisoners serving sentences for three years or more aren’t allowed to vote in government elections. The question remains: Is IVF something a prisoner is entitled to receive?"
This is where I stopped the discussion in a quest to find out more information. This is what I have found.
The prisoner was sentenced to 3 years in prison with a non parole period of 18 months.
She had "At varying times from 1984 to 1998, Ms Castles claimed single parenting payments while living with her husband.
From 2000-2006, she also claimed Newstart Allowance under a fake name while receiving payments in her own name." http://frankston-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/frankston-woman-jailed-for-welfare-fraud/
The prisoner already has two children, one of whom appears to live with her in the jail. She has had 24 unaccompanied visits outside the prison. She is allowed conjugal visits and can go home accompanied once every four weeks. She will be eligible for home detention in 6 months. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/trial-to-decide-prisoners-right-to-ivf-treatment-20100504-u5gi.html
There has been four births inside the jail this year. The prisoner "alleges authorities have broken the Charter of Human Rights.
"It is unlawful for (prison authorities) to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right," lawyers for Castles argue. "The charter provides that Kimberley has the right not to have family unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with ... It is unlawful discrimination to prevent Kimberley from accessing the treatment which she requires to conceive." Further submissions say the charter gave Castles the right to choose the size of her family despite her imprisonment. It also gave her daughter the right to have a sibling and her partner the right to have another child. Ms Castle's barrister, Ron Merkel QC, argues Castles' infertility is a medical condition and should be treated through IVF. "The power the department has is the ability to destroy her reproductive health and to bring it to an end for no reason. This power is being abused.The Department of Justice seems to have a adopted a one-child policy," Mr Merkel said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/jailbird-pleads-for-ivf-chance/story-e6frf7jo-1225860814603
I am interested to hear what Crocoduck, friend one and friend two have to say about this new information. Personally I think the barrister's arguments are ridiculous. The prisoner systematically abused the welfare system for a number of years. She knew it was illegal, she knew if caught there would be consequences. She now needs to deal with those consequences. As I said above- Going to Jail isn’t simply about being put in a cell to sleep while you carry on with your plans. You are being punished, missing out on life while in there is part of that punishment, it is part of the deterrent.
Instead of changing the rules inside the prison, why doesn't she instead challenge the cut off being set at 46? or is that another bag of worms for another day?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Anis Mojanji
Time for a change of pace from the last two posts. Anis Mojanji is a two time World Slam Poetry Champion based in Portland, Oregan in the USA.
I hope you take the time to watch the video (10mins in length), this is a clip from the 2006 Seattle Grand Slam where Anis performs 3 poems.
I hope his poems resonate with you as they did with me. If you know anyone that has lost a little bit of hunger and drive from their lives, sit them down and make them watch this.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Money, Money, Money
Lately I have been having many a conversation with friends on the costs/benefits of the mining industry to Australia. It has been an interesting experience to see the different opinions that have emerged from a group who are normally quite like minded.
First I want to say that I understand the importance of the resource industry to Australia, I am in no way suggesting that we damage the industry. I just have a few concerns that I will raise over time.
After watching the ABC's 4 Corners http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2867659.htm, I was having a conversation via email with a friend. At one point they said it sounded like I was flying the green flag on the issue.
Following is part of our conversation from that point:
"I’m not flying the green flag.
I’m flouting the flag of those that get ignored, those that try to make something of themselves, by themselves. The farmers whose kids are sick, the farmers whose produce gets rejected due to being tainted from the dust, those that were working their dream who have had to give it up because living it is becoming impossible because the mine is on their boundary and the dust blowing across their property, the fumes and the noise become unbearable. I’m waving the flag for a state that only gets one shot at doing this right, and letting the mines do it their way, is not always right. I am waving the flag of those that realise that coal is a natural resource owned by all, therefore the benefits from the mines should be managed in a way that will benefit the state into the future. Not simply used to plug a hole caused by shoddy management and politically motivated promises.
What I would like government to do about it is to sit down and take a breath. Stop approving new mines, do the research, get the answers. Once they have the answers you can hit go, don’t hit the go button then chase your tail throwing your hands in the air and complain you can’t work out a way to catch it.
The racing industry has flagged they are in trouble, they flagged it months ago. Coolmore stud has been loud on this front. 75% of this years thoroughbreds at the magic millions sales came from the Hunter. It is the second most densely populated stud region in the world outside of Kentucky. It is a huge industry with huge flow on. They have signaled they are in danger so let’s do the research and get the answers.
If pollution in the area keeps increasing, the quality of the grapes will be jeopardised, can you tell me that is not true? Probably not, because the research and planning hasn’t been done. Kill the quality of the wine, kill that industry, which kills tourism, which will result in what the mines want. Everyone to get out of their way, no competing industries, so a few shareholders can make short term profits.
I am not against the profits, I am not against the mines. But I am against the killing of other industries if the studies haven’t been done. I am against politicians that are afraid to seek those answers, I am against those that shrug their shoulders and say that Australia has no option but to send the coal as fast as we can to China. I am against us sitting here in 2030 thinking we really could have managed it better.
Have the cost vs benefit studies been done? What would be the net benefit/loss of the weakening of the thoroughbred breeding industry? Cost vs Benefit of ongoing health problems? Ways to manage the health risk?
It has been allowed to move too fast with governments simply concerned with the benefit to the short term budget.
Last night wasn’t a revelation, it was a consolidation of the complaints that have been getting ignored."
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Health
There has been a lot of spin and political games being played by all members of the Media and by OUR elected representatives. There is no arguing that the health system throughout the various States and Territories of Australia is in need of structural reform. However I am a little dismayed that our Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, appears to be more concerned with political point scoring than he does with a consultative solution.
I have tried to seek clarity in the dust cloud of spin, yet have been unable to get the answers I need to make an informed decision. Can anyone provide guidance or point me in the direction that will provide the answers to the following?
I have tried to seek clarity in the dust cloud of spin, yet have been unable to get the answers I need to make an informed decision. Can anyone provide guidance or point me in the direction that will provide the answers to the following?
- NSW spend how much on health at present? What proportion of the budget does this consume? what percentage of total health spending is this?
- The federal government spend how much? what percentage of the federal budget is this? what percentage of the total spend in NSW is this?
- The 30% of the GST revenue which will be withheld will that be coming from the total GST pool or after the allocation to each state/territory?
- If it comes after the allocation to the states, does that mean that NSW, which is a net contributor under the current GST allocation system, will be paying for the health care in other states with our GST money?
- The 40% NSW will have to pay under the new system and the 30% of GST being withheld equal how much in dollar terms? What proportion of the NSW budget is that? (leave the 30% GSt in the budget fugure for calculation purposes as it is NSW money being re-branded)
- What will be the size reduction in the NSW Health bureaucracy? The increase in size/cost of the federal bureaucracy? is there a net gain or loss in size/cost?
- Will there be a net increase in the funds flowing to the front line services for: hospitals? Aged Care? Disability services? mental health?
- What effect will the new system have on the ability of states to reduce other taxes over time? i.e Payroll and stamp duty?
Let's have a conversation
I am not certain on the format I want this blog to take or the direction I want it to lead. I just want a place where I can raise the questions and vent the frustrations that occur in daily life living in Sydney.
I may be political at times, I may rant, I may make sense, I may speak nonsense. This is just what I hope is the beginning of a dialogue which was, until now, an internal monologue.
I may be political at times, I may rant, I may make sense, I may speak nonsense. This is just what I hope is the beginning of a dialogue which was, until now, an internal monologue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)