To no one's surprise Wayne Swan has approved the takeover of St George by Westpac.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/23/2399637.htm
One reason given was "The St George banking brand will also benefit from Westpac's lower funding costs, helping it to offer lower interest rates on loans."
However a quick check of both bank's websites shows that St George already offers cheaper home loan rates than westpac!
http://webapps.stgeorge.com.au/rates/rates.asp?State=NSW&Category=Home+Loans
http://www.westpac.com.au/internet/publish.nsf/Content/PBHLHCPI+Interest+Rates
Of course they both offer a myriad of options to confuse all but the closest scrutiny, but there they are. The facts.
The takeover of St George by Westpac will reduce competition in the Australian banking industry. Is there anyone who thinks that Westpac will drop it's home loan rates to match St George?
Swannie has got this one wrong. In a few years the name St George will have gone the way of Bank of Melbourne and other small independent institutions offering real choice for consumers.
All is not lost though. The shareholders of St George still need to approve the deal. The mums and dads can still strike a blow for freedom of choice in the marketplace for all of us.
Visit http://www.savethedragon.org.au/ for more information.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Rudd and Swannie "At least we're doing something"
The $10.4 billion will help the following groups:
- pensioners for a month
- low income families with children for a month
- the home building industry for 1-2 years
- real estate agents
- property developers
- a limited amount of kids fighting for training places, although by the time they're trained no one will want apprentices
- The Chinese, by increasing sales of toys and imported goods. Also nails, and items used extensively in the building industry
- The banks, because helping the banks "remain in business" is translated by the Federal Government to mean "helping the banks make billions of dollars in profit". It also seems to mean that the banks need to be able to afford to buy other banks. (CBA & Bankwest, Westpac & St George). Apparently reducing choice increases competitiveness.
- Kevin Rudd, Swannie and the team - because now no one can accuse them of doing nothing
The $10.4 billion will NOT help the following groups:
- people with jobs and no kids, or whose kids have grown up
- people currently unemployed
- people in casual positions who were hoping to get stable employment next year
- renters
- self funded retirees (unless they've got a house up for sale)
- anyone likely to be affected by global warming (to be more explicit - everyone)
- the long term prospect for the building industry
- people who aren't shareholders in banks
- people with debt who are making their payments
- people with debt who are not making their payments on a long term basis
- people who have bought and lost a house in the past and now want to get back into the market
- exporters
- everyone receiving the one-off cash bonus. Once they've spent it on Christmas presents and paid off some old bills they'll be in exactly the same situation they are in now
- kids in schools, training and university
- anyone who buys a new home due to the home buyers grant. These people will move to the outer suburbs where there is no work or public transport and are about to find out what spending 3 hours a day in the car feels like.
- the long term future of the economy
- The Federal Opposition because the government keeps stealing all their ideas - even the awful ones
$10.4 billion and no official word on what it will do for the economy. That really is a lot of money that may have been spent for no real benefit. Aren't there other ways the Government could have helped out the economy and the people who need more?
I refer you again to the Southern Cross Climate Coalition.
Monday, October 13, 2008
A panicked response from Rudd and AMO
Another Missed Opportunity.
The Rudd announcement today of $10.4billion in handouts is the reactive easy way out to the current situation and represents the absolute dearth of policy talent in the Federal Government.
It is "shut up" money to all those who are feeling the pinch of the financial crisis, unless, of course you happen to be young, have a job and own your house. Out of the budget surplus goes payments to pensioners (who needed it) and carers (who deserve it) and then to first home buyers. Most of the first home buyers bonus will be eaten up by state duties and taxes anyway. Existing home owners have already been let down by the Government's refusal to try and pursuade the banks to pass on the full interest rate cut. This is just salt in the wound.
A paltry $157 million for new training places from the government who wanted to lead the "education revolution".
The voters will love it, the economists will love it, but it is a missed opportunity. The short term financial fluctuations in the market (and, taken in a long term historical view, these are short term fluctuations) have blinded the Australian Federal Government to the big picture items they campaigned on at the Federal Election.
A golden opportunity has been missed for a massive investment in infrastructure. There will still be an investment, but this $10 billion pork barrel of the worst kind will eat into that money dramatically.
Pensioners and carers did need some money. I'm not convinced they needed $8billion. The building sector does need stimulus, but how about being more creative and smarter about it?
There are a number of crises affecting the world today: Global Poverty, A new Nuclear Arms Race, and Climate Change to name but a few. The ALP said "we are different" in the election campaign. The ALP criticized the Howard-Costello Government for one off hand outs. My how things change when you're on the other side of the chamber.
Enough negativity, what would I have done?
The Southern Cross Climate Coalition is a group made up of the Australian Conservation Foundation, The Australian Council of Social Service, and, bless them, Australian Council of Trade Unions.
One of the plans they hit upon is to "eco-makeover" every house in Australia with things such as better insulation, more efficient heating, water tanks, solar power, etc. The goal is to reduce the power usage of Australian households and bring existing buildings up to current new building standards.
http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1965
The plan is quite clever in that it creates jobs in the trades (plumbers, electricians, etc), reduces our greenhouse emissions and reduces the living costs of normal Australians who cannot afford to renovate or live in rental accommodation where there is currently NO incentive for the property owner to do so.
So, this package would create jobs, stimulate the economy, save money in the short term on power bills, reduce our greenhouse emissions and prepare Australians better for a Emission Trading Scheme. No handouts, just a positive bit of leadership and governance and a change from the Rudd Crisis Campaign.
The SCCC estimates $5500 per home. How many homes could we do for $8 billion? How many of those will belong to pensioners and carers?
The Rudd announcement today of $10.4billion in handouts is the reactive easy way out to the current situation and represents the absolute dearth of policy talent in the Federal Government.
It is "shut up" money to all those who are feeling the pinch of the financial crisis, unless, of course you happen to be young, have a job and own your house. Out of the budget surplus goes payments to pensioners (who needed it) and carers (who deserve it) and then to first home buyers. Most of the first home buyers bonus will be eaten up by state duties and taxes anyway. Existing home owners have already been let down by the Government's refusal to try and pursuade the banks to pass on the full interest rate cut. This is just salt in the wound.
A paltry $157 million for new training places from the government who wanted to lead the "education revolution".
The voters will love it, the economists will love it, but it is a missed opportunity. The short term financial fluctuations in the market (and, taken in a long term historical view, these are short term fluctuations) have blinded the Australian Federal Government to the big picture items they campaigned on at the Federal Election.
A golden opportunity has been missed for a massive investment in infrastructure. There will still be an investment, but this $10 billion pork barrel of the worst kind will eat into that money dramatically.
Pensioners and carers did need some money. I'm not convinced they needed $8billion. The building sector does need stimulus, but how about being more creative and smarter about it?
There are a number of crises affecting the world today: Global Poverty, A new Nuclear Arms Race, and Climate Change to name but a few. The ALP said "we are different" in the election campaign. The ALP criticized the Howard-Costello Government for one off hand outs. My how things change when you're on the other side of the chamber.
Enough negativity, what would I have done?
The Southern Cross Climate Coalition is a group made up of the Australian Conservation Foundation, The Australian Council of Social Service, and, bless them, Australian Council of Trade Unions.
One of the plans they hit upon is to "eco-makeover" every house in Australia with things such as better insulation, more efficient heating, water tanks, solar power, etc. The goal is to reduce the power usage of Australian households and bring existing buildings up to current new building standards.
http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1965
The plan is quite clever in that it creates jobs in the trades (plumbers, electricians, etc), reduces our greenhouse emissions and reduces the living costs of normal Australians who cannot afford to renovate or live in rental accommodation where there is currently NO incentive for the property owner to do so.
So, this package would create jobs, stimulate the economy, save money in the short term on power bills, reduce our greenhouse emissions and prepare Australians better for a Emission Trading Scheme. No handouts, just a positive bit of leadership and governance and a change from the Rudd Crisis Campaign.
The SCCC estimates $5500 per home. How many homes could we do for $8 billion? How many of those will belong to pensioners and carers?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Economy
Time for my take.
Today we're just going to talk about interest rates and Australian banks. The banks were facing an unenviable position this week. They new rates would go down and they knew that they would want to keep as much as they can for themselves. How else would the Commonwealth Bank be able to afford to buy Bankwest, and Westpac be able to afford to buy St George. Billions of dollars does not grow on trees, it must be gouged from customer's pockets.
Fortunately for the spin doctors and PR people at the banks they didn't have to worry about passing on the full interest rate. Our PM and our Treasurer kindly helped out by telling everyone that the banks would not be able to pass on the full rate decrease as they were struggling so much with the "credit crunch", "toxic debt" and other meaningless terms that journos like to use to try and convince us they know what they're talking about.
Fact is that the banks were making money before the rates came down. Fact is that they had already put their rates up above the RBA's rate on previous occasions. Fact is that they were making plenty of money, are secure and are safe.
Sad fact is that all those people who could have been given a 1% reduction on their mortgage / business loan / credit card won't get it.
Fact is that the reason they're not getting it is due to the champion of working families deciding not to stick up for them when they need him most.
Today we're just going to talk about interest rates and Australian banks. The banks were facing an unenviable position this week. They new rates would go down and they knew that they would want to keep as much as they can for themselves. How else would the Commonwealth Bank be able to afford to buy Bankwest, and Westpac be able to afford to buy St George. Billions of dollars does not grow on trees, it must be gouged from customer's pockets.
Fortunately for the spin doctors and PR people at the banks they didn't have to worry about passing on the full interest rate. Our PM and our Treasurer kindly helped out by telling everyone that the banks would not be able to pass on the full rate decrease as they were struggling so much with the "credit crunch", "toxic debt" and other meaningless terms that journos like to use to try and convince us they know what they're talking about.
Fact is that the banks were making money before the rates came down. Fact is that they had already put their rates up above the RBA's rate on previous occasions. Fact is that they were making plenty of money, are secure and are safe.
Sad fact is that all those people who could have been given a 1% reduction on their mortgage / business loan / credit card won't get it.
Fact is that the reason they're not getting it is due to the champion of working families deciding not to stick up for them when they need him most.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Does the Federal Government have a Surplus or Profit?
In business, a profit is the amount of money you have left over after you have paid all your bills. All your employees must be paid, all your debt serviced, all your creditors up to date. If you haven't paid all your staff, you haven't got a profit. If you have a profit you can give the money to the people who own the business (distribution) or invest it back in the business.
Not for profit businesses call the profit a "surplus" because they don't pay a distribution. Any left over money stays in the business.
I've started thinking about the Federal Government and comparing it to a business.
The Australian Federal Government is a not for profit organisation. That's why it has a "Budget Surplus". However, last time I looked, not everyone had been paid and not all it's services have been performed. I wonder whether the Government can really tell anyone that it has a Surplus (Profit).
Here's a thought - pensioners don't get enough money to live on. We know this because whenever they are asked, Federal Politicians say they could not live on the pension. Pensioners have been saying it for years. So, does the Government have a surplus if pensioners haven't been paid properly?
There's a 17 year gap in the life expectancy between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/indigenous-health/
That means that some Australians born today are expected to life 17 years longer than some other Australians. A pretty dangerous game of lucky dip. Can the Australian Government make a $20billion profit this year and allow this to continue?
Another advantage the Australian Government has is there is no competition. It's not as if one can choose to use a different government this week. That means that when the Government introduces a new tax (alcopops, anyone?) you pretty much have to cop it. I like alcopops. It means that when I go to a BBQ I can take 2 cans of Cougar Zero (to make my pants fit nice) rather than a bottle of bourbon and a bottle of coke and some plastic cups. But I have to pay the tax. Hard to opt out.
I'll push on with this topic later on, but right now I'm thinking I really want to buy shares in the Australian Government.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Is John Brumby really Woody from Toy Story
Remember those toys kids have where you pull the string and they come up with random phrases that are totally out of context? We should get a John Brumby doll. This is from yesterday's Melbourne Age:
"Asked if he was attracted to Sir Rod's call for "a generational leap forward in Melbourne's rail capacity" and the creation of a Paris-style "metro" underground rail network, Mr Brumby said:
"I am categorically in the business of making the right decisions now to secure the long-term future of the state."
I don't know what that means. I don't know if John Brumby knows what it means. The journalist who wrote the story obviously doesn't know what it means. Why print it? Why give it space? There's people out there who now think that John Brumby is in control. But of what? This statement could have been part of any conversation about anything anywhere.
Think! Please!
"Asked if he was attracted to Sir Rod's call for "a generational leap forward in Melbourne's rail capacity" and the creation of a Paris-style "metro" underground rail network, Mr Brumby said:
"I am categorically in the business of making the right decisions now to secure the long-term future of the state."
I don't know what that means. I don't know if John Brumby knows what it means. The journalist who wrote the story obviously doesn't know what it means. Why print it? Why give it space? There's people out there who now think that John Brumby is in control. But of what? This statement could have been part of any conversation about anything anywhere.
Think! Please!
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Child Abuse and the wait for action
The level of child abuse in our country saddens me deeply an I applaud the comments made by various politicians that something must be done. But why hasn't something already been done?
This is not a new problem. There must be hundreds of reports around the nation sitting on shelves that paint a picture of the terrible tragedies that our children are subjected to daily.
Why is it that until the media turns a problem into an issue we hear nothing from our elected politicians? Why does it take repeated news reports and a public outcry on talk back radio to get our governments moving?
Children will be physically, emotionally and mentally abused in homes across Australia tonight and every minute that is wasted while politicians wait for media analyses on this week's major news items is a minute where these children will be harmed.
Please, elected representatives, do something now.
This is not a new problem. There must be hundreds of reports around the nation sitting on shelves that paint a picture of the terrible tragedies that our children are subjected to daily.
Why is it that until the media turns a problem into an issue we hear nothing from our elected politicians? Why does it take repeated news reports and a public outcry on talk back radio to get our governments moving?
Children will be physically, emotionally and mentally abused in homes across Australia tonight and every minute that is wasted while politicians wait for media analyses on this week's major news items is a minute where these children will be harmed.
Please, elected representatives, do something now.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Holidays
I'm off overseas for a few weeks and I doubt I'll post.
Thanks to all those who read this blog; both of you!
Thanks to all those who read this blog; both of you!
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Petrol Prices
The other night (Wednesday May 21st) I drove along a major suburban road in the outer Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne. There are 3 petrol stations in a row, within about 100m of each other, all on the same side of the road.
Petrol station # 1 - ULP 138.8 cents
Petrol station # 2 - ULP 159.9 cents (4c less with docket)
Petrol station # 3 - ULP 159.9 cents (4c less if you buy $5 of stuff from the shop)
Petrol stations 2 & 3 both had cars in them. Filling up.
If people want something done about petrol prices, the first thing that needs to happen is for consumers to exercise their right of freedom of choice. Unless you are lucky enough to live in the parts of Melbourne with barely adequate public transport you are forced to have a car. You are therefore forced to by fuel even if you minimise your driving and buy a 1.3litre 2 seater car. But please think about your purchase. Even with a docket or having bought a couple of chocolate bars and the paper in the shop, someone buying 50 litres of petrol on Wednesday could have saved $8.50. That's $400 a year. Handy money.
Think; decide; act.
Petrol station # 1 - ULP 138.8 cents
Petrol station # 2 - ULP 159.9 cents (4c less with docket)
Petrol station # 3 - ULP 159.9 cents (4c less if you buy $5 of stuff from the shop)
Petrol stations 2 & 3 both had cars in them. Filling up.
If people want something done about petrol prices, the first thing that needs to happen is for consumers to exercise their right of freedom of choice. Unless you are lucky enough to live in the parts of Melbourne with barely adequate public transport you are forced to have a car. You are therefore forced to by fuel even if you minimise your driving and buy a 1.3litre 2 seater car. But please think about your purchase. Even with a docket or having bought a couple of chocolate bars and the paper in the shop, someone buying 50 litres of petrol on Wednesday could have saved $8.50. That's $400 a year. Handy money.
Think; decide; act.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Banking Merger continued...
Practicing what I was preaching, I have written to my local Federal Member of Parliament about the banking merger. All Victorian Senators are next, followed by the State guys.
A copy of the letter:
"Dear Mr Billson,
As a resident of Frankston and a voter in Dunkley I respectfully request that you and your fellow Parliamentarians do whatever is required to block the takeover of the St George Bank by Westpac.
Megacorporations are not good for competition and they are not good for the consumer. Australian retail and business banking is dominated by a small number of megabanks between whom there is no competition whatsoever. Each bank puts its interest rates on lending up, safe in the knowledge that all other banks will follow suit. Each bank charges exorbitant penalty fees confident that none of its "competitors" will undercut the lucrative fees market by reducing their own fees.
This merger will further reduce choice and result in higher fees and interest rates from the banks and subsequent financial pain on the community.
It is these banks that after borrowing heavily overseas at discounted interest rates and making substantial profits now have the cheek to put up their interest rates under the pretext of increased costs. They were not passing on the savings previously! Mr Billson I am a champion of the free market, but large international corporations have no soul and are not part of the free market. They are exclusively profit driven. Any lip service given to "communities" and charity is simply PR spin to try and make them look nice. There can be no doubt that a merged Westpac / St George Bank will further restrict choice to consumers and will continue to drain money from the economy. The banks are protected and operate within a regulated structure, but at the same time have the ability and wherewithal to do as they please.
Dunkley is a diverse electorate and although there are plenty of people with the education and inclination to make informed banking choices, there is also a large percentage of the population who are locked into the Big 4 with mortgages and credit cards. These people will continue to suffer at the hands of the MegaBanks until such time as we are able to do something about them.
We voted for you, Mr Billson, because you care about us. We chose to have you as our representative. We chose you to look out for us and to put our welfare first. Please do not let us down on this one. Block the takeover.
yours sincerely, etc etc."
I'm doing all this via email, I'll let you know if I get any responses.
A copy of the letter:
"Dear Mr Billson,
As a resident of Frankston and a voter in Dunkley I respectfully request that you and your fellow Parliamentarians do whatever is required to block the takeover of the St George Bank by Westpac.
Megacorporations are not good for competition and they are not good for the consumer. Australian retail and business banking is dominated by a small number of megabanks between whom there is no competition whatsoever. Each bank puts its interest rates on lending up, safe in the knowledge that all other banks will follow suit. Each bank charges exorbitant penalty fees confident that none of its "competitors" will undercut the lucrative fees market by reducing their own fees.
This merger will further reduce choice and result in higher fees and interest rates from the banks and subsequent financial pain on the community.
It is these banks that after borrowing heavily overseas at discounted interest rates and making substantial profits now have the cheek to put up their interest rates under the pretext of increased costs. They were not passing on the savings previously! Mr Billson I am a champion of the free market, but large international corporations have no soul and are not part of the free market. They are exclusively profit driven. Any lip service given to "communities" and charity is simply PR spin to try and make them look nice. There can be no doubt that a merged Westpac / St George Bank will further restrict choice to consumers and will continue to drain money from the economy. The banks are protected and operate within a regulated structure, but at the same time have the ability and wherewithal to do as they please.
Dunkley is a diverse electorate and although there are plenty of people with the education and inclination to make informed banking choices, there is also a large percentage of the population who are locked into the Big 4 with mortgages and credit cards. These people will continue to suffer at the hands of the MegaBanks until such time as we are able to do something about them.
We voted for you, Mr Billson, because you care about us. We chose to have you as our representative. We chose you to look out for us and to put our welfare first. Please do not let us down on this one. Block the takeover.
yours sincerely, etc etc."
I'm doing all this via email, I'll let you know if I get any responses.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Sports News - not...
With the absolute saturation coverage sport gets in the media it's becoming increasingly apparent that there is not enough sport to go around.
I love sport. Most sport. Not golf. Golf is a game. I could watch or participate in sport all day everyday. Sport can be exciting and can get the blood pumping. Sport is good for kids and good for adults.
But sport news has almost ceased to be sport news. Sport news should be "Essendon won by 12 goals" or "Man United drew 2-2 with Liverpool". This is news because news is information that you didn't know previously. News is new! "Wow, I was unaware that Justine Henin retired, thanks for that piece of news!"
Nowadays opinion and belief and absolutely boring no-brainer cliches and catchphrases have replaced sports news. Truly blatantly obvious facts have become sports news. Let me present some examples:
"Sydney FC will be working on their accuracy in front of goal prior to this weekend's game."
"Player (whomever) from club (whichever) believes that the opposition (are you still with me?) cannot be taken lightly this weekend."
or rubbish like this:
"Coach of ... denies speculation that he is considering signing a contract extension for the 2012-2013 season".
Is there a team in sport that does not consider accuracy something worth working on? If a player said "well this weekend we're going to smash the opposition because they are useless" - that would be news! And the old chestnut of asking a question in a news conference, having it denied and then making that the story is pretty amateur journalism. (Buckingham Palace denies rumours that Prince Charles has been abducted by aliens).
So, sports journalists - come on! Go and find a real story. Get away from the pack and do some investigating. Ask a question to which you don't already know the answer!
You can do it!
I love sport. Most sport. Not golf. Golf is a game. I could watch or participate in sport all day everyday. Sport can be exciting and can get the blood pumping. Sport is good for kids and good for adults.
But sport news has almost ceased to be sport news. Sport news should be "Essendon won by 12 goals" or "Man United drew 2-2 with Liverpool". This is news because news is information that you didn't know previously. News is new! "Wow, I was unaware that Justine Henin retired, thanks for that piece of news!"
Nowadays opinion and belief and absolutely boring no-brainer cliches and catchphrases have replaced sports news. Truly blatantly obvious facts have become sports news. Let me present some examples:
"Sydney FC will be working on their accuracy in front of goal prior to this weekend's game."
"Player (whomever) from club (whichever) believes that the opposition (are you still with me?) cannot be taken lightly this weekend."
or rubbish like this:
"Coach of ... denies speculation that he is considering signing a contract extension for the 2012-2013 season".
Is there a team in sport that does not consider accuracy something worth working on? If a player said "well this weekend we're going to smash the opposition because they are useless" - that would be news! And the old chestnut of asking a question in a news conference, having it denied and then making that the story is pretty amateur journalism. (Buckingham Palace denies rumours that Prince Charles has been abducted by aliens).
So, sports journalists - come on! Go and find a real story. Get away from the pack and do some investigating. Ask a question to which you don't already know the answer!
You can do it!
Monday, May 12, 2008
Bank Merger
The author does not own any banking shares...
So 2 of the 5 biggest banks in Australia are proposing to merge (or 1 is taking over the other 1, depending on your point of view). A representative of Westpac yesterday said that the merger will not result in the closure of branches and will not result in a reduction of services.
Well, I don't believe them.
In the Frankston C.A.D. (Central Activities District) there is a Westpac branch and a St George branch. They are less than 100 metres from each other. One will go. I know this because once upon a time there was a Westpac Branch and a Bank of Melbourne branch. Now there is no Bank of Melbourne branch...
The reduction of services argument is amusing; not least of which because it is always amusing to see the words "service" and "bank" on the same page. Too simplify the argument, let's say that right now Westpac has 25 lending options and St George has 25 lending options. If the two banks merge there will not be 50 lending options. In order to provide us with better service and to avoid confusing options the combined bank will remove the lending options that are similar as well as those that are not profitable.
If Westpac had a long term plan of retaining all the St George Bank branches, products and services they wouldn't bother buying it. It doesn't make any business sense to do so.
The only people who will possibly benefit from this are shareholders in the banking sector, but any gains made there will probably be torn up by increases in fees and interest rates anyway.
Megacorporations are not good for competition and they are not good for the consumer. Australian retail and business banking is dominated by a small number of megabanks between whom there is no competition whatsoever. Each bank puts its interest rates on lending up safe in the knowledge that all other banks will follow suit. Each bank charges exorbitant penalty fees confident that none of its "competitors" will undercut the lucrative fees market by reducing their fees.
This merger will probably have to be cleared by the Federal Government. The Federal Government works for us. Regardless of which Party your local representative is from he or she will have an influence on the decision. It's going to be up to us to influence this decision. Write to your local members and tell them that you are against the decision. Politicians work on a theory that for every letter they receive, 100 people feel strongly about the issue. If all the readers of this blog write in, we will have the pull of 800 people!
If you don't know who your local member is, here's the AEC website with the details:
http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/
follow the prompts and it will take you to your electorate and then to your local member.
Banks in Australia are absolutely protected. Banks in Australia have free reign to do what they will to whom they wish. In the name of a free and fair market in Australia, I urge you to stand up to them, and give your Members of Parliament the support enabling them to block this takeover. In fact I urge you to demand that your Members of Parliament do this.
So 2 of the 5 biggest banks in Australia are proposing to merge (or 1 is taking over the other 1, depending on your point of view). A representative of Westpac yesterday said that the merger will not result in the closure of branches and will not result in a reduction of services.
Well, I don't believe them.
In the Frankston C.A.D. (Central Activities District) there is a Westpac branch and a St George branch. They are less than 100 metres from each other. One will go. I know this because once upon a time there was a Westpac Branch and a Bank of Melbourne branch. Now there is no Bank of Melbourne branch...
The reduction of services argument is amusing; not least of which because it is always amusing to see the words "service" and "bank" on the same page. Too simplify the argument, let's say that right now Westpac has 25 lending options and St George has 25 lending options. If the two banks merge there will not be 50 lending options. In order to provide us with better service and to avoid confusing options the combined bank will remove the lending options that are similar as well as those that are not profitable.
If Westpac had a long term plan of retaining all the St George Bank branches, products and services they wouldn't bother buying it. It doesn't make any business sense to do so.
The only people who will possibly benefit from this are shareholders in the banking sector, but any gains made there will probably be torn up by increases in fees and interest rates anyway.
Megacorporations are not good for competition and they are not good for the consumer. Australian retail and business banking is dominated by a small number of megabanks between whom there is no competition whatsoever. Each bank puts its interest rates on lending up safe in the knowledge that all other banks will follow suit. Each bank charges exorbitant penalty fees confident that none of its "competitors" will undercut the lucrative fees market by reducing their fees.
This merger will probably have to be cleared by the Federal Government. The Federal Government works for us. Regardless of which Party your local representative is from he or she will have an influence on the decision. It's going to be up to us to influence this decision. Write to your local members and tell them that you are against the decision. Politicians work on a theory that for every letter they receive, 100 people feel strongly about the issue. If all the readers of this blog write in, we will have the pull of 800 people!
If you don't know who your local member is, here's the AEC website with the details:
http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/
follow the prompts and it will take you to your electorate and then to your local member.
Banks in Australia are absolutely protected. Banks in Australia have free reign to do what they will to whom they wish. In the name of a free and fair market in Australia, I urge you to stand up to them, and give your Members of Parliament the support enabling them to block this takeover. In fact I urge you to demand that your Members of Parliament do this.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Burmese Disaster
The cyclone in Burma is becoming a disaster on a catastrophic scale. This is further complicated by the Military Regime of the country. The people of Burma are not responsible for their government and need our help. I urge you all to donate to any charity that is assisting the people in Burma. I have listed a couple here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list.
World Vision: www.worldvision.com.au
Care Australia: www.careaustralia.org.au
Caritas: www.caritas.org.au
Red Cross: www.redcross.org.au
World Vision: www.worldvision.com.au
Care Australia: www.careaustralia.org.au
Caritas: www.caritas.org.au
Red Cross: www.redcross.org.au
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Official Government request to drivers on Eastlink - Do your civic duty and speed
As if it wasn't enough that our once-promised freeway is now a tollway, the State Government of Victoria has budgeted for an increase in fines revenue in the coming financial year; specifically once Eastlink opens. May I quote from the State Budget handed down today:
"Fines revenue is expected to increase by 14.5 per cent between the 2007-08 revised estimate and 2008-09 to $492 million. This is principally due to an expected increase in traffic camera and on-the-spot speeding fines arising from the planned opening of the EastLink Tollway which will begin to contribute fine revenue in early 2008-09 and the annual CPI indexation of fines."
http://www.budget.vic.gov.au/CA257401000ED28B/WebObj/BP4Ch4/$File/BP4Ch4.pdf
As good Victorian citizens, please do your bit for the State's finances and speed when Eastlink opens. Otherwise the government will be unable to fund it's future needs and use:
"...these increased surpluses to manage future risks and to invest in vital infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, roads and public transport..."
http://www.budget.vic.gov.au/CA257401000ED28B/WebObj/BP1/$File/BP1.pdf
"Fines revenue is expected to increase by 14.5 per cent between the 2007-08 revised estimate and 2008-09 to $492 million. This is principally due to an expected increase in traffic camera and on-the-spot speeding fines arising from the planned opening of the EastLink Tollway which will begin to contribute fine revenue in early 2008-09 and the annual CPI indexation of fines."
http://www.budget.vic.gov.au/CA257401000ED28B/WebObj/BP4Ch4/$File/BP4Ch4.pdf
As good Victorian citizens, please do your bit for the State's finances and speed when Eastlink opens. Otherwise the government will be unable to fund it's future needs and use:
"...these increased surpluses to manage future risks and to invest in vital infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, roads and public transport..."
http://www.budget.vic.gov.au/CA257401000ED28B/WebObj/BP1/$File/BP1.pdf
Monday, May 5, 2008
New Format
In response to overwhelming demand, I have ditched the ink-intensive format of white text on a black background for a more environmentally friendly blue and black on white format.
I hope all those who love Frankston will appreciate the new seaside theme, and the 32 seconds it took me to change formats...
I hope all those who love Frankston will appreciate the new seaside theme, and the 32 seconds it took me to change formats...
Monday, April 28, 2008
Payroll Tax
Imagine for a second that the State Governments get the GST revenue. In rough figures this will be about $39billion this financial year. OK. That's true so you don't need to imagine it.
Then imagine that the Victorian State Government put a tax on employers that forces them to pay an additional 5.05% tax when their total wages bill exceeds $550,000 per year. Employers paying $549,999 in salaries and bonuses and commissions and holiday pay do not have to pay this tax, but once they cross the magical line they have to pay the 5.05% tax on every dollar over $550,000. To quote the State Revenue Office (the taxman) "The definition of wages is very broad". Some items included are: "superannuation guarantee payments, salary sacrifice contributions...". So pretty much everything, including fringe benefits. This would even include employer-sponsored maternity leave and childcare!
This is a tax that says to an employer "We are going to penalise you for employing more people". This ridiculous tax looks even more stupid when one remembers that a person with a job pays income tax. Then they pay GST on the things they buy. They may even buy a house in which case they will also pay stamp duty (another argument for another day). If the employee was unemployed then they will stop claiming unemployment benefits and will lose their concession card. They will then pay more for other services such as public transport and utilities. So the Government is going to get more tax income and pay less benefits and be better off anyway.
Employing people is a big decision for small and medium sized businesses. It's a balancing act between retaining profit in the business, passing the profit to shareholders and directors and investing the profit in new people, new machinery or new resources. Why does the Government further complicate the task by penalising businesses for hiring more people? Isn't that what they're supposed to do? There is a cost to putting on a new employee and that's fair and reasonable. Successful growing businesses should pay tax (and they do, by the way). But why is there a tax that directly penalises a company for expanding and hiring past a certain level?
And it's not just the tax (which equates to around $3000 per employee over the threshold per year), but I can promise you that there's going to be more paperwork. More forms more time wasted. Less time growing the business, less time looking after the employees, customers and suppliers.
This week a business in Victoria will sit down and make a decision about hiring someone. They will be a growing business ready to take the next step. They will do a cost-benefit analysis and will have to factor in payroll tax. Some businesses will hire the extra person, others won't and will encourage their existing staff to work harder and share duties and pick up whatever slack there may be. Someone somewhere is going to miss out on a job.
Payroll tax is a tax on growth, on small and medium sized businesses and entrepreneurship. It's a tax that big business is routinely offered concessions on in an effort to encourage them to invest in Victoria. It's an unfair tax that punishes small successful companies that are often major contributors to the economy and to the community.
My apologies for using the cliche, but payroll tax is a tax on jobs. It's time for it to be abolished.
Then imagine that the Victorian State Government put a tax on employers that forces them to pay an additional 5.05% tax when their total wages bill exceeds $550,000 per year. Employers paying $549,999 in salaries and bonuses and commissions and holiday pay do not have to pay this tax, but once they cross the magical line they have to pay the 5.05% tax on every dollar over $550,000. To quote the State Revenue Office (the taxman) "The definition of wages is very broad". Some items included are: "superannuation guarantee payments, salary sacrifice contributions...". So pretty much everything, including fringe benefits. This would even include employer-sponsored maternity leave and childcare!
This is a tax that says to an employer "We are going to penalise you for employing more people". This ridiculous tax looks even more stupid when one remembers that a person with a job pays income tax. Then they pay GST on the things they buy. They may even buy a house in which case they will also pay stamp duty (another argument for another day). If the employee was unemployed then they will stop claiming unemployment benefits and will lose their concession card. They will then pay more for other services such as public transport and utilities. So the Government is going to get more tax income and pay less benefits and be better off anyway.
Employing people is a big decision for small and medium sized businesses. It's a balancing act between retaining profit in the business, passing the profit to shareholders and directors and investing the profit in new people, new machinery or new resources. Why does the Government further complicate the task by penalising businesses for hiring more people? Isn't that what they're supposed to do? There is a cost to putting on a new employee and that's fair and reasonable. Successful growing businesses should pay tax (and they do, by the way). But why is there a tax that directly penalises a company for expanding and hiring past a certain level?
And it's not just the tax (which equates to around $3000 per employee over the threshold per year), but I can promise you that there's going to be more paperwork. More forms more time wasted. Less time growing the business, less time looking after the employees, customers and suppliers.
This week a business in Victoria will sit down and make a decision about hiring someone. They will be a growing business ready to take the next step. They will do a cost-benefit analysis and will have to factor in payroll tax. Some businesses will hire the extra person, others won't and will encourage their existing staff to work harder and share duties and pick up whatever slack there may be. Someone somewhere is going to miss out on a job.
Payroll tax is a tax on growth, on small and medium sized businesses and entrepreneurship. It's a tax that big business is routinely offered concessions on in an effort to encourage them to invest in Victoria. It's an unfair tax that punishes small successful companies that are often major contributors to the economy and to the community.
My apologies for using the cliche, but payroll tax is a tax on jobs. It's time for it to be abolished.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
ANZAC Day
Tomorrow is ANZAC Day. People from all over the country will spend some or all of the day commemorating the sacrifices made by soldiers in times of war and international conflict.
The focus will be on World Wars 1 & 2, and with good reason. The sheer number of men and women who sacrificed their lives for the good of others is overwhelming. Those who made it home should also be thanked.
This year there will also be a lot said about our soldiers currently serving overseas, particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan and Timor-Leste. All told there are currently approximately 3500 Australian Defence Force personnel serving overseas in the following countries:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Timor-Leste
Solomon Islands
Egypt
Sudan
There are also soldiers serving in various parts of the Middle East with UNTSO.
At any one time there are hundreds more men and women serving on exchange rotations with other nations as well.
Most of them will make it home alive and uninjured. Tragically some won't.
Sometimes there are obvious, visible signs of injury. Once upon a time soldiers returned from war suffering "shellshock". Soldiers returning from later wars were diagnosed with "combat stress disorder". Now soldiers are said to be suffering from "post-traumatic stress disorder". Whatever it is called and however it is described the seriousness and the longterm effects cannot be denied and must not be ignored.
Whether injured or not, whether suffering or not, returned service men and women must be taken care of and must be given as much support as possible by our government. There is nothing our politicians and public servants can do that can be labelled "too much".
All returning soldiers deserve and must receive our utmost respect and continued gratitude.
Lest we Forget
The focus will be on World Wars 1 & 2, and with good reason. The sheer number of men and women who sacrificed their lives for the good of others is overwhelming. Those who made it home should also be thanked.
This year there will also be a lot said about our soldiers currently serving overseas, particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan and Timor-Leste. All told there are currently approximately 3500 Australian Defence Force personnel serving overseas in the following countries:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Timor-Leste
Solomon Islands
Egypt
Sudan
There are also soldiers serving in various parts of the Middle East with UNTSO.
At any one time there are hundreds more men and women serving on exchange rotations with other nations as well.
Most of them will make it home alive and uninjured. Tragically some won't.
Sometimes there are obvious, visible signs of injury. Once upon a time soldiers returned from war suffering "shellshock". Soldiers returning from later wars were diagnosed with "combat stress disorder". Now soldiers are said to be suffering from "post-traumatic stress disorder". Whatever it is called and however it is described the seriousness and the longterm effects cannot be denied and must not be ignored.
Whether injured or not, whether suffering or not, returned service men and women must be taken care of and must be given as much support as possible by our government. There is nothing our politicians and public servants can do that can be labelled "too much".
All returning soldiers deserve and must receive our utmost respect and continued gratitude.
Lest we Forget
Monday, April 21, 2008
2020 Fallout
One of the most frightening thoughts to come out of the 2020 chatfest over the weekend is that it appears that Australians are now unanimous in their belief that the government should fix everything. All of the major ideas (both old and renewed) were about Government action, and what the government should do.
The Government is not the be all and end all of Australian thought and innovation and action. The Government is not an outback guide, showing the Australian people through the wilderness and making sure we don't take any unnecessary risks or make any stupid decisions. The government's role is to provide us with a map, a pair of shoes and a bottle of water and then say "right you are; off you go and see what you can make of this".
The Government is a massive unwieldy machine that makes decisions slowly, carefully and after years of risk analysis and opinion polls. That's OK for some things like foreign policy, defence, education curriculum and the like but it is less than useful in fields such as scientific innovation, creative arts and small business investment.
In the time it takes the government to analyse 12 years of trends in a particular field and formulate a policy document concerning "downward pressure on start up investment", a hundred small businesses have seen the market change and either got in, got out, or changed their business to survive.
Here's another one - the "bionic eye". One of the ideas from the chat was that there should be a national focus on a bionic eye, in an effort to "cure" blindness in much the same way as the cochlear implant has assisted lots of deaf people. Whilst this is an undoubtably noble goal, it must be pointed out that Graeme Clark didn't need a national effort and "1990 goal" to develop the cochlear implant. He had an idea, and went to work on making it real. What he did have was an educational system that gave him the freedom to make his vision a reality. What he did have was a flexible market environment that encouraged investment in his product to take it to the world.
Another theme out of the summit was the bemoaning of a lack of input into government policy. There was a view that there is not enough consultation with the Australian public. My question is: How many of the people at the summit were members of a political party? Do they really want to be involved? Join a political party and have real input into real decisions.
I could go on, and I will.
How about fining politicians when they lie or mislead the public? I've got a better idea - vote for the other guy next time! Make the politician responsible and vote him or her out of office. A couple of lying politicians out of office is going to send a pretty strong message to the rest of them that they will be held accountable for their actions.
A final question - Was the 2020 Summit carbon neutral?
The Government is not the be all and end all of Australian thought and innovation and action. The Government is not an outback guide, showing the Australian people through the wilderness and making sure we don't take any unnecessary risks or make any stupid decisions. The government's role is to provide us with a map, a pair of shoes and a bottle of water and then say "right you are; off you go and see what you can make of this".
The Government is a massive unwieldy machine that makes decisions slowly, carefully and after years of risk analysis and opinion polls. That's OK for some things like foreign policy, defence, education curriculum and the like but it is less than useful in fields such as scientific innovation, creative arts and small business investment.
In the time it takes the government to analyse 12 years of trends in a particular field and formulate a policy document concerning "downward pressure on start up investment", a hundred small businesses have seen the market change and either got in, got out, or changed their business to survive.
Here's another one - the "bionic eye". One of the ideas from the chat was that there should be a national focus on a bionic eye, in an effort to "cure" blindness in much the same way as the cochlear implant has assisted lots of deaf people. Whilst this is an undoubtably noble goal, it must be pointed out that Graeme Clark didn't need a national effort and "1990 goal" to develop the cochlear implant. He had an idea, and went to work on making it real. What he did have was an educational system that gave him the freedom to make his vision a reality. What he did have was a flexible market environment that encouraged investment in his product to take it to the world.
Another theme out of the summit was the bemoaning of a lack of input into government policy. There was a view that there is not enough consultation with the Australian public. My question is: How many of the people at the summit were members of a political party? Do they really want to be involved? Join a political party and have real input into real decisions.
I could go on, and I will.
How about fining politicians when they lie or mislead the public? I've got a better idea - vote for the other guy next time! Make the politician responsible and vote him or her out of office. A couple of lying politicians out of office is going to send a pretty strong message to the rest of them that they will be held accountable for their actions.
A final question - Was the 2020 Summit carbon neutral?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
2020 Summit
I'm sorry, but I can't support this headline-grabbing Talk Fest.
After the Government has finished handpicking who will choose who will attend, then handpicking who will attend, then throwing in a token number of "community members" we are faced with a large group of (mostly) intelligent, mostly well-meaning, mostly well intentioned individuals.
Their job is, in 2 days, to come up with some ideas for the future. The pay-off? Before the end of the year the Government will respond by saying which ideas it likes, and why, and which ideas it doesn't like, and why. There is no commitment from the Government to turn any of the ideas into policy or to investigate any of these ideas further.
I hope all the participants have a good time and I hope that they leave the summit feeling they have had an influence and their voice has been heard.
Meanwhile we should all be holding our own constant 2020 Summit. Talk with your friends, your family and work colleagues. Don't be afraid to ask people what they think about the future. It is through the sharing of ideas at local community level that the big changes in our society will come.
We have the power to make the future; it's up to us whether or not we exercise that power.
After the Government has finished handpicking who will choose who will attend, then handpicking who will attend, then throwing in a token number of "community members" we are faced with a large group of (mostly) intelligent, mostly well-meaning, mostly well intentioned individuals.
Their job is, in 2 days, to come up with some ideas for the future. The pay-off? Before the end of the year the Government will respond by saying which ideas it likes, and why, and which ideas it doesn't like, and why. There is no commitment from the Government to turn any of the ideas into policy or to investigate any of these ideas further.
I hope all the participants have a good time and I hope that they leave the summit feeling they have had an influence and their voice has been heard.
Meanwhile we should all be holding our own constant 2020 Summit. Talk with your friends, your family and work colleagues. Don't be afraid to ask people what they think about the future. It is through the sharing of ideas at local community level that the big changes in our society will come.
We have the power to make the future; it's up to us whether or not we exercise that power.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
When is a Plan not a Plan?
Answers.com defines a plan:
On the other hand, Kevin Rudd yesterday outlined his "plan" to provide centres that would "provide a broad mix of maternal and child health services, including feeding advice and vaccinations, long day care, preschool education and support for parents."
Great plan, Mr Rudd. But I have a couple of issues with it:
1) These centres already exist, or under construction (Karingal, Eltham and St Arnaud in Victoria to name a few).
2) There is no cost modelling, no idea of who would provide which services. Maternal Health, childcare, parental support are all provided by different levels of government. The Prime Minister suggests that some level of private sector management would be necessary.
So we don't have a plan, we have a "vision". Again, the media are so in love with Kevin Rudd that they are happy to give him a free kick when he announces a "vision" for something that already exists!
Don't get me wrong, this is a good idea. Such a good idea that several local communities have taken it upon themselves to put it in place. This idea does not suit every community. It doesn't suit rural areas with widespread populations where it is impractical to centralise all services. But that's ok - individual communities can make their own decisions. In fact - they already have! We don't need motherhood statements from our Federal Government - we need action and concrete decision making.
We need the Federal Government to stop talking and start acting.
update - Bernard Keane, writing on crikey.com.au today, has estimated the cost of this vision to be $11.9b per annum. That's a lot of vision.
-A scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective: a plan of attack.
-A systematic arrangement of elements or important parts; a configuration or outline: a seating plan; the plan of a story.
-A drawing or diagram made to scale showing the structure or arrangement of something.
-In perspective rendering, one of several imaginary planes perpendicular to the line of vision between the viewer and the object being depicted.
-A program or policy stipulating a service or benefit: a pension plan.
On the other hand, Kevin Rudd yesterday outlined his "plan" to provide centres that would "provide a broad mix of maternal and child health services, including feeding advice and vaccinations, long day care, preschool education and support for parents."
Great plan, Mr Rudd. But I have a couple of issues with it:
1) These centres already exist, or under construction (Karingal, Eltham and St Arnaud in Victoria to name a few).
2) There is no cost modelling, no idea of who would provide which services. Maternal Health, childcare, parental support are all provided by different levels of government. The Prime Minister suggests that some level of private sector management would be necessary.
So we don't have a plan, we have a "vision". Again, the media are so in love with Kevin Rudd that they are happy to give him a free kick when he announces a "vision" for something that already exists!
Don't get me wrong, this is a good idea. Such a good idea that several local communities have taken it upon themselves to put it in place. This idea does not suit every community. It doesn't suit rural areas with widespread populations where it is impractical to centralise all services. But that's ok - individual communities can make their own decisions. In fact - they already have! We don't need motherhood statements from our Federal Government - we need action and concrete decision making.
We need the Federal Government to stop talking and start acting.
update - Bernard Keane, writing on crikey.com.au today, has estimated the cost of this vision to be $11.9b per annum. That's a lot of vision.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Stealing Water
I live in Frankston, a suburb of Melbourne in Victoria. I mention this on the off chance that someone reading this doesn't actually know me...
Last weekend I attended a conference and was astounded at the level of emotion coming from residents who are going to be affected by the Victorian Government's plan to pipe water from drought stricken farm lands north of the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne. Apparently this water is going to be a share of the water saved by more efficient irrigation and other means.
People in the city have absolutely no idea how hard this extended dry spell has been on country Victorians. Whether it's due to climate change or just a seasonal thing, these people are doing it hard. And we're going to take what little water they have and bring it to Melbourne so we can flush our toilets?
This folly, along with the ludicrously expensive, power hungry and environmentally disastrous desalination plant are totally and completely unnecessary.
There is plenty of water in Melbourne. We just need to recycle it.
Check out this site for some facts about recycled water:
http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=105654&catId=100285&tid=100008&p=1&title=Recycled+water+mythbuster
It's cheap and safe. End of story.
To stop this we need to hit the Victorian Government where it hurts the most - the ballot box. Write to your local member and tell her or him that this issue is a deal breaker, and that unless you hear that your local representative is standing up to this water piracy you'll be voting for the other guy.
You can find out more about the north south pipeline here:
http://www.plugthepipe.com/
I urge you to have a look, and take action!
Last weekend I attended a conference and was astounded at the level of emotion coming from residents who are going to be affected by the Victorian Government's plan to pipe water from drought stricken farm lands north of the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne. Apparently this water is going to be a share of the water saved by more efficient irrigation and other means.
People in the city have absolutely no idea how hard this extended dry spell has been on country Victorians. Whether it's due to climate change or just a seasonal thing, these people are doing it hard. And we're going to take what little water they have and bring it to Melbourne so we can flush our toilets?
This folly, along with the ludicrously expensive, power hungry and environmentally disastrous desalination plant are totally and completely unnecessary.
There is plenty of water in Melbourne. We just need to recycle it.
Check out this site for some facts about recycled water:
http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=105654&catId=100285&tid=100008&p=1&title=Recycled+water+mythbuster
It's cheap and safe. End of story.
To stop this we need to hit the Victorian Government where it hurts the most - the ballot box. Write to your local member and tell her or him that this issue is a deal breaker, and that unless you hear that your local representative is standing up to this water piracy you'll be voting for the other guy.
You can find out more about the north south pipeline here:
http://www.plugthepipe.com/
I urge you to have a look, and take action!
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Earth 24 Hours
Obviously Mother Earth didn't think much of the effort Melbournians made for Earth Hour last weekend.
With this week's storms causing in excess of 160,000 homes to lose power for anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 days, I'm sure there was a far more drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions this time around!
Personally I went with the candles and Scrabble option. Might make it a regular event.
Not only is it good for the environment, but good for the braincells and relationship with the assistant blogger!
With this week's storms causing in excess of 160,000 homes to lose power for anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 days, I'm sure there was a far more drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions this time around!
Personally I went with the candles and Scrabble option. Might make it a regular event.
Not only is it good for the environment, but good for the braincells and relationship with the assistant blogger!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Health checks paid for by - you
The Victorian Government has announced that health checks will be given to workers in some sort of oddball attempt to reduce workplace injuries:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23399322-661,00.html
Ok. Firstly - when was the last time diabetes counted as a workplace injury. Really.
Secondly - as has been pointed out, if health is the issue, why are employers paying for it through Worksafe Victoria? Why not use the excess funds to reduce the premiums, therefore reducing employers' costs, therefore helping small business?
I've got more - what about the people who don't work? People who are students, stay at home parents, unemployed, etc? I can see the future economic benefits in having a healthier population (or at least one who knows how sick it is) so why leave anyone out?
And also it appears that the employers will not be given the results. Good. At some stage we have to respect the privacy of the individual!
3 people I work with have joined gyms/workout groups/health clubs recently. I didn't tell them to do that. In the morning when I go for a run with my friends we pass two groups of "Bootcamp" training. Did all there employers tell them to do that?
The Federal Government is going to launch an enquiry into the National Obesity Epidemic
which reminds me of this song by Lazyboy (underwear goes inside the pants):
Americans, let's face it: We've been a spoiled country for a long time.
Do you know what the number one health risk in America is?
Obesity. They say we're in the middle of an obesity epidemic.
An epidemic like it is polio.
Like we'll be telling our grand kids about it one day.
The Great Obesity Epidemic of 2004.
"How'd you get through it grandpa?"
"Oh, it was horrible Johnny, there was cheesecake and pork chops everywhere."
We're obese because we eat too much crap and don't exercise enough. I'm sure it's not much more complex than that. The fastfood industry has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on advertising and marketing. The people who grow carrots don't have that much money. Maybe it would be better to launch an enquiry into how to encourage people to take care of their bodies?
I'm running in the Run for the kids in Melbourne this weekend with 29000 other people - how many of those are doing it because their employer is making them?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23399322-661,00.html
Ok. Firstly - when was the last time diabetes counted as a workplace injury. Really.
Secondly - as has been pointed out, if health is the issue, why are employers paying for it through Worksafe Victoria? Why not use the excess funds to reduce the premiums, therefore reducing employers' costs, therefore helping small business?
I've got more - what about the people who don't work? People who are students, stay at home parents, unemployed, etc? I can see the future economic benefits in having a healthier population (or at least one who knows how sick it is) so why leave anyone out?
And also it appears that the employers will not be given the results. Good. At some stage we have to respect the privacy of the individual!
3 people I work with have joined gyms/workout groups/health clubs recently. I didn't tell them to do that. In the morning when I go for a run with my friends we pass two groups of "Bootcamp" training. Did all there employers tell them to do that?
The Federal Government is going to launch an enquiry into the National Obesity Epidemic
which reminds me of this song by Lazyboy (underwear goes inside the pants):
Americans, let's face it: We've been a spoiled country for a long time.
Do you know what the number one health risk in America is?
Obesity. They say we're in the middle of an obesity epidemic.
An epidemic like it is polio.
Like we'll be telling our grand kids about it one day.
The Great Obesity Epidemic of 2004.
"How'd you get through it grandpa?"
"Oh, it was horrible Johnny, there was cheesecake and pork chops everywhere."
We're obese because we eat too much crap and don't exercise enough. I'm sure it's not much more complex than that. The fastfood industry has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on advertising and marketing. The people who grow carrots don't have that much money. Maybe it would be better to launch an enquiry into how to encourage people to take care of their bodies?
I'm running in the Run for the kids in Melbourne this weekend with 29000 other people - how many of those are doing it because their employer is making them?
Efficiency
2 posts in 1 day!
I recently switched mobile phone companies. There was nothing wrong with the old one, it's just that the phones they were giving away didn't have enough street cred with my homies.
Anyway, about a month later I received a cheque from my old mobile company for $10.01. Cool.
Yesterday I received a final bill from my old mobile company for $0.88.
Furthermore it states "Payment not required".
I recently switched mobile phone companies. There was nothing wrong with the old one, it's just that the phones they were giving away didn't have enough street cred with my homies.
Anyway, about a month later I received a cheque from my old mobile company for $10.01. Cool.
Yesterday I received a final bill from my old mobile company for $0.88.
Furthermore it states "Payment not required".
Stop Signs
It's been a month. Sorry about that.
Firstly, my deepest and most sincere commiserations to the families of those who have tragically died over the Easter break in motor vehicle accidents.
The Victorian Government is coming under fire for not having adequate protection at level crossings. I'm not sure if there have been more level crossing incidents this year, or whether there have just been more reported incidents, but in any case there are too many people getting killed.
This is difficult to say without sounding callous and insensitive, but there are signs at these crossings. There are Stop signs at some, rumble strips at others. I'm not sure whether the government can be blamed for individuals who decide not to obey traffic signs. Most people stop at Stop signs all the time regardless of the location and the road conditions. Should there be boom gates at every Stop sign in Victoria?
At some stage the drivers of cars have to take responsibility for their own actions. In the case of motor vehicle accidents failure to take responsibility will oftentimes have tragic consequences.
Firstly, my deepest and most sincere commiserations to the families of those who have tragically died over the Easter break in motor vehicle accidents.
The Victorian Government is coming under fire for not having adequate protection at level crossings. I'm not sure if there have been more level crossing incidents this year, or whether there have just been more reported incidents, but in any case there are too many people getting killed.
This is difficult to say without sounding callous and insensitive, but there are signs at these crossings. There are Stop signs at some, rumble strips at others. I'm not sure whether the government can be blamed for individuals who decide not to obey traffic signs. Most people stop at Stop signs all the time regardless of the location and the road conditions. Should there be boom gates at every Stop sign in Victoria?
At some stage the drivers of cars have to take responsibility for their own actions. In the case of motor vehicle accidents failure to take responsibility will oftentimes have tragic consequences.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
There's Nothing on the Television
So don't watch it.
How many times a week do you here someone complain "There's nothing on TV"? I'm constantly hearing people tell me that when they get home from a hard day's work, eat their dinner, put their kids to bed (or not) there's nothing to watch on TV.
They're probably right in a lot of cases. Even if one has pay-TV in Australia most of the shows are re-runs, crime shows or obscure sporting events.
I used to watch one of the innumerable CSI shows until I remember thinking "At the end of this show my life is not going to be affected one little bit". I stopped watching TV for the sake of it then.
TV programming is decided by people who don't know you. The shows aren't targeted at you, they're targeted to try and get 10-20% of people who are watching TV to watch them. The advertisers will buy ads to try and convince you that you really do need a bigger plasma, or that the bank really is your friend.
TV's not about you.
I'll admit there's some good stuff on, but be selective. Choose to switch the TV on to watch a thing, not just anything.
Or - wait for it - don't watch the TV! Read a book. Browse the Internet. Start a blog (trust me, anyone can do it, even if you're probably the only one who will read it!).
Or get on the phone and call your best mate - there's nothing on his TV either.
How many times a week do you here someone complain "There's nothing on TV"? I'm constantly hearing people tell me that when they get home from a hard day's work, eat their dinner, put their kids to bed (or not) there's nothing to watch on TV.
They're probably right in a lot of cases. Even if one has pay-TV in Australia most of the shows are re-runs, crime shows or obscure sporting events.
I used to watch one of the innumerable CSI shows until I remember thinking "At the end of this show my life is not going to be affected one little bit". I stopped watching TV for the sake of it then.
TV programming is decided by people who don't know you. The shows aren't targeted at you, they're targeted to try and get 10-20% of people who are watching TV to watch them. The advertisers will buy ads to try and convince you that you really do need a bigger plasma, or that the bank really is your friend.
TV's not about you.
I'll admit there's some good stuff on, but be selective. Choose to switch the TV on to watch a thing, not just anything.
Or - wait for it - don't watch the TV! Read a book. Browse the Internet. Start a blog (trust me, anyone can do it, even if you're probably the only one who will read it!).
Or get on the phone and call your best mate - there's nothing on his TV either.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Google Advertising
You'll soon notice google advertising on my blog.
Click on the ads, don't click on the ads - it's up to you.
Any revenue from the site (as unlikely as that is that there will be any revenue) will go towards the costs of maintaining the blogger - namely Fairtrade coffee, slavery and child labour free chocolate, and keeping my girlfriend happy.
Click on the ads, don't click on the ads - it's up to you.
Any revenue from the site (as unlikely as that is that there will be any revenue) will go towards the costs of maintaining the blogger - namely Fairtrade coffee, slavery and child labour free chocolate, and keeping my girlfriend happy.
Safer Cars
The Victorian Government is thinking either of legislating to force car makers to add safety features to cars, or offering incentives to consumers to buy safe cars.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/01/1198949817049.html
Here's an incentive - safe cars are safer. Cars with ABS and Stability Control systems are less likely to be involved in accidents. Passengers travelling in cars fitted with airbags and seatbelt pretensioners are less likely to be severely injured or killed.
http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/
Instead of expecting the government to make our decisions for us, let us - the consumer - make the decisions. Why is it that we can't say - "Hang on, I'll do this myself"?
On a standard Toyota Corolla, you can order 7 airbags as an option for $750. Most people finance their cars over 5 years, so that works out to be an additional 50 cents per day (including interest!).
50 cents per day to protect your family with 7 airbags!
A Holden Commodore charges a bit more - $1000. That's still 65 cents per day (including interest).
What more incentive do we need than "For less than $1 a day we can provide a bucketload more safety for ourselves and our families"!
I'm not selling cars, but these are two of Australia's most popular models. If more people who ordered these cars chose the airbags as an option, the carmakers would look at the economies of fitting them to ALL the cars and building the cost into the standard price of the car. Voila! Safer cars!
The Victorian Government wants to legislate on safety in cars because they do not have faith that we, as individuals, have the ability to make sensible informed choices. They do not trust us to be left to our own devices. They do not believe that the market will react to people's decisions.
Let's prove them wrong!
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/01/1198949817049.html
Here's an incentive - safe cars are safer. Cars with ABS and Stability Control systems are less likely to be involved in accidents. Passengers travelling in cars fitted with airbags and seatbelt pretensioners are less likely to be severely injured or killed.
http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/
Instead of expecting the government to make our decisions for us, let us - the consumer - make the decisions. Why is it that we can't say - "Hang on, I'll do this myself"?
On a standard Toyota Corolla, you can order 7 airbags as an option for $750. Most people finance their cars over 5 years, so that works out to be an additional 50 cents per day (including interest!).
50 cents per day to protect your family with 7 airbags!
A Holden Commodore charges a bit more - $1000. That's still 65 cents per day (including interest).
What more incentive do we need than "For less than $1 a day we can provide a bucketload more safety for ourselves and our families"!
I'm not selling cars, but these are two of Australia's most popular models. If more people who ordered these cars chose the airbags as an option, the carmakers would look at the economies of fitting them to ALL the cars and building the cost into the standard price of the car. Voila! Safer cars!
The Victorian Government wants to legislate on safety in cars because they do not have faith that we, as individuals, have the ability to make sensible informed choices. They do not trust us to be left to our own devices. They do not believe that the market will react to people's decisions.
Let's prove them wrong!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Personal Responsibility and Accountability
Hi, I'm Marshall. This is my blog. My contribution to the interweb. Hopefully I won't be the only person reading this. I have something to say! I'm an Australian, so most of my posts will have an Aussie flavour about them.
--------
It is becoming more and more common these days for people to glady relieve themselves of any responsibility for decision making in their lives. Less often do we challenge 'the establishment' or do we challenge 'common sense'. Western Governments are becoming better and better at restricting the little freedoms in favour of the so-called "greater good".
And we just don't just let this happen - in fact we encourage it. We beg the government to take responsibility for raising our children. We love the fact that the government is helping look after reconciliation and promoting multi-culturalism. The government censors what we read, what we listen to on the radio, what we watch in cinemas, on dvd and on TV. The Government even decides what computer games we are allowed to play.
Of course, there are some basic areas where we have to let the Government make the call. I'm not an anarchist, and I would not be happy for individuals to make decisions on my behalf in their best interests. But there needs to be a balance.
Deregulate yourself will tackle a different topic every post. It will ask you to ask questions, make decisions - at least - at least - at least ask you to pause from time to time and think "What Do I Really Want?"
--------
It is becoming more and more common these days for people to glady relieve themselves of any responsibility for decision making in their lives. Less often do we challenge 'the establishment' or do we challenge 'common sense'. Western Governments are becoming better and better at restricting the little freedoms in favour of the so-called "greater good".
And we just don't just let this happen - in fact we encourage it. We beg the government to take responsibility for raising our children. We love the fact that the government is helping look after reconciliation and promoting multi-culturalism. The government censors what we read, what we listen to on the radio, what we watch in cinemas, on dvd and on TV. The Government even decides what computer games we are allowed to play.
Of course, there are some basic areas where we have to let the Government make the call. I'm not an anarchist, and I would not be happy for individuals to make decisions on my behalf in their best interests. But there needs to be a balance.
Deregulate yourself will tackle a different topic every post. It will ask you to ask questions, make decisions - at least - at least - at least ask you to pause from time to time and think "What Do I Really Want?"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)