A Law Unto Themselves.

New South Wales has taken another step towards becoming a police state. Last week, special legislation was passed to give police additional powers for the upcoming Papal visit for World Youth Day. The legislation also sets up the World Youth Day Co-ordination Authority to administer the laws which provide for wide ranging control over a number of issues from airspace to advertising.

I think most people would accept the introduction of reasonable measures to ensure the safety of the Pope and the community, along with facilitating the smooth running of what will be a massive event. But it seems that the legislation goes beyond reasonable measures. It’s all very well to temporarily give police greater powers of search and seizure, but the new law goes much further.

This legislation delegates power from the Parliament to the Government so that significant matters such as police powers can be adjusted by regulation, not legislation. Further it provides for an unprecedented level of autonomy for the both the Co-ordinating Authority and the Minister to whom it reports. That Minister is the Deputy Premier John Watkins. According to the legislation the authority of the Co-ordinating Authority and the Minister cannot be “challenged, reviewed, quashed, or called into question” in court. In other words, absolute supreme power is in the hands of the Minister, and if anyone believes that the co-ordinating Authority has acted unjustly there is no recourse to the courts.

To remove all judicial oversight of these arrangements is an abrogation of the normal democratic rights we take for granted in a free society. It doesn’t matter who the minister is, the concentration of all power on one desk is contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy. If the police and other authorities do their jobs properly, they have no need of protection from being challenged in the courts. This legislation is authoritarian, and almost totalitarian, and it does not improve the standard of security provided to the Pope or the community.

Obesity: The Problem Is Getting Bigger…

The new Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has announced a program to have all children weighed before they enter preschool. They will also be measured and have their body mass index calculated, all as a part of a new initiative to combat obesity. Now while it certainly won’t hurt, the question is will it help?

If the measurements are simply written up in a report and filed away it is not going to achieve anything. As a first step to encouraging more active measures it does have something to offer. Despite some criticism that this might encourage eating disorders among sensitive children, I believe that promoting awareness of good health habits from an early age can only be a positive step.

If a child is weighed and measured, and is also given a comprehensible explanation as to why, that child can learn to make healthy judgments for himself. The key to this is not just the measurement, but the message. Kids are already getting a lot more useful information about good health and nutrition than previous generations, but for some reason it isn’t always getting through. The reason is the cacophony of mixed messages that are bombarding not just kids, but all of us.

While we are urged to eat better food we are also flooded with junk food advertising. While we are told to get more exercise, we are constantly reminded that it’s not safe to go outdoors. And for kids, the biggest factor is the example being set by Mum and Dad. As confusing as all this can be, it’s not (as they say) rocket science. Good food, exercise, fresh air. Unfortunately, we seem to have developed a lifestyle where these things are hard to fit in between all the other pressures and distractions that envelope us.

The Healthy Kids Check, which will also encompass sight and hearing, is a step in the right direction, but success will depend on the steps that follow.

Justice May Be Blind, But People Can See Something Is Not Right!

Since it came to light that a judge in North Queensland handed out what appears to be a remarkably lenient sentence to nine offenders who pleaded guilty to gang rape, the storm of controversy has kept growing. Three of the offenders were over the age of consent at 17, 18 and 26. They were given a six month jail sentence, suspended for twelve months. The younger offenders were placed on twelve months probation, with no convictions recorded. Those are the facts and I don’t have to explain why people would be outraged by this.

In any legal proceeding there is always more evidence and argument presented to the court that can be reported in the media. That is why “trial by media” is a poor substitute for justice. But even with the few facts that we do have this decision just defies common sense. This is the gang rape of a ten year old girl. It’s hard to imagine mitigating circumstances that would reduce the seriousness of that.

In the wake of public opinion the Queensland Attorney General, Kerry Shine, has announced an appeal against the sentences, and more importantly, a review of all judgments in sexual assault cases in North Queensland over the past two years.

It has been reported that the Judge, Sarah Bradley, delivered her sentence in line with the recommendations of the prosecutor. If that’s correct, the people of Australia are entitled to ask just who was the prosecutor representing…. The Crown, or the defendants? While the offenders aged 16 and under can expect to be treated as children by the law, what’s the explanation for the 26 year old? And since all the offenders as well as the victim are indigenous people, some people are also asking if there is one law for “them” and another for “us”.

These are questions that must be dealt with honestly, because unless justice is uniform then there really is no justice at all.

Power to the People, Right On!

The plan to privatize the electricity industry in New South Wales is still a contentious issue. The proposal has a number of features designed to address the main concerns, such as job guarantees, bonus payments, and price caps. But does it all really add up to a better deal for consumers?

Unions are concerned about the threat to jobs and conditions. This has been addressed with a plan to impose a freeze on both for three years. Consumers are concerned that prices will rise, and this has been addressed with price protection until 2013. But despite the fact that these conditions have been imposed, the concerns haven’t gone away. In fact, the need to put them forward in the first place could be seen as an admission that without those protections jobs would go and prices would rise. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be needed would they?

Many people are strongly opposed to the privatization of public infrastructure on the grounds that the taxpayer should continue to own the asset, enjoying the revenue from it, and guaranteeing a level of customer service that is not purely profit driven. Past experience with privatization hasn’t done anything to alleviate that concern.

The privatization of Telstra has seen the reduction of jobs along with a perceived decline in customer service. Along with that, in spite of all the talk about competition, Telstra still maintains a monopoly on most of the physical telecom network. The Telstra experience is proof for many people that the private enterprise approach simply cannot adequately meet the needs of rural and remote Australia, while at the same time serving the interests of shareholders and pursuing a profit.

There are two fundamental problems here. One is the unique nature of Australia which is suffering from the attempt to thrust an American model of economic management onto a place which is not America. The other is a more universal problem which can be summed up with this question: Is the system being made to serve the people, or are the people being made to serve the system?

The idea that democracy is a form of government where sovereignty resides in the people is gradually being undermined by the corporatisation and securitisation of everything the taxpayer owns. In other words, we are becoming tenants in our own homes. A significant slice of the general public is opposed to this privatization, and the government will be ignoring them if it presses ahead with this plan.

Paying the Privateers...

The chief amigo at Telstra, Sol Trujillo, has spoken. It seems that after a long battle with the previous government in regard to investment in broadband services, Telstra is now prepared to take on the new government. Prior to the election Telstra’s position appeared to support the Labor Party policy for a national broadband network. Now the government has changed, and Telstra has now clarified its support for the plan. Putting it as bluntly as he could, Sol Trujillo said “We are only going to participate in the things that we own and control.”

Now this is a potential problem for the new governments plan to invest almost $5 billion of taxpayers money into broadband infrastructure. Quite understandably, the government wants to have some kind of joint equity arrangement, which is a sensible protection of the taxpayers’ investment. At the same time, Telstra would be happy to take the money, or even spend its own money to build the network, but will only do so if it can own, control and set the fees for the use of the asset.

This demonstrates the very reason that it was a bad idea to sell off Telstra as a going concern in the first place. If the intention was to create competition, the network and the service provision components of the business should have been separated at the beginning. By allowing Telstra to keep its network intact the process preserved the monopoly. Even now other providers depend on the Telstra network to deliver their services. If Telstra is allowed to have sole control of the new broadband network, nothing will change and the monopoly will continue to be preserved.

As privateers (and yes I know that’s another word for pirates) Telstra is perfectly entitled to protect its interests and pursue whatever it determines to be the most profitable course. What matters is whether the new government has the fortitude to stand up to the bullying tactics of Telstra and, if necessary, build the infrastructure with another partner.

Sol Trujillo is right about one thing: if Telstra invests its own money it should be entitled to set its own prices. But that same argument suggests that if the taxpayer is also investing in the project, then the taxpayer is also entitled to have a commensurate level of control.

Part Time Police

The recent report by the New South Wales Auditor General revealed that the completion rate for police investigations fails to meet the standard of other states. It also highlighted the issue of the controversial block rostering system which can see police officers work three or four twelve hour shifts and then have as many as six consecutive days rostered off. This system is unique to New South Wales and critics have made the connection between rosters and a “part time policing” mentality.

There is a number of important concerns about this practice that deserve to be properly addressed. Block rostering is popular among police because it allows them to have extended breaks, which many of them use to moonlight in second jobs. Now, anybody is entitled to do whatever they like in their own time, so it’s perfectly legitimate for police to have second jobs. But while there are controls in place to prevent inappropriate employment, there seems to be no clear policy on fatigue management. If somebody is working two jobs it would be fair to assume that fatigue could be an issue.

But it’s not simply a matter of second jobs. Even if an officer isn’t moonlighting, the length of the shifts themselves could also lead to fatigue problems, given the demanding nature of much police work. Then there’s the situation where an officer is off duty for three or four days, or even more. Does that mean investigations can come to a standstill, and is that really in the best interests of the community?

The Police Association insists that the system works very well at attracting and retaining personnel, and that if it was changed, as many as one third of officers would leave the force. The commissioner says that he supports the right of officers to take second jobs. The difference is that no other employer bends as far over backwards to accommodate its workers moonlighting.

Blaming the Wrong People

The Department of Community Services can’t stay out of the headlines for more than a few days. The latest tragedy to hit the front pages involves the death of a newborn baby in a family already known to DOCS. “Known to DOCS” is a phrase that we have heard repeatedly in recent times, and usually in the most tragic of circumstances. Increasingly attention has been focused on the performance of DOCS as we all wonder what more could have been done to prevent these unthinkable events. But is it possible we are asking the wrong questions?

The Department certainly has shortcomings, and has a history of failure. Efforts have been made to improve training and procedures, and more and more money is spent. But the results have not been good enough. And despite an increased budget, the recent Auditor General’s report revealed that the actual per case funding has halved over five years. It is clear that more needs to be done.

The opposition has been critical of the government for holding inquiry after inquiry and achieving very little. Then, in the same breath, the opposition calls for a Royal Commission, which is really yet another inquiry. The current inquiry is headed by Justice James Wood, famous for his previous Royal Commission work, and it should be reasonable to expect him to identify clear recommendations to improve the Department’s effectiveness.

In all of this however, the headlines have begun to verge on hysteria. Surely it is a mistake, and an easy shot, to simply blame DOCS and expect the government to fix it with more money and another inquiry. Let’s not forget that DOCS did not kill these children. Severely dysfunctional individuals and families did. The real question here is where does this dysfunction come from in the first place? These tragedies are not just a sign that the Department is failing… they are a sign that society is failing to address the underlying issues that cause this extreme level of dysfunction.