The acting Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has officially buried Work Choices. The first piece of the new Government’s industrial relations legislation has now been passed into law, after being proclaimed by the Governor General. There will now be no new Australian Workplace Agreements ever again.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be individual contracts. There will. Employers can still use statutory contracts subject to the newly reinstated “no disadvantage” test. So, why scrap A.W.A.s, which actually operated quite successfully for ten years before Work Choices? Why not simply revise A.W.A.s to restore fairness to the agreements?
The fact is that, under Work Choices, A.W.A.s were given a bad name. They became forever tainted by the fact that they were in some cases abused by unscrupulous employers attempting to exploit workers in a way that left them stripped of pay and conditions.
The outrage inspired by such blatantly one-sided deals as the notorious two cent pay rise left the image of A.W.A.s mortally wounded. So regardless of whatever merit the individual contracts once might have had, they became a symbol of everything that was wrong with work choices.
Of course, the then opposition did everything possible to promote that view, so it follows that A.W.A.s would disappear along with the rest of Work Choices.
The promise that has been made by the new Government is that none of us will be worse off, and that is supposedly guaranteed by legislation. Of course, the question is will we actually be better off?
With the dramatically changing economic climate you can be certain that the current opposition will blame any adverse outcomes in employment on the new industrial relations regime. Right or wrong, some people will believe it.
But, that’s politics.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Bank Always Wins…
This week, the National Australia Bank nudged up its interest rates another notch, independently of any Reserve Bank action. The increase of 0.09% comes on top of last months increase in official rates and is just the latest slap in the face for homebuyers. The federal treasurer, Wayne Swan, has responded by suggesting that customers who are unhappy with the increase should “vote with their feet” and look for a better deal from another bank. But how practical is that advice?
There is a confusing range of fees imposed by banks on customers exiting their mortgages, and it’s easy to assume that these are designed to actively discourage bank-hopping. First there are discharge fees which are reported to range between $30 and $2475. The average is $315. Then, on top of that there are early exit fees, which can range from $700 up to $1000. Non bank lenders charge much more with an average of $2448 on a variable rate loan.
Then the penalties which apply to fixed rate loans are even worse with some reaching many thousands of dollars. Of course, it has to be said that you would be less likely to exit a fixed rate loan early because your interest rates are, by definition, not going up. Nevertheless, if you do need to bail out, it does get very expensive.
So, what is the point of advising bank customers to “vote with their feet” when such prohibitive fees make the exercise impossible? Under the circumstances there is very little else the treasurer can say or do. The banks are responding to the changed economic circumstances in which they find themselves, and are naturally attempting to preserve their own profitability. At the same time, for the treasurer to acknowledge that is politically suicidal. Instead he has no choice but to publicly chastise the banks in the full realization that his criticism is unlikely to make the slightest difference to the banks.
What might make some difference is taking steps to reign in the excessive fees charged by banks and other institutions. To that end, the treasurer has already initiated a review of such fees by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Whatever the findings of that review might ultimately be, it will all be meaningless unless banks and other lenders are prevented from thwarting genuine competition by using these unfair fees.
There is a confusing range of fees imposed by banks on customers exiting their mortgages, and it’s easy to assume that these are designed to actively discourage bank-hopping. First there are discharge fees which are reported to range between $30 and $2475. The average is $315. Then, on top of that there are early exit fees, which can range from $700 up to $1000. Non bank lenders charge much more with an average of $2448 on a variable rate loan.
Then the penalties which apply to fixed rate loans are even worse with some reaching many thousands of dollars. Of course, it has to be said that you would be less likely to exit a fixed rate loan early because your interest rates are, by definition, not going up. Nevertheless, if you do need to bail out, it does get very expensive.
So, what is the point of advising bank customers to “vote with their feet” when such prohibitive fees make the exercise impossible? Under the circumstances there is very little else the treasurer can say or do. The banks are responding to the changed economic circumstances in which they find themselves, and are naturally attempting to preserve their own profitability. At the same time, for the treasurer to acknowledge that is politically suicidal. Instead he has no choice but to publicly chastise the banks in the full realization that his criticism is unlikely to make the slightest difference to the banks.
What might make some difference is taking steps to reign in the excessive fees charged by banks and other institutions. To that end, the treasurer has already initiated a review of such fees by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Whatever the findings of that review might ultimately be, it will all be meaningless unless banks and other lenders are prevented from thwarting genuine competition by using these unfair fees.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Power To The People
It appears that a majority of the New South Wales public is opposed to the privatization of the electricity industry. But is the public well informed? The campaign mounted by Unions NSW has been very successful at spreading its anti-privatisation message. The unions claim that privatization will lead to job losses, price increases, and a decline in customer service.
Now, these are all legitimate issues which deserve to be addressed. But the question is what evidence is there to suggest that the private sector would be any worse than the government at managing our utilities. The Australian Industry Group and other business bodies have banded together to form a new alliance to promote the positives of privatization, and to counter the unions’ campaign. It is the Alliance’s contention that privatization is not only desirable, but it is the only sustainable way forward.
There’s a number of reasons for this. First, the government is not lying when it says it doesn’t have the money to build new capacity. Of course the reason why it doesn’t have the money is because rather than reinvesting the profits from electricity into maintenance and infrastructure, it has taken out enormous cash dividends to boost consolidated revenue. Secondly, while it is true that private enterprise must build in a profit margin, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the price of power will go up. The government already takes a profit out of the power industry as I just mentioned. The fact is that the price will go up anyway because of the effects of whatever carbon trading scheme is eventually introduced to combat global warming.
Thirdly, it’s debatable as to whether or not the level of customer service delivered under present arrangements is satisfactory. Which brings us to the point.
Despite the fact that there remains genuine widespread distrust of the privatization plan, I have to wonder if it’s at least in part a case of “better the devil you know”. After all, given the track record of the New South Wales government on hospitals, schools, and transport, it’s amazing that we would trust them to run a chook raffle, let alone the electricity industry.
Despite that, there will always be some who believe that electricity, like roads and other essential services to the community, should remain the domain of government, even if it’s not always efficient.
Now, these are all legitimate issues which deserve to be addressed. But the question is what evidence is there to suggest that the private sector would be any worse than the government at managing our utilities. The Australian Industry Group and other business bodies have banded together to form a new alliance to promote the positives of privatization, and to counter the unions’ campaign. It is the Alliance’s contention that privatization is not only desirable, but it is the only sustainable way forward.
There’s a number of reasons for this. First, the government is not lying when it says it doesn’t have the money to build new capacity. Of course the reason why it doesn’t have the money is because rather than reinvesting the profits from electricity into maintenance and infrastructure, it has taken out enormous cash dividends to boost consolidated revenue. Secondly, while it is true that private enterprise must build in a profit margin, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the price of power will go up. The government already takes a profit out of the power industry as I just mentioned. The fact is that the price will go up anyway because of the effects of whatever carbon trading scheme is eventually introduced to combat global warming.
Thirdly, it’s debatable as to whether or not the level of customer service delivered under present arrangements is satisfactory. Which brings us to the point.
Despite the fact that there remains genuine widespread distrust of the privatization plan, I have to wonder if it’s at least in part a case of “better the devil you know”. After all, given the track record of the New South Wales government on hospitals, schools, and transport, it’s amazing that we would trust them to run a chook raffle, let alone the electricity industry.
Despite that, there will always be some who believe that electricity, like roads and other essential services to the community, should remain the domain of government, even if it’s not always efficient.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
My Brother’s Keeper
The New South Wales Police are now inviting members of the public to be their eyes and ears more than ever before. The latest plan is for a dedicated website where any concerned citizen can upload photos or videos which provide evidence of criminal activity. The hope is that with the proliferation of mobile phone cameras in the community, modern technology can be employed to assist the fight against crime in ways never before possible.
On the face of it this might seem like a good idea. But when you stop and think more carefully it has some significant problems. First there’s the question of evidentiary standards. Digital images are easily manipulated and the standards normally applied to photographic evidence in court would mean that a great deal of such material would be simply inadmissible.
Secondly, the experience of video upload websites such as youtube is that hundreds of millions of people upload videos to show the world. Now, the Police website is not directly comparable, but it would be reasonable to expect that if people take advantage of this opportunity to snap off a photo of every driver that cuts them off in traffic, the service could become deluged with videos containing very little of any value.
Thirdly, just how many man hours are going to be dedicated to sifting through all of this material looking for worthwhile evidence? Even now, in a community with surveillance cameras in every nook and cranny, thousands of hours of video are never seen because those cameras cannot all be monitored. Specific footage is reviewed only when events call for it to be examined. Now, in the case of the new Police website, the public themselves presumably act as the first layer of filtering by only uploading pertinent material, but again, isn’t everyone with a grudge and a camera going to be muddying the waters?
Finally, there is the vigilante effect, where some people will, predictably, take it upon themselves to police the behaviour of their neighbours. They will appoint themselves to the task of community policing, probably with limited understanding of the law, and become a nuisance to ordinary people just going about their daily lives. While we have a civic duty to report crime, it would be dangerous to have people running around deliberately looking for it.
And given the popularity of so called reality television, I wonder how long it will be before the whole thing finds its way onto TV in some form?
On the face of it this might seem like a good idea. But when you stop and think more carefully it has some significant problems. First there’s the question of evidentiary standards. Digital images are easily manipulated and the standards normally applied to photographic evidence in court would mean that a great deal of such material would be simply inadmissible.
Secondly, the experience of video upload websites such as youtube is that hundreds of millions of people upload videos to show the world. Now, the Police website is not directly comparable, but it would be reasonable to expect that if people take advantage of this opportunity to snap off a photo of every driver that cuts them off in traffic, the service could become deluged with videos containing very little of any value.
Thirdly, just how many man hours are going to be dedicated to sifting through all of this material looking for worthwhile evidence? Even now, in a community with surveillance cameras in every nook and cranny, thousands of hours of video are never seen because those cameras cannot all be monitored. Specific footage is reviewed only when events call for it to be examined. Now, in the case of the new Police website, the public themselves presumably act as the first layer of filtering by only uploading pertinent material, but again, isn’t everyone with a grudge and a camera going to be muddying the waters?
Finally, there is the vigilante effect, where some people will, predictably, take it upon themselves to police the behaviour of their neighbours. They will appoint themselves to the task of community policing, probably with limited understanding of the law, and become a nuisance to ordinary people just going about their daily lives. While we have a civic duty to report crime, it would be dangerous to have people running around deliberately looking for it.
And given the popularity of so called reality television, I wonder how long it will be before the whole thing finds its way onto TV in some form?
Friday, March 14, 2008
WRONG WAY, GO BACK!
It is startling to learn that foreign bus drivers can come to New South Wales and be allowed to drive coach loads of tourists around, even if they cannot speak a word of English. Yes, foreigners do have to sit a road knowledge test for the RTA, but apparently they can sit that test in whatever language they choose. Consequently, drivers are at the wheel despite the fact that they cannot read road signs.
This has come to lkight as the result of an investigation into a fatal tourist bus crash three years ago. In 2005, Chinese bus driver Hua Chen lost control of his vehicle on a steep hill south of Wollongong. Three Taiwanese tourists on that bus died. This was an accident which would not have happened if the driver had been able to read the sign which warned that the road was too steep for buses.
The Office Of Transport Safety Investigations is reported to be concerned that another tragedy could easily occur. The Office also notes the increase in the use of variable electronic signs, and radio broadcasts inside tunnel systems. These messages cannot be learned, says the report, they must be comprehended.
The solution is simple. The Office has recommended that all drivers should be required to take their tests in English. It should be a matter of common sense, and it should never have been allowed to become a problem in the first place, but presumably, somebody somewhere must have thought that such a requirement might be a form of discrimination.
The sooner this dangerous loophole is closed, the better.
This has come to lkight as the result of an investigation into a fatal tourist bus crash three years ago. In 2005, Chinese bus driver Hua Chen lost control of his vehicle on a steep hill south of Wollongong. Three Taiwanese tourists on that bus died. This was an accident which would not have happened if the driver had been able to read the sign which warned that the road was too steep for buses.
The Office Of Transport Safety Investigations is reported to be concerned that another tragedy could easily occur. The Office also notes the increase in the use of variable electronic signs, and radio broadcasts inside tunnel systems. These messages cannot be learned, says the report, they must be comprehended.
The solution is simple. The Office has recommended that all drivers should be required to take their tests in English. It should be a matter of common sense, and it should never have been allowed to become a problem in the first place, but presumably, somebody somewhere must have thought that such a requirement might be a form of discrimination.
The sooner this dangerous loophole is closed, the better.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
A Tale Of Two Australias
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has made the front page with his observation that he doesn’t want to see two Australias emerge where one sector of the community enjoys the benefits of economic prosperity, while another group falls behind and is left out of the economic sunshine. Obviously, he has become Prime Minister at a pivotal time, when world financial markets are in turmoil, and the United States is confronting a recession at the same time that Asia continues to boom.
But back here in the real world, Kevin Rudd’s two Australias scenario has already come to pass. That’s one of the reasons he was elected last year. Already many Australians fell they have been left behind amidst all the talk of unprecedented prosperity. For those people the question is “if these are the good times, what are the bad times going to be like?”
The great irony here is that in the new government’s mad scramble to fight inflation with budget cuts, it appears that the most vulnerable have been the first to suffer. The scrapping of the medicare rebate for dental work, the confusion over carer and aged pensioner bonuses, and now the news that a modest grant for a miscarriage support service will be scrapped. Is this how Kevin Rudd helps the working families of Australia?
It’s the struggling families, the casual workers, the aged and disability pensioners and the carers who are already contending with increased interest rates, higher grocery prices and higher fuel prices. They are not the ones driving inflation. Meanwhile, the gravy train at the top is still running, despite the collapsing sharemarket, despite the threat of international recession, and despite the repeated calls for restraint.
We already have two Australias, and Kevin Rudd’s supporters elected him because they believed he could change that.
But back here in the real world, Kevin Rudd’s two Australias scenario has already come to pass. That’s one of the reasons he was elected last year. Already many Australians fell they have been left behind amidst all the talk of unprecedented prosperity. For those people the question is “if these are the good times, what are the bad times going to be like?”
The great irony here is that in the new government’s mad scramble to fight inflation with budget cuts, it appears that the most vulnerable have been the first to suffer. The scrapping of the medicare rebate for dental work, the confusion over carer and aged pensioner bonuses, and now the news that a modest grant for a miscarriage support service will be scrapped. Is this how Kevin Rudd helps the working families of Australia?
It’s the struggling families, the casual workers, the aged and disability pensioners and the carers who are already contending with increased interest rates, higher grocery prices and higher fuel prices. They are not the ones driving inflation. Meanwhile, the gravy train at the top is still running, despite the collapsing sharemarket, despite the threat of international recession, and despite the repeated calls for restraint.
We already have two Australias, and Kevin Rudd’s supporters elected him because they believed he could change that.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Highway Robbery And Other Misdemeanours
At the risk of being accused of endless whinging, sometimes it seems as if “they” are always out to get the better of us. Whether it is the banks jacking up interest rates for borrowers by a bigger margin than for depositors, or the oil companies playing silly games with the price of petrol, it’s hard not to think that nobody cares about the plight of everyday people.
Banks are all about making money, and once upon a time they seemed to be interested in helping their customers to make money too. It’s easy enough to understand: happy prosperous customers result in a long and fruitful relationship with a happy and prosperous bank. Not any more. Now, on top of the iniquitous imposition of endless fees and charges to cover what used to be overheads, banks are now adding insult to injury by grudgingly granting interest rate increases to their depositors which are less than the increases imposed on their borrowers. The do it because they know they can, as we are a captive market dependent upon them for an essential service.
Similarly, the oil companies know that they can manipulate the price of petrol as much as they like because we are a captive market dependent upon them for en essential commodity. But that’s not all. It is becoming increasingly apparent that stocks of the more expensive premium fuels are suddenly and mysteriously in short supply on the very same days when we might expect the price cycle to be falling. It’s hard not to be cynical and suspect that this might be an organized effort to punish motorists for have the audacity to criticize the oil companies.
And here’s another example of “economic rationalism” gone mad. I heard one bloke today talking about selling his house and complaining about the real estate agent charging for advertising costs, including payment for a copywriter and a photographer. Hang on a minute, isn’t the agent supposed to be paid a commission on the sale of the house? If he’s charging up front for items which would rightly be considered overheads, just what exactly is he doing to earn his commission?
Really there ought to be a law against it!
Banks are all about making money, and once upon a time they seemed to be interested in helping their customers to make money too. It’s easy enough to understand: happy prosperous customers result in a long and fruitful relationship with a happy and prosperous bank. Not any more. Now, on top of the iniquitous imposition of endless fees and charges to cover what used to be overheads, banks are now adding insult to injury by grudgingly granting interest rate increases to their depositors which are less than the increases imposed on their borrowers. The do it because they know they can, as we are a captive market dependent upon them for an essential service.
Similarly, the oil companies know that they can manipulate the price of petrol as much as they like because we are a captive market dependent upon them for en essential commodity. But that’s not all. It is becoming increasingly apparent that stocks of the more expensive premium fuels are suddenly and mysteriously in short supply on the very same days when we might expect the price cycle to be falling. It’s hard not to be cynical and suspect that this might be an organized effort to punish motorists for have the audacity to criticize the oil companies.
And here’s another example of “economic rationalism” gone mad. I heard one bloke today talking about selling his house and complaining about the real estate agent charging for advertising costs, including payment for a copywriter and a photographer. Hang on a minute, isn’t the agent supposed to be paid a commission on the sale of the house? If he’s charging up front for items which would rightly be considered overheads, just what exactly is he doing to earn his commission?
Really there ought to be a law against it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
