First on a local note I want to say that the over priced National Broadband Network that this government has promoted and pushed as a sweetener to get votes in areas outside current broadband access areas, and to get the agreement of independents to actually form a government and to which negotiations have not even finished so the price may not actually be the final one, (surprise surprise, it will probably at least double in the over 10 years it will take to get installed and operating) will in my opinion be used by the government to implement it's policy of both restrictive interference in the content available to Australian users and to also be able to use it to monitor our usage, draconian, communistic and big brother stuff.
I am against it, and it's my opinion that every thinking Australian should be against it too because what is the point of claiming freedom of the press when the content the press may put onto the web can be filtered by the government nanny programme, or use the access at government level to sway public opinion in even less subtle ways than the owners of media already appear to do now.
We voted for a government via a Marxist (no guesses that he will be pro government monitoring of what we are permitted to view) a country bumkin (who claims Broadband will improve the lives of his constituents unlike a policy that gives local rural production preference and market subsidies to improve jobs, income and lifestyle in general ) and a big mouth (who seems to be so full of his own self importance that he does not care who suffers or perishes at the hands of his choices)
If the above sounds like the Wizard of Oz on an acid trip you must be , like me, wondering that if we the citizens of this country are playing the Dorothy character, who is playing the Wizard?
Ok, all that being said, what ever you think about Wikileaks, taken in the context of the above and how badly this government wants to ensure that secrets are kept and that information is also kept from us if the government deems it so and that even the slightest transgression may be monitored and of course once discovered there may be consequences, in fact that they only want you to be able to know what they allow you to know then a site like Wikileaks is a dangerous one and all efforts to stop it must be gone to.
We already know that Gillard dislikes both Wikileaks and it's founder Julian Assange, and no doubt she will be cooperating with the US government that wants him and the site stopped at any cost and is willing it seems to go to any lengths to have that happen and she is prepared to be the puppy to Obama that Howard was to Bush both pleasuring him and placating him and giving him loyal unmitigated support including cancelling the passport of Assange I'd say.
I like Wikileaks, and my point of view based on just how corrupt local councillors, politicians, and even public servants and police seem to be is that i use their own analogy , why would you be frightened of it if you have done nothing wrong or have nothing to hide?
Wikileaks will change politics on a global scale, it will open the process to the constituents and it will show the people just how much they have been forced to give up for the sake of some big noting politicians to look good in another's eyes from some far off land.
Government ministers, diplomats , public servants will have to watch what they say and to whom they say it, and they deserve it to be made public because they are working for us and being paid by us and the things they put into print for us on our behalf belong to us, and should not be hidden from us.
This is really the movies coming to life before our eyes with conspiracy theorists already saying "I told you so"
If the US gets its way and Assange is handed over to them for alleged offences which have not occurred, he has broken no laws relating to publishing anything in the country he has published it from (hence the trumped up "rape " charges)he will become a martyr and Wikileaks will grow stronger.
The US have tried to stop the financial lines to Wikileaks to try to break them and have also tried to make the net unusable to them by having their IP services terminated, none of this was done to Osama Bin Laden
The fact is that Assange will go to the next step and publish a book on his story and raise money that way and people will buy it, I will buy it.
They cannot stop us getting the facts and when they do there will always be someone who will defy them, Thank goodness.
.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Oakshot and Windsor; Blood on their hands.
The following is my opinion, and I make no apologies for it, something must be done and this head in the sand of two wanna be ministers must stop.
I'm sure you all are just as saddened as me that the recent tragedy where an unseen and unstopped boat filled to over capacity with asylum seekers was to crash onto the rocks at it's destination on Christmas Island resulting in a heavy casualty rate and a tragic high proportion of lost lives.
It is believed that the people aboard, even those with life jackets, could not swim at all and feared jumping off the stricken boat hoping somehow they could be saved or that their boat would somehow survive the pounding it was taking from the swell hammering them into the unforgiving rocks.
When Rudd was elected in 2007 one of the things he did to make his government differ from the previous one was to change boarder policy which has led to a dramatically huge increase in boats operated by people smugglers making their way to any Australian territories, loaded with passengers willing to pay for the privilege of being effectively called a refugee until processing accepts or rejects their right to the title and either allows or disallows their status.
It was clear that the Rudd solution was not able to cope with the sheer numbers and saw a steady increase over his term until he was politically castrated by Gillard and her power monkeys who intimidated and pressured her into the top job to try to stem what was perceived to be imminent defeat for Labor at the upcoming election with lies, gagging of ministers and others and hiding the truth of what occurred from the people and refusals to act to try to make the policy which saw boats traversing the waters between Asia and Australia rise rapidly in numbers.
This year since January 1st 132 boats have arrived in our territories and that translates to 6425 asylum seekers and 335 crew that have now been detained, and even those who are most compassionate to the refugee cause must admit this is a significant number and the expense to do health checks, identity checks and criminal history checks as well as determine whether the people are genuine refugees is going to be pretty costly to the tax payer.
Without a majority at the election, it was an underhanded deal with independents and a member of the extreme left of Labor (the Greens) that saw Gillard form government and begin another term of Labor failure on refugee processing and control of our boarders.
Without doubt Oakshot and Windsor both knew what the extreme left of Labor (the greens) policy on immigration, particularly boat people, was and also that two long years of Labor had seen huge rapid increases in the number coming and that detention centres were over capacity, not able to process people without any documents fast enough and left our coast watch under manned and unable to even spot most boats until it was too late, they were already in trouble.
Oakshot and Windsor could have made a difference, they could have with their role as king maker demanded that some real solution be found to make it safe for refugees who would seek asylum in Australia, they had the power, they had the opportunity and they had the right to ask that something be done, of course you can't put Adam Bandt in the same category as the other two because he is just a Muppet saying and doing what his extreme left party boss (Bob Brown) wants him to do and that is get the gay marriage issue on the table and have the people go to a referendum to change the marriage act so that the greens can get a few more votes from gay people.
While Oakshot and Windsor play at being part of the government and bask in their own glory as they believe that they are the two most important men in Canberra, the number of asylum seekers continues to grow and their inaction has resulted in what has been one of the most tragic and shocking events in Australia's immigration history since the repatriation of English children after the war and the stolen generation where Aboriginal children were just taken from their families for living an alternative lifestyle to the new colonials.
Oakshot and Windsor have the blood of the asylum seekers who tragically died on the rocks at Christmas Island on their hands, it is their brand, it is there for all to see, they are responsible for those deaths as much as the people smugglers who took their money and sent them very accurately on their course to that Island, Oakshot and Windsor have negligently ignored an impending tragedy in the making for over two years and have aided and abetted this government in allowing it to happen.
Oakshot and Windsor are in my opinion guilty of the manslaughter of those people as sure as if they had pushed each one's heads under the breakers themselves.
I'm sure you all are just as saddened as me that the recent tragedy where an unseen and unstopped boat filled to over capacity with asylum seekers was to crash onto the rocks at it's destination on Christmas Island resulting in a heavy casualty rate and a tragic high proportion of lost lives.
It is believed that the people aboard, even those with life jackets, could not swim at all and feared jumping off the stricken boat hoping somehow they could be saved or that their boat would somehow survive the pounding it was taking from the swell hammering them into the unforgiving rocks.
When Rudd was elected in 2007 one of the things he did to make his government differ from the previous one was to change boarder policy which has led to a dramatically huge increase in boats operated by people smugglers making their way to any Australian territories, loaded with passengers willing to pay for the privilege of being effectively called a refugee until processing accepts or rejects their right to the title and either allows or disallows their status.
It was clear that the Rudd solution was not able to cope with the sheer numbers and saw a steady increase over his term until he was politically castrated by Gillard and her power monkeys who intimidated and pressured her into the top job to try to stem what was perceived to be imminent defeat for Labor at the upcoming election with lies, gagging of ministers and others and hiding the truth of what occurred from the people and refusals to act to try to make the policy which saw boats traversing the waters between Asia and Australia rise rapidly in numbers.
This year since January 1st 132 boats have arrived in our territories and that translates to 6425 asylum seekers and 335 crew that have now been detained, and even those who are most compassionate to the refugee cause must admit this is a significant number and the expense to do health checks, identity checks and criminal history checks as well as determine whether the people are genuine refugees is going to be pretty costly to the tax payer.
Without a majority at the election, it was an underhanded deal with independents and a member of the extreme left of Labor (the Greens) that saw Gillard form government and begin another term of Labor failure on refugee processing and control of our boarders.
Without doubt Oakshot and Windsor both knew what the extreme left of Labor (the greens) policy on immigration, particularly boat people, was and also that two long years of Labor had seen huge rapid increases in the number coming and that detention centres were over capacity, not able to process people without any documents fast enough and left our coast watch under manned and unable to even spot most boats until it was too late, they were already in trouble.
Oakshot and Windsor could have made a difference, they could have with their role as king maker demanded that some real solution be found to make it safe for refugees who would seek asylum in Australia, they had the power, they had the opportunity and they had the right to ask that something be done, of course you can't put Adam Bandt in the same category as the other two because he is just a Muppet saying and doing what his extreme left party boss (Bob Brown) wants him to do and that is get the gay marriage issue on the table and have the people go to a referendum to change the marriage act so that the greens can get a few more votes from gay people.
While Oakshot and Windsor play at being part of the government and bask in their own glory as they believe that they are the two most important men in Canberra, the number of asylum seekers continues to grow and their inaction has resulted in what has been one of the most tragic and shocking events in Australia's immigration history since the repatriation of English children after the war and the stolen generation where Aboriginal children were just taken from their families for living an alternative lifestyle to the new colonials.
Oakshot and Windsor have the blood of the asylum seekers who tragically died on the rocks at Christmas Island on their hands, it is their brand, it is there for all to see, they are responsible for those deaths as much as the people smugglers who took their money and sent them very accurately on their course to that Island, Oakshot and Windsor have negligently ignored an impending tragedy in the making for over two years and have aided and abetted this government in allowing it to happen.
Oakshot and Windsor are in my opinion guilty of the manslaughter of those people as sure as if they had pushed each one's heads under the breakers themselves.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Pride cometh before fall.
Stories in our locals are pretty tame and some just press releases, but eventually when you put the pieces together you start to work out what the real story is, and in this instance it's not pretty, not at all. This little beauty is one well covered by local bloggers but not really touched by any local media, for some reason.
While not attempting to find her innocent or guilty, by means of trial by media (no matter how small)I don't think it does any harm to highlight to local people just how hard it must be to understand exactly what the requirements are for a power of attorney, because if a self professed barrister cannot understand (for the purposes of this particular defence it seems) then how is any ordinary not too bright person who happens to allow a relative or a dear friend or even a secret lover to name them as Power of Attorney supposed to know for example , when the Power of Attorney starts, when you can be in it or when you can be out of it or even if you can just decide that you don't want it any more?
That is what it says about that document; also.
Interesting stuff, right? Well maybe not, it can't just be that simple can it? If the person who has nominated you as power of attorney is in a state where they are not able to make their own decisions, you just automatically become empowered. No , it really is that simple.
Am I poking fun at the holes some have dug, sure, but I'm making a valid point here also, if the whole Power of Attorney thing was really that hard to understand and the person getting the power to execute decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person could turn it on and off, It just wouldn't work for the best interests of the incapacitated person, and that is simple.
Queensland Public Trustee Peter Carne says it was a "breach of trust" and she (Mrs Black) "knew or willfully (sic) shut her eyes to the fact that she had no entitlement" to his money held in a joint account established just after she sold his $2.25 million property, the court documents state.
But the newlyweds, both Logan councillors, yesterday said the allegations would be "strenuously defended".
The court documents, lodged late on Tuesday, say Mrs Black arranged for more than $900,000 to be transferred to the Public Trustee who took over the role of financial power of attorney from her in July.
"The matter is in the hands of our legal advisers," Cr Sean Black said yesterday.
The court documents say Mrs Black "asserts that she is not in breach of any trust and thereby was and remains entitled to the monies".
"The first defendant has alleged that (the man) informed her that his intention was that she would have complete access to funds to be placed into the joint account," the Public Trustee says in the documents.
They said the man was in ill health and of "impaired capacity", rendering him unable to fully comprehend the nature and effect of the transactions.
According to the documents, Mrs Black was required to "pay equitable compensation to the plaintiff for any loss suffered".
"The first defendant is obliged to restore and make good the loss of trust assets being the irrecoverable or untraceable improper joint account payments," the documents state.
They say she "knew the monies in the joint account were (the man's) property" and was advised in November 2009 she shouldn't make payments from the joint account unless she obtained authority from the then Guardianship and Administration Tribunal.
"(The man) was a person of 66 years, of poor health and suffering from a condition that did not allow him to properly care for his own needs," the documents say.
"A legally qualified attorney acting reasonably and diligently would have preserved the proceeds of the sale for the benefit of (the man)."
While not attempting to find her innocent or guilty, by means of trial by media (no matter how small)I don't think it does any harm to highlight to local people just how hard it must be to understand exactly what the requirements are for a power of attorney, because if a self professed barrister cannot understand (for the purposes of this particular defence it seems) then how is any ordinary not too bright person who happens to allow a relative or a dear friend or even a secret lover to name them as Power of Attorney supposed to know for example , when the Power of Attorney starts, when you can be in it or when you can be out of it or even if you can just decide that you don't want it any more?
•A Power of Attorney is a document which gives someone authority to act on your behalf on matters that you specify.
•The power can be specific to a certain task or broad to cover many financial duties.
•The power can be given to start immediately, or upon mental incapacity.
That is what it says about that document; also.
An enduring Power of Attorney, if created before the Principal loses capacity, will remain valid even after capacity is lost. If you want your Attorney to make decisions for you after you have lost the ability to make decisions for yourself, then you should choose "enduring".
An ordinary Power of Attorney is only valid as long as the Principal is capable of managing his or her own affairs. It becomes invalid when the Principal loses capacity (loses the ability to make important decisions).
Interesting stuff, right? Well maybe not, it can't just be that simple can it? If the person who has nominated you as power of attorney is in a state where they are not able to make their own decisions, you just automatically become empowered. No , it really is that simple.
Am I poking fun at the holes some have dug, sure, but I'm making a valid point here also, if the whole Power of Attorney thing was really that hard to understand and the person getting the power to execute decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person could turn it on and off, It just wouldn't work for the best interests of the incapacitated person, and that is simple.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Which bank runs the Reserve Bank of Australia?
The figures on employment showed only slight growth, the housing sector is still slowing, building applications in the housing sector still down and retailers in crisis talks about lack of sales.
So why did the Reserve raise rates again when all the analysts had predicted no rises until 2011?
The Commonwealth Bank via it's CEO have been saying for a while now that money is too hard to find at low rates, and that the cost of making profit (record profit after record profit I might add) means that they will have to increase consumer rates over and above the cash rate set by the Reserve even if they do raise it because lending cannot be allowed to affect their bottom line.
So at this very much surprising rate rise it's not much of a surprise to see the Commonwealth adding to the official rate rise with an additional rise of their own.
So Ok, we need to ask a couple of questions, firstly with all the indicators suggesting inflation is not rising, and that the economy is not rising out of control, why a rate rise at all? and secondly Why the nation's biggest holder of home loan portfolio has to raise almost the same ?
Taking a look at lending, not just home loans or mortgages, you start to see that there is considerable discounting on commercial rates to attract big, more risky, but more profitable commercial loans, the lending book of many lenders is more specialised but not so with the commonwealth, and if they are to attract big business it has to be at the cost somewhere else, and what better place than where the loan holders cannot fight back, Home loans.
I won't bore you with figures, you can look at the bragging sheets from the bank itself, to see just how much of their lending portfolio as a whole is in mortgages for homes, and just how big their total portfolio is, and also at just how big their profit is for the shareholders who have over the years made capital growth as well as very good dividends on those shares.
The probability is that you the mortgagee will be, after the rise is implemented, propping up the big end of town who can afford it a hell of a lot more than you can.
If I were a betting man, and I'm not I always loose, but if I were I'd put money on it being the case that the Reserve Bank raised rates to cover for the Commonwealth Bank wanting to raise its own, It's my opinion that the commonwealth bank has too much influence on the Reserve and the Government as well.
If anyone has loans with the commonwealth bank right now i feel really sorry for you, I don't think it will be long before the others also put up rates as well but they may hold back just a little because this is the perfect opportunity to take business share in the market by remaining on a lower rate.
So why did the Reserve raise rates again when all the analysts had predicted no rises until 2011?
The Commonwealth Bank via it's CEO have been saying for a while now that money is too hard to find at low rates, and that the cost of making profit (record profit after record profit I might add) means that they will have to increase consumer rates over and above the cash rate set by the Reserve even if they do raise it because lending cannot be allowed to affect their bottom line.
So at this very much surprising rate rise it's not much of a surprise to see the Commonwealth adding to the official rate rise with an additional rise of their own.
So Ok, we need to ask a couple of questions, firstly with all the indicators suggesting inflation is not rising, and that the economy is not rising out of control, why a rate rise at all? and secondly Why the nation's biggest holder of home loan portfolio has to raise almost the same ?
Taking a look at lending, not just home loans or mortgages, you start to see that there is considerable discounting on commercial rates to attract big, more risky, but more profitable commercial loans, the lending book of many lenders is more specialised but not so with the commonwealth, and if they are to attract big business it has to be at the cost somewhere else, and what better place than where the loan holders cannot fight back, Home loans.
I won't bore you with figures, you can look at the bragging sheets from the bank itself, to see just how much of their lending portfolio as a whole is in mortgages for homes, and just how big their total portfolio is, and also at just how big their profit is for the shareholders who have over the years made capital growth as well as very good dividends on those shares.
The probability is that you the mortgagee will be, after the rise is implemented, propping up the big end of town who can afford it a hell of a lot more than you can.
If I were a betting man, and I'm not I always loose, but if I were I'd put money on it being the case that the Reserve Bank raised rates to cover for the Commonwealth Bank wanting to raise its own, It's my opinion that the commonwealth bank has too much influence on the Reserve and the Government as well.
If anyone has loans with the commonwealth bank right now i feel really sorry for you, I don't think it will be long before the others also put up rates as well but they may hold back just a little because this is the perfect opportunity to take business share in the market by remaining on a lower rate.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Why I won't be attending a cinima near me when the "Hobbit" Prequil comes out.
I don't know if you can call it racism, but it is there, in some of them and it's a thorough dislike for anything Australian.
New Zealand benefits greatly from it's proximity to Australia, in so many ways and we as a nation and taxpayers give them so much that it seems that very act of brotherhood has caused some of the population to harbour a resentment that is quite obvious.
One of the things that seems to ire those more parochial NZ'rs is when some of them migrate to Australia and then become successful and the media claims them to be an Aussie star.
The latest issue it seems is the new in production "Hobbit" movie which has had drama right from the start and now that it is a go under new producer Peter Jackson, there have been questions over whether bit part actors are being fairly remunerated for their labour, a controversy that has been just one more as this production begins to get into the filming stage.
Peter Jackson seems through his spokesman, Auckland-based actor Mark Harrison, to have blamed an Australian Actors association for the initial stop work even though it was actually directed from the New Zealand Union, NZ equity which wanted to see minimum standards agreed upon for its members.
Because NZ Equity is closely related to Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) the Australian Actors association the producer Peter Jackson has laid the blame on them. Further he has , via his spokesman Harrison, said "I believe the Kiwi way of doing things should be protected and celebrated," and "Turning us into another state of Australia under the sway of a destructive organisation carries the very real risk of destroying the great big heart that beats inside our films." and
"As an industry we are very well equipped with our various guilds to provide excellent terms and conditions to our film workers." and
"If there are problems it's up to us to use our various guilds to resolve them. That's what they're there for." and
"We don't open the door to an Australian trade union who will never put the interest of Kiwis first and invest that union with the powers to destroy everything that we have built."
This is a blatant attack on workers rights by the mega rich Jackson, who must have some real fear about allowing an agreement between the ANZAC Countries actors associations, which might give him less dictatorial control over the little people on the sets and reduce his power over them just so very slightly.
I'd say if you are an Aussie actor, you probably won't get a gig on this film, and you probably won't want a bit part anyway because by the sounds of it you will be paid peanuts, and NZ peanuts at that.
And, remember one of our peanuts is worth about 1.3 NZ peanuts around now, . . . and I think the same goes for idiots.
If it's not good enough for Actors to be treated fairly across the Tasman, then I for one won't bother wasting my hard earned, to line the pockets of someone like Jackson who has more money than I could spend in my life already, i won't be adding to his racist, hating greed.
.
.
New Zealand benefits greatly from it's proximity to Australia, in so many ways and we as a nation and taxpayers give them so much that it seems that very act of brotherhood has caused some of the population to harbour a resentment that is quite obvious.
One of the things that seems to ire those more parochial NZ'rs is when some of them migrate to Australia and then become successful and the media claims them to be an Aussie star.
The latest issue it seems is the new in production "Hobbit" movie which has had drama right from the start and now that it is a go under new producer Peter Jackson, there have been questions over whether bit part actors are being fairly remunerated for their labour, a controversy that has been just one more as this production begins to get into the filming stage.
Peter Jackson seems through his spokesman, Auckland-based actor Mark Harrison, to have blamed an Australian Actors association for the initial stop work even though it was actually directed from the New Zealand Union, NZ equity which wanted to see minimum standards agreed upon for its members.
Because NZ Equity is closely related to Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) the Australian Actors association the producer Peter Jackson has laid the blame on them. Further he has , via his spokesman Harrison, said "I believe the Kiwi way of doing things should be protected and celebrated," and "Turning us into another state of Australia under the sway of a destructive organisation carries the very real risk of destroying the great big heart that beats inside our films." and
"As an industry we are very well equipped with our various guilds to provide excellent terms and conditions to our film workers." and
"If there are problems it's up to us to use our various guilds to resolve them. That's what they're there for." and
"We don't open the door to an Australian trade union who will never put the interest of Kiwis first and invest that union with the powers to destroy everything that we have built."
This is a blatant attack on workers rights by the mega rich Jackson, who must have some real fear about allowing an agreement between the ANZAC Countries actors associations, which might give him less dictatorial control over the little people on the sets and reduce his power over them just so very slightly.
I'd say if you are an Aussie actor, you probably won't get a gig on this film, and you probably won't want a bit part anyway because by the sounds of it you will be paid peanuts, and NZ peanuts at that.
And, remember one of our peanuts is worth about 1.3 NZ peanuts around now, . . . and I think the same goes for idiots.
If it's not good enough for Actors to be treated fairly across the Tasman, then I for one won't bother wasting my hard earned, to line the pockets of someone like Jackson who has more money than I could spend in my life already, i won't be adding to his racist, hating greed.
.
.
Is Bob Brown the saddest man in politics?
Bob Brown has led The Greens from the comfortable and risk free seat in the senate never having to put his neck on the block and never having to put up or shut up with the big boys in the Lower House, and one would assume that his days as leader are very much numbered now that a Green member is holding a seat on the Labor government side of that house.
Bob brown has tried over the years to have his pet bill, the equality of marriage bill, put to the house many times, and with a personal agenda some say, and it has failed to even get much more than a mention and cursory dismissal.
Bob has never got over ex Liberal PM John Howard's rejection of even the validity of proposing the bill and has held him personally responsible for the fact that gays cannot get married in the same way that mixed sex (we are not allowed to call them normal) couples do, with Mr Howard sticking to the more traditional and common religious definition of marriage as a "union between a man and a woman"
It seems that Howard has the belief that even if there was legislation allowing same sex marriages, he couldn't guarantee that any religious could be forced to actually go against it's dogma and perform ceremonies against its religious beliefs.
Still we see at every opportunity Bob brown continue to blame Howard and the Liberals for everything he can put his hands to in any and every speech, including the latest where the Gillard government of which his party is a minor coalition partner now, has publicly announced that Australian Armed Forces will remain in Afghanistan for around 10 more years, and Bob Brown has given the majority of the blame to John Howard and his close relationship with the US and it's allies.
I think Bob should have bowed out gracefully, he's had a career based on one achievement, an environmental coup against giant logging companies and the Tasmanian government, a real David and Goliath feat, but remember he was not alone in that fight, but he was the one who got the majority of the kudos and the recognition.
Bob seems to have turned the Greens, from its humble beginnings as an environmental watchdog party, concerned with bettering our life and the planet in a harmonious way to a party that has the most Leftist policies since Cuba became communist and more than likely to the dismay of followers and supporters who were there for the value of the environmental policy alone.
Bob Brown to me seems to be filled with loathing for Howard, and seems to be a very sad man, probably the saddest man in politics.
.
Bob brown has tried over the years to have his pet bill, the equality of marriage bill, put to the house many times, and with a personal agenda some say, and it has failed to even get much more than a mention and cursory dismissal.
Bob has never got over ex Liberal PM John Howard's rejection of even the validity of proposing the bill and has held him personally responsible for the fact that gays cannot get married in the same way that mixed sex (we are not allowed to call them normal) couples do, with Mr Howard sticking to the more traditional and common religious definition of marriage as a "union between a man and a woman"
It seems that Howard has the belief that even if there was legislation allowing same sex marriages, he couldn't guarantee that any religious could be forced to actually go against it's dogma and perform ceremonies against its religious beliefs.
Still we see at every opportunity Bob brown continue to blame Howard and the Liberals for everything he can put his hands to in any and every speech, including the latest where the Gillard government of which his party is a minor coalition partner now, has publicly announced that Australian Armed Forces will remain in Afghanistan for around 10 more years, and Bob Brown has given the majority of the blame to John Howard and his close relationship with the US and it's allies.
I think Bob should have bowed out gracefully, he's had a career based on one achievement, an environmental coup against giant logging companies and the Tasmanian government, a real David and Goliath feat, but remember he was not alone in that fight, but he was the one who got the majority of the kudos and the recognition.
Bob seems to have turned the Greens, from its humble beginnings as an environmental watchdog party, concerned with bettering our life and the planet in a harmonious way to a party that has the most Leftist policies since Cuba became communist and more than likely to the dismay of followers and supporters who were there for the value of the environmental policy alone.
Bob Brown to me seems to be filled with loathing for Howard, and seems to be a very sad man, probably the saddest man in politics.
.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
QR Float, . . .disaster for mum & dad investors?
I am totally against the sale of Queensland's assets, the Port and the Freight Rail Business hitting the market already and already there are concerns about how people will take up the share offer in QR and how institutional investors will take their allocation and even that there will be a huge amount of unallocated shares that will have to be held by the government.
The Queensland Treasurer who has so far failed at all counts , losing Queensland's AAA credit rating, costing Queensland ratepayers billions in Amalgamated council costs and seeing the price of basic services like water more than double in some places is now on the back foot as usual defending the way the QR float is pushed mostly at mum and dad investors.
If as I predict nearly half the shares remain unallocated and the Qld Government has to hold them there is no doubt we will see a future "telstra 2" type offer so that investors who have lost money on the first share buy can lose again on a second buy.
One of the big worries is that the Qld Government under the Treasurer rejected an offer for a good part of QR that related to mining and offered a pretty good price for it. However the treasurer wants more and more cash and a full scale share offer was deemed the way to get it.
What worries me firstly is the share price, it will be close to $2.80 a share and that for what will be a public company with no forecasts of profit, no back up figures and no real value of asset base or projected costings, secondly the return dividends are down around the 5% mark or less and thirdly the ownership will be dominated by the government holding still even with a high amount of corporate allocation due to the skepticism of ordinary investors taking up the offer.
Personally, it is my opinion that the float is designed the way it is on purpose, to sucker in mum and dad investors, who will sell as the price drops significantly and allow corporate investors to buy back at low prices and therefore hedge some of their loss as the price comes back after a dumping, when the price comes back the Government which will still own up to 40/50% will have a second sell off and set in motion a second wave of the same scenario.
Corporate investors will be the winners the price will stabilize around the $1.30 and we'll probably then find out that the major holder are none other than the miners with the original rejected offer who have now bought up at a lower price and got a bargain.
Of course this is all conjecture and hypothesis, but as we wait and see, I'm not rushing out to bolster my portfolio with QR stock.
The Queensland Treasurer who has so far failed at all counts , losing Queensland's AAA credit rating, costing Queensland ratepayers billions in Amalgamated council costs and seeing the price of basic services like water more than double in some places is now on the back foot as usual defending the way the QR float is pushed mostly at mum and dad investors.
If as I predict nearly half the shares remain unallocated and the Qld Government has to hold them there is no doubt we will see a future "telstra 2" type offer so that investors who have lost money on the first share buy can lose again on a second buy.
One of the big worries is that the Qld Government under the Treasurer rejected an offer for a good part of QR that related to mining and offered a pretty good price for it. However the treasurer wants more and more cash and a full scale share offer was deemed the way to get it.
What worries me firstly is the share price, it will be close to $2.80 a share and that for what will be a public company with no forecasts of profit, no back up figures and no real value of asset base or projected costings, secondly the return dividends are down around the 5% mark or less and thirdly the ownership will be dominated by the government holding still even with a high amount of corporate allocation due to the skepticism of ordinary investors taking up the offer.
Personally, it is my opinion that the float is designed the way it is on purpose, to sucker in mum and dad investors, who will sell as the price drops significantly and allow corporate investors to buy back at low prices and therefore hedge some of their loss as the price comes back after a dumping, when the price comes back the Government which will still own up to 40/50% will have a second sell off and set in motion a second wave of the same scenario.
Corporate investors will be the winners the price will stabilize around the $1.30 and we'll probably then find out that the major holder are none other than the miners with the original rejected offer who have now bought up at a lower price and got a bargain.
Of course this is all conjecture and hypothesis, but as we wait and see, I'm not rushing out to bolster my portfolio with QR stock.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
When will the LNP in Queensland clean up its own mess.
A recent report on TV news raised questions about a couple of things primarily in connection to one particular political aspirant and past candidate who had to be disendorced in what was one of Australia's easiest and safest seats in the last federal election.
The disendorsment came after it was revealed that on her application to be scrutinised for preselection she had omitted to inform the LNP that she had a case to answer to the Queensland Civil and Administrative tribunal relating to an alleged misuse of an adults money/property over which she had power of attorney.
It seems that this candidate, who says she is a barrister, has a problem understanding the legal requirements of a simple power of attorney and the out come was that as such, she was removed as Power of Attorney and may have to pay back money used for her personal expenses.
In the a TV Interview, John Mickel, speaker of the house in the Queensland State Parliament said that her statements were so alarming that he wonders if there is criminality there and that he will refer the matter to the CMC.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx
Scroll down their menu until you find, News:Councillors accused of financial deception.
In a twist, it seems the candidate who has called for the dumping of State Government calling it irrelevant, has since made a statement published in the Sunday Mail in Queensland, that she intends to seek preselection to run for the LNP against Mr Mickel, and in my opinion that is simply a ruse to try to make a claim that his calling for further investigations are politically motivated.
My Question is to the LNP though, why haven't you, as described by her, "faceless men" cleaned up your act, sorted your membership, and got rid of the caustic, infected, tainted and the dead wood and made your party look as if it is the zero tolerance party on corruption, crime, and dishonesty that the people of Queensland want to elect, and by allowing this woman to remain as a Party member and potential candidate it's the appearance of the party in general that looks to be tarnished.
She called you the faceless men, but the reality is you are the gutless men.
The disendorsment came after it was revealed that on her application to be scrutinised for preselection she had omitted to inform the LNP that she had a case to answer to the Queensland Civil and Administrative tribunal relating to an alleged misuse of an adults money/property over which she had power of attorney.
It seems that this candidate, who says she is a barrister, has a problem understanding the legal requirements of a simple power of attorney and the out come was that as such, she was removed as Power of Attorney and may have to pay back money used for her personal expenses.
In the a TV Interview, John Mickel, speaker of the house in the Queensland State Parliament said that her statements were so alarming that he wonders if there is criminality there and that he will refer the matter to the CMC.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx
Scroll down their menu until you find, News:Councillors accused of financial deception.
In a twist, it seems the candidate who has called for the dumping of State Government calling it irrelevant, has since made a statement published in the Sunday Mail in Queensland, that she intends to seek preselection to run for the LNP against Mr Mickel, and in my opinion that is simply a ruse to try to make a claim that his calling for further investigations are politically motivated.
My Question is to the LNP though, why haven't you, as described by her, "faceless men" cleaned up your act, sorted your membership, and got rid of the caustic, infected, tainted and the dead wood and made your party look as if it is the zero tolerance party on corruption, crime, and dishonesty that the people of Queensland want to elect, and by allowing this woman to remain as a Party member and potential candidate it's the appearance of the party in general that looks to be tarnished.
She called you the faceless men, but the reality is you are the gutless men.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Logan, the bloated beurocracy.
When a few people, none of the councillors I might add, stood up against the amalgamations of councils in the old Beaudesert Shire, it was because of several things that were touted by the State Government and what was also coming from Councils, Beaudesert and Logan.
Logan still continue to propagate the story that they didn't want to amalgamate and that their proposal (submission to the State) to have a huge area (the MLNBSA) of Beaudesert Shire added to their shire was only in response to Beaudesert asking for the part of it's shire annexed in the forming of Logan, and Beaudesert claimed they made their submission based on the fact that Logan had previously asked for their boundary to be moved south at least twice before, (both times being defeated at referendum). Personally I believe the latter and the fact that Logan has changed it's story several times on the issue props my belief up.
Those against the Amalgamation always said that if we had to be forced to amalgamate to Logan it would not go well for us, that development of satellite cities would be fast tracked, that planning would rob us of important budget money, that Logan would increase it's staff unseasonably, that the costs of council would rise causing increases in rates and charges, that the few services we get would be reduced severely and that Logan would attempt to rule us as they rule Woodridge and create laws and regulations making rural lifestyle impossible.
So far, all of the above have been proven and without exception we have well and truly been shafted by Logan and we are almost without representation as two of the three councillors who look after our area are preoccupied with their power games, federal aspirations, facing questions from the authorities, bullying, personal life issues and causing disunity and disharmony within council.
There is little doubt that we have seen services reduced, and that our rates have gone up for the displeasure, Logan has been to us, the typical wooden nickle, absolutely of no use at all except for the in crowd to get funding and kudos that they would have got from which ever council we were under.
As Logan continues to ebb away our rights to continue to live a rural lifestyle, with laws and regulations pouring forth from that orifice that sits in Wembely Road, Woodridge, we continue to pay.
Worse we are in no mans land with investigations areas, urban footprint and MDA's making our ability to sell and profit dubious at best.
Logan still continue to propagate the story that they didn't want to amalgamate and that their proposal (submission to the State) to have a huge area (the MLNBSA) of Beaudesert Shire added to their shire was only in response to Beaudesert asking for the part of it's shire annexed in the forming of Logan, and Beaudesert claimed they made their submission based on the fact that Logan had previously asked for their boundary to be moved south at least twice before, (both times being defeated at referendum). Personally I believe the latter and the fact that Logan has changed it's story several times on the issue props my belief up.
Those against the Amalgamation always said that if we had to be forced to amalgamate to Logan it would not go well for us, that development of satellite cities would be fast tracked, that planning would rob us of important budget money, that Logan would increase it's staff unseasonably, that the costs of council would rise causing increases in rates and charges, that the few services we get would be reduced severely and that Logan would attempt to rule us as they rule Woodridge and create laws and regulations making rural lifestyle impossible.
So far, all of the above have been proven and without exception we have well and truly been shafted by Logan and we are almost without representation as two of the three councillors who look after our area are preoccupied with their power games, federal aspirations, facing questions from the authorities, bullying, personal life issues and causing disunity and disharmony within council.
There is little doubt that we have seen services reduced, and that our rates have gone up for the displeasure, Logan has been to us, the typical wooden nickle, absolutely of no use at all except for the in crowd to get funding and kudos that they would have got from which ever council we were under.
As Logan continues to ebb away our rights to continue to live a rural lifestyle, with laws and regulations pouring forth from that orifice that sits in Wembely Road, Woodridge, we continue to pay.
Worse we are in no mans land with investigations areas, urban footprint and MDA's making our ability to sell and profit dubious at best.
Local council mergers fail to halt bloat and waste
by Kelmeny Fraser From: The Sunday Mail (Qld) October 03, 2010
LOCAL government bureaucracy has ballooned more than two years after controversial mergers to make councils leaner and less costly.
Staff levels for Queensland councils grew twice as fast this year compared with 2007 – the year before the State Government's forced amalgamations transformed the local government landscape, slashing the number of councils from 157 to 73.
A new workforce census released to The Sunday Mail by the Local Government Association of Queensland shows the number of local government workers grew by 6 per cent in 2010, compared with 2.75 per cent in 2007 and less than 2 per cent in 2006.
Staff numbers in 2008 and 2009 rose by about 3.9 per cent a year. But by March this year, that had soared to 6 per cent, compared with the same time last year, with an extra 2392 employees joining the state's 57 non-indigenous councils.
The rise in staff is estimated to have added more than $119 million to council wage costs.
It comes despite State Government promises to make local government more efficient through the mergers, with then local government minister Andrew Fraser predicting it could save ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Merger critics, such as former Aramac Shire Mayor Gary Peoples, have seized on the figures.
"A lot of what was said by councils and mayors has probably come to fruition, in that there is not going to be increased efficiencies, but there is probably going to be a loss in services," he said.
At Logan City another 454 people have started work since 2008, taking the total number of workers to 1371, even after losing 218 staff to the area's new water business Allconnex.
Staff levels at several councils, such as Cairns and Maranoa Regional Councils, stagnated. Townsville City Council shed more than 2000 staff.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Burning off, . . might be burning money.
A friend was doing a bit of work at home on the weekend and that meant cutting down a heap of unsightly dead palm fronds from the palms that everyone told him he'd regret putting in when he moved in over 10 years ago, and the normal spring tidy up including some heavy pruning.
He'd piled up the stuff he'd cut and later on Sunday put a match to it to get rid of it like we all have done at some time or another and it an hour or two there was little to show except a pile of very hot ash and coals when he had an unannounced visitor.
It wasn't a brown snake, it was actually the local fire warden who had seen the smoke and had come over to let him know that things relating to fires have changed, and there could be serious consequences , a $500 fine for burning off without a permit.
My friend had thought that with the continual local rain, still conditions and plentiful water supply at hand that a quick burn would be the simple way to dispose of his garden waste, what he didn't know is that things have changed.
Of course my friend thought he was allowed to burn a fire that was around the two meters by two meters without a permit, as did everyone else I have asked but apparently things have changed and it seems although it has been advertised in the local papers and other media, we have not got the message.
Apparently, it is ok to burn the two by two without a permit, but only when there is no declaration of a "Fire danger period" and it seems that's been declared already so it means we need to get a permit for every fire we light.
The Commissioner of the Qld Fire and Rescue Service has declared the period from midnight on August 29th until midnight on thew 2nd January as a Fire Danger Period.
Ok, so it's not all bad news, a little inconvenience maybe but a permit is free, it's for your own and everyone else's safety, and it lets the rural fire service and the local fire services know that there is a fire taking place so that firstly the do not need to respond for a cal about it if someone sees your smoke and they know exactly where it is if things do go wrong ( yeah we know that never happens , right?)
To get a permit is a simple matter, contact your local fire warden.
Don't know who it is? simple get on the net and go to www.ruralfire.qld.gov.au
An application can also be downloaded from the website.
Things you need to know to get a permit, a) your real property description e.g lot no. and RL no. (e.g. lot 10 RP 234567) the information should be on your rates notice. b) you need to drop your neighbours a note to let them know about it too.
probably be a good idea to get to know your fire warden, they are volunteers who can risk their lives if fires do get out of control, and they're there to help.
.
He'd piled up the stuff he'd cut and later on Sunday put a match to it to get rid of it like we all have done at some time or another and it an hour or two there was little to show except a pile of very hot ash and coals when he had an unannounced visitor.
It wasn't a brown snake, it was actually the local fire warden who had seen the smoke and had come over to let him know that things relating to fires have changed, and there could be serious consequences , a $500 fine for burning off without a permit.
My friend had thought that with the continual local rain, still conditions and plentiful water supply at hand that a quick burn would be the simple way to dispose of his garden waste, what he didn't know is that things have changed.
Of course my friend thought he was allowed to burn a fire that was around the two meters by two meters without a permit, as did everyone else I have asked but apparently things have changed and it seems although it has been advertised in the local papers and other media, we have not got the message.
Apparently, it is ok to burn the two by two without a permit, but only when there is no declaration of a "Fire danger period" and it seems that's been declared already so it means we need to get a permit for every fire we light.
The Commissioner of the Qld Fire and Rescue Service has declared the period from midnight on August 29th until midnight on thew 2nd January as a Fire Danger Period.
Ok, so it's not all bad news, a little inconvenience maybe but a permit is free, it's for your own and everyone else's safety, and it lets the rural fire service and the local fire services know that there is a fire taking place so that firstly the do not need to respond for a cal about it if someone sees your smoke and they know exactly where it is if things do go wrong ( yeah we know that never happens , right?)
To get a permit is a simple matter, contact your local fire warden.
Don't know who it is? simple get on the net and go to www.ruralfire.qld.gov.au
An application can also be downloaded from the website.
Things you need to know to get a permit, a) your real property description e.g lot no. and RL no. (e.g. lot 10 RP 234567) the information should be on your rates notice. b) you need to drop your neighbours a note to let them know about it too.
probably be a good idea to get to know your fire warden, they are volunteers who can risk their lives if fires do get out of control, and they're there to help.
.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sell, sell, sell, . . . Queensland up for auction.
While many of us are hearing about the QR float, which exists because no one except a consortium of Miners want to negotiate with the Queensland Government or even offer a price, the sell off of Queensland's asset base or collateral continues and is for sale to the highest bidder.
The genius Queensland Treasurer who has lost our triple A credit rating already with mounting debt and inability to do anything more than service it, has come up with the plan to sucker mums and dads into forking out hard earned cash for a share buy up that will quite probably be worth half of the buying price soon after it is listed.
The predictions are so terminal that it seems subscriptions have not filled and worse there is money being paid hand over fist for very expensive prime time television advertising and the genius (not) treasurer wont reveal how badly subscribed it is to the public fearing existing subscribers will also pull out.
So, can it get worse? to quote the latest US President, "Yes it can"
It also seems the Port of Brisbane is up for auction with offers, once again secret, by at least one potential bargain hunter (I'm guessing Patrick) looking to get a cheap deal.
The Port of Brisbane is still going through changes to streamline the through put of freight, but it is continuous in use and has room for expansion.
On the issue of the sale, apart from using a press release to bag the opposition for not supporting the asset sales ( which is exactly what the people of Queensland also want) Premier Bligh is quoted as saying "Our priority is getting a good outcome for taxpayers."
A good outcome for taxpayers would be to have kept our AAA credit rating which would have reduced the price of borrowings and the repayments on them quite considerably.
A good outcome for taxpayers would be to cancel all asset sales and consider holding an election to remove the cause of the problem at the root.
A good outcome for taxpayers would be to honestly inform them about our financial situation instead of hiding how poorly the government is performing
A good outcome for taxpayers would be to halt population growth in Queensland until infrastructure has caught up at least and until quality of lifestyle can be assured before continuing.
I have never been a fan of bigger government, but, the arrogance of the Queensland Government without any body (a lower house) to ensure that both the peoples wishes are adhered to and that there is greater transparency in government in general, is beginning to demand that reform of Queensland's State Government is imperative.
Think about it, is the cost of a lower house, a senate if you will, greater than what we are about to lose in the assets of Queensland? And about just who can protect the assets , effectively owned by the people of Queensland from a financially and morally bankrupt government with no answers and no solutions.
We need to stop the sales, now.
.
The genius Queensland Treasurer who has lost our triple A credit rating already with mounting debt and inability to do anything more than service it, has come up with the plan to sucker mums and dads into forking out hard earned cash for a share buy up that will quite probably be worth half of the buying price soon after it is listed.
The predictions are so terminal that it seems subscriptions have not filled and worse there is money being paid hand over fist for very expensive prime time television advertising and the genius (not) treasurer wont reveal how badly subscribed it is to the public fearing existing subscribers will also pull out.
So, can it get worse? to quote the latest US President, "Yes it can"
It also seems the Port of Brisbane is up for auction with offers, once again secret, by at least one potential bargain hunter (I'm guessing Patrick) looking to get a cheap deal.
The Port of Brisbane is still going through changes to streamline the through put of freight, but it is continuous in use and has room for expansion.
On the issue of the sale, apart from using a press release to bag the opposition for not supporting the asset sales ( which is exactly what the people of Queensland also want) Premier Bligh is quoted as saying "Our priority is getting a good outcome for taxpayers."
A good outcome for taxpayers would be to have kept our AAA credit rating which would have reduced the price of borrowings and the repayments on them quite considerably.
A good outcome for taxpayers would be to cancel all asset sales and consider holding an election to remove the cause of the problem at the root.
A good outcome for taxpayers would be to honestly inform them about our financial situation instead of hiding how poorly the government is performing
A good outcome for taxpayers would be to halt population growth in Queensland until infrastructure has caught up at least and until quality of lifestyle can be assured before continuing.
I have never been a fan of bigger government, but, the arrogance of the Queensland Government without any body (a lower house) to ensure that both the peoples wishes are adhered to and that there is greater transparency in government in general, is beginning to demand that reform of Queensland's State Government is imperative.
Think about it, is the cost of a lower house, a senate if you will, greater than what we are about to lose in the assets of Queensland? And about just who can protect the assets , effectively owned by the people of Queensland from a financially and morally bankrupt government with no answers and no solutions.
We need to stop the sales, now.
.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Not buying into the arguement.
Today's Paper had a local article in it about some kind of feud between a couple of councillors and either the mayor or the rest of the councillors or both.
What was interesting about it was it's claimed to be ongoing over social media like Face book or Twitter and I have to say it's well outside of my comfort zone and I have heard that people can come unstuck for what they write on these kinds of networking sites.
Blogs are bad enough, if I could have a dollar for each time I have been accused of bias, castigated for allowing comments (or commenter's for having an opinion) or even threatened for not removing comments (with legal action) I'd probably have quite a few dollars in the kitty by now, it happens quite regularly on local issues, particularly involving council.
I personally always question the motives of people who go to the media with stories about how they are being persecuted over social media networks and then the same people are on it themselves it seems, making disparaging comments about others, it makes me think their original complaint that they are victims is just made up for publicity.
The Sunday paper article was brief, but told a story and it is a story that many of our commenter's have been telling for quite a few years and that is that some people are just not in council to serve the community of Logan and certainly not the vast majority of the voters or anyone else in the division they were elected in.
The article in my opinion, also brushed over a very unsavoury piece of real life which had an unacceptable conclusion for some parties with a trifling line which did little to reflect the actual misdeed or the consequential eventuations which somehow may have seen real issues not even looked into by the relevant authorities.
The article points to each of the sides drumming up support for candidates to take on the other at the next election, and that is perhaps the best result we could hope for, a real live representative who will actually be available to the community without other agenda's being the reason they are, if at all.
Bring on the next election, we are all ready for change.
BTW if you are intending to run, why don't you lets us know, always happy to spread information to the public no matter how small the audience.
What was interesting about it was it's claimed to be ongoing over social media like Face book or Twitter and I have to say it's well outside of my comfort zone and I have heard that people can come unstuck for what they write on these kinds of networking sites.
Blogs are bad enough, if I could have a dollar for each time I have been accused of bias, castigated for allowing comments (or commenter's for having an opinion) or even threatened for not removing comments (with legal action) I'd probably have quite a few dollars in the kitty by now, it happens quite regularly on local issues, particularly involving council.
I personally always question the motives of people who go to the media with stories about how they are being persecuted over social media networks and then the same people are on it themselves it seems, making disparaging comments about others, it makes me think their original complaint that they are victims is just made up for publicity.
The Sunday paper article was brief, but told a story and it is a story that many of our commenter's have been telling for quite a few years and that is that some people are just not in council to serve the community of Logan and certainly not the vast majority of the voters or anyone else in the division they were elected in.
The article in my opinion, also brushed over a very unsavoury piece of real life which had an unacceptable conclusion for some parties with a trifling line which did little to reflect the actual misdeed or the consequential eventuations which somehow may have seen real issues not even looked into by the relevant authorities.
The article points to each of the sides drumming up support for candidates to take on the other at the next election, and that is perhaps the best result we could hope for, a real live representative who will actually be available to the community without other agenda's being the reason they are, if at all.
Bring on the next election, we are all ready for change.
BTW if you are intending to run, why don't you lets us know, always happy to spread information to the public no matter how small the audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)