Support Groups Want to be Paid in Advance

What Agamedes sees, is a demand for money for nothing.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

The government has tightened up rules for getting money from Criminal Property Confiscation Grants. Now, you need to match government grants with your own money. That is, if you want a grant of $10,000 you first need to raise $10,000 of your own.

Many years ago, I was the President of the Gifted and Talented Children's Association. I was expecting to discuss ways in which we could help gifted & talented children. The first order of business for the new committee was, how could we get the government to give us money!

We had nothing other than concerned parents as members. We had no record of achievement, no plans for the future. All we wanted was a free handout!

Okay, so my amazement shows that I am -- still -- hopelessly naive. I just don't understand our dependence on government funding. I still believe that if we want something done, we should try to do it ourselves.

And if we prove that we have good ideas and ability to deliver -- then we can ask for government assistance to do even better.

Who are these people who want money? What have they done so far? Why is it "unfair to force community groups to fundraise simply to apply for a grant"?! (Mandy Stringer, executive director of Women's Health Works, reported in "Blow to support groups", The West, 27 Apr 10.)

Would it be "fair" for me to create a "community group" -- for example, me and my neighbours, demanding new street trees for our front lawns -- and to immediately demand government financial support? Perhaps it is... Perhaps I shall...

But I would like to see a community group demonstrate some competence before they get government funding. Unless the government specifically asked for the group to be set up.

Am I being naive? Am I being sensible? Are we far to dependent on government support? Or has the government truly outsourced all of its social responsibilities.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Pig Factory Fire

Agamedes sees tragedy in death of pigs -- but is still reminded of an old joke.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

1100 pigs die in fire sparked by rodents (The West, 27 Apr). That's tragedy, at least for the pigs. But eleven hundred pigs in one fire?!

The fire was in a 60m x 20m shed. By my calculations, that's a fraction over one square metre per pig. Ever seen the size of a pig? No way one pig would fit inside one square metre! Read on...

It's actually 140 sows plus 1000 piglets. Which is about three metres by three metres per pig family, where a "family" is one sow with about seven piglets. Not so bad, until those piglets grow bigger. It seems crowded to me but I'll leave that issue to the RSPCA. I'm sure the conditions are awful -- even before the fire -- if you believe that a pig deserves some sort of "natural" living environment.

So I'm reminded that animals suffer to satisfy our requirements for food. But I depend on groups such as the RSPCA to balance "suffering" against "economics".

Okay, I offered a joke...

The rural affairs journalist wrote his report on the terrible fire in the piggery. "Three thousand and six piglets killed in piggery fire," he wrote.

That's a lot of piglets, thought the editor. She phoned the pig farmer.

"Were there really 3,006 piglets killed in that fire in your piggery?" she asked.

"Yeth," replied the farmer.

The final story read, "Three sows and six piglets killed in piggery fire."

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Good Sense from Gosnells

Agamedes is pleased to see evidence of good sense and fair dealing in the Thornlie tree man saga.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Individual rights have little chance against established power and money. As I pointed out in Forget Negotiation -- go Straight for the Throat, money and power can crush the individual.

Then in today's (27 Apr) West, under Protest tree still standing we read that Gosnells council is under fire for not chopping down that tree, now that no-one is living in it. Bickley Ward Progress and Ratepayers Association secretary David Munut raises the issue.

(It's not clear whether Munut wants the tree removed, or is making a cynical point on the so-called unsafe tree.)

"A City of Gosnells spokesman said the council was waiting on the outcome of the court case." This could just be a sensible precaution, recommended by a lawyer. I like to see it as a positive decision by the council -- to wait and see, to allow due process... to give Richard Pennicuik a chance to have his fair say in the court. Gosnells has dropped the no-compromise line and has chosen, sort of, discussion.

Well done, City of Gosnells!

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Troy Buswell for Treasurer !

There are calls to sack the state treasurer. Agamedes points out that -- bad as he is -- there may be no-one better.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Okay, so current state treasurer Troy Buswell has had an affair with greens politician Adele Carles. The calls to sack the treasurer are mixed with cries that, historically, political sexual affairs were deemed to be of no consequence to the public. Deemed, I must point out, by journalists -- whose favourite catch-cry is, But the public has a right to know! A right to know... but only when the journalists decide that we have a right to know...

Today, we have two-faced moralising journalists deciding that -- this time -- the public does indeed have a right to know.

What has changed? According to Paul Murray, the "new media" has changed the rules. Non-traditional journalists writing on the cheap for quick-response websites have bypassed the traditional media outlets. News of the Buswell/Carles affair was reported online -- which "changed the rules" -- so news of the affair was deemed to now be ready for publication. "The public now has a right to know," presumably.

In other words: newspapers and tv were scooped by an internet reporter; the old-boys-club of newspaper and tv journalists has lost control of what is publishable news; they make the most of the lost monopoly and follow the lead of internet reporters. If we can't cover up for our political mates, at least we can dig some more dirt.

What are the reported problems?

Sex is not the problem. Cheating on husbands and wives is not the problem. Below-average moral standards is certainly not the problem.

Buswell spent taxpayer money to support his affair. That is a problem. Carles may have voted with the enemy, due to influence from sleeping with the enemy. That is a problem, at least for her own party. The definite problem -- for the taxpaying public -- is, that the treasurer has been ripping off taxpayer money.

Rorts and the treasurer

A treasurer with criminal tendencies is not a good thing. On the other hand...

Buswell is reported to be a "good" treasurer. He has a university degree in economics -- which almost makes Buswell qualified to be treasurer! As I explained earlier, under Why are Government Ministers Incompetent?, the only enforceable qualification to be a government minister is, that you are a politician.

Yet he steals public money.

In the lead-up to the state budget, Buswell was attacked, following leaks that actual spending would exceed budget. The over-spend was in the millions, perhaps billions, of dollars -- which is less than half a percent of the total budget amount! Any business which was that close to budget would be pleased. Government agencies must spend "to" their budget -- neither over nor under; getting within a percent of such a narrow target is to be commended!

The treasurer runs a tight ship. Yet he provides false data in order to gain extra personal perks.

Oh my! this is a toughie! Buswell is a good treasurer. There is not likely to be a better treasurer. His personal standards are questionable, at best. What to do?

Make the punishment fit the crime

Buswell is (we are told) a good treasurer. So let him be treasurer -- in all except name and perks.

• Name any other politician -- Politician X -- as treasurer. Give X the title, the power, the staff, the office, the perks. And give treasurer X an assistant...
  
• Name Buswell as Special Assistant to the Treasurer. With no perks, no staff, no extra salary, no power. The role of S.A. Buswell is to ensure that treasurer X produces a good budget. Nothing unusual here, good managers always delegate actual work to their specialist staff.
  
• Treasurer X has two roles: to present the final budget and to control... sorry, manage... SA Buswell. Hmmm... better make sure that X is male...
  

Buswell is demoted -- but the government still benefits from his claimed expertise with budgets. Politician X gets rewarded for whatever boot-licking he has done in the past, in exchange for the serious responsibility of keeping Buswell in line. The government keeps its treasury expertise but is seen to be stern and strict with dodgy dealers.

Everyone is happy. Except, perhaps, for Buswell, Carles, their families, friends and supporters.

The government -- and greens -- keep the people who may have a modicum of talent. At least until the next election.

If voters are really upset by the news that journalists have been forced to release, then voters can remove Buswell and Carles from parliament. If the voters really care. Now that they know a little bit more of the truth. Now that journalists have been forced to extend their definition of what the public "has a right to know."

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Secession is a Mirage; the Problems are Real

Australian health reform, Western Australia loses out on GST... is secession the answer? No way! says Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Way back in 1933, Western Australia decided to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia. We would have, too -- except that the other states did not allow it. The call to secede is raised again and again -- usually, according to The West (Welcome... to the Republic of Western Australia, 24 Apr 10) -- usually when times are really tough, or when times are really bad.

To put it another way: WA wants to go it alone when (a) things are crook and we reckon we could do better by ourselves, or (b) money's rolling in and we want to keep it all for ourselves. This week's call for secession has been prompted by a bit of both.

The health systems are crook in some other states. The federal health system "reform" will (we expect) take money from WA to prop up health in other states. WA not only survived the global financial crisis, we are still booming, due largely to exports of iron ore. To make matters worse, we collect GST, give it to the federal government -- and get back less than we collected.

Trouble is, we're looking to solve the wrong problem.

Is it the money?

The article in The West looks at the money. Once we factor in all the costs of becoming "an independent nation", we'll probably be very poor. Add in the cost of a republic, we will probably be broke. Apart from the occasional visit, we pay very little for a royal family. A president will cost us in salaries, facilities, staff, elections and more.

Then there's the greed of our demand to spend all of the GST that we earn. The greed that says, those states did not earn this GST so they should not get to spend it... Take that a step further: those people did not earn this GST so they should not gain benefits from it. Take that greed to its logical conclusion: I bought this item, I paid the GST, I want that GST back...

We live in a form of democracy with a social conscience. Most of us accept that we should give some support to people who are not able to support themselves. Does it make a difference that those people live in a different suburb? a different town? a different state? We pay our taxes in the full understanding that the money will be spent -- largely at the government's discretion -- on a whole range of things. And most of those things will be of no direct benefit to the people who paid the taxes.

So what, if -- at the moment -- some of "our" GST is spent outside WA? This time we "lose". Other times -- we "win". That's the way that a caring & sharing society should work.

Is it the power of independence?

Western Australia is a part of a country with a population of 22.3 million. As an independent nation, WA would have a population of 2.1 million. One tenth of the population... Will that -- somehow -- gain us extra prestige? extra power on the world stage? No way! The country of WA would be an insignificant speck with no power whatsoever.

Except, perhaps, as a tempting takeover target for the countries which would otherwise have to pay for our iron ore...

Is it the excitement of self-rule?

Now that's possible... People who enjoy the power of.. power... would like it even more, if it were power within an independent country. Just think: our president could declare war on the rest of Australia!

Which leads to another issue: Would the rest of Australia be happy with whatever the nation of WA decides to do? If not, what could happen? Let's consider some examples:

Northern Ireland is British, the rest of Ireland is Irish. Would WA need to battle the Australian equivalent of the IRA, to maintain its independence? The Basques attack the rest of Spain. Would WA need to form a WA Separatist Movement -- and bomb other Australian cities -- in order to enforce our independence? Tamil Tigers used violence to support their demands for home rule (or whatever they called it). Would WA do the same?

The way I see it, demands for separation lead to violence. Mind you, so do demands for consolidation. Perhaps it's just any demands for change that cause violence...

Then I look at the European Union: a negotiated joining of quite a few countries. It has quite a few benefits and probably quite a few disadvantages. Because it was negotiated, it works. There are disagreements but no wars. There are benefits of scale without a total loss of national identity.

I'm rather proud of the commonwealth of Australia. I like to live in a country which is large, diverse, peaceful and prosperous. Where states work together to support all Australians.

I see more benefits in the commonwealth than we could possibly gain from separation. It would even be nice if we could include New Zealand in the commonwealth... perhaps as part of a "Pacific Union" rather than within a single nation.

Which brings me back to the original issue: We are attempting to solve the wrong problem.

So what is the problem?

The problem is, that the federal government attempts to take power from the states.

The current health "reforms" are an example. Give us your money, says the federal government, and we will give it back to you.

Eh?!

What they mean is, give us your money and we will give it back to you -- if you do exactly as we say.

We have yet to see any actual "reforms". There are suggestions of a different governance structure, management by district rather than by state. (WA is so centralised that we may well end up as a single district anyway...) How will this change benefit the actual provision of health services? We are not told.

There are hints... References to particular funding models which seem to work in some states. Though we are also informed that these funding models do not work very well with smaller numbers of patients, so the districts will need to be large enough to make it work. (One district for all of WA, perhaps?)

Why does this funding model require federal control? No answer... If it's really so good -- why can we (WA) not simply adopt that funding model?

Are there any other benefits to the federal government "reforms" of the health system? None that we have been told.

Give us your money and we will tell you what to do. That's the gist of the "reforms". It's a grab for power by the federal government. Either full power to the federal government is a good idea -- or, that is the real problem.

Now solve the real problem

The real problem with the proposed health "reform" is that it is -- purely and simply -- a grab for power by the federal government. Okay, not everyone sees that as a problem. But... if we want to continue as a commonwealth of states -- then increasing federal power is a real problem.

There are two key steps in solving this problem:

1. The Barnett government has taken the first step: resist the "reforms". Refuse to hand over power. Don't accept a short-term bribe, don't bow to threats, just insist on the right of the state to manage itself.
   
2. Then, effectively manage the state! The health system has issues: deal with them. Don't just say, for example, Get everyone through Emergency in four hours! Actually get in there and look for solutions. Then implement the solutions.
   

Sure, it costs money to implement solutions. Far less money than would be required to set up an independent nation. (And the independent nation would still have all of the problems within its health system.) Here's a plan:

Spend some real money and get our health system working. Look for good health service now leading to money saving later. Encourage prevention rather than cure, for example. Show every other state just how well our system is working. They will want to follow our example. Health systems will improve, Australia-wide. Our prevention strategy will gradually reduce costs.

Okay, that's simplistic! There must be plenty of ways to improve services and/or reduce costs -- if we are willing to listen. Work with the people in the system. Stop shouting orders and making absurd demands. Be willing to solve problems even if you -- the person in power -- did not think of the solution all by yourself!

Stop shouting orders which cannot be followed; start working with people. Forget about secession, it is not a solution to any of our problems.

Secession is a distraction. Solve the right problem. Forget about power-plays and hobby-horses.

Work together to fix our problems.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Hey! Listen to Me! I'm Young!

Agamedes feels old and unwanted. Is it time to move aside and let youth take over?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In The West of 22 April 10, Holly Ransom asks to be included in decision-making (Hey, baby-boomers, we have something to say): "I implore leaders... [to engage] with young people in our nation's decision-making process," she writes.

Tough luck, Ransom: leaders do not engage with anyone. Not with the young, not with the old, not with anyone. Leaders are leaders because (1) they claim to have all the ideas, (2) they support this belief by ignoring alternative views and (3) their ideas have, often enough, worked. And if they're political leaders, (4) they have pretended to listen to people with power.

Remember the "2020 Summit"? Of course you -- Ransom -- do, you were there. I was not. I'm near enough to being a baby-boomer -- but no-one invited me to the 2020 Summit. Who was invited? A selection of the people who shouted loud enough.

No worries, though... Was it worth being there, at the 2020 Summit? Did any new policy come from the summit? Last I heard, one idea came... almost... to reality. If I remember correctly, that one idea had been proposed by... Rudd.

Ransom writes that, following the 2020 Youth and Schools Summits in 2008, "the response (or lack thereof) has proved a huge disappointment."

So d'oh! don't blame the baby-boomers. We -- and here I mean, those baby-boomers who had an axe to grind, or who made loud demands to attend -- we were also ignored.

It's not the old ignoring the young. It's those who have (or who want) power who ignore the rest. The best form of ignoring other people's ideas is called, "public consultation". For a practical example of ignoring public views by instituting a process of "public consultation", see National Education Curriculum: a Done Deal.

Yes, get excited about being ignored. Yes, continue your efforts to be heard. But place the blame -- for being ignored -- in the right place. It's not age. It's not party politics. Ignoring alternate views is all about gaining and keeping power.

For me, my and mine.

Remember: there's no "u" in the power-plays of politics.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Are We There to March or to Remember?

Anzac Day approaches and Agamedes wonders about the meaning of the parade.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

This year, the WA RSL will allow only Veterans or next-of-kin of veterans to march in Anzac Day parades. "It's a day for veterans," says RSL state president Bill Gaynor. Others are not so sure.

In particular, according to The West (22 Apr 10), "Members of the Partners of Veterans Association of WA say their association has been denigrated by the decision." This group marched last year but are not allowed to march in this year's parade.

Here's one view: Partners, Scouts, cadets, various other groups, all show their support and respect for war veterans by joining the veterans in the Anzac Day parade.

Here's another view: Partners, Scouts, cadets, various other groups, all show their support and respect for war veterans by watching the Anzac Day parade and by applauding or saluting the veterans who are marching. While there are still living, marching war veterans, this is my preferred option.

Do you ever go to the opera? Or to a school's graduation assembly? Do you climb up on the stage and sing along with the opera singers or with the graduating students? Probably not... You stay in you seats -- part of the audience -- and show your appreciation with an appropriate mix of silent listening and applause.

Anzac Day respect

Anzac Day is our day for remembering, saluting, respecting and thanking veterans. Let the veterans march in the parade. We will show our respect and support by watching the veterans march past.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Spam-free Reprise: Hee haw! Hee haw!

Agamedes ponders whether or not the law is an ass, and also gets annoyed at spammers. Then notes that there is one law for the rich and less law for the poor.

The following post was originally called, simply, "Hee haw! Hee haw!" Then it started getting comments... Just a dribble... All selling something or other. One common factor was, that the items on sale had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the post. Several of the "comments" had almost identical wording, also nothing to do with the topic of the post.

I tried rejecting the comments but felt that this would simply prove to the spammer that the blog was live. Now I am trying something different: Just one post gets most of the spam hits so I will delete that one post. With luck, an auto-spammer will lose track of my blog... for a while, at least.

To reduce the nuisance of spam, I will delete a post. Rather than lose the warm feeling of having vent my spleen... the rant is posted again, below. If it looks familiar -- blame your own, excellent memory :-) But if you read this re-posting to the end, you will find an extra Footnote, relating the old post to a recent court case.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Loophole logic

"Charges against developer fail" says The West (28 Feb 08). Yet another prosecution case collapses due to "justice" being replaced by "law".

So what went wrong?

Well, you see, David McKenzie was asked about his knowledge of the South-West Regional Planning Committee. He most properly answered no, never heard of it, never tried to influence its outcomes, never asked my mates to sort it out. Well, how could he have heard of the South-West Regional Planning Committee? It doesn't exist!

Of course, if the CCC had asked him, What do you know about the South-West Region Planning Committee -- he would have replied, oh, them, yes, I was discussing them the other day with my paid propagandists, asking if we could fix them up...

Did you spot the subtle difference?

You and I, in any conversation, would be able to understand that Regional and Region are much the same, a slip of the tongue. As reasonable people, we would understand what was meant. After all, the spoken word is fluid and flexible. We can even -- if we try -- understand a New Zealander.

But property developers are a breed apart. They -- and their lawyers -- speak only one language: the legal loophole.

Speed trap

In the same edition of The West is the continuing story of the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte speed gun.

Sixteen years ago, WA Police were allowed -- by publication in the Government Gazette -- to use the LTI 20-20 speed gun. Some time later, they adopted the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte speed gun.

Oops!

The two speed guns may use exactly the same technology -- no-one has questioned that -- but there is that different name. The Ultralyte is a new model. It may work but no-one cares... The name is different so it is not fit for use.

Oh, my apologies... I should not be treating this as a fine example of the stupidity of the law. "It's a very serious issue..." according to Mr Crispe the lawyer.

Say no more.

Loosen the law to tighten it up

The aim of a detailed law is, to allow for loopholes.

If a law says, You shall not drink alcohol and then drive -- it means, you can smoke cannabis, snort cocaine, inject peanut paste (it's been done!) and then drive. By naming one drug as illegal, all other -- not named -- drugs become legal.

The law should say, You will not drive while affected by anything which could make your driving skills less than the level at which you gained your drivers licence.

If a law says, you shall not drive with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.08 -- that means that any other blood alcohol level is now legal. Some people are affected more than others, by a given level of alcohol.

The law should say, You will not drive while affected by anything which could make your driving skills less than the level at which you gained your drivers licence.

What are we trying to stop? Bad driving caused by something that you ate or drank or snorted or injected -- or whatever. Once I try to list it, I am opening the way for a new legal loophole. What about the person who drove while asleep?

The law should say, You will not drive while affected by anything which could make your driving skills less than the level at which you gained your drivers licence. That's what we want from such a law. That's what the law should say.

Laws should cover what we want. A complex and detailed law simply opens the way for legal loopholes.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Footnote, April 2010

Notice the similarity of these naming quibbles, to the recent case of the Thornlie tree man?

Richard Pennicuik came down from his tree and went to court. He has been unemployed for a while, it's unlikely that he can afford a good lawyer. If he does get fined for attempting to protect his tree, I would guess that cumulative fines of tens of thousands of dollars will send him broke. Pennicuik tried several arguments to defend himself against the L-A-W law...

Pennicuik claimed that the court charges did not in fact refer to him. Court papers had written his name incorrectly.

Did Liz Langdon, the learned magistrate, consider the case of David McKenzie and the South-West Regional Planning Committee? Did that noble expert in the law consider that "very serious issue" of correct naming raised by Mr Crispe the lawyer? Did she hell!

The magistrate told Pennicuik to go away and stop wasting the court's time. She suggested that Pennicuik should get legal advice on his absurd submission.

One law for those rich enough to afford a nit-picking lawyer. Another, stop-annoying-me-because-I-am-the law, for real people.

Can you afford to go to court to defend what you believe is right?

Education Comes a Sorry Second... or Third

Agamedes wonders why school bus services support culture and religion -- but not education. Then explains that political correctness does not allow us to force unnecessary changes onto true believers.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

State school students denied free transport (The West, 21 April 10). Collie Senior High School (CSHS) has no classes in physics, chemistry, specialist maths. Collie students who want to study physics, chemistry of specialist maths, are catching the bus to Manea Senior College (MSC) in Bunbury.

The Public Transport Authority (PTA) provides bus transport -- free -- to school students. Free to CSHS students. Free to private school students. But not free to the few Collie students who want to learn physics, chemistry or specialist maths.

According to The West, "Students could bypass the closest school for 'cultural or religious reasons' " -- and still get free transport, to and from school.

"PTA spokesman David Hynes said its brief was to provide transport to the nearest appropriate school." (My emphasis added.) A student may choose a school because it offers an appropriate religious environment -- and that student will get free transport. A student may choose a school because it offers an appropriate cultural environment -- and that student will get free transport. A student may choose a school because it offers an appropriate education -- and stuff you, kiddo, you can pay your own way!

Whose policy is this?

PTA have a "brief". From the Education Department? From some faceless bureaucrat elsewhere in the public service? From some mindless, politically correct politician? PTA have a brief -- from somewhere -- which tells them to ignore education.

When you go to school, you can choose a school by your claimed religious preference. You can choose a school based on your claimed cultural preference. But don't you dare choose a school just because you want access to a more challenging education! Religious prejudice? Fine. Cultural bias? No worries. Advanced educational options? Get lost.

What next? Less money for public libraries because they offer non-religious and non-cultural books? Didn't we once claim to be, "the clever country"?

Meanwhile... back in gay la la land...

In the same edition of The West, Brian Greig pushes his own brand of anti-religious bigotry.

Greig is a strong supporter of same-sex partnerships. He is fighting for same-sex marriages. I have no problem with that: if a same-sex couple want to call themselves a couple then they may as well be subject to the same rights and obligations as any other self-nominated "couple".

What Greig wants to do, is to force his own standards onto groups which see same-sex unions as "a sin".

He asks a series of questions, such as, "Should the Salvation Army be allowed to refuse service to a gay man looking for a job through Employment Plus?" Would they? Is Greig just shooting out random accusations? Let's pick another of Greig's questions:

"Should a religious school have the right to expel a gay student?"

This "religious school" presumably supports and teaches some brand of religion. That religion may consider that "a gay student" is a sinner. I would hope that the religion is past the stage of persecuting that student. But in order to protect their own moral standards followers of that religion must be entitled to separate their own children from the "sinners". They provide a religious environment, they teach their own religion, they teach that homosexuality is a sin. Why should they be forced to accept sinners at their school?

Similarly, a Catholic hospital may refuse to offer abortions. Why should a Catholic doctor go to Hell because a non-Catholic wants an abortion?

This is the real problem:

Students (or their families) may choose a school for religious or cultural reasons. Patients may choose a hospital, unemployed may choose an employment agency, for the same reasons. Schools, hospitals, employment agencies must -- if their religion or culture demands it -- must be allowed to select their students, their patients, their clients. This is not government oppression, it is not bigotry -- it is freedom of choice.

Greig wants to remove freedom of choice from those offering services. At the same time, he demands freedom of choice for his selected minority.

Sorry, mate, but I'm not going to send a Catholic priest to his possible Hell, just so that you can get more "equality" than anyone else.

The answer is more complex -- but obvious

Same-sex couples want to be married? Okay, create pressure to change the law.

Same-sex couples want to be married in a church / mosque / temple / etc where same-sex marriages are considered to be sinful? Too bad. Forget it. Or, convince the religion that same-sex marriages are not a sin. Do not demand that the law must change religious beliefs.

Yes, a religion is subject to the laws of the country. That does not mean that we must force a pointless change on followers of that religion. Marriage -- the legal joining of two people -- no worries. Marriage as the religious blessing of the union of two people -- not if the religion disagrees. If you don't agree with the religion, either change it by agreement from within -- or leave.

Back to the correct answer: If the Salvation Army does, in fact, refuse service to a gay man -- make sure that the government also funds employment agencies who are happy to help. If a Catholic hospital refuses to perform an abortion -- fund non-Catholic hospitals which will. If a school will not accept a gay student -- make sure that there are enough non-judgmental schools to cater for gay students.

And Greig: stop trying to force your anti-religious bigotry onto people who may actually believe that homosexuality is a punishable sin. Put your efforts into ensuring that the punishment is reserved only for the possibly-imaginary afterlife.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Reduce Violence with a Prisoner Exchange

Murders in jail, thugs rule by violence... Agamedes wonders if a prisoner exchange program may be part of the answer.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Today's West includes some background detail on the recent killing -- in Barwon Prison -- of Carl Williams. Under the headline, Alleged killer is enforcer for jail terror gang is the claim that Williams' "alleged" killer, "Inmate X"(see comments below) is a prisoner who controls other prisoners by brutally bashing dissenters.

Jails are, apparently, controlled by the most violent of the prisoners.

Why are violent prisoners allowed to bash other prisoners? Once they are identified as vicious bashers, why are they allowed to continue? Once a prisoner has gained a violent reputation -- and before he (or she) has gained control -- can we move them to another prison?

There is a limited number of prisons which are suited to violent prisoners. A limited number -- in Australia... But what about overseas?

Australia is able to bring Australian criminals from overseas jails, back to an Australian jail. Perhaps we can do an exchange? You know: "We'll take minor drug dealer X, in exchange for our violent thug Y. Plus a handful of money to sweeten the deal." There are obvious benefits:

• The thugs are removed from their comfort zones. At the very least, they will need to re-start their reign of terror from the ground up.
  
• The language barrier may dilute their immediate influence.
  
• Perhaps these thugs are over-stimulated by sugar or caffeine? A change of diet may help. Some Asian prisons have a reputation for simple food with extreme weight-loss potential.
  
• Reports indicate that some Arab prisons have an exemplary record for their control of violent prisoners. Well, anyway, the warders are said to be more vicious than the prisoners.
  

Prisoner Exchange Program: offering a new start to troubled prisoners.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Forget Negotiation -- go Straight for the Throat

Agamedes wonders if "negotiation" is just another word for "threat".

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Education suffers while leaders strut their egos

Teachers may be forced to run tests, says the headline, on page 4 of The West (20 Apr 2010). The article made me snarl, at the sheer stupidity of people who don't listen, who don't negotiate -- people who go straight for the big stick. In this case, the big stick is the WA Industrial Relations Commission

Mind you, my snarl was nothing compared to that of Sharyn O'Neill, the education department director-general. O'Neill's photo shows her squinty-eyed, teeth bared, snarling/sneering across the page. Possibly just a bad stare day...

It was the article itself which started this rant: Teachers are threatening to boycott national testing of students; education department responds with a bigger threat. Neither side want a solution. Both sides are just practising their threat behaviour. Like baboons, defending their territory.

Teachers see that a national test -- and the resulting comparison of school versus school -- will damage education. Fair enough: if poorly performing schools are punished then they will not be able to improve; if they are given money to improve then other schools will be encouraged to perform poorly. Compare this to AFL football:

In the AFL, there is a player "draft" between seasons. The draft is weighted so that poorer-performing teams can select better, new players and improve. When a team is near the bottom of the AFL ladder, they may be accused of deliberately losing games -- by putting weaker, less experienced players on the field -- in order to get a better draft pick for the next season. Lose now, in order to win later...

Any sensible school would adopt that same policy! Teach your students anything except the testable material. Encourage the more capable students to be sick on test day. And watch the money roll in...

But that's not what I want to point out today

There are arguments on both sides of the national testing debate. Arguments for and against. So what's the real problem?

Why are the key players not discussing the problems?!

You know: sitting down together, listing issues. Raising concerns. Adapting the test system to overcome agreed problems. Offering and accepting compromises. Negotiating!

No. The teachers' union threatens a boycott. (Perhaps they did try, first, to negotiate?) The education department threatens back, by seeking an industrial relations commission ruling. (Perhaps they did try, first, to offer a compromise?) From what we read in the paper, neither side -- nor the federal government -- is seeking a compromise.

What that really means: No-one wants what is best for education. Everyone wants their own opinions to be taken as law.

What a bunch of self-serving drongos.

And yes, there's more!

On the same double-page in The West, there are two more stories of unthinking, uncompromising struggles for power.

The WA Local Government Association (WALGA) has paid for an advertisement to attack "the Thornlie tree man". Richard Pennicuik did his best to save a tree which he believed needed saving. Now he's being taken to court and threatened with multi-thousand dollar fines, for daring to challenge local government officials.

One man, versus local government. One man, versus a council which can afford lawyers, contractors, PR spin doctors. One man, versus the apparently deep pockets of WALGA, who are prepared to pay for advertisements attacking that one man. One man who dared to disagree with a council decision.

Will you ever dare to stand up to these people with a penchant for power? Are you rich enough to take a stand for something in which you believe? Are you stupid enough to believe that one person can even survive after upsetting the happy little power-plays of people who really, really want to make the rules?

And yes, the question really is, can you survive?

Do you have the tens of thousands of dollars to pay fines for disagreeing with a council decision? Do you have the spare tens of thousands of dollars to even pay for a lawyer to help you defend yourself in court? The council does. And it's supported by WALGA, which is so rich that it is willing to attack you with paid advertisements in the state's biggest newspaper.

Why did Pennicuik not just climb out of his tree, before the fines were threatened? Why not just roll over and accept that an individual must just roll over and accept the kicks and curses of those in power.

Why does he now go to court with unsupported claims that an unsympathetic judge just throws out of court? What else can he do? The law says, he can be fined. The law says, don't waste the court's time with claims of individual rights. The law says, you must do as the council says. Pennicuik has no support from the law. He can't afford a lawyer. He may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

And, finally...

"The PM knows that without becoming the dominant funder of hospitals the Commonwealth does not have the whip hand on future reforms." (Premiers hold line against Rudd's droning tactics)

"The whip hand"?!

Prime ministers and premiers join the ranks of those who are mad for power. The PM must have "the whip hand"?! Is there no room for discussion? for compromise? for reaching an agreement like civilised adults?!

Negotiation? Forget it. Negotiation is for those with no power.

If you have the power -- go straight for the throat.

For these small-minded people, that's the only way to feel big.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

my3Rs: the Index

Agamedes decides that this blog needs an index.
(Next, Agamedes hopes for a reader.)

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Search for words using the Search my Rants bar beside the posts.

Or, follow my very small set of post labels (start at the foot of this post):

• blog: The historic first post to this blog!
  
• business: Business, businesses, management, making money... etc.
  
• crime+punishment: Law, legal processes, court cases, criminals, cops... etc.
  
• good.or.bad: Right & wrong, good & evil, moral & ethical choices, religion... etc.
  
• health-cares: Doctors, medicine, health systems & services... etc.
  
• here.and.there: Location, location, location... any named place.
  
• live.love.life: Lifestyle, quality of life, environment, bringing up children... etc.
  
• polly-tricks: Politics, politicians, political processes... etc.
  
• private.parts: Privacy, security, secrecy, personal protection... etc.
  
• teech.me: Education... etc.
  
• them+us: Prejudice, them vs us, lots of -isms... etc.
  

Read! Enjoy! Comment on what you find! Thank you!

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Treasurer Waffles Eloquent

Agamedes admires the meaningless and unhelpful drivel which was spouted by our own state treasurer.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Funding blow for Gingin a 'tragedy' (The West, 10 Apr 2010). The state government has decided to scrap funding for the Gravity Discovery Centre (GDC), a public display related to the work of the associated Gravitational Wave Observatory project.

It's okay to spend $200,000,000 on science but not okay to spend $200,000 on letting the public learn from that same science.

The best news, though, is treasurer Troy Buswell's unhelpful comments.

Buswell's background in science comes from sniffing chairs and snapping bra straps. With that background he's also well qualified to be state treasurer. He is, after all, a politician, with public servants to turn his vague thoughts into reality.

So what does this paragon of political power have to say?

"I think they (GDC) need to do some more work in terms of looking at alternative management models and alternate funding models so that they can move forward." In other words:

• Rethink the way you manage the GDC; I don't have any ideas.
  
• Go begging for money somewhere else; I'm not interested in helping.
  
• Move forward, or backward, or nowhere. Close down, if you like. I don't care.
  

A politically correct statement would include, "I advise you to make enquiries of other people who may be willing to support your need for continued funding." Before PC, the treasurer would have simply said, "Go talk to someone who gives a shit."

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Tribal Punishment: Some Sense at Last

Some tribal groups claim the right exact punishment outside Australia's justice system. Agamedes draws the line at "punishment".

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Today's West reports that some young Aboriginal girls may have received "tribal punishment" for their involvement in a car crash near Pt Hedland (Crash girls 'get tribal punishment', 10 Apr 2010). According to an Aboriginal leader "who cannot be named", "media coverage ... had most likely helped prevent a more brutal punishment." Police have also been involved, trying to keep a lid on possible retaliation.

So what's the story?

Five teenage girls (13, 14 years old) drove a stolen car at high speed. The car crashed. One girl was killed in the crash. Tribes-people claimed that the surviving girls needed to be beaten or speared, as punishment.

Isn't it funny: It's always the people carrying the biggest sticks and spears who believe that beating and spearing is an essential part of retaliation and retribution... Anyway...

As with any criminal case involving a stolen car, high speed, a crash and death, the Australian legal system will be involved. Any person who drives a stolen car at high speed, then crashes the car causing death, can expect to be dealt with by the criminal justice system. For some people, apparently, this is not enough.

We are different! they cry. We are black, or muslim, or members of a cult, or peaceful protesters, or whatever... and we demand the right to operate outside Australian law!

Now for the Good News

According to today's report, the "punishment" did take place. Some of the girls -- the surviving girls -- "were hit with a traditional Aboriginal stick". They were hit with a stick, but "none required medical treatment."

I'll take the optimistic view: the hitting was a token. It was not intended to hurt, just to be remembered. So what -- in my optimistic hope -- has really happened?

The girls were taken to a quiet location. Away from the police, journalists, other stickybeaks. The girls were confronted by relatives of the dead girl. They were made to face the reality of sadness caused by an avoidable death in the family. Then they were given a token "punishment" by the grieving relatives... Not enough to hurt, just a physical reminder of the grief that they had (allegedly!) caused.

Is that actually what happened? Did the girls face up to the results of their careless actions? Did the relatives of the dead girl express their grief -- and disappointment -- through a ritualised confrontation followed by token physical punishment? Is the matter, the death, now put safely behind them, so that all involved can get on with their lives? Is it a case of face up to it, forgive it, do not forget it? I hope so.

Tribal punishment is for primitive people. People who understand nothing beyond revenge via physical punishment. You hit me and my entire tribe will enact brutal and physical revenge. And the revenge is as much against our laws as is the original crime.

I'm an optimist. I see potential good in confrontation, understanding, forgiveness. If that is really what happened -- well done!

If the process really works -- it could be integrated with our accepted, universal, Australian system of justice. We have crime, we have punishment. We attempt rehabilitation. Perhaps we should add acceptance of "the error of our ways" to the start of the attempt at rehabilitation.

Forgive, or not. Understand. But do not forget.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Footnote:

I had a phone call from one of my regular readers. He may be my only regular reader:-) Anyway, he has trouble with internet technology so he phoned me, to comment on this article. This reader added two -- important -- points:

• Under current laws, "tribal punishment" is not a part of our legal system. So the report that some of the girls have already been "punished" does not mean that they have already received any legally acceptable punishment for any alleged crime. They are still subject to trial and sentencing by a court.
  
• The "tribal punishment" -- if it occurred at all -- was probably only related to the death of one of the girls, when the (allegedly) stolen car (allegedly) crashed. There have been no reports of tribal punishment being even considered for car theft, speeding, any other (allegedly) criminal activities.
  

In other words, if the tribal punishment did actually occur, it was illegal, irrelevant and incomplete.

Thank you for getting in touch! I hope that I have correctly reported on your comments.

Population Minister avoids Population Issues

Agamedes notes that the new federal "population minister" is ignoring the main issue. And even avoiding the take-no-responsibility issue.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

"Newly minted Population Minister Tony Burke has effectively ruled out setting a population target..." according to The West on 9 April 2010 (Minister dodges population target). So the new minister has no real goal. Okay, fair enough, it's no more than we expect from a politician.

Wouldn't it be really nice if some brave person were to actually say, This is how many people we want to have in Australia? Then we could get to the main issue of, How do we reach or limit or maintain that population level... Without inviting destruction of our standard of living, destruction of the environment, or invasion by people who see that we still have a spare corner in which to turn land into human wasteland.

The main population issue is, How many people do we want? Once we decide that, we can consider how to live comfortably with that population.

The new population minister will not set a population target. Worse... either the minister or the reporter have completely missed the issue.

"... saying it would be impossible to predict the number of Australians by 2050."

Predict?!

Think of a number and double it. How many people do you want? We can do that -- as long as the number is a lot larger that today's population. We do not want to predict -- we want to decide!

Australia is already suffering from over-population. We can buy as many digital TVs as we like, we can watch as many wild-life documentaries as we want, we are still destroying the natural environment. And putting pressure on the man-made environment. That's my opinion.

I believe that we should have less people. I will settle for a stable population. If the majority want more, well, that's fine, we live in a democracy.

But for goodness sake, we need to decide!

Come to some sort of democratic consensus. Decide how many people we want in Australia. And then plan and take action to reach that population, to maintain that population -- and then, to cope with that level of population.

A population minister who has no idea of what population would be ideal? Who does not even know what population will -- if we do nothing at all -- be achieved? What a waste of space.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Money Turns Black into White

Agamedes wonders about social responsibility and sudden changes of skin colour.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

A week or two ago there was a letter in The West about the social responsibilities of Aboriginal people. When the government builds aboriginal housing, it should also build a few spare places, for the itinerant aboriginals. That is because -- according to the letter -- aboriginal people have a social responsibility to all other aboriginals. If one aboriginal needs something, others will provide.

By an interesting twist of logic, this means that the government must provide.

A couple of weeks earlier, an Aboriginal leader put this social responsibility into context. Give me money, he said, and it is all mine. Social responsibility? Me?! Bugger off!

Aboriginal people do deals with mining companies. These deals involve large sums of money being paid to a select few Aboriginal people. (Large sums of money? Millions, apparently. But we are not allowed to know.) The money is held in "Aboriginal corporations" -- tax free havens which do not need to tell anyone what they are doing. So a small number of Aboriginal people get a large amount of money. The money is tax free -- just like a charity -- and there is no need to account for it.

How dare you expect us to use our money to help other people? they scream. You don't expect rich white people to help the poor! they shout. Why should we be picked on? they plead.

Well...

1. Real corporations pay tax. That tax goes -- in part -- to help the poor.
   
2. Individuals who have or who earn money are expected to pay tax -- unless they are hidden behind an "Aboriginal corporation".
   
3. Aboriginal people claim to practice social responsibility: what's mine is yours. (Often translated in practice to, what's yours is mine.)
   

But when Aboriginal people get money, they change. Forget about corporations' tax -- we're black. Forget about individual tax -- we're black. And forget about social responsibility -- we're now white.

Funny, isn't it, how money turns Black into White.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Chinese Whitewash

Agamedes wonders, What was it about Stern Hu that concerned the Australian government?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

From The West of Friday April 9 2010: Hu decides not to appeal to spare wife. In the story we are told that, "Last night's decision by the sacked Rio Tinto iron ore salesman [Stern Hu] not to appeal against his 10-year jail term closes one of the rockiest episodes in Australia-China relations."

First, Stern Hu has been sacked?! So Rio Tinto has written him off. Before the Chinese court found him guilty. So there were no complaints by Rio about the way that Hu did his job -- until he was caught. Then they threw him to the wolves.

Now Hu is in jail. For ten years. And this closes the matter for the Australian government!? Is Hu suddenly not an Australian citizen? Does our government suddenly believe that Hu's trial has changed from closed, predetermined, against all principles of justice, to... fine, if that's what the Chinese want to do...

If the trial was somehow "not right" while it was happening, how can it be anything other than "not right" now that it is over? What has changed? Not the trial, as far as we are told...

No. What has changed, is that the Chinese government has given Australian politicians free meals, free publicity and strong support for Australian-Chinese trade. In other words, the Australian government has been bought off.

And, by the looks of it, Hu's employer, Rio Tinto, is also quite happy to forget about possible failings of justice. Possibly because Rio, also, can be bought off with promises of better trade deals in the future.

Australian government supporting Australian citizens in China? rofl. Big business supporting its employees in China? lmao. Putting the individual before profits? No way.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Data Collection and Loss of Privacy

Agamedes wonders why nightclubs collect customers' personal data. It seems to be pointless and unnecessary.

When you enter a pub or nightclub, you may be asked to provide personal identification details. It would seem that this is done so that management may keep out the riff-raff, the troublemakers. The data may be held securely -- but it would be better if it were not held at all.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

According to The West Australian, there have been "Privacy fears raised over ID scanners" (1 April 2010). There is concern over "identification scanning methods used in many of Perth's pubs and nightclubs".

What data is collected?

One system scans a patron's ID card, takes a photo, records a fingerprint. Another system stores ID card, photograph, fingerprint, full name and date of birth. All of this data is stored. Most of it is both redundant and a very weak basis for identification.

A typical ID card will include photo and full name. It may also have date of birth, address and various other unique identifying details. A typical ID card is easily faked. If there is no photo, you can borrow a friend's ID card. If there is a photo, borrow from a friend who looks just a bit like you. If you have good contacts, you may be able to get the Israeli secret police to knock up a very good -- but fake -- passport.

If the nightclub believes that your ID card is real -- why do they also need an extra photo? Why do they need a fingerprint? Why do they need anything other than a scanned image of the ID card? If today's scan of your card matches the scan held on file -- then you are who you say you are.

Full name? Date of birth? Why does that need to be stored? "I am Jane Smith, born yesterday... are you saying that I'm a liar?!" The extra information adds nothing to the identification value of an ID card. Except, perhaps, to test your memory.

Then there's the fingerprint.

A fingerprint -- according to every police story for the last umpteen years -- is a unique identifier of every person. A fingerprint is attached to a hand which is attached to a person, so the fingerprint uniquely identifies the person. (Unattached hands are easily spotted.) A fingerprint is never forgotten, never accidentally left at home, never lent to a friend.

If you record and store a fingerprint -- there is no need to store any more personal information.

Store the fingerprint. That's all.

A patron arrives at a nightclub.

"Please put your finger here, so that we can scan your fingerprint," says the polite doorkeeper.

The finger is scanned. The fingerprint is recorded and, if that's the way the system works, encoded. The fingerprint is compared to all fingerprints recorded previously.

"I see that your fingerprint has never visited here before," says the polite doorkeeper. "Welcome to our establishment. Have a free drink voucher. Please enjoy yourself."

Or... "I see that your fingerprint has been banned from this establishment. Since you are inextricably attached to your fingerprint, both you and it are not allowed in. Have a nice day, and goodbye."

Or... "Welcome back to our fine establishment! Have a good evening!"

See how it works? All you need on record is the fingerprint. No need to record redundant, possibly fake, information such as ID card image, name, address... Just the fingerprint, with a note to say whether or not the owner of that fingerprint is welcome inside.

Underage? Banned?

Okay, there are other uses for an ID card.

There is a lower age limit for entry to licensed premises. The ID card "proves" that the card owner is old enough to enter. Once the age has been proven -- there is no further need for the card.

"I see that your fingerprint has never visited here before," says the polite doorkeeper. "May I see your proof of age? Thank you... I shall now record 'age is okay' against the fingerprint record. Welcome to our establishment. Have a free drink voucher. Please enjoy yourself."

And then, next time you visit, "Welcome back to our fine establishment! Have a good evening!"

Simple, isn't it!

Similarly, if the police ban a certain person from entering licensed premises, they send a copy of the fingerprint to all licensed premises. No need for the embarrassment of saying, This particular person is banned. If they want to keep quiet about it, they simply avoid licensed premises. No-one is the wiser.

There may be a dispute at the door. You're banned! No I'm not! ... Then ask for an ID card, phone the police, ask if that named person is really banned. Record the correct status (banned or not banned) against the fingerprint. End of story.

Simple, isn't it.

There is no need for privacy fears

There is no need to record personal identification information other than a fingerprint. The fingerprint is a unique, personal identifier -- with the additional benefit that it is, in fact, anonymous. Nightclub records contain an encoded fingerprint, a flag to indicate underage or not, a flag to indicate banned or not. No more, no less.

Steal a fingerprint record and you get -- almost nothing. This fingerprint is banned... Whose fingerprint is it? Don't know... can't tell.

No embarrassment. No loss of privacy. No fear of theft of personal details. No worries.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Populate and Perish

Agamedes considers "Big Australia" -- and shudders.

Why are politicians afraid to see uncontrolled population growth as a threat?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

A few weeks ago Paul Murray wrote in The West in support of agricultural development across the north of Australia. The prime minister of Australia happily announced that our population is set to grow enormously. Statisticians say that the population of Perth will more than double within forty years.

We all sit back, shake our heads sadly, and say, Oh deary deary me, how will we cope?

The question should be, How will we control rampant growth of population?

As population grows, lifestyle suffers. As people spread, the rest of the environment is destroyed. Still, as a senior Alcoa manager was rumoured to have said, "No-one actually visits a jarrah forest. Just give them a photo of a tree and chop it all down."

You may be able to guess: I'm in favour of ZPG, Zero Population Growth. Have been for years. With no expectation that it will ever happen.

So how should we cope with rampant population growth?

Where will we grow?

Today, Paul Murray looks at one view of "Big Australia" (Imagine all the people, The West Australian, 2 April 2010). It's a bland article, mostly about the failure to actually discuss population growth. The point of the article is neatly summarised near the end: "We need to talk about the size of Perth." A very good point.

Unfortunately, Murray ends with a clear bias. He accepts uncontrolled breeding and immigration. He just worries about where it will happen.

Back in February, Murray argued that we should develop agriculture across the north of Australia. Lack of data, he wrote, implies support for development. Okay, he was writing nonsense (see Conserve & Protect, or Develop & Destroy for my views on that article). I am worried that Murray can look at the disasters of Murray-Darling exploitation -- and suggest that we do the same in our north.

For today, I am worried about Murray's final words, under Imagine all the people: "And if we are irrevocably on a dramatic population growth trajectory," -- we are, but only because we are afraid to discuss the alternative -- "we need to talk about how to direct that growth to the regions."

Direct that growth to the regions?!

We are destroying the natural environment of Perth, as quickly as we can. We are growing fast enough to affect our lifestyle -- for better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Now, without solving any of Perth's problems -- Murray wants to give more of the same to the regions!

Here's a better thought

The population of Perth is growing. If we do nothing, the population of Perth will continue to grow, possibly beyond our capacity to maintain an adequate standard of living. This is a problem.

Let's solve -- or at least discuss -- this problem.

We need to discuss our view of the future of Perth. Will we accept dramatic population growth? If not, how will we curb population growth? Or, how will we cope, with double the current population of Perth? We need to discuss these issues. If we can solve the problems -- current and future -- so much the better.

Once we have solved the problems of a growing Perth population, then -- and only then -- will we be ready to pass those same problems on to regional centres.

First, learn to deal with population pressures where they already occur. Then apply our solutions to regional areas. Encourage regional growth -- if regions really want it -- and apply the solutions in advance. Find solutions first. Spread the problems around later. Spread the problems around, but only when we know that we can solve them.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Motelling for CHOGM: Problems Solved

Agamedes wonders if he has published this solution earlier. And offers apologies, just in case.

CHOGM is coming to Perth. Why? Surely there is a far better option... And here it is!

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

CHOGM -- the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting -- is coming to Perth. Why? Possibly because Perth is a friendly, safe place which welcomes visitors. Especially those with money to spend. More likely, because the Australian prime minister wanted to big-note himself by inviting all his powerful wanna-be friends back to his place. But didn't want to upset a Labor premier by dumping them with the huge costs and headaches of CHOGM.

Today (3 Apr 10) The West announces that Diedre Willmott has resigned from her job as coordinator of the CHOGM preparations. Not that the job is too hard (I'm sure that the pay is high enough for any free-loading political lackey), it's a conflict-of-interest issue.

So we're going to have a new person in charge of CHOGM organisation. Perhaps we could also have some new ideas?

Meanwhile, back at the coal-face...

Meanwhile, at WA's equivalent of the coal-face, iron ore miners have rejected an attempt to dehumanise their living conditions. By "miners" I mean the people who actually do the work at the iron ore mines. The workers, who fly in, work hard, then fly out again.

Several months ago, mine managers decided to implement "motelling". That is, the miners' accommodation -- supplied by the mine company -- would become a motel rather than a home. While working at the northwest mine site, a worker would stay in a donga. When they left, the donga would be available for another worker.

The effect of motelling on the miner is, that when they "fly out" -- fly away from the mine site -- the worker would need to clear out their donga and take all personal possessions with them. When the worker flies in again -- when they return to the mine site for another couple of weeks work on site -- they would bring essential clothes, etc, plus any personal items which they required for a comfortable life beyond work.

For the mine owners, motelling would allow each donga to be kept at full capacity. As soon as one worker left, another would move into that donga.

For the mine worker, motelling would mean that their life outside work would be completely depersonalised. How many workers would bring books, hobby material, sporting equipment with them, on each fly-in, every third week? For the workers, motelling would ensure that there was no life outside work. Eat, drink, sit, sleep. There is no life beyond work. We pay you to work. We own you, 24 hours of each day. You are workers, not humans.

Which brings another bonus for the mine owners. You want to organise a union? Let's see you bring papers, books, references, personal laptops... back and forward, every three weeks. Sooner or later you will forget something; your out-of-work efforts will become just that little bit harder. We can dehumanise the workers. We can disadvantage the union organisers.

Motelling has many advantages for the mine owners. The mine workers rejected motelling. Owners replied, But these dongas are great! We provide excellent accommodation! We just want to be able to re-use each donga rather than leave it empty for one week in three!

Is a Donga good enough for CHOGM?

Here is an obvious solution for the CHOGM organisers: run CHOGM at a northwest mine site.

• The CHOGM organisers are already planning on isolating areas of Perth. This will be done for "security". It will also keep the hoi-polloi from disturbing the partying of CHOGM delegates. Rather than creating chaos in Perth -- move CHOGM out to the bush.
  
• Book an entire mine-site for the duration of CHOGM. Book every donga for CHOGM accommodation. Use mine-site facilities for meals, meeting, and so on. In between CHOGM work (meals and meetings) the delegates can just sit around. Just like the miners: they're here for work, not to enjoy their personal time.
  
• For the duration of CHOGM, the mine-site stops work. It may even be possible to keep one or two shifts going -- depending on the work hours expected of CHOGM delegates. But it would be simpler to just close down the actual mine.
  
• Pay the mine owners for accommodation, plus compensation for lost production. The total cost (to CHOGM organisers) will still be less than the exhorbitant cost of "motelling" CHOGM delegates in every expensive hotel in Perth. Especially when the hotel owners realise that theirs is the only room left in town...
  
• Pay the mine-workers to stay at home. Tell them that they can think of it as a strike against motelling, but with no adverse impact on themselves nor on the mine owners.
  
• Dongas are excellent accommodation units. They must be, the mine managers tell us they are. I've stayed at a mine-site donga -- for one night, using it as a motel -- and it was fine. Clean, comfortable, compact. All that a CHOGM delegate would want, if they are really here to do some work.
  
• Food can be provided by the mine-site mess. You can bet that the food would be good. (Have you ever seen a malnourished miner?) The mess is set up to feed hundreds of hungry workers -- exactly right for CHOGM.
  
• Security will be simple: a roadblock on the one road in and a sniffer dog at the local airport. There may even be a fence around the whole site. There will be no risk of delegates putting themselves at risk by disappearing amongst the crowds of partying locals -- all the "locals" will have been flown home.
  
• No worries about CHOGM delegates disappearing from meetings, to turn up as "political refugees" seeking asylum in Australia. If they try to slip away from a mine-site in the northwest... where will they go?!
  
• We may even be able to reduce the number of non-essential CHOGM attendees... How many sycophantic political hopefuls will follow their masters to a mine-site in the middle of nowhere? This is a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Invite the Heads of government and hope that the hangers-on stay home.
  
• Journalists, of course, will be welcome to stay at spare dongas. Those who really believe that CHOGM deserves full-time coverage...
  
• Protesters can stay wherever they like. They can even protest on site -- if they can get past the road block and the sniffer dog. Though they will have to bring their own tents and supplies.
  
• End CHOGM with a survey of delegates: Is motelling an effective way to organise a week's work? Did delegates feel that they were restricted by the one-small-kitbag limit to luggage? Did they appreciate the environment of work, work work?
  

Motelling? We will have an independent survey of its effectiveness. CHOGM? Over and done with, with minimum disturbance to the people who want to live, work and play in Perth.

Problems? Solved! No worries.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com