Ancient Legal Practice

"Two men charged over a $320 million methylamphetamine haul ... had their charges sensationally dropped..." (Magistrate dismisses $320m meth charges", The West Australian, 12 March). Police provided all of their evidence as softcopy. In a compact format that allows quick searches by the computer literate.

The criminal lawyer demanded hardcopy. Paper. The stuff that wastes trees, that weighs a ton. That cannot be searched by less than a very large team of underpaid but overcharged legal assistants.

The magistrate spat the dummy. Blamed police for his and the lawyers' inability to deal with current technology. Dismissed all charges !

Proof positive that the legal profession is at least twenty years behind the real world. And a partial explanation of the ridiculously high cost of hiring a lawyer.

====

"I reached for the stars but their bodyguards pushed me away." ...per Ginger Meggs
  

Hobbyhorse Reporting

International Women's Day. Coming soon, to a state near you. Not to Western Australia though -- it's not sponsored by Channel Seven so it barely rates a mention in the Seven-linked (ie owned) daily newspaper.

But that's another rant. Today, it's hobbyhorse.

You know, as in, I want to talk about the particular hobbyhorse that I'm riding. As in, I'll see the world in light of my favourite hobbyhorse. As in, why should I look for reasons beyond my particular hobbyhorse.

Specifically, Gemma Tognini's opinion piece Women's Day no sacred cow (The West, 1 March 2016).

Referencing the COAG Reform Council's educational report, "Tracking Equity, comparing outcomes for women and girls in Australia", Tognini writes, "[In Alice Springs] Just 17 per cent of Aboriginal girls have finished Year 12, compared with 61 per cent of other females in the town." She then writes that this is about "disenfranchised girls and young women" and lack of "gender equity".

Whoooaaa !

What are the equivalent figures for Aboriginal boys ?!

If Aboriginal boys are finishing school at the same rate as other boys then yes, this is gender inequity. If Aboriginal boys finish school at a lower rate than other boys then this is... some other problem. Yes, a problem. But a problem which will not be solved if it is not correctly identified.

We need to compare like with like. And identify the actual inequities... Or, at least, look for the causes of the differences.

And now, I'll get up on my own hobbyhorse...

First, not everyone needs higher education. They need the opportunity for higher education. That's equity. The ability to read and write and understand, is probably good for the individual. It is definitely good for the society in which they live. But higher education is not an absolute, universal requirement.

Second, a report with "comparing outcomes for women and girls" in its title will be looking at outcomes for women and girls. It will not (necessarily) relate those outcomes to those for men and boys. The report will be looking at social equity not gender equity.

Third, what we really have -- in my opinion -- is a lack of socio-economic equity.

If your parents are doctors you will grow up with doctoring. You are not likely to become a boilermaker. If your parents are boilermakers, the parental influences are less likely to lead you into studying medicine. You absorb and tend to follow the interests and activities of the subset of society in which you grow up.

If your parents are successful self-made millionaires, you will grow up with some understanding of what it takes to make money. You are also more likely to be educated at expensive schools, to play expensive sports, to join expensive clubs... and to gather a circle of acquaintances who will be good connections as you start work. If your parents are base level wage slaves -- you may never learn how to get out of the low wage rut.

Your possibilities are driven -- though not controlled -- by the socio and economic aspects of your upbringing.

To provide equal opportunity to all people from all socio-economic backgrounds -- that is a real challenge. It requires positive attitude from people requiring the opportunities. It requires positive acceptance from those who control the opportunities.

Get off your very small hobbyhorse. Recognise that inequity is universal, that equity is -- or should be -- for everyone. That equity requires opportunity and acceptance...

Acceptance of the need to strive for what we want, opportunity to attempt that which supports our striving.

Acceptance of the need to look beyond our own socio-economic peers, to accept that anyone could have the skills, ability and desire to benefit from the opportunities which we control.

Acceptance of the need for equity of equal reward for equal outcomes. Regardless of the [insert name of hobbyhorse here] of the person with who we are dealing.

Populate and perish

Populate and Perish...

Have I mentioned the 2-3-4 rule for population management ?

First, let's assume that economists are short-sighted. That prosperity through growth lasts only until we are destroyed by over-crowding. That limit may be a long way ahead... maybe.

Meanwhile, to take an example, Perth, Western Australia is over-populated. We restrict the use of water because there is not enough water to support the population. Forty years ago a smoggy day would be front page news. Twenty years ago we were blaming the hippies in the hills and their wood fires. Now we barely notice the blanket of smog which permanently shrouds our city.

Would you like a house with a garden ? Too bad ! Too expensive. The only use for a garden is to sub-divide, to make money at the expense of space for living. Apparently the public "demands" smaller and smaller living spaces. In reality, we can't afford space because increasing population drives up house prices.

Global warming ? Who cares ! Over-population itself is destroying our quality of life.

No need to wait for the economists' mad dreams to turn to a Soylent Green nightmare... We are already living in a polluted, congested purgatory.

Because we are over-populated.

So what do we do to manage our population ?

Okay, I have some sympathy for China's one-child policy. At least they recognise the problem. At least China has attempted to manage their population problem. But Australia is not China... We claim to be a democracy.

So we need to encourage people to have less children. A couple of children ? Fine, if you must. Just don't expect the Australian taxpayer to fund your efforts to out-breed the rabbits.

That's where the 2-3-4 rule comes in.

It's from a book... which I read years ago... So my apologies if I don't do it justice:

Each person is entitled to be part of a family group -- adult and their children -- of 2, 3 or four people. That group will be supported by standard social services. Beyond that, no support.

For example: Two adults may form a family group and have zero, one or two children. That would make a family group total of two (the adults), or three, or four (two adults and their two children). The family group will have full access to whatever social services are available: education, health, basic living allowances and so on.

One more child, and the family group is now five... The third child -- number five of the family group -- is outside the 2-3-4 rule. So -- for that third child -- no free lunch. If the parents (or anyone else) can pay for all services, no worries. That's freedom. The government -- the taxpayers -- will pay zero support to that fifth member of the family group.

More children ? Same story. Individuals may pay for themselves or for their children. the government will not.

Another example: Two couples have one child each (one child per couple). Each couple -- each family group -- is now at "three" for the 2-3-4 rule: two adults, one child, a family group of three. The couples separate, two of the adults meet and marry. In this new couple, each adult is already at "three". The new couple -- the new family group -- may now have just one more government-supported child.

Example: The new couple have their one child. Each adult is now at "four". Each adult has now reached the limit of their government-supported children... They separate. One of the adults marries again, marries a person with no children. This new couple cannot have government-supported children ! One adult is at two (part of a family group of two adults) but the other is at four... The first adult may have two children -- but not with the second adult. If this couple has children, those children are outside the 2-3-4 rule. The parents will need to pay for all education, health, social service costs for all children of this latest family group.

Oh, and parents are responsible for their own children.

The government provides whatever services it provides -- to people within the 2-3-4 rule. (Strictly speaking I suppose it should be the 1-2-3-4 rule. Anyone can choose to remain single and childless.) Children outside the 2-3-4 rule may need government services. If so, the parent or parents are responsible for the costs. Parents become debtors to the government, for government services provided to non-2-3-4 children.

Population growth is destroying our standard of living. It is destroying the environment, simply by expanding over all the available space.

The 2-3-4 rule sets a universal standard, without exerting absolute control. The rule encourages restraint rather than excess. The "penalties" may be made more or less severe... as long as it is clear that following the rule offers personal benefit.

The 2-3-4 rule is simple. It sets a standard -- or, at least, it defines society's expectations.

We need to set society's expectations to a managed population. Before an unmanaged population sinks under its own weight.

Really simpler tax... Really!

Have you heard that Finland plans to pay everyone -- every Finnish citizen -- a regular living allowance ? No means test. Same amount for everyone. And no other social welfare payment.

Simple. Brilliantly simple.

And next: let's simplify taxation. And I mean, let's *really* simplify taxation. And, at the same time, let's make taxation absolutely fair.

Who should pay more tax ? Those with more money. How can you tell that they have more money ? Because they earn more money and they spend more money. Earning money and spending money involve the transfer of money.

Let's put a tax on the transfer of money.

For example: Let's say that you earn $100. So your employer pays you -- transfers to you -- $100. Your employer also pays the government a transfer tax of (say) 1%, that is, $1.

If you then spend $80 of your earnings on entertainment -- then you also pay 80c to the government as transfer tax. Awkward ? Tick the box which says to the business receiving your money, "Please charge me the extra 80c and pay that to the government as transfer tax." The business has accountants, it's easy for them.

But wait ! This is a "tax on the transfer of money". How is most money transferred ? Via a bank... Direct debit, EFT, credit card... The vast majority of transfers of money go via a bank. So banks are given the responsibility for skimming off -- and passing to the government -- the transfer tax.

The amount of the transfer tax is included in the agreed amount of payment. The payer pays the agreed amount. The bank pays the transfer tax. Whoever is being paid received the agreed amount -- less tax.

The transfer tax is on everything. Absolutely everything. On everyday essentials ? Yes ! The more "essentials" you can afford, the more tax you will be paying.

So everyone moves to cash payments ? No worries, there are two solutions: You want cash to make a cash payment ? As you withdraw the required cash from the bank... you will pay the transfer tax. People avoid using banks ? The banks will lower their charges, in order to bring back your business.

Why would the banks collect a government tax ? Because they are paid to do it... Paid a percentage of the transfer tax that they collect.

Will barter reduce the taxable transfer of money ? No more than it does at the moment... Barter may reduce the transfer of money -- but it is too awkward for most transactions. (If you will work 40 hours this week, I will give you a truckload of broad beans... As if.)

But wait ! What about tax deductions ? How are they used to offset taxes ? Simple: there are no tax deductions.

A tax deduction is a government subsidy for inefficient business. The more you spend on production, the less tax you pay. What ?! So a business which is efficient, which reduces its costs, will pay more tax ?! Forget it !

There are no tax deductions. If you want to make more money from your business -- you improve your business. It's that simple.

What about all those nasty corporations which hide their profits overseas ? Well, where do those profits come from ? From Australians who transfer money in payment... And those transfers of money are taxed. At the standard rate. For every single transaction.

What about payment in services rather than money ? For example, an employee accepting a reduced salary but getting a company car, and children's school fees paid by the employer ? Simple: When the company pays for the company car, they also pay the transfer tax. When they pay the school fees, they also pay the transfer tax. (Unless the school and the car yard will take payment in broad beans...)

Other taxes ? All scrapped.

What rate of tax will be required ? I'll leave that to the economists and the accountants. And to the politicians, as they decide how much they need, to buy the required popularity.

Any other problems ? Let me know. And I'll look for a simple solution.

====
Einstein's Theory of Intelligence: "It's very easy to be smart. Just think of something really dumb to say, then say the exact opposite." … per Pardon my Planet
   

Trees or People

City of Stirling -- Perth's biggest council -- is worried about loss of trees. What ?!

"Infill to rob Perth of 20ha in tree canopy", The West, 10 Dec15

So what do they expect ?! Allow larger houses on smaller blocks and of course the backyard trees will disappear. Our housing infill policies are fully intended to encourage the replacement of backyard space with brick and concrete and tile housing.

The state government wants Perth to become solid housing estate. And city of Stirling has only just noticed the effect on space for trees ?

I fully support their concern. I appreciate the council's tree planting in public spaces. Why is it only today that this is considered to be "news" ?

Could it be because of the visiting "expert" who recently commented that tree cover is important ? Again, the importance of tree cover is hardly "news". I guess the comments were reported because it was from a new -- in Perth -- " expert ".

Perhaps the reporter then tried a follow-up article, on the tree planting response of local councils. And received the obvious, exasperated response...

Well, with the government pushing for more and more buildings, what the hell do you think we can actually do ?!

====
Einstein's Theory of Intelligence: "It's very easy to be smart. Just think of something really dumb to say, then say the exact opposite." … per Pardon my Planet
   

Health costs: Truth or lies

Health costs: Truth or lies

It's great to see Gareth Parker supporting the Premier. Or is the political reporter for The West speaking with tongue firmly planted in cheek ? Or is it me that's skipping between irony and sarcasm...

"Time for health workers to take a dose of reality", The West, 5 Dec 2015

Parker writes, "Wild claims by the AMA... of 1500 job cuts were exposed as scaremongering this week when the Premier said there would be only about 200 voluntary redundancies."

So Parker trusts the Premier -- notorious for broken promises, backflips, unjustified decisions and wild statements which severely test the bounds of truth. Did Parker consider asking the Minister for Health ? You know, the man who supposedly is in charge of matters such as job cuts in Health ? Or is that like asking the dog, when the owner has already spoken...

And Parker does not trust the AMA, with their "wild claims". Well, okay, the AMA are also notorious, for defending their own turf. Mind you, "their own turf" does happen to be the health system. But what would they know ? They just work there.

I think that a serious journalist would ask questions before believing -- selectively believing -- biassed public statements. One claim may be more accurate than the other. A serious journalist would justify his decision to support -- with emotive language -- one claim over the other.

Or -- in the most positive interpretation -- perhaps he should leave the attempts at ironic humour to the cartoonist.

====

On a separate issue, from the same article:

"One wonders what [Fiona Stanley] thinks" ... of having a disaster-prone hospital named after her.

It doesn't really matter what Fiona Stanley thinks. The hospital was not named for Fiona Stanley. It was named for the potential positive PR spin. Just like the Polly Pipe...

Take a piece of major public infrastructure. One which generates a lot of public antipathy. The public don't like it. The political opposition attack it. So what to do ?!

Name it after a popular folk hero !

Name the tunnel after Polly Farmer... no one would say anything nasty about such a popular ex-footballer. Name the super-expensive hospital after a popular medical person... no one would say anything nasty about such a dedicated and successful medical researcher.

Mind you... Fiona Stanley is a paediatrician. I bet the politicians are wishing they'd spotted the link and saved her name for the still-under-construction children's hospital. It's looking as though that one will also need a popular name to deflect criticism...

But Fiona needn't worry, not with me, anyway. I like to think of our brand new hospital as simply, The Big Fi.

====

Why don't we just cut costs ?!

Parker states that, "Health is a chronic over-spender." He lists a couple of expensive failures, including the expensive IT system. So what to do ?!

A few years ago there was a well known management consultant with the nickname Chainsaw. He saved several companies by the simple expedient of cutting costs -- including staff costs -- to the bone. When the same techniques were tried on an Australian medical services company -- it failed. Miserably.

Medical services -- health -- are not cut and dried processes. Even the "evidence based medicine" advocates admit that. A disease does not stand alone, it is just one aspect of an individual's being. And each individual is... well... an individual. Medical treatment must make allowance for the individual.

The health system must deal with large numbers of individual -- unique -- patients. This requires a lot of individual attention. This all takes time, staff time.

And when it comes to treatment... There are now more options, more possible treatments for a wider range of health issues. And the treatments cost money... If perfect health is the target then the cost is perfectly enormous.

So... Is perfect health the target ? If yes, then health care will be very, very expensive. If no, then that needs to be stated. And we need to know just what the target is.

====

On a more practical issue: what can be done to save our health system ?

Health care has, traditionally, an in-built conflict between administration wanting to save money, and health care staff wanting to save lives. Or possibly between administration wanting a more effective use of available finds, and medical staff wanting more money and power for themselves. This is a management issue.

Effective management would attempt to build a positive working relationship. Perhaps offer compromises, so both sides can satisfy their professional imperatives. Certainly, effective management would try to solve rather than to create problems.

There are plenty of textbooks offering good management techniques. Some of these techniques could possibly work in our own health system. If only someone would make the effort.

What we see, are unilateral statements from each of the conflicting parties. Making demands doesn't work. Giving orders doesn't work. Denials and sudden changes are not much good, either.

The various parties need to actually talk with each other.

First, agree on some targets for our health care. Real targets. Targets which can be put to the public -- supported by all major players -- and which will show some long term direction. Something reassuring. As though our health system were intended to do more than just spend or save money.

Identify problems. Is there really, to use Parker's words, "a revolt led by unions" ? Are there really "modest attempts at cost discipline" ? Avoid the emotion and bias. Find an acceptable compromise that clearly states the actual problems.

And yes, there may be actual problems which contradict each other. State them. Accept them as being real problems.

Then work together to try to solve some of those problems.

Okay, that's not as practical as I hoped :-) "Try to solve some of those problems" !

First, the various parties need to "work together". Which requires someone who is able to talk to all parties.

And, to listen.

====
"A city without trees is not fit for a dog"... per Ginger Meggs

Political nonsense

This from The West, Blast for government 'slum' flats in Fremantle, 9 July 2015

Okay, there are some ratty flats down in Fremantle. Public housing for people who can't afford to live anywhere else. And the block of flats is beginning to look like a slum.

The block may eventually be demolished and replaced. Probably by units which will be too expensive for public housing... but that's another story.

Meanwhile, no more public housing tenants are being allowed in. After all, why move them in when they will "soon" have to be moved out. Fair enough.

The reason that the block of flats is turning into a slum, is that "ordinary" renters are being allowed in. Ordinary renters at the poor end of the market are antisocial and don't look after their flats. (There's a lesson for landlords.)

The shadow housing minister now gets into the act...

Fran Logan. Hard hitting yet confused exposer of... a difficult situation.

Why are private renters living here when there are 20,000 people still on the public housing waiting list ? Fair point, shadow minister.

The public housing tenants should be moved out of these disgraceful flats, he rants.

Wait a minute.

Private renters should be moved out because there are public tenants on the waiting list.

Public tenants should be moved out -- to add their names back onto that huge waiting list -- because the flats are ratty.

Everyone should move out ?!

Come on, shadow minister.

Think before you rant.

Come up with an answer. Not just a nonsensical political rant.

"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present." -- Hobbes via Watterson