I have been watching with interest as the Cole Inquiry finally handed down the report into the Oil for food scandal. For those not in know, it appears that the Australian Wheat Board had paid so-called "Transportation fees" to a shipping company with links to Saddam Hussein’s regime. Now if it were a couple of thousand, no biggy, but its in the order of $300 million to ensure Australian wheat was used by the Iraq bakers for their bread. Talk about doing what you can for a sale! Anyway, it has all come out in the wash with the help of our American allies, and so to soften the political damage, the Australian Government ordered an inquiry into the whole affair (the Cole Inquiry) The end result of this is the Cole report which was released earlier this week.
In his report, it appears Mr Cole has cleared the Australian Government of any criminal behaviour and has assigned the blame solely on the Company and its executives. Eleven Managers at the top of the company have been accused of potentially criminal behaviour under the Corporations Act. The next step would be the Director of Public Prosecutions getting involved. Should be an interesting Christmas for some of those corporate warriors. But not to worry, criminal behaviour does not disqualify you from the business community. Just look at Alan Bond!
However I don’t understand why the government of Australia isn’t a little more culpable for their failure to pick up the dodgy behaviour? The government, through its agencies like ASIC and the ACCC, not to mention the Department of foreign affairs and the various intelligence arms, should have know something. If they did not, as is expressed in the Cole report, it is a stuff-up of epic proportions. If our government were a corporation, surely it would be guilty of negligence at the very least? The corporate reputation of Australia in the eyes of our customers has taken a battering. Our wheat sales have been seriously curtailed. If Australian citizens had the same rights as shareholders, we could sue the directors of the government (the ministers and the PM) in the hope of receiving compensation for the Government’s failings. But for better or for worse Governments are only accountable at the ballot box. No extra dividend in our Christmas stocking I’m afraid.
It’s a bit of a worrying trend really. That’s twice in recent history that our so-called spymasters have gotten it completely wrong. ASIO, ASIS, ONIE, the Australian Federal Police, our foreign allies in the intelligence world, were they asleep on the job? Not a clue? They stuffed up with the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they have stuffed up with the Oil for food program. Not quite George Smiley at the wheel one would think (apologies to John Le Carre)
In today’ world of international terrorism, Middle East instability and unrest in the Pacific islands close to Australia, competent intelligence organisations and networks are absolutely crucial to the protection of Australia and its people.
Time for an inquiry into the Spy Agencies as well I think.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
Another Day, another P-Plate Death
There seems to be an awfully big focus on P-Platers (Provisional Driver) and potential flaws in their driving lately, especially after the crashes on Australian roads recently (4 people under the age of 18 have died in motor accidents) . But is this just a blimp in an otherwise downhill spiral of Road deaths for the young? I thought that with all the various P-Plater regulation, deaths would be going down.
And I was correct. I had a bit of a check through the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s Website (www.atsb.gov.au). This is the government agency that is responsible for tracking deaths that occur through all transportation methods (including Road Deaths)
It actually found that there has been 2% decrease in deaths of drivers 17-25 over the last 5 years. This is not a bad trend. Especially considering the number of cars on the road have increased 10.8 percent in this time. In fact the largest percentage of driver deaths last year was in the age groups of 26-39. But there doesn’t appear to be any focus on those guys in the news.
What is worse, Motor cyclist deaths have actually increased by 18% between 2004 and 2005, but there has been no mention of this at all in the news. This is huge when you consider that Motor Cyclist numbers have only increase 4.7% during this time. Why isn’t there a summit about Motor Cycles? Surely they deserve some attention.
Let’s not mince words. The deaths of P-Platers are a tragedy, but so is any death on the road. All road users need to understand that driving is a dangerous activity and not something to take lightly. While there are people on the roads, there will be deaths and it’s something that we have to acknowledge. To try and educate the road users is not the answer, and is probably a waste of money. There is just no substitute for driving experience. All long-term drivers have made mistakes in the past, and they learn from it and become better drivers. It is just an unfortunate fact of life that some don’t get the chance to learn.
More money should be spent on making roads safe. I don't believe driver competence is the issue here.
And I was correct. I had a bit of a check through the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s Website (www.atsb.gov.au). This is the government agency that is responsible for tracking deaths that occur through all transportation methods (including Road Deaths)
It actually found that there has been 2% decrease in deaths of drivers 17-25 over the last 5 years. This is not a bad trend. Especially considering the number of cars on the road have increased 10.8 percent in this time. In fact the largest percentage of driver deaths last year was in the age groups of 26-39. But there doesn’t appear to be any focus on those guys in the news.
What is worse, Motor cyclist deaths have actually increased by 18% between 2004 and 2005, but there has been no mention of this at all in the news. This is huge when you consider that Motor Cyclist numbers have only increase 4.7% during this time. Why isn’t there a summit about Motor Cycles? Surely they deserve some attention.
Let’s not mince words. The deaths of P-Platers are a tragedy, but so is any death on the road. All road users need to understand that driving is a dangerous activity and not something to take lightly. While there are people on the roads, there will be deaths and it’s something that we have to acknowledge. To try and educate the road users is not the answer, and is probably a waste of money. There is just no substitute for driving experience. All long-term drivers have made mistakes in the past, and they learn from it and become better drivers. It is just an unfortunate fact of life that some don’t get the chance to learn.
More money should be spent on making roads safe. I don't believe driver competence is the issue here.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
So long and thanks for all the (Super) fish
And so it ends. The illustrious career of Ian Thorpe has ended with a whimper rather than a bang. He announced his retirement from swimming yesterday and promptly said he was going surfing. Not a bad secondary career I say.
I must admit, it would be good to have the luxury of retirement at 24 years of age. Though you would have to have an awful lot of superannuation to do so. Retirement at that age means around 60 odd years of free time. That’s an awful lot of mornings spent in Star Bucks reading the paper.
Still, I don’t think Thorpe will have many problems filling the hours. He has his business interests, his fashion, he could always do the commentary thing (though he could be from the Cathy Freeman school of commentary) Sometimes the best athletes do not make the best commentators as our Golden Girl has shown. I’ve heard that Holly wood may be calling, but after his short lived performance on "Thorpies Angels" I would suggest that he give that one a miss.
The other question is if Thorpe is just going through the curiously title "Quarter Life crisis". Not quite sure of his place in the world and a little burnt out by the training, so he makes a snap decision to pack it in because he can. Most of the people who experience this decide to jet off to Europe for a couple of years. They have a few torrid love affairs, run out of money then end up back in Australia an older and wiser person, ready for a life of career treadmill-ness and an de facto lifestyle with a partner found at a desperate and dateless ball (or so I am told).
So maybe that’s it. Thorpe just needs a bit of loving…. He doesn’t appear to have been bothering the scorer much (according to those reliable scoops in the women’s mags). So here is my advice to the Super Fish :-
Get away from it all, get laid repeatedly, and then think about it again. You are a long time retired.
I must admit, it would be good to have the luxury of retirement at 24 years of age. Though you would have to have an awful lot of superannuation to do so. Retirement at that age means around 60 odd years of free time. That’s an awful lot of mornings spent in Star Bucks reading the paper.
Still, I don’t think Thorpe will have many problems filling the hours. He has his business interests, his fashion, he could always do the commentary thing (though he could be from the Cathy Freeman school of commentary) Sometimes the best athletes do not make the best commentators as our Golden Girl has shown. I’ve heard that Holly wood may be calling, but after his short lived performance on "Thorpies Angels" I would suggest that he give that one a miss.
The other question is if Thorpe is just going through the curiously title "Quarter Life crisis". Not quite sure of his place in the world and a little burnt out by the training, so he makes a snap decision to pack it in because he can. Most of the people who experience this decide to jet off to Europe for a couple of years. They have a few torrid love affairs, run out of money then end up back in Australia an older and wiser person, ready for a life of career treadmill-ness and an de facto lifestyle with a partner found at a desperate and dateless ball (or so I am told).
So maybe that’s it. Thorpe just needs a bit of loving…. He doesn’t appear to have been bothering the scorer much (according to those reliable scoops in the women’s mags). So here is my advice to the Super Fish :-
Get away from it all, get laid repeatedly, and then think about it again. You are a long time retired.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
G20 fun and games
As those anarchists out there know, Melbourne Australia was the host for the G20 summit this year. G20 is a grouping of the top 20 Industrialised nations, plus a few optional extras like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Most of the big money men of International Finance and Governors of the various Reserve Banks were present and they were discussing a multitude of things, such as Poverty reduction and the effect of Global Warming on Economies.
Anyway, like most of the big gatherings of members of the international Finance or Business community, the meeting attracted violent protests. In fact, activists from Europe and the US apparently travelled to Australia to participate in the protest. The violence didn’t look great on the television cameras as Police and Protesters clashed.
Now my point is, why do people protest at these events and why do they always turn violent? If I were an activist, I would think non-violent protest is the way to go. Get on the cameras sure, make a loud noise but let the message get through, not the violence. Blockading a street through sitting down is always a good option. Sure the cops will move you, but at least they will be gentle about it, rather than to come out with all batons blazing like last weekend.
And besides, I am curious whether Globalisation has actually caused harm to the world. Someone posted a link to this article when I mentioned that Globalisation had been a source of Good in the world.
http://www.attac.org/fra/toil/doc/cepr05.htm
This article concerned a scorecard that the authors put together comparing the years before globalisation (1960-1980) with the years after (1980 – 2000). It was mainly concentrating on GDP per person and social indicators like Life expectancy and infant mortality. The authors found that GDP per person actually decreased after globalisation became a factor (1980-2000) as did life expectancy of low to middle income people.
However I do have an issue with some of the conclusions stated. Firstly, there is the assumption that globalisation wasn’t a factor in the 1960’s. International business has been around for centuries. (East India Trading Company anyone?) so why did the authors focus on the 80’s as a starting point for the effect of globalisation.
Secondly, GDP per person is not a good measurement of whether people are living in poverty. If the GDP remains the same, but population increases, the GDP per person will decrease. This article does not say anything about population growth in the years mentioned.
According to the World Bank (where the author got his stats from), they only got around to defining extreme poverty and measuring it from 1981. The definition was those people who are living on less than $1 a day.
In the years between 1981 and today, there are fewer people living in poverty. Generally speaking, these decreases in poverty occurred in Asia (mainly China and India) but as they had the largest number of poor people and they have also been the main beneficiaries of globalisation this is a fairly accurate reflection of the good in the concept.
So for mine, I think globalisation is actually a good and positive force in the world. Free trade is the one thing that may actually alleviate poverty in my lifetime. To protest against it is like protesting against penicillin.
Anyway, like most of the big gatherings of members of the international Finance or Business community, the meeting attracted violent protests. In fact, activists from Europe and the US apparently travelled to Australia to participate in the protest. The violence didn’t look great on the television cameras as Police and Protesters clashed.
Now my point is, why do people protest at these events and why do they always turn violent? If I were an activist, I would think non-violent protest is the way to go. Get on the cameras sure, make a loud noise but let the message get through, not the violence. Blockading a street through sitting down is always a good option. Sure the cops will move you, but at least they will be gentle about it, rather than to come out with all batons blazing like last weekend.
And besides, I am curious whether Globalisation has actually caused harm to the world. Someone posted a link to this article when I mentioned that Globalisation had been a source of Good in the world.
http://www.attac.org/fra/toil/doc/cepr05.htm
This article concerned a scorecard that the authors put together comparing the years before globalisation (1960-1980) with the years after (1980 – 2000). It was mainly concentrating on GDP per person and social indicators like Life expectancy and infant mortality. The authors found that GDP per person actually decreased after globalisation became a factor (1980-2000) as did life expectancy of low to middle income people.
However I do have an issue with some of the conclusions stated. Firstly, there is the assumption that globalisation wasn’t a factor in the 1960’s. International business has been around for centuries. (East India Trading Company anyone?) so why did the authors focus on the 80’s as a starting point for the effect of globalisation.
Secondly, GDP per person is not a good measurement of whether people are living in poverty. If the GDP remains the same, but population increases, the GDP per person will decrease. This article does not say anything about population growth in the years mentioned.
According to the World Bank (where the author got his stats from), they only got around to defining extreme poverty and measuring it from 1981. The definition was those people who are living on less than $1 a day.
In the years between 1981 and today, there are fewer people living in poverty. Generally speaking, these decreases in poverty occurred in Asia (mainly China and India) but as they had the largest number of poor people and they have also been the main beneficiaries of globalisation this is a fairly accurate reflection of the good in the concept.
So for mine, I think globalisation is actually a good and positive force in the world. Free trade is the one thing that may actually alleviate poverty in my lifetime. To protest against it is like protesting against penicillin.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Happy Birthday…and here is a goat!
I was perusing the blog of Kevin Rudd (the Federal shadow minister for foreign affairs) and I noticed that he recently gave Prime Minister John Howard a gift for his 67th birthday. It was one of those charity gifts where by World Vision buys a goat for a village in the third world (in this case, the Sudan) on behalf of the gift receiver.
Now, no offence to Big Kev, he seems quite competent at his job, but I think his choice of gift is atrocious. Charity is very much an individual thing. Indeed, the reason it is popular is the warm inner glow you get when you know you have helped someone less fortunate than yourself. But this only comes from the "act" of giving, ie the handing over the cash. If your mate donates and then sends you a card saying they donated on your behalf, it doesn’t quite give you that. You don’t even get the Tax deduction!
Then there is the moral aspect of it. Just say John doesn’t want to give any money to the Sudan, maybe he wants to give my money to the poor in Asia instead. (Or not give money at all) With so many competing factions for the charity dollar, that could be a perfectly legitimate request. But Kevin has taken the decision out of his hands. Kev knows best apparently!
If John Howard had made it clear that he doesn’t want gifts for his birthday and asked everyone to donate to the Sudan, then that’s fine. But to try and force your morality on someone else I think is a bit dodgy. It seems like the very definition of the "Indian Giver". The Donator placates their need to donate, gets the warm inner glow of donating, and also gets to cross another person off the gift list. What does the recipient of your gift get out of this transaction? Nothing, other than another reason not to invite you to Coalition Christmas party.
So next time you are tempted to buy the villages of the third world a goat, feel free. However, do the right thing and buy it on behalf of yourself, not a mate/loved one who would really prefer you spend your hard earned on the West Wing DVD box set.
Now, no offence to Big Kev, he seems quite competent at his job, but I think his choice of gift is atrocious. Charity is very much an individual thing. Indeed, the reason it is popular is the warm inner glow you get when you know you have helped someone less fortunate than yourself. But this only comes from the "act" of giving, ie the handing over the cash. If your mate donates and then sends you a card saying they donated on your behalf, it doesn’t quite give you that. You don’t even get the Tax deduction!
Then there is the moral aspect of it. Just say John doesn’t want to give any money to the Sudan, maybe he wants to give my money to the poor in Asia instead. (Or not give money at all) With so many competing factions for the charity dollar, that could be a perfectly legitimate request. But Kevin has taken the decision out of his hands. Kev knows best apparently!
If John Howard had made it clear that he doesn’t want gifts for his birthday and asked everyone to donate to the Sudan, then that’s fine. But to try and force your morality on someone else I think is a bit dodgy. It seems like the very definition of the "Indian Giver". The Donator placates their need to donate, gets the warm inner glow of donating, and also gets to cross another person off the gift list. What does the recipient of your gift get out of this transaction? Nothing, other than another reason not to invite you to Coalition Christmas party.
So next time you are tempted to buy the villages of the third world a goat, feel free. However, do the right thing and buy it on behalf of yourself, not a mate/loved one who would really prefer you spend your hard earned on the West Wing DVD box set.
Friday, November 17, 2006
The nature of work in the I.T industry
As some of you know, I work for an Insurance Company in the IT department. I was having a chat to one of my work buddies who had to rock up to work at 5:00 AM this morning to do a change to a mail server before the support hours of 7 to 7. I was thinking…bloody hell; no one in the technical realm of I.T works 9 to 5 any more.
I mean, I.T was never going to banker’s hours (the old 10 to 4), but I think it has become a little extreme in the last few years. The business (everyone who doesn’t work in I.T) seem to believe that we long suffering Admins have nothing better to do than to patch servers at obscene times in the morning.
Having been in the industry for around 9 years, I remember the good old days of pre 2000 when the business just signed the exuberant cheques for that new CRM and didn’t have any great expectations of 24/7 uptime. Those days are long gone. Now to get anything done, you have to sign in blood that the bloody thing will work; otherwise you are out the door. And god help you if performance isn’t as quick as the Sales guy from the vendor has demonstrated (of a cut down version of the app on a high-end laptop)
This accountability factor is good in one way. The people in the industry now are as dedicated and as knowledgable as at anytime in the history of I.T. The whole "dot bomb" crash and its after effects seems to have shaken out the pretenders from the industry so that the people left really know their stuff and want to be part of it. (Well, everyone apart from myself. That is why I have started this blog :-)
If only the Business recognised this, I.T would be a gun career for the bright and motivated. It still pays very well, and you get to work with some decent technology. Unfortunately I.T has become one of those careers which is one step up from undertaker in the realm of "jobs I don’t want to have when I go out to impress people". People look at you with disdain, give you a throwaway comment on how bad the I.T people are at their work, or how slow their mail application is, and then move off to find someone more interesting.
So when your I.T mate downs his beer and says he has to piss off from the Pub on a Saturday night, be sympathetic. No, he doesn’t have another engagement. He has a hot date with that dodgy mail server in Adelaide
I mean, I.T was never going to banker’s hours (the old 10 to 4), but I think it has become a little extreme in the last few years. The business (everyone who doesn’t work in I.T) seem to believe that we long suffering Admins have nothing better to do than to patch servers at obscene times in the morning.
Having been in the industry for around 9 years, I remember the good old days of pre 2000 when the business just signed the exuberant cheques for that new CRM and didn’t have any great expectations of 24/7 uptime. Those days are long gone. Now to get anything done, you have to sign in blood that the bloody thing will work; otherwise you are out the door. And god help you if performance isn’t as quick as the Sales guy from the vendor has demonstrated (of a cut down version of the app on a high-end laptop)
This accountability factor is good in one way. The people in the industry now are as dedicated and as knowledgable as at anytime in the history of I.T. The whole "dot bomb" crash and its after effects seems to have shaken out the pretenders from the industry so that the people left really know their stuff and want to be part of it. (Well, everyone apart from myself. That is why I have started this blog :-)
If only the Business recognised this, I.T would be a gun career for the bright and motivated. It still pays very well, and you get to work with some decent technology. Unfortunately I.T has become one of those careers which is one step up from undertaker in the realm of "jobs I don’t want to have when I go out to impress people". People look at you with disdain, give you a throwaway comment on how bad the I.T people are at their work, or how slow their mail application is, and then move off to find someone more interesting.
So when your I.T mate downs his beer and says he has to piss off from the Pub on a Saturday night, be sympathetic. No, he doesn’t have another engagement. He has a hot date with that dodgy mail server in Adelaide
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Marcus Trescothick Vs Sally Robbins
One thing I am curious about is the totally different reactions given by the Australian Public and the Press regarding Marcus Trescothick (English Cricketer) Vs the treatment dished out to Sally Robbins (Australian Rower).
Marcus Trescothick decided to quit the English Cricket Tour of Australia due to an unspecified stress related illness. Fair enough I say..Mental health is more important than any particular sporting contest, even the Ashes (and I am a cricket tragic). The press and public comment seem to agree with me, with Peter Roebuck from the Sydney Morning Herald writing quite a nice article supporting the Trescothick stance. However, I can't help but contrast this with the abuse given out to Sally Robbins in 2004 when she suffered a breakdown in the final of the Olympic rowing (in the womens 8's)
Everybody has an opinion about whether Sally Robbins should have been in the boat in the final, but you would think that her collapse/inability to row was due to some sort of stress related issue. So why did she cop the abuse? When it happened, I was thinking, stress got to her, but my co-workers and friends were scathing. Lazy said one. Not mentally strong enough for international sport said another. However a quick poll of my friends in the last couple of days seem to show remarkable tolerance for the English cricketer. So what is the difference?
Could it be another example of the Australian public's appetite for sporting triumph? The whole "Don't let down your mates" ethos? That Sally let us down by not being the quintessential Aussie who shows no weakness on the sporting field? Yet it’s ok for an English cricketer whose pullout enhances our chances at winning back the Ashes. Are we secretly thinking that all Englishmen are weak generally anyway?
I only pose these questions because I believe we should be sympathetic to everyone who suffers from Mental illness, even our own people. It is not a weakness, its just an illness that can effect anyone. It is one thing to suffer in silence like a lot of Australians. But we should also show our support for those who suffer in the harsh spotlight of international sport.
Marcus Trescothick decided to quit the English Cricket Tour of Australia due to an unspecified stress related illness. Fair enough I say..Mental health is more important than any particular sporting contest, even the Ashes (and I am a cricket tragic). The press and public comment seem to agree with me, with Peter Roebuck from the Sydney Morning Herald writing quite a nice article supporting the Trescothick stance. However, I can't help but contrast this with the abuse given out to Sally Robbins in 2004 when she suffered a breakdown in the final of the Olympic rowing (in the womens 8's)
Everybody has an opinion about whether Sally Robbins should have been in the boat in the final, but you would think that her collapse/inability to row was due to some sort of stress related issue. So why did she cop the abuse? When it happened, I was thinking, stress got to her, but my co-workers and friends were scathing. Lazy said one. Not mentally strong enough for international sport said another. However a quick poll of my friends in the last couple of days seem to show remarkable tolerance for the English cricketer. So what is the difference?
Could it be another example of the Australian public's appetite for sporting triumph? The whole "Don't let down your mates" ethos? That Sally let us down by not being the quintessential Aussie who shows no weakness on the sporting field? Yet it’s ok for an English cricketer whose pullout enhances our chances at winning back the Ashes. Are we secretly thinking that all Englishmen are weak generally anyway?
I only pose these questions because I believe we should be sympathetic to everyone who suffers from Mental illness, even our own people. It is not a weakness, its just an illness that can effect anyone. It is one thing to suffer in silence like a lot of Australians. But we should also show our support for those who suffer in the harsh spotlight of international sport.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
High Court's Decison regarding Work Choices - Storm in a teacup?
Is it just me, or have the newspapers just gone a little overboard regarding this decision.
For those not quite up to date, the State Governments of Australia took the Federal Government of Australia to the High Court to claim that the new industrial relations laws (i.e "Work Choices") were unconstitutional.
From my extremely limited knowledge of the constitution, I always thought the states were in for a hard time. The constitution pretty much gives the Federal Government full sway over regulating corporations (or companies). And in the event of a conflict between state law and federal law, the federal law wins. And all this from a 31 year old I.T guy, let alone the high-price aging lawyers the states no doubt had available...
Makes you wonder what it was all about. From this little black goat, it just strikes me as a political exercise. Labour Party in Power states want to show the little people they can kick the ass of the Liberal overlords. And its paid for by the taxpayer..Nice one.
But then the press has gone in...That the decision is the thin edge of the wedge..that the Federal Government will use the decision to grab control over education or health. Pleasssssssssssse!
The only reason the Feds won this one was that the corporations power is explicitly listed in the Constitution. Otherwise the states would have won. Lets not get too excited about something that will never happen.
For those not quite up to date, the State Governments of Australia took the Federal Government of Australia to the High Court to claim that the new industrial relations laws (i.e "Work Choices") were unconstitutional.
From my extremely limited knowledge of the constitution, I always thought the states were in for a hard time. The constitution pretty much gives the Federal Government full sway over regulating corporations (or companies). And in the event of a conflict between state law and federal law, the federal law wins. And all this from a 31 year old I.T guy, let alone the high-price aging lawyers the states no doubt had available...
Makes you wonder what it was all about. From this little black goat, it just strikes me as a political exercise. Labour Party in Power states want to show the little people they can kick the ass of the Liberal overlords. And its paid for by the taxpayer..Nice one.
But then the press has gone in...That the decision is the thin edge of the wedge..that the Federal Government will use the decision to grab control over education or health. Pleasssssssssssse!
The only reason the Feds won this one was that the corporations power is explicitly listed in the Constitution. Otherwise the states would have won. Lets not get too excited about something that will never happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)