E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Vimu Subscription

Australian Consumer Network - Craig Hill

Politics - Australian Consumer Network

Airport Security Assists Thieves

May 27th 2008 02:40

There have been reports in the Australian media recently of the perils to travellers at Australian airports. This particular peril doesn’t come from terrorists or the like - it comes from thieves at security check in points, unwittingly assisted by airport security personnel.

Video footage has been released of thieves waiting at the other end of the x-ray machine conveyor belts, and taking the property of others. Rings, wallets, watches and the like are all required to be removed, and are easy for nimble fingered thieves to palm and hide without attracting too much attention.

The problem has been compounded by the increase in passengers having to remove their shoes, then later put them back on, and more incidents of passengers being double checked with metal detection wands, even after walking through the gateway metal detector. There are also random explosive tests, drug sniffer dogs, and others.

The results of all these scans is that the passenger’s valuables are sitting unsecured and unattended at the other end of the conveyor belt, usually out of sight of the passenger, sometimes for up to five minutes, and on occasion even longer. This gives thieves more than ample opportunity to steal the unaccompanied valuables.

Even laptops are more regularly being stolen, as thieves can make a quick getaway, and be out of the airport before security or police can be notified. Some security footage has shown thieves wearing long coats, sitting on the laptops, and hiding them under the coats, before walking off unnoticed.

While it is necessary and desirable for passengers to undergo such security, in a world fraught with the spectre of terrorism, it is clear that better systems is needed to ensure the security of passengers personal belongings.

Vote

Shared on

Australian Consumer Network

CraigH Friends

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: CraigH - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

Child Porn Is Not Art

May 26th 2008 13:52

Bill Henson’s claim that his pictures of naked preteens are art is not to be taken seriously - it is child porn, nothing less, and a pathetic attempt to use established art galleries as a false veneer for respectability. The fact that the web site showing the children’s photos was based off shore shows clearly that those involved were trying to ensure that Australian authorities could not close that down as well.

The photographer appears to have found a loop hole in the law. Such exhibitions are not officially classified, as art is considered exempt from censorship. The photos are then put on the internet, under the guise that they are simply reproductions of an endorsed art exhibition.

However, it should be remembered that no official authority is actually needed to endorse an art exhibition. Anyone can call anything they like “art”, without anybody having any right to challenge it. Art is a very subjective term, and art itself can be a variety of things to different people.

Some supporters of the preteen naked photos have stated that children were often painted naked in the past, and by some of the masters of painting. This is true.

However, in those days gone by, art galleries were the domain of a small minority, and the paintings themselves were the work of talented artists who had spent many years refining their craft. Those viewing were also generally well versed in the ways of the artists, and appreciative of the skills and beauty of the portrayal of such subjects.

Prior to the 1800’s, the legal age of consent in most western countries (including England) was 12 years old, and sometimes less. Such paintings were socially acceptable, and the subject’s participation perfectly legal at the time. In today’s society, the depiction of such subjects is not socially acceptable, and is also illegal.

Additionally, the subjects have not simply been hung in an art gallery, for the perusal of dedicated and probably sincere art admirers. They have been put on the internet, through an overseas location, where no end of perverts all over the world can do whatever perverts do when they look at naked pictures of 12 year old boys and girls.

The changing faces of technology have meant that society has had to take different approaches to such issues. Mr Henson seems to have found a way to peddle his illicit photos, by abusing the assumed morality of a probably respectable art gallery.

However, it should be remembered that he never meant for these photos to be limited to genuine art lovers. He wanted them to be seen on the internet, by all sorts of people who have probably no idea of where to find an art gallery, even if they did know what a gallery was.

His photos on the internet are a child porn site. They can not be viewed as anything else, despite his pathetic attempts to justify them as art.

Vote

Shared on

Australian Consumer Network

CraigH Friends

Comments (4)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: CraigH - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

Tax On Diesel

April 22nd 2008 08:05

There has been much debate recently about tax on diesel. This tax was introduced to fund the infrastructure for natural gas, but this infrastructure has never happened. So the question arises: why do we still pay the tax.

When diesel first became popular, it was because it was cheaper. It was cheaper, because it is less refined, so costs less to produce than other petrol does. This is also the reason that diesel vehicles are more expensive than petrol cars.

Many people opted to pay more for diesel vehicles, on the premise that the long term savings on fuel would be more economical. However, as the number of diesel vehicles has increased, so too has the greed of the oil companies and governments.

Knowing that people are locked in to using diesel, because of the large outlays for their vehicles, prices have soared, to a stage where diesel now costs more per litre than petrol, even though it is much cheaper to produce.

In Europe, diesel is about 25% cheaper than in Australia. The oil companies state that it is higher in Australia, because the price is indexed to the Singapore price (the same old line they use for higher petrol prices). In Asia, diesel vehicles are far more popular per capita than in other countries, and oil companies tend to charge higher prices simply because they can get away with it. In effect, they are profiteering.

There is little regulation in many Asian countries. These over inflated prices are then passed back to the Australian consumer, simply because Australia happens to be in the same general geographic region. The Singapore index is not reflective of the world market.

Diesel is also more climate friendly than petrol. So why then doesn’t Penny Wong, Australia’s climate change minister, act on this rip-off by the oil companies? And why doesn’t the government axe the tax on diesel, which has never been used for the reason it was introduced?

Vote

Shared on

Australian Consumer Network

CraigH Friends

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: CraigH - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

Charities Helping Themselves?

April 3rd 2008 06:35

About 90% of Australian people donate an average of $400 per person to charity each year. But how much do the charities use to help others, and how much do they use to help themselves? A survey by choice magazine last month showed some surprising results.

Of the 11 major charities surveyed, all with exactly the same questions, nine responded. Two, Lifeline Community Care Queensland and National Heart Foundation, refused to participate. Of the nine that did participate, most answered only selected questions, ignoring questions that didn’t suit them.

What became evident to Choice was that it is nearly impossible to compare the charities, given that they each use different reporting methods. There are no standardised reporting systems for not-for-profit organisations in Australia. There are such standards overseas, including the UK, Canada and New Zealand. In many cases, reporting and disclosure is voluntary, meaning charities do not have to reveal their financial situation if it doesn’t suit them.

Some of the major coordinating groups for charities stated that many charities figures are misleading, and many under-report the actual amount that is spent on administration, in a misleading attempt to appease their supporters. There are no regulations in Australia to prevent this, as happens in the corporate and private sectors.

My own experiences working with many charities, including winning the Vodafone World of Difference Award in 2006 for my work, is that the charities are largely run by unqualified people. In one major charity, that I will talk about in a later post, none of the managers at any level had any qualifications in business, accounting, management, social work, or any other tertiary field at all.

There were no internal audit procedures whatsoever. Product was sold each week, and the amount sold was routinely reported as lower than actual sales by the manager. The manager then claimed to have given away for free all the left over stock, claiming it was for promotional purposes. Because no reporting is required, no police or other action can be taken, as there are no records kept.

Most charities do not fall into this category, and such instances are usually the result of the greed of one, rather than the greed of the whole organisation.

However, Choice have called for greater accountability and transparency for charities, along with national compulsory guidelines for reporting and disclosure. It will be interesting to see if the new federal minister for charities, Senator Ursula Stephens, takes this on board or not.

Vote

Shared on

Australian Consumer Network

CraigH Friends

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: CraigH - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

Westpac and National Home Interest Rate Rises

March 28th 2008 06:33

So Westpac have raised their interest rates yet again. The Sydney Morning Herald reported this morning that the bank had raised its rate to 9.37%, following the National bank's rise to 9.36% on Wednesday. The fact that they went higher than teir competitor seems to be an invitation for the other major banks to get on the bandwagon and raise their rates as well. No doubt the other banks will rise to the occasion.

Two things seems futile to me. Firstly, what is the point of the Reserve Bank setting interest rate rises, when the banks make up some nonsense story that nobody understands, and set the rates at whatever they feel like, much higher than the reserve Bank has declared.

Secondly, why are interest rates all around the world dropping drastically, yet Australia seems to be going exactly the opposite direction, with drastic increases? Westpac have stated the rates are rising because they are operating in a global economy where long and short-term funding costs are at record levels. The National simply cites the increased cost of wholesale funds.

Now I don't really understand what either of those statements mean, and I suspect the don't, and the banks make the statements knowing it exactly for that reason. I do, however, note that Wespac refers to a global economy. I assume this is the same global economy that other countries are operating in? Countries where the interest rates are falling.

It seems, in Australia at least, the banks can do whatever they want, with no fear of regulation by any authority.

Vote

Shared on

Australian Consumer Network

CraigH Friends

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: CraigH - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

Grocery Products That Shrink

March 24th 2008 20:53

One thing that really annoys me is the fact that manufacturers treat us like fools. They claim the prices of their products are not rising as much as inflation, but, on close inspection, it is obvious that the products they sell actually contain less than before.

Take cereal, for example. A report from the Today show in America this morning showed that a box of cereal used to contain 14 oz of cereal. Now it only contains 12.25 oz. In real terms, this means the old box used to give 14 serves of breakfast. Now, it only gives 12 serves. The cost per serve of cereal has risen more than what the manufacturer would have you believe

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Shared on

Australian Consumer Network

CraigH Friends

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: CraigH - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

About This Post and Its New Author

March 22nd 2008 06:20

II am an Australian writer, teacher and manager, and have worked across a wide variety of industries. These include education, journalism, politics, retail, finance & banking, health and construction, among others.

In recent years, I have had the opportunity to work for a national publication (over 160,000 readers fortnightly) and a federal senator. In these positions, I came to know more intimately the workings of corporate entities

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Shared on

Australian Consumer Network

CraigH Friends

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: CraigH - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

We've gone too far

February 14th 2007 05:08

Is it any surprise that radical Muslims are going from strength to strength and that the West is seen as ineffectual, weak and pandering when we read stories such as this one? A Muslim convicted of child sex offences has been awarded $2000 compensation because he was not provided with Halal meat while serving his time in a Queensland jail.

To me that just seems plain wriong. How would the parents of the childen he molested feel? The guy is a convicted child sex offender which on the scale of offence is the lowest of the low. I reckon part of your punishment should be to forfeit any claim to special dietary requirements (except possibly in extreme medical cases) while you serve your term. He wasn't forced to eat any foods he objected to, he just didn't get the foods he wanted. I'm sorry, but we've gone too far in pandering to prisoners' sensitivities when it comes to this

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Shared on

Australian Consumer Network

CraigH Friends

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Ross - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

Lil' Kim gets a rap

September 14th 2006 02:08

Poor old Kim Beasley is getting a beating over his proposal that people who want to come to Australia should sign a form saying they subscribe to Australian Values. Now that the Labor caucus has finished with him it's Miranda Divine's turn to have a go.

To those who argue that signing a piece of paper means nothing (see comments below) I would say that there is a way to really make the declaration bite

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Ross - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

Integration - it's a no brainer

September 12th 2006 00:39

The debate on whether or not people immigrating to Australia should integrate is an interesting one, but we need to ask ourselves what we mean by integration.

There's no doubt that Australia benefs from the millions of immigrants who have come from countries around the world. A person's world view is heavily influenced by the country in which he or she is born and raised and when people from other countries come to Australia they contribute to the depth of culture and maturity in this country

[ Click here to read more ]

111

Vote

Comments (14)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Ross - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

Knack Promotes Sending them to the Knackers

September 1st 2006 02:29

SA Democrat MP Sandra Knack decided on Wednesday that it would be a good use of parliamentary privilege to describe to the house in great detail various methods by which people can kill themselves. She took this ludicrous course of action because she doesn't agree with the Suicide Material Related Offences Act, which prohibits the electronic dissemination of methods of suicide. Mike Rann responded to her stunt by excluding her speech from the electronic version of Hansard which is available on the internet.

The story raises a number of issues. Parliamentary privilege is essential so that parliament can make laws and raise taxes free from the interference of government and the courts. That is the purpose of Parliamentary privilege. It's not there to push an ideological belief held by an individual member. Abusing it will result in it's curtailment - a very risky business

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Ross - Category: Politics

Email this Post to a Friend

[ Australian Consumer Network Home ] [ Create A New Post ]