Doctor and activist


Notice: Undefined index: hide_archive_titles in /home/chesterf/public_html/wp-content/themes/modern-business/includes/theme-functions.php on line 233

Author: Arthur Chesterfield-Evans

22/05/2025

Tobacco Tax Rises

22 May 2025
I started it, but look what has happened now.

In 1983 I attended the 5th World Conference on Smoking and Health in Winnipeg, Canada. It was all about the health effects of smoking. There were no activist or political sessions and Stan Glantz of American for Non-Smokers Rights called an evening meeting for those interested. I gave a paper on BUGA UP, which was the only paper that had to be given again because the room was too small for the audience.

I met a very significant figure, William Weis of Seattle who had a paper on the price sensitivity of tobacco. He said that if the price of cigarettes went up 10%, total consumption would go down 4.5%, so if the rise was tax, the government would make money. He also said that young people were more price-sensitive than adults, so consumption by those under 18 would go down 12% and uptake by young people would also go down by 12%.

Thus tobacco tax was a good revenue measure and good for public health.
I came home and wrote to the health minister without effect, but I also wrote to the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria (ACCV) and ACOSH, (Australian Council on Smoking and Health) who were in WA. They were the most active bodies on tobacco in Australia at that time.

Australian tax was low by international standards at that time, being 50%. Only the US was lower among developed countries at 36%. Denmark had the world’s highest at 85%.

The Australian tobacco growers were supported by the TISP (Tobacco Industry Support Program), which subsidised them as they could not compete on price with developing countries such as Zimbabwe. The Australian tobacco manufacturing industry, mainly British American Tobacco- AMATIL and Rothmans bought just over 50% of their tobacco from the Australian growers, who were mainly in Queensland, with about 20% in Victoria and about 3% in NSW. They did this although it was more expensive because the farmers were useful as a lobby group, and the tobacco was only about 1% of the final price anyway.

The ACCV took up the excise case and started to lobby the Federal government for the 1984 budget. At that time there were both Federal and state taxes.

The campaign against tobacco in Australia differed from those in other countries largely because of the existence of BUGA UP, which had first become active in 1979. In most countries, the health lobby had been beavering away for years with little success, as the tobacco industry simply funded political parties on the deal that they could say what they liked about tobacco, but not legislate against it till the next election, when they would offer the same deal. 

The smokers were said to know the risks and were supposedly happy to take them. The Non-Smokers Rights Movements, who did not like the smoke, were the forefront of activism around the world, but the industry painted the battle as one between smokers and nonsmokers and asked for tolerance and understanding. This naturally translated into non-smokers putting up with the smoke. 

Great store was placed on the medical evidence of a Japanese professor, Takeshi Hirayama, who published a paper in the BMJ in 1981 showing that wives of smoking men had a higher incidence of lung cancer than wives of non-smokers. Naturally the tobacco industry denied all this, and governments, paid to dither, did nothing except talk. The Non-Smokers Rights groups did make it a political issue and tried to use product liability cases to advance their cause. 

In Australia, Geoff Coleman a still unknown activist and one of the three founders of BUGA UP reframed the debate, saying it was not a battle between smokers and non-smokers; Tobacco was a rogue industry, happy to kill people to make its profits, and buying the advertising industry and the politicians as part of this business model. The advertising industry similarly was happy to say anything that its clients wanted without regard for the consequences of the consumption changes that they achieved. Hence the BUGA UP acronym, Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions. Cigarette billboards were about half of all outdoor advertising at that time and by far the most prolific at points of sale, so that general stores were chiefly recognisable because they were covered in tobacco ads. The key BUGA UP concept was that anyone could paint (reface) a billboard and sign it BUGA UP, so there would be a unifying concept from a public point of view without any formal structure. BUGA UP also wanted to tap into the Australian larrikin image and to use humour to satirise the absurd imagery of the tobacco ads. There were also street protests and disruptions of tobacco promotions, which were happening in shopping centres, pubs and music venues as well as all the sports sponsorships. BUGA UP activists were arrested for graffiti vandalism or staying on premises against orders to leave, and the court cases were played for publicity, and to contrast that some people were being arrested for doing good, while the industries were getting away with doing bad.

It must be mentioned that when tobacco advertising was banned from TV, the industry had switched to sponsorship, which meant that rather than paying the Telecaster directly, they paid the sport. This had two advantages; it was cheaper in terms of the amount of time that the brand was on TV, and it also gave them a political ally if there was any attempt to ban the sponsorships. They gave money to basically anyone who would take it, supporting cultural events and ethnic clubs to build the lobby, so while BUGA UP was winning the PR battle against the industry, it was getting its allies in order. This played out in Western Australia where the government tried to ban tobacco sponsorship in 1984 and was defeated. In Victoria the health forces were more successful with the Victorian Tobacco Act or 1987 raising tobacco excise to do three things; replace the tobacco sponsorships of just about everything with health promotion messages, have some grants for organisations that would promote health and fund some medical research. All the political opposition was bought out except the Tobacco industry itself. Health promotion foundations were created in Victoria, SA and WA, but the industry managed to get other State treasuries to stop the further spread of them by saying that they created the precedent of hypothecated taxes, which would reduce Treasury control over where money was spent.

Excise taxes were later rationalised so as only to be collected Federally after a High Court case ruled that States could not collect such a tax.  (Ha v NSW in 1997, Ha was a tobacco wholesaler).

The rise of vapes is another story. As World Conferences on Tobacco and Health, (Later changed to Tobacco or Health) went on, the tobacco industry used to run parallel conferences in the same cities with tame doctors are produce a book of proceedings of these with summaries that took a very anodyne view of the tobacco problem, to encourage the idea that legislation was not really needed, edited by people such as Robert Tollison. These books were then sent free to public libraries, some of them mistaking them for proceedings of the world conference as the dates were similar. The tobacco industry also wanted to medicalise the whole issue of quitting, so that addiction was a medical problem to be treated by gradually reducing nicotine doses in lozenges or patches. Their conferences were often subsidised and created a market and a rationale for practitioners in Quit Clinics. 

The technology of the quitting devices kept being ‘improved’ until they were a whole new drug delivery device, ready for a new market. Some companies that were ahead of the tobacco industry in their technologies were bought by the industry, who were taking advantage of the new social media market that could reach young people without older demographics being aware of what was happening. Some of the medical folk, obsessed by the carcinogenesis of tobacco, and influenced by harm minimisation strategies from hard drugs and AIDS advocated vapes as a quit aid, which immensely helped the tobacco industry in avoiding having to prove that vaping chemicals were safe; they just had to be better than cigarettes, an easy bar to clear.

At a political level, the last Federal Health Minister to take tobacco seriously was Nicola Roxon in the Gillard government. After this there were some Liberals, perhaps helped by vaping associated party donations, who felt that vaping should be encouraged, and certainly not regulated against. So instead of working hard to get the remaining lower demographic of smokers to quit, and linking vaping to smoking as other undesirable health behaviour, there was no real action, except on tobacco excise. This continued to be raised, so that the price was far too high for the poorer demographic who continued to smoke, so there was a huge margin of profit for chop chop, tobacco leaves from the farm, or for imported smuggled cigarettes. 

The social marketing of vaping products had gone on unabated and medical research was trickling in showing that as many young people started vaping and went to smoking as ever managed to use vapes to quit. There were a few cases of deaths from vaping and scientific evidence that the cilia, the tiny hairs that move to mucus up the bronchi to clean out the lungs were adversely affected, but the industry has naturally ignored these and have reversed the onus of proof politically. Now they do not have to prove it is harmless, the medical profession will again have to prove it is harmful and get this through the political process. Last time this took 50 years; from smoking being linked to lung cancer in 1950, to a ban on indoor smoking in NSW in 2000.

Now with no action except excise rises since the election of the Abbott government in 2013, Labor is trying a prohibition approach that is unlikely to succeed. The vaping industry marketing is significantly controlled by tobacco and vapes are largely distributed by organised crime. An article in the SMH stated that there were 60 tobacconists for every McDonalds (SMH 19/5/25). Many recent stories of firebombing of tobacconists emphasise the criminals’ power. The challenge to stamp out vaping by medical evidence and the marketing of such evidence is now a huge challenge that I no longer have either the expertise nor the energy to tackle. Here is an update from the SMH.


The tobacco tax is a disaster playing out on our streets and in our budget
By Shane Wright
SMH May 19, 2025
The tax and policing approach to tobacco across this country is becoming a social, economic and legal disaster.
This disaster is playing out in our streets – from more than 120 arson attacks across Melbourne that have claimed at least one life to dodgy looking tobacco shops in Newtown and small “farms” in rural areas with unusual-looking cash crops, it’s clear to anyone that the current system is failing.
Not only is criminal activity becoming the norm, hundreds of thousands of ordinary people are being dragged into breaking the law every time they light up a cheap ciggie.
America launched a war on drugs, and it failed. What’s going on in this country at present is eerily similar.
Not only have ever-more expensive cigarettes created market opportunities for organised crime, but they’ve also provided smokers with products that could be worse for their health than legal products.
That’s the human side of ever-increasing excise rates being used to tax smoking out of existence. There’s also the economic side.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers is dealing with what is now a $43 billion hole in tobacco excise since 2020 that affects the provision of services, welfare and infrastructure to the entire community.
That’s due to governments of both political persuasions overestimating just how much revenue their assault on tobacco would reap for the budget bottom line. And, as revenue has fallen, governments have spent more money on trying to make up for the cash shortfall.
The situation is so out of hand that in his pre-election budget, Chalmers pumped an extra $156.7 million over the next two years into increased efforts to police the illicit tobacco trade. That was in March.
In January last year, the government announced an extra $188.5 million over four years for Border Force to work with the states in a “co-ordinated effort to tackle all aspects of illicit tobacco”.
That extra policing was partly paid for by another increase in tobacco excise, worth 5 per cent a year for three years, that began on September 1, 2023. At the time, it was estimated it would garner an extra $3.3 billion in excise revenue.
But it’s clear that it did not. In the two years since that excise increase was announced, excise collections for 2023-24 and 2024-25 have been downgraded by $9.3 billion.
Apart from the extra resources pumped into state health departments, the country now has its own version of Eliot Ness in the form of Erin Dale, a senior Border Force official who is the nation’s “Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner”.
Public health advocates in this country have led the way in trying to reduce tobacco consumption. From ending television commercials to sports sponsorship and plain packaging, they’ve made huge strides in making cigarettes as unattractive as possible to potential new smokers.
Price – through tax – has been another key element to their strategy. But somewhere along the line, the key economic concept of substitution has been ignored.
In this case, the substitution is whether people switch to chemist-only vaping products or get their fix via the black economy. And guess what? Australians have done both.
Given the way smokers are more likely to be lower-income earners, every large lift in excise disproportionately affects those least able to afford it. The assumption was that these people would give up.
Instead, the economy came up with another solution – a thriving, illegal but cheap market.
Public health officials, police and politicians have to come up with another way to deal with the explosion in illicit tobacco. The starting point has to be an acknowledgment that there is a cohort of people who will continue to smoke, no matter the health impacts.
And this approach has to cut the cord between federal governments and higher excise as an easy way to repair the budget. Tobacco excise is just a sign of the problems for the budget that are coming as petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles give way to electric ones.
At the end of The Untouchables, Ness is asked what he was going to do if Prohibition came to an end.
“I think I’ll have a drink,” he replies.
We don’t want a situation where people just light up and do irreparable damage to themselves and their loved ones. But we can’t continue with a series of policies that are not working.

Continue Reading

14/04/2025

AI and Trump

11 April 2024

I use AI (Artificial Intelligence) to do some medical work.. The program is called Heidihealth. It is free, remarkably enough and records the consultation, transcribes it, and then puts out the results according to a template. I have no idea how to make a template, but the one for GP consultations is very satisfactory. It records the history, the examination findings as I state them or even mention them, then the diagnosis, plans and next appointment. If there is a discussion about the cricket, or an interruption such as a phone call or an interpreter talking a foreign language, it can ignore all this and still come up with a summary.

I am sure that AI could replace 95% of what I do, and pick up a couple of percent by forgetting nothing and responding in a few seconds. AI will soon be far superior to human thinking.

Here is an SMH article on Trump’s policies:

Did an AI chatbot help draft the US tariff policy?
By Tim Biggs
April 10, 2025

As Donald Trump’s tariff turnaround sends global economies reeling, there’s as much discussion online about how the US president came up with his plan as there is about why he’s now pausing it.
Among many theories, one recurring idea is that Team Trump simply asked ChatGPT or some other large language model to come up with a solution for its trade woes and then ran with it.
The thought has some intuitive appeal given how confidence in the US government’s ability to balance technology use with responsible governance is at an all-time low. But does it hold any water? And, if true, why would that be a terrible thing?
Some Trump-watchers cried ChatGPT almost immediately as the president unveiled his reciprocal tariffs this month, but mostly because they seemed to make little sense at first. Why were countries where the US has a trade surplus still being hit for 10 per cent? How can small island nations with barely any US trade be whacked in the mid-70s?
Journalists and analysts soon found that, despite US government claims that it had calculated the tariffs for each nation and considered existing non-tariff barriers, the list of tariffs actually followed a set and elementary formula; trade deficit divided by exports, with a minimum 10 per cent tariff. The government denied this, but then provided its calculations which showed that’s precisely what it had done.
This kicked speculation about AI usage into high gear, and in a thread on X (plus a summary essay), we see engineer Rohit Krishnan make a convincing argument. After Krishnan asked several large language models to provide a formula for calculating tariffs on each country, with the goal of putting the US on an even playing field, each one returned a formulation very similar to the one Trump’s administration is using.
Krishnan also suspected that the administration had used AI to set the list of domains to be hit by tariffs — given weird inclusions such as Nauru and Reunion Island — as well as the 400-page report justifying it all, which he claimed could be largely generated by a deep research tool if fed enough data.
Of course the fact that the US government and chatbots came to similar conclusions is not proof that one used the other. And we can’t be sure that the chatbot’s output today hasn’t been influenced by the past week of discussion following the tariffs’ announcements. Plus, similar tariff calculations were discussed by Trump in his first term, and by adviser Peter Navarro, so the chatbots could just be accurately predicting what the US would do.
But whether Team Trump used AI or not, asking the likes of ChatGPT and others to come up with the plan does elucidate the situation in some interesting ways.
The road test
I submitted the following prompt to a number of chatbots:
Please come up with a formula that the US government could use to impose tariffs on each nation. The goal is to put the US on an even footing when it comes to trade deficit.
Google’s Gemini immediately cautioned that “designing a formula that is economically sound, fair, and doesn’t trigger harmful retaliations is incredibly complex”, and even though it provided a formula, it additionally worried that it was “highly simplified and potentially problematic”. The formula finds the difference between imports and exports, and expresses it as a percentage of total US imports.
Gemini then delivered a very long and detailed explanation of why the wording of my question was problematic, and why implementing the plan was dangerous. Humorously, it suggested a better strategy would be to focus on US competitiveness by investing in education and infrastructure, while working constructively with other nations to address economic imbalances.

The beginning of Gemini’s very long response.
DeepSeek went further, suggesting the same base formula but adding additional penalties for undervalued currencies and for exports that “exploit weak labor/environmental standards”. That way, it said, the nations engaging in unfair practices would be hit hardest but there would be ways for them to reduce the tariff through negotiating. It did warn US consumer prices would rise.
ChatGPT again suggested a similar base formula, with an adjustable level of aggression and a global correction factor “if the overall trade deficit is persistent”. It noted that its formula meant that balanced or surplus countries face would face no tariffs, so to get to Trump’s calculations I would have had to ask for a 10 per cent base level for all nations.
ChatGPT also gave a long list of reasons the formula would not work, explicitly advising that the US would be shooting itself in the foot, and handily summed the implications up as: higher consumer prices, damaged trade relationships, legal blowback, and slower economic growth. I asked for mitigation ideas, it listed an upper limit on tariffs, a gradual phase-in, exemptions for critical goods or those not available in the US, carve-outs for allies and reinvestment of tariff revenue. The Trump administration is not adopting any of those.

ChatGPT lists some reasons to be cautious in rolling out retaliatory tariffs.
So it seems likely that even if the Trump administration did use AI, it took the formulation and ran with it despite the chatbot itself spelling out why that would be such a bad idea. Krishnan wrote that asking language models about governance might not be a bad idea in absolute terms, but that this case pointed to a lack of chatbot literacy; the user asked a bad question filled with wrong assumptions, then ran with the answer ignoring the qualifications.
He called it “vibe governing”, a spin on the recently coined phrase “vibe coding”, in which a user describes a desired output to an AI and lets it do the coding.
RMIT’s Dr Samar Fatima said that directly using the output of an AI chatbot to craft public policy design or governance could have lethal results, and that the responses from large language models (LLMs) — broad and based on data indifferently scraped from the public internet — were not reliable enough for government use.
“There are so many factors which are contextual, which need that human insight, which have to cover those small nuances of a country’s economy, the geographical position, the political environment, the overall international trade environment,” she said.
“An LLM will not be able to comprehend those unspoken factors, which are there but they are not quite published, or part of the data set.”
So could the Trump administration have taken a chatbot’s word for it and tanked the global economy by accident? It’s impossible to know. And with AI advancing so quickly Fatima said that regulation was unlikely to catch up, but that changes which obliged policymakers to disclose AI use could help mitigate some of the worst impacts.
“In terms of transparency, AI systems are still a black box. And if the output’s used in a system where it is not even disclosed that it was generated by AI, then the black box goes to another level of blackness,” she said.
“Then we cannot even really figure out how the decision was made, while it’s affecting the lives of billions.”

Continue Reading

29/03/2025

2025 March Budget Response

27 March 2025

Warning. This is a long post, with my opinion followed by a more detailed analysis from Zali Steggall.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has now brought down his March pre-election budget.

All the noise is about the few sweeteners, the $150 electricity rebate (paid to the companies that are maintaining the prices), and a very modest tax cut, coming in the future, and perhaps not even enough to overcome bracket creep.

In the nine and half page analyses in the SM Herald the next day, not one got down to any sort of real discussion of the details. Ross Gittins summed up the situation best with his closing comment, ‘This government is timid, uninspired and uninspiring. This budget fits it perfectly’.

To look in more detail, I got an email from Zali Seggall, the Teal from Warringah, a barrister and ex-Olympic skiing medallist who defeated Tony Abbott, the then Prime Minister to win the seat. She at least had done her homework, though she skirts some of the bigger issues that might be politically sensitive for her, as she also faces her conservative electorate in a few weeks.

If the standard to measure budget is what needs to be done, it is quite a poor budget, mostly just business as usual with only little tinkering, but that has been the whole approach of the Albanese government, and why the Greens are rising on the Left of the Labor Party, and the Teals are rising on the left of the Liberal Party.

There is minimal for Climate Change, dwarfed by the subsidies for diesel fuel and the fossil fuel lobby.

There is no discussion of tax reform, though negative gearing and the capital gains tax concession is responsible for the huge amount of ‘investment’ in property speculation, which also raises rents and means that poorer people cannot get Housing. This also affects domestic violence as women have nowhere to go, crime and kids unable to start a family. Research gets little, and the National Anti-Corruption Commission and Australian Electoral Reform Commission to stop electoral disinformation is similarly neglected. Defence has a tiny increase presumably to please Trump, or try to remedy the fact that the US cannot be relied upon, but the huge issue of the AUKUS submarines is not addressed in the Budget, nor by Zali. Aged Care needs a lot of policing as do many privatised industries. Medicare will supposedly be revived, but they are still having trouble recruiting GPs and nurses. No prizes for guessing why. The government has had control of the wages and rebates and has simply let them fall against inflation. There has been some tinkering with Medicare, but the GPs and nurses remain unconvinced.

But if you think that Labor was poor on policy, you need to think about the Liberal’s effort in reply on 27th. Dutton wants to lower the petrol temporarily. This will naturally favour commuters with big cars in outer suburban marginal electorates. It will also be bad for Climate Change and delay electrification of the car fleet. He wants to solve the energy crisis by producing more gas by fracking NSW (sorry environment again), sack 40,000 public servants (about half of Canberra’s public servants, who will presumably be replaced by private consultants at twice the price), and of course his nuclear policy for expensive electricity in never-never time. (We need not mention that the coming large-scale renewables need supplementation that can be turned on and off, and nuclear does better at producing a constant flow).

But since the new politics seems to be that you criticise your way into power, perhaps he has a chance. One observer looking out for Liberal policy says the best guide is Gina Reinhardt’s Twitter (X) feed, but I have not researched the veracity of this.

Here is the article from Zali Steggall:

Budget
With $17 billion in tax cuts, this budget will benefit working Australians, but the government has again avoided meaningful tax reform. Of note, there is a downgrade to revenue from weak Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) with forecast revenue slashed from $10 billion to $6.3 billion by 2026-27. Australia is collecting more tax from beer drinkers than fossil fuel companies. The government has again failed to scale back support through the diesel fuel tax credits for mining companies, now predicted to increase to $46 billion.

The extension of the energy bill relief ($150) is welcome but not means tested so includes an element of spending waste. Continued investment in community batteries and social housing electrification are steps in the right direction. However, there remains an urgent need for the government to prioritise renewable household energy through rooftop solar and battery programs which offer lasting cost-of-living reductions and emissions cuts.

The budget includes a number of positive measures in health and education, particularly for women’s health and affordable childcare, and continues some investment in future-facing industries like green metals.

One of the most promising developments in the budget is the government’s adoption of the Productivity Commission’s recommendation to eliminate non-compete clauses for low and mid-income workers—a measure that while not a headline grabber, will provide a much need boost to productivity and labour mobility.

It was also good to see a modest increase in foreign aid, in line with calls for Australia to strengthen its leadership in the region.

However, this budget fails to respond adequately to the climate and nature crises. Alarmingly, fossil fuels continue to receive six times the funding allocated to nature. There is no meaningful investment in environmental protection, or additional funding for an EPA despite the enormous and growing fiscal impact of natural disasters.

It’s a false premise to think we can prioritise a cost-of-living budget over climate measures as climate change is already costing us, and the longer we wait to mitigate and adapt, the more expensive it will be.

It is disappointing that the government announced a mere $28.8m over two years to ‘improve Australians resilience to natural hazards and preparedness to response to disasters’ in the same section it notes that Cyclone Alfred is estimated to cost $13.5b in disaster support and recovery. Piecemeal upgrades to roads in marginal electorates do not constitute a genuine resilience strategy.

Defence spending is accelerating, but national security isn’t just about weapons and wars – it’s about regional stability. Defence spending alone isn’t enough. When disasters strike, fragile infrastructure turns climate shocks into prolonged crises, fuelling unrest and displacement. True security means helping our neighbours build resilience before disaster strikes.

JobSeeker and Youth Allowance remain unchanged, so our most vulnerable are falling further below the poverty line. There is also a glaring gap in support for women and children escaping domestic violence, with only a $2.5 million increase for crisis accommodation—far below what is needed to address the scale of the crisis.

Climate and Environment
• No significant funding uplift for climate resilience and adaptation.
• Over $46 billion on fuel tax credits. This is six times more than funding for environmental protection.
• Downgrade in revenue forecast of the government’s weak petroleum resource rent tax.
Commentary:
• The government has acknowledged that climate change is expected to have a significant impact on the Budget, both in terms of risks and opportunities. However, there has been no new funding for climate adaptation and resilience, simply $28 million of targeted funding, including $17.7 million for the Bushfire Community Recovery and Resilience Program.
• The aftermath of ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred has been felt throughout this Budget. With $1.2 billion allocated for disaster relief, the full cost is anticipated to rise to $13.5 billion.
• In terms of funding for disaster resilience, there has been little foresight to keep our communities safe with only $200 million expected to be provided over the forward estimates from the Disaster Ready Fund. Disappointingly, we also see a decrease of funding to the National Emergency Management Agency to assist with planning and preparing of future disasters from $27 million in 2025-26 to $12 million in 2028-29.
• We are still waiting for the government’s National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan to understand the full extent of climate risk for our communities. Unfortunately, the extent of new climate resilience investment is limited to flood proofing three roads with $354 million over the forward estimates.
• Despite the Government committing to better monitoring and reporting of methane emissions, there was nothing in the budget. It is disappointing that this funding was not prioritised given how critical it is that our emissions inventory has integrity to achieve the government’s 43% emissions reduction target and commitments under the Paris Agreement.
• In terms of nature, I welcome the government’s announcement of $250 million to fund Australia’s obligation to protect 30% of Australia’s bushland by 2030, but this is a far cry from the $5 billion estimated by the conservation sector. In addition to this, there is great hypocrisy in the $2 million in additional funding for protection of the Maugean Skate captive breeding program, when the government today rammed through legislation that puts the endangered species at risk.
Financial Relief for Individuals and Small Business
Progress
• Reforming Help to Buy Program to increase income threshold and house price limit
• Tax cuts for all Australians.
• $150 energy bill relief for every household and some small businesses.
• HELP changes come into effect – a 20% debt reduction, fairer indexation, and raising the minimum repayment threshold to an annual income of $67,000.
Falls Short
• Commonwealth Rent Assistance indexed but not increased.
• No ongoing funding for instant asset write-off, and no meaningful support for small businesses.
Commentary:
• It’s great to finally see the reforming of the Help to Buy scheme to start to match house prices in Warringah. Warringah has around 1% vacancy rate for rental properties and the average dwelling is more than $1 million. First home buyers are struggling to get their foot in the housing market, and this will help – but more needs to be done to reduce the cost of buying a home. However, there is still nothing to assist or support renters.
• I welcome the government’s investment into household electrification, including the continued funding of the Community Solar Banks Program and the Household Energy Upgrades Fund for supporting public and community social housing with electrification. This not only drives down emissions but also helps to bring energy bills down.
• For small business, there is limited financial relief in this Budget. The end of 2024 saw the highest number of insolvencies for small business over the past four years – our small businesses are struggling. We need to legislate a permanent instant asset write off for at least $50,000. It is vital that the Government legislates and makes this available to small businesses without delay.
• With cost-of-living pressures, it is concerning that there is no substantive uplift in Jobseeker, Youth Allowance, Austudy and Commonwealth Rent Assistance. I continue to advocate for the government to increase income support payments, such as JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and Parenting Payment, to at least $82 a day.
Economy and Industry
Progress
• $1 billion over 7 years for the Green Iron Investment Fund.
• $750 million for green metals.
• $2 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
• $20 million to support trade diversification with India.
• $54 million to increase supply and adoption of pre-fabrication and modular homes to help increase Australia’s housing supply.
Falls Short
• Budget deficit.
• No new funding for circular economy initiatives.
Commentary:
• There’s been talk on both sides of the growing deficit however, there is limited announcements on how we are going to grow the economy through increased productivity. The Government’s already announced $900 million National Productivity Fund provides an avenue to grow a skilled workforce and push out productivity measures, including the $54 million for prefabricated and modular homes and to prohibit non-compete clauses for low- and mid- income earners. However, meaningful, long-term policies and spending are still needed to continue to grow our productivity.
• There is some movement by the Government to decarbonise key industries, with $250 million for manufacturing low carbon fuels for sustainable aviation and diesel-reliant sectors, including transport, agriculture and construction. I also welcome the New Energy Apprenticeships Program and national electrician licensing program to support Australia’s energy transition.
• The $20 million for a Buy Australian campaign, which appears to be the only measure the Government has included to address growing tariff and trade war tensions, feels a bit misplaced. In the face of increased uncertainty, the government has foregone any new funding to push for greater research and innovation programs.
Defence and National Security
Progress
• Funding for building Australia’s domestic defence industry and capabilities.
• Additional $135 million in funding for foreign aid.
Falls Short
• No new funding for the Defence Net Zero and Defence Future Energy Strategies.
Commentary:
• Increased global tensions has meant that Australia’s previous heavy reliance on the US as our security backstop can’t be relied on anymore. As a result, there has been additional $1 billion dollars provided to defence in the Budget. This has been bundled with the $9.6 billion in defence funding that was already planned to be spent over the next four years.
• It’s going to be vital to have clear KPIs and deliverables from such an increase in defence spending to ensure that Australia gets value for money and necessary capabilities.
• I welcome the $5.1 billion allocated in Australia’s aid program. This announcement is a timely and much needed signal of our regional commitment and reversing the long-term decline in funding.

Safety at Home, Work and Online
Progress
• $6 million for ACCC’s National Anti-Scam Centre.
• $21.4 million for the implementation of the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into the justice responses to sexual violence in Australia.
• $175 million for NDIS integrity and cracking down on fraud.

Falls Short
• No funding for gambling advertising reform.
• No commitment to implementing an online duty of care or holding big tech to account.
• No new funding for Indigenous legal services, despite calls from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services for $1.15 billion.

Commentary:
• Aside from the funding to the ACCC’s National Anti-Scam Centre, there has been limited funding to online safety with no new funding for the e-Safety Commissioner’s work on keep young people safe online.
• Australia continues to face a crisis of women’s safety, yet while the investment of $21.8 million over 2 years for First Nations early intervention and prevention, only a mere $2.5 million has been allocated to crisis accommodation for women and children, which will make little to no difference at a national scale.
• It’s a strong start to see the allocation of $21.4 million in funding to over 3 years to implement the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Inquiry into the Justice System’s Response to sexual violence.

Education
Progress
• Full funding to government schools.
• $1 billion to establish the Building Early Education Fund to increase the supply of high-quality early childhood education.
• Three Day childcare Guarantee funded with $426.6 million.

Falls Short
• No measures to implement real time processing of HECS debt repayment to address indexation timing inequity of HECS.

Commentary:
• An additional $407.5 million will see that government schools receive full funding under the School Resource Standard.
• Investment into the early childhood education fund, paired with the 3-day childcare guarantee, is an important and necessary measure to support young families and assist young parents in returning to the workforce.
• A modest investment of $4.8 million is welcome to ensure the continuation of education programs to encourage update of STEM.
• The current Fee-Free TAFE agreement between the Commonwealth and state governments expires in 2027. I welcome the commitment to continue funding the Fee-Free TAFE program, as VAT.

Health and Wellbeing
Progress
• $7.9 billion for Medicare to increase bulk billing services and incentivise GPs to bulk bill patients.
• $793 million funding for women’s health initiatives, such as additional contraceptive pills on the PBS, menopausal hormone therapies added to PBS and 11 more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics.
• $43.6 million over 4 years for treatment of neuroendocrine tumours.

Commentary:
• A number of promises have been made during the course of the election campaign that are now reflected in the budget but there are no significant new measures.
• I welcome the focus on women’s health with $793 million funding for initiatives, such as oral contraceptive pills on the PBS, and efforts to lift support and care provided by GP’s for women experiencing menopause.
• With just over 50% of all medical appointments bulk billed in Warringah, the cost of healthcare is a concern within our electorate. The government announced a lofty goal of 9 out of 10 doctor visits, however, I question whether this is realistic.
• Further, the capping of PBS prescription medication at $25 dollars is welcome, but more needs to be done to ensure that the cost of the PBS medicines doesn’t blow out the budget.
• An announcement of $291.6 million over 5 years to implement aged care reforms is welcome although will do little to address the significantly long wait times to access aged care services in the short term.
• Funding of $1.8 billion for public hospitals is welcome to assist state governments deal with strained emergency services in public hospitals.
• Efforts to address GP shortage with $663 million in funding to create more pathways for GPs and nurses. This is necessary measure in making healthcare more accessible.
• The investment into medical research and particularly rare cancers is important in promoting the health of everyone in our community. This includes $158.6 million over 5 years for the Zero Childhood Cancer Precision Oncology Medicine Program and the Australian Rare Cancers Portal.
• There are also some minor investments in sport that promote inclusion. I welcome the $3.2 million for the Australian Sports Commission to support women’s participation in sport.

Conclusion
On balance, I give this budget a C+ as it represent cautious fiscal management in challenging geopolitical and economic circumstances but it lacks the ambition and reform required to address climate risks, close equity gaps and secure a strong, fir economy for future generations.
Disappointingly, we see noi new funding for the Australian Electoral Reform to assist with tackling disinformation during the election campaign.
There are no new measures positioned to strengthen the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Continue Reading

07/03/2025

Anti-Semitism- a perspective

6 March 2025

There is currently a rush towards the banning of hate speech and a demand for action on antisemitism, but far less emphasis on Islamophobia.

In Australia, we have been a relatively wealthy country where everyone has had a fair go. With a large number of migrants relative to most counties we have been seen as a relatively tolerant society by world standards.

When I grew up, there were large numbers of ‘displaced persons’ (refugees) who had come from Europe after the war. They were from Greece, Italy, Turkey, the Baltic states, the Balkans and Eastern Europe, as well as ‘ten pound Poms’. Anglo-Australians called them ‘wogs’, ‘wops’, ‘Eyties’, Poms or various other names. There were no anti-discrimination laws, so the migrants mainly copped the abuse and worked hard in their new land so that their children would have all the opportunities.

Australia was welcoming in the sense that behind our tariff barriers everyone had jobs at the level that mostly only the father had to work, though women mostly could if they wanted to.  There were few private schools, so most kids went to public schools and grew up together and prejudice mostly died out amongst them because of their common experiences.  The government Housing department built whole suburbs of houses and leased them at reasonable rents and later they could buy the houses that they had lived in for years. Some migrants set up ethnic clubs based on their homelands and soccer teams were initially racially based as Australia played cricket or rugby. There was some trouble between Serbs and Croats with a shop in Western Sydney memorably burned down, and Sydney Water knew not to have Serb and Croat gangs in the same depots, but mostly things were peaceful.

Other notable migrant groups have been Vietnamese after the Vietnam war and Chinese after Tiananmen Square, but these were on a lesser scale.

Jews were mostly not noticed, but they set up their own Schools, which sang the national anthem of Israel and hoisted an Israeli flag. They were also quietly active in politics, working against any politician who took a pro-Palestinian line.

I can tell my own story here. I spoke at a refugee rally in Hornsby when I was an Australian Democrat in NSW Parliament and pointed out that terrorism was a political and military technique used generally by the weaker side against the stronger, and who was the terrorist depended on the time and your perspective.  The political Zionist movement had grown up in the 1890s and managed to get the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which promised a “national home for the Jewish people” in what was then Ottoman-controlled Palestine.  After WW2  there were many displaced Jews and the Zionists did terror raids against the British who had inherited control of Palestine. Famously, they bombed the King David Hotel, killing the British general there and destroying all the records of the Zionists terrorists that were stored there. The war-weary British, having nowhere else to put the Jewish refugees, gave up and let them go to Palestine in 1946, despite the objections of the Palestinians, who did not actually have their own government, having been a colony ceded from Turkey to Britain. The Zionists then organised, and ‘Declared the State of Israel’ in 1948, even though Jews were still only 36% of the population. The surrounding nations declared war on the new state and the UN did not recognise it, but they were well organised, bought some leftover tanks from Romania and repelled their attackers.  They also killed some Palestinians causing many others (about 750,000) to flee.  This was termed the Nakba in the Arab world and is considered ethnic cleansing and equivalent to the Holocaust.  The Israeli government then declared that any unoccupied land belonged to the State and could be given to whomever the State wanted. Palestinian land title was not recognised and land was given for ‘settlements’ to Jews who came to Israel and who were willing to take this land and fight the Palestinians who might resist the loss of land that was formerly theirs.  The Palestinians were then termed terrorists, and this nomenclature has persisted in Western political definitions and media ever since, as Israel has progressively taken over land formerly owned by Palestinians.

The Jewish lobby in Australia has been very pro-Zionist.  After my speech in Hornsby, at which I said some of the above, I was approached by a person who still posts pro-Israel messages on my FB page. He told me that I was quite wrong, but did not elaborate why.

Some time later, a State by-election was held in Tamworth, a safe National party seat, (rendered even safer by optional preferential voting).  A couple of rival local councillors stood as Independents, but without preferences flowing were unlikely to knock off the National.  The Democrats had a local candidate, so it was an opportunity to get our name out, so we put her up.  We discussed our ‘How to Vote’ card preferences and decided we would put the more favoured of the local rival counsellors, then the other Independents, then the National last.  We decided to contact the other 3 independents to decide what order to put them in.

Our ‘How to Votes’ were not going to make much difference, the National was going to get in.  We contacted 2 of the independents, but despite our best efforts could not find the third, so we gave up, put him second last and went ahead. The National got in, we got a few percent and the Independent in question got 7 votes.

I was then flabbergasted to see a headline in the Jewish Times, ‘Democrats Support Neo Nazis’.  The uncontactable independent had apparently attended an Neo-Nazi rally in Melbourne 20 years before and had not been seen since, and we had put him ahead of the Nationals.  But the Jewish lobby had kept track of him as well as my speeches and it was pay-back time.

Another example of their power was in 2003. Both the Sydney Peace Foundation and the Dept of Peace and Conflict studies at the University of Sydney advocated the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign against Israel.  The Sydney Peace Foundation awarded the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian who had worked for peace in Israel.  The head of the Foundation, Prof Stuart Rees contacted all his sponsoring companies to tell them that he intended to do this to be sure that they did not pull their sponsorship. They all assured him it was up to him to award the prize, they would not interfere. When it was announced the Jewish lobby was very upset and said that he had to withdraw the prize and give it to someone else.  Rees refused, saying that Foundation would have no credibility at all if he did this. Bob Carr, the Premier, awarded the Prize, but all the sponsoring companies left.  Some apologised, some did not.  When Rees stepped down, new Board members ended the BDS campaign.  The Dept  of Peace and Conflict Studies at Sydney University was degraded from a Department to a course within the Arts faculty after it also supported Palestine.

The Greens have been relatively pro-Palestine and ran a BDS campaign associated with the local Council elections in Marrickville. The Green candidate for mayor had done quite well and was tipped as quite likely to beat the Labor candidate. They had enough money for a billboard campaign.  Zionists defaced all their posters. The vandal was caught, but had a clever lawyer who found some previously unnoticed problem with the billboard and got off on a technicality. Vandalism not terrorism? Labor won narrowly.

The IDF, Israeli ‘Defence Force’ has flattened Gaza to a demolition site and killed an estimated 49,000 Palestinans, and now have been attacking Palestinans on the West Bank. Most recently they are stopping food aid getting into Gaza because the Palestinans want a lasting peace, rather than just a ceasefire extension, which would give the Israeli hostages back, but without a guarantee that the one-sided fighting would not resume.

Hamas fighters are always referred to as Hamas militants; even on the ABC because the Americans have classified Hamas as a terrorist organisation and our government has followed.  I wonder if our major political parties would have dared not to. Hamas is the legitimately elected government of Gaza because the Palestinian Authority was justly seen as corrupt and unwilling to stand up to Israel. It seems that the kickbacks from property development in Ramallah were too great a temptation.

 

Recently we have seen some examples to the Jewish lobby pulling Australian society into line:

Antoinette Lattouf was taken off the air by the ABC 2 days into a 5 day contract because she had done a pro-Palestinian social media post.  It seems that there was a tsunami of complaints that went right to the top of the ABC within 2 days! I wonder who coordinated that? The case continues in Court- she will probably win her unjust dismissal case. (ABC News 27/2/25)

The artist selected by Creative Australia for the 2026 Venice Biennale, Khaled Sabsabi  was dropped because he had made an artwork in 2006 about the Sept 11 attacks in New York and in 2007 a video about a Hezbollah leader.  Artists like to think that they can make political statements as part of their work, rather than Art having a purely decorative function.  It seems not. (ABC News 14/2/25)

The Australian Research Council (ARC) has suspended an $870,00 grant to pro-Palestinian academic, Randa Abdel-Fatteh, who was given the money for her study, ’Arab/Muslim Australian Social Movements since 1970’.  She had made recent anti-Israel comments. No lesser person than Federal Arts Minister, Jason Clare, contacted the ARC. (SMH 1/2/25)

Two nurses, Ahmad Rashad Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdehon were stood down and charged for allegedly ‘wanting to kill Israeli patients’. It is, of course, not at all in keeping with the medical tradition, which is to treat your enemies the same as you treat your own side. Their social media video came to light and was given publicity by an Israeli ‘social media influencer’, Max Veifer. (SBS News 26/2/25)

The National Gallery of Australia had a display of indigenous art and part of the display including suppressed indigenous peoples had a Palestinian flag.  The Palestinian flag was covered after complaints. Some in the arts community were offended by this official censorship.  (www.pedestrian.tv/news/nga-covers-palestinian-flags-in-artwork/).

You might ask who kept track of the Independent candidate for theTamworth by-election for 10 years and arranged the story about the Democrats, who pressured the companies to stop sponsoring the Sydney Peace Foundation, who made the phone calls to high places to complain about journalist Lattouf, artist Sabsabi and researcher Abdel-Fatteh, who found the social media post of the nurses and amplified it, and who complained about the Palestinian flag in an indigenous art exhibition at the National Gallery?

Clearly there is a lot of money and effort going into pressuring politicians and civil organisations that dare to take an anti-Israeli perspective, no matter how Israel behaves.  There has been not a word from the Jewish establishment in Australia in favour of the Palestinians. Some of my Jewish friends who have urged reconciliation with the Palestinians have been quite outcast from mainstream Jewish society  in Australia, and called names like ‘self-hating Jews’.  Being a long way from the action, Australian Jewry seems to echo the most militant elements of Zionism, and are quick to play the ‘anti-semitism’ card with politicians, without acknowledging why anti-Israel sentiment might be rising. The Palestinian death toll in Gaza and now the West bank and the International Criminal Court talking of war crimes and genocide seems to make no difference. The Holocaust ended 80 years ago, the Nakba was 77 years ago, but has continued to a lesser extent until this Gaza war which is a real and ongoing problem. Australia’s politicians are very afraid of the Jewish lobby, and as in the US, it may be the case that no party can win without its support.  One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that systematic funded interference in the way Australia is governed is likely.  Will I be safe after writing this piece? Is a fatal car accident more likely?

Australia’s neoliberalism, which seems determined to keep government interference to a minimum, makes us a relatively low taxing country. So there is not enough money for realistic welfare, unemployment benefits, Gonski’s plan for equality of educational opportunity, universal health care, or building public housing. Yet we subsidise negative gearing for middle class property speculators, private health insurance and private education for those who can afford it, in the land of the supposed ‘fair go for all’.  We give tax breaks to religious institutions. Jewish schools raise the Israeli flag and sing the national anthem of Israel. I wonder how a Muslim school would fare if it raised a Palestinian flag? Is there a Palestinian national anthem?

The reason I make the point about our welfare system is because Australia managed to absorb huge numbers of post WW2 migrants because everyone had a job and housing, and nearly all the children went to public schools and had similar early life experiences.  There were no anti discrimination laws or commissioners but minimal problems.  This assimilation was not merely because we  are all nice people and have a nice climate.  Social policies promoted inclusion. We have now moved away from inclusive policies to ones that cheerfully tolerate disadvantage and the segregation of society into advantaged and disadvantaged groups, which are likely to be divided by race and religion as well as by economic factors.

There is increasing ghettoisation in western Sydney and pro-Islamic groups are looking at standing Federal election candidates to counteract what they see as pro-Israeli views in the Australian political system. There seems that there is a lot more concern about anti-Semitism than Islamophobia, though this is rising similarly.

It is all very well to pass anti-hate laws and ban Nazi salutes to control extremist political rallies, but to get a harmonious egalitarian society we need to stop subsidising things that divide us, and start paying for things that will lessen division and give equal opportunities for all in a secular society.

 

Continue Reading

02/03/2025

AUKUS- where now for Australia’s Defence Strategy?

2 March 2024

The Chinese incursion into Australia’s area was frankly predictable. Australia has sailed through the Taiwan Strait to please the USA.


China has the fastest growing navy in the World, and wants to be taken seriously as a world power. The way to send us a message is to send some ships through Torres Strait, Timor Sea and Bass Strait.  The pathetic inadequacy of our naval defence was there for all to see. NZ got is act together better than we did.

We have dithered about a defence strategy for years, becoming ever more mendicant to the USA and integrated into their anti-China world view as China became our major trading partner and source of wealth. We survived the Global Financial Crisis because China kept buying our stuff, not because our government was particularly clever. The US is declining as a world power. We will have to get used to the idea that China is a growing power and adapt to it.

Our defence strategy has been to put all our money into AUKUS, attack submarines to scare China into not attacking us. Yeah right.
This might be a tiny fraction of a US ‘defence’ strategy, but it is foolishness for us. The US will act in its own interest and protect us to the extent it suits its interest at the time and with the priorities it has at the time.

We might learn from history. When Britain was at war in Europe it did not defend us. It demanded that we keep our soldiers in North Africa and said Australia would be recaptured from the Japanese when the European war was won. Curtin insisted on bringing our soldiers home, but raw recruits, ‘chocos’ (=chocolate soldiers from song of the time) were needed in Papua New Guinea in the meantime. We appealed helplessly to the US. The US came to Australia as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the assault on Japan. General MacArthur’s contempt for the Australian Army is something historians gloss over.

The US, for its part has always had a strong isolationist streak. It did not enter WW1 until very late and after the sinking of the Lusitania by a German submarine killed a lot of Americans.

They did not join WW2 until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour.
Since WW2 they have behaved as a global power, putting bases everywhere, but being very selective where they support democratic movements. They let the Indonesians have West Papua and Portuguese East Timor. They have supported appalling authoritarian governments in many countries such as Iran under the Shah, Saudi Arabia, and many South American governments. They talk free trade, but exclude agricultural products, which has hugely disadvantaged Australia. They also want copyright laws enforced, so that their products such as drugs and software can be sold at prices immensely higher than production costs for very long periods.

Their self interest has always been there, it is just more extreme and more naked than it was. The increase in the US national debt and the decrease in their share of world GDP are giving them an unpleasant reality check, Trump’s hubristic bluster notwithstanding.

Trump appears willing to sacrifice Ukraine. Presumably if it suited US priorities, they would sacrifice Australia also, like the British did. Trump is aware of the US deficit, but doesn’t even recall AUKUS.

The new AUKUS ‘deal’ is likely to be ‘We cannot make enough submarines for ourselves, let alone you. You cannot defend yourselves. We will let you have our nuclear submarines in your bases- take it or leave it.’

Which Prime Minister will sit in Zelenskyy’s chair in the Oval Office to sign the deal?

Alternatively, we might recognise that China has no real need to invade us, is unlikely to do so, and probably could not be stopped if they really tried. That is probably the same situation as many countries in the world, so we need to free ourselves from the binary American world view.

We need to junk AUKUS and get ourselves a more independent defence strategy.

C:/Users/chest/Downloads/Extra_Page_38.pdf

Continue Reading

26/02/2025

Vale Marg White

26 February 2025

Marjorie Irene White (just call me Marg) died on 18 December 2024. She was the doyen and major organiser of the Melbourne activists of MOP UP (Movement Opposed to the Promotion of Unhealthy Products) and later BUGA UP (Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions). The difference between the two groups was that MOP UP confined itself to legal activities, and BUGA UP did not.

Marg was born in 1930 in Macksville, the only child of Frank and Irene Macrae. Frank was a farmer, who took Marg everywhere he went, so she developed a handy range of practical skills and good self confidence Her mother was a schoolteacher and she helped her mother and acquired a love of teaching.

They moved to Kendal in 1937 and she was somewhat protected from the Depression as her father could grow food and her mother’s teaching job remained. Later Kendal, a town of only 600 people, was where the troop trains stopped on their way to northern Australia and Papua New Guinea. She was a popular youngster as she took treats to the troops. Frank bought a small weekender at Bonny Hills where the family spent holidays. He later retired there.

She was very musical and a good student, topping NSW in geography and going on to Uni in Armidale and then Sydney Uni where she did a BA and Dip Ed and specialised in early childhood education, believing that lessons learned early were the most important. She met her future husband, David Ogilvie White, who had got into medical school at 16, but was more interested in playing chess. She pushed him to do more work and actually pass. They married in 1954 and went to ANU in Canberra where she met Bob Hawke and Hazel, resulting in a lifelong friendship. Consistent with her idea that everyone should reach their full potential she encouraged Hazel to get a degree when Bob was not keen on this. They remained great friends, with Bob and Hazel staying with them in Melbourne. David’s career blossomed and he rose in the academic ranks becoming Professor of Virology and head of Infectious Diseases at Melbourne University.

She became involved with MOP UP (Movement Opposed to the Promotion of Unhealthy Products) and had quite a large corps of medical students who were keen to help. Some of their stunts were very effective. MOP UP made a graveyard with satiric names based on tobacco brands and handed out leaflets outside the Marlboro Australian Tennis. The sponsorship was dropped in 1985. The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra was met with a group of protesters in black tie outfits playing mock instruments as ‘The Royal Carcinogenic Orchestra.’ They also dropped their Benson and Hedges sponsorship. MOP UP continued street theatre and leafleting while BUGA UP refaced cigarette billboards, and occasionally alcohol or offensively sexist ones. Marg quietly worked as an organiser, but not merely of the activists, keeping in contact with the political and medical establishments, writing letters and encouraging progressive initiatives.

She was happy to contribute directly to the BUGA UP campaign; standing at a tram stop in a houndstooth tweed suit, complete with cape, she would reface the cigarette ad on an arriving tram, then stand back, spray can under her cape looking like the super-respectable middle aged schoolteacher that she was. If you were getting on or off the tram or blinked you would have missed it.

At that time the tobacco industry used ‘shop panels’, cigarette ads about 50x90cm stuck on each side of the doors of convenience stores with two-sided tape. They stuck well enough, but could be prised off easily with either a claw hammer or small jemmy. Marg went out with an activist one night to clean up the shop panels which her companion removed and stacked in the backseat of her car. There were few security guards and no CCTV cameras in the mid 1980s, but they were spotted and hailed. Her companion ran off and she drove away, but the Police had been alerted, so she was chased with Police lights flashing and sirens blaring. She pulled over and the officer who came to car window was flabbergasted to see a respectable grey-haired woman. ‘What are you doing?’ he asked. ‘I am just on my way to pick up my daughter from the ballet’ answered Marg calmly. ‘Oh, sorry lady’, said the Policeman. The story goes that he got a hard time back at the station and was told, ‘Yes, that was her; that is the exact description’. Meanwhile Marg hurried home and put the shop panels under the house in case the police returned. They never did.

Marg was a philanthropist and gave money to the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and the Australian Ballet, as well as the Australian Conservation Foundation. She was an environmentalist and fought for causes she believed in, successfully funding an expensive QC to stop a canal development at Laurieton in NSW near the family weekender at Bonny Hills. The success of that case became a template for similar residents’ actions.

She was active in many roles in the Australian Democrats and became President of the Victorian division when they were a significant force in Australian politics. At home, she nursed her husband who had liver failure, probably occupationally acquired.

Her greatest achievement is probably the Victorian Tobacco Act of 1987. The Western Australian government had tried to ban tobacco advertising in 1983, but were beaten by sports associations that complained that they would founder without tobacco money. So the Victorian Tobacco Act sought to increase tobacco tax and use the money to buy out the sponsorships of sports, cultural events and all the other entities that had been bought by tobacco, as well as funding medical research and doing health promotion to take up the empty billboards among other initiatives. It was the first Health Promotion Foundation in the world, and the legislation passed by one vote. Nigel Gray, doyen of the Establishment and head of the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria said that the legislation would never have passed without the public support generated by the activist groups, of which Marg was a critically important member.

She is survived by three daughters and two grandchildren.
Marjorie Irene White (just call me Marg) died on 18 December 2024. She was the doyen and major organiser of the Melbourne activists of MOP UP (Movement Opposed to the Promotion of Unhealthy Products) and later BUGA UP (Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions). The difference between the two groups was that MOP UP confined itself to legal activities, and BUGA UP did not.

Marg was born in 1930 in Macksville, the only child of Frank and Irene Macrae. Frank was a farmer, who took Marg everywhere he went, so she developed a handy range of practical skills and good self confidence Her mother was a schoolteacher and she helped her mother and acquired a love of teaching.

They moved to Kendal in 1937 and she was somewhat protected from the Depression as her father could grow food and her mother’s teaching job remained. Later Kendal, a town of only 600 people, was where the troop trains stopped on their way to northern Australia and Papua New Guinea. She was a popular youngster as she took treats to the troops. Frank bought a small weekender at Bonny Hills where the family spent holidays. He later retired there.

She was very musical and a good student, topping NSW in geography and going on to Uni in Armidale and then Sydney Uni where she did a BA and Dip Ed and specialised in early childhood education, believing that lessons learned early were the most important. She met her future husband, David Ogilvie White, who had got into medical school at 16, but was more interested in playing chess. She pushed him to do more work and actually pass. They married in 1954 and went to ANU in Canberra where she met Bob Hawke and Hazel, resulting in a lifelong friendship. Consistent with her idea that everyone should reach their full potential she encouraged Hazel to get a degree when Bob was not keen on this. They remained great friends, with Bob and Hazel staying with them in Melbourne. David’s career blossomed and he rose in the academic ranks becoming Professor of Virology and head of Infectious Diseases at Melbourne University.

She became involved with MOP UP (Movement Opposed to the Promotion of Unhealthy Products) and had quite a large corps of medical students who were keen to help. Some of their stunts were very effective. MOP UP made a graveyard with satiric names based on tobacco brands and handed out leaflets outside the Marlboro Australian Tennis. The sponsorship was dropped in 1985. The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra was met with a group of protesters in black tie outfits playing mock instruments as ‘The Royal Carcinogenic Orchestra.’ They also dropped their Benson and Hedges sponsorship. MOP UP continued street theatre and leafleting while BUGA UP refaced cigarette billboards, and occasionally alcohol or offensively sexist ones. Marg quietly worked as an organiser, but not merely of the activists, keeping in contact with the political and medical establishments, writing letters and encouraging progressive initiatives.

She was happy to contribute directly to the BUGA UP campaign; standing at a tram stop in a houndstooth tweed suit, complete with cape, she would reface the cigarette ad on an arriving tram, then stand back, spray can under her cape looking like the super-respectable middle aged schoolteacher that she was. If you were getting on or off the tram or blinked you would have missed it.

At that time the tobacco industry used ‘shop panels’, cigarette ads about 50x90cm stuck on each side of the doors of convenience stores with two-sided tape. They stuck well enough, but could be prised off easily with either a claw hammer or small jemmy. Marg went out with an activist one night to clean up the shop panels which her companion removed and stacked in the backseat of her car. There were few security guards and no CCTV cameras in the mid 1980s, but they were spotted and hailed. Her companion ran off and she drove away, but the Police had been alerted, so she was chased with Police lights flashing and sirens blaring. She pulled over and the officer who came to car window was flabbergasted to see a respectable grey-haired woman. ‘What are you doing?’ he asked. ‘I am just on my way to pick up my daughter from the ballet’ answered Marg calmly. ‘Oh, sorry lady’, said the Policeman. The story goes that he got a hard time back at the station and was told, ‘Yes, that was her; that is the exact description’. Meanwhile Marg hurried home and put the shop panels under the house in case the police returned. They never did.

Marg was a philanthropist and gave money to the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra and the Australian Ballet, as well as the Australian Conservation Foundation. She was an environmentalist and fought for causes she believed in, successfully funding an expensive QC to stop a canal development at Laurieton in NSW near the family weekender at Bonny Hills. The success of that case became a template for similar residents’ actions.

She was active in many roles in the Australian Democrats and became President of the Victorian division when they were a significant force in Australian politics. At home, she nursed her husband who had liver failure, probably occupationally acquired.

Her greatest achievement is probably the Victorian Tobacco Act of 1987. The Western Australian government had tried to ban tobacco advertising in 1983, but were beaten by sports associations that complained that they would founder without tobacco money. So the Victorian Tobacco Act sought to increase tobacco tax and use the money to buy out the sponsorships of sports, cultural events and all the other entities that had been bought by tobacco, as well as funding medical research and doing health promotion to take up the empty billboards among other initiatives. It was the first Health Promotion Foundation in the world, and the legislation passed by one vote. Nigel Gray, doyen of the Establishment and head of the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria said that the legislation would never have passed without the public support generated by the activist groups, of which Marg was a critically important member.

She is survived by three daughters and two grandchildren.

Continue Reading

14/02/2025

A Visit to East Timor- and New Year’s Eve at the Presidential Palace

2 January 2025

I have always been fascinated by the story of East Timor. It was very much a colonial backwater, a historical remnant of the Portuguese, who had first arrived in 1529 and fought with the Dutch until treaties in 1869 and 1893. Up till 1850, it had been under the Portuguese administration in Macau.

Timor was invaded by the Japanese during WW2, and East Timorese fought with the Australian and Dutch against them, running a guerilla campaign. Between 40-70,000 Timorese were killed as the Japanese seized food supplies and burned villages.

After WW2 it remained a Portuguese colonial backwater with minimal education or infrastructure development. In 1960 it gained the right to Independence, but was still under Portugal. Indonesia, under Sukarno, which was trying to get hold of West Papua specifically stated that it had no interest in East Timor. The small Viqueque revolt resulted in some improvements in education and some Timorisation of the civil service.

There was a revolution in Portugal in 1974 and the decolonisation of Mozambique and Angola speeded the decolonisation process, with a new Governor legalising political parties. Two groups emerged, the left-leaning Fretilin and the Right-leaning UDT (Democratic Timor Union), which was more a party of the elite and initially favoured continuing ties with Portugal. Indonesia had just eliminated the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) in a bloody struggle, so were concerned about Fretilin. Whitlam. the Prime Minister in Australia, who supported the Indonesian takeover of West Papua, was concerned that there would be a non-viable state in the region.

Fretilin and the UDT were initially in coalition, but the Indonesian military made it clear the to the UDT that they would not tolerate a Fretilin government and the coalition broke up. On 11 August 1975 UDT mounted a coup, as they were concerned at the increasing popularity of Fretilin and asked for union with Indonesia and the Indonesians to help them.

Indonesia immediately invaded, and five Australian journalists, who were covering the story in Balibo disappeared without trace. It had been claimed that Fretilin were communists so the Australian and US governments took no action, either against Indonesia or in pursuit of the journalists’ fate. They became known as ‘The Balibo Five’. Only the Australian Democrats supported the right of the East Timorese for self-determination, and some sections of the Left of the ALP, who were held to silence, of course.

Fretilin campaigned in the UN for recognition, particularly Jose Ramos Horta and after 24 years in 1999 and in the presence of an economic crisis the Indonesians agreed to a referendum on self-determination. The referendum result, which was widely expected, favoured independence from Indonesia by almost 80%. But gangs of pro-Indonesian youth, helped by the Indonesian government went on a killing spree. It was estimated that 200,000 Timorese had died during the 25 year Indonesian occupation, many ‘disappearing’; and about a third from malnutrition. But immediately after the vote, the militias killed about 1,400 people and forced about 300,000 into West Timor.

The UN intervened quite quickly with UNMET, the UN Mission to East Timor, in which the Australians were first to arrive and helped stabilise the situation.

Once East Timor achieved independence in 2002, they had the problem of economic survival. Australia held negotiations about where the boundary would lie, which was critical because there is a lot of gas in the Timor Sea and it would depend who owned it. Australia bugged the room where the East Timorese cabinet were deliberating and insisted on the border being very close to their coast. A whistleblower revealed this bugging in 2004 and the Timorese appealed successfully to the International Court.

Australia withdrew from the Court process, but then in 2012 agreed to the border being the midline between the countries, which is the international norm. Thw whistleblower, codenamed Witness K and his lawyer Bernard Collaery, the ex-ACT Attorney-General, were pursued by the Australian government in the courts and convicted of breaching national security.

So I have always wanted to visit Timor Leste, and have finally made it for a10 day trip (not really long enough).

It is a 3rd World country, but seems to have a great sense of hope. It is an hour and half flight from Darwin, and about the same from Bali. There is not much information available to tourists, though a Lonely Planet and some other guidebooks are now available.

I have taken advice from a diplomat friend and will be going in a car with a guide, (the expensive rich person’s way to go that I have always despised) so I will not be giving advice on the cheap local buses that go between the major cities and are quite cheap.

Our guide, Guido (short for Egidio Da Purificatcao Soares of Timor Sightseeing) was brought up on a farm in the western part of the country and recalls as a 14 year old his whole family were threatened by gangs immediately after the referendum. The gang asked his father did he want to go to West Timor or stay in East Timor. He says that he father wisely said that the family wanted to go, because if he hadn’t they would have been assumed to be in favour of independence and massacred on the spot. They had had 14 cows and had already sold some, but took a few in a truck as they went to West Timor. He said that at the border the Indonesians threw them out of the truck as if they were sacks of potatoes, searched the truck then threw them back in in the same way. They sold the cows for a pittance and lived in a tent in Indonesia for 3 weeks until the UN had negotiated with the Indonesians and the ‘refugees’ were allowed to return. He said he was pleased to see the Australian forces at the border.

He commented that in the Portugese times there was no electricity except in small parts of Dili and the Portugese generated their own on their properties. The Indonesians had improved infrastructure and electricity and introduced universal education, but anyone who was thought to support Fretilin or independence simply disappeared.

As we were here on New Years Eve, I wondered what to do and assumed that we would watch the fireworks on the beach. Guido suggested we go to the Presidential Palace. I assumed that this was impossible for a tourist. Not so, the Presidential Palace is open to all on New Year’s Eve. So we went. It has a large concreted area about the size of 3 football fields in front of it, with lawns about twice that size again. There was a stage set up and a dozen life size nativity scenes all the way up the wide drive. The military at the gates welcomed us and said that they would be giving out free food and drinks at 9pm. There were quite a lot of people, but it was not crowded early, with a lot of young families and kids with balloons and flashing lights. The state had popular local singers, with replays on some big TV screens like at a football match. There was a wonderful festive atmosphere. I held my phone up and started to take a video pan to try to capture the atmosphere. As I did so a man came close and thrust something into my spare hand. I stopped filming and looked at him. It was the Prime Minister, Xanana Gusmao handing out ham and salad rolls and fruit juice. He had 3 young minders in T shirts merely carrying boxes of rolls and drinks. Naturally I pursued him and asked for a photo, and he very courteously asked me my name and where I came from. The event went on with presentations to people who have obviously done good, and also what seemed like a very long sermon, but of course, apart from the MC breaking into English to welcome foreign visitors, the whole thing was in Portugese. At about 9pm, some military wandered around and urged us to get some of their free food from the trucks near the gates. They obviously have a very good relationship with the populace. The President Jose Ramos Horta arrived with the Cardinal and about 20 ambassadors and made a speech at about 11 followed by one from Xanana Gusmao.

They had a table in the middle of the open area with seats for the dignitaries. At midnight there was the countdown, a lot of fireworks (no, not quite as good as Sydney), and the broke out large amounts of champagne and cut a huge 2025 Fruit cake and gave some to those nearby including us. It was like going back 50 years, where everyone was trusted, there was no security and the largesse was universal.

East Timor is in an interesting time. The population is very young and full of hope. They want to develop tourism and also the Sunshine gas project which is being done by Woodside and the Australians in the Timor Sea. Obviously this will be a financial lifeline, but not good for a warming planet. I asked Guido if we could go to the south of the country where all this is to happen. He said, ‘Yes, but there is nothing to see, it is just coastline at present’. He took some Spanish folk there a short while ago who were doing a feasibility study for a gas platform. So I will see the sights including Balibo and the Museums of the Revolution in Balibo and Dili, which was not open this week. I may revise this post after those visits.

East Timor is currently the least visited country in Asia. This is worth changing.

Continue Reading

27/01/2025

NDIS and Health System in Crisis- what is the answer?

27 January 2025

The health system has been in crisis for years and now NDIS is the same.
State and Federal governments are locked in crisis talks, and now the NDIS is over budget and looking to ‘transfer services’ to other parts of the health system.
Why does all this go on, and what is the solution?
The short answer is that there are many sources of health funding and the main policy objective of all of them is to transfer the cost to someone else, and if they are a private source, to maximise the profit.
This ‘transfer costs’ imperative means that no one is concerned about the overall cost, merely their bit of it.
The major players are still the State and Federal government. In simple terms the States look after the hospitals and the Federal government looks after non-hospital services.
Medicare is being starved and pays less and less to doctors relative to inflation. The private health funds pay what they have to, the CTP (Motor Accidents) and Workers comp systems are either private or use a private model and pay as little as they can get away with and the patient pays the gap, unless they decide that private health insurance is not worth the money, which in most cases is true, and get a bit of Medicare and pay the rest.

Examples of cost shifting are easy to find. The Federal government has let Medicare rebates to GP fall to 46% of the AMA fee. It was 85% when Medicare started, so many doctors simply don’t bulk bill and charge a fee. So people go to the Emergency Departments that are free, but funded by the States. A visit to the ED is 6x more expensive than a GP visit, but the Federal government has shifted the cost to the States, so they don’t care. When you go to the ED and get a script, the hospital used to give you all the drug course. Now they give you a few tablets and a script for a pharmacy outside. The script was needless, and generates the costs of the trip to the pharmacy, the pharmacists fee, the PBS Federal government contribution and the patients script fee. A lot of wasted time and money, but the State saved a bit. When you went to the ED, you used to be followed up in a hospital outpatient clinic where the consultant was paid a sessional fee and oversaw registrars checking the cases and learning. You could also just book and go to a specialist clinic. These have largely been stopped to save the State money. Now you go to the specialists’ rooms and the State saves money, but the total cost per visit is much more.

If you look at the overall efficiency of health systems, Medicare as a universal system has overheads of about 5% counting the cost of collecting tax generally. Private health insurance overheads in Australia are about 12%, Workers comp 30% and CTP over 40%. These figures are approximate and very hard to get, because the dogma is that competition drives down prices, when clearly the system is more efficient if there is a single paying entity. Interestingly, the Productivity Commission made no attempt to quantify these overheads when it looked at the cost of the health system- you may ask why. The point is if you take out profits, which are the same as overheads from the patients’ point of view, and make everyone eligible, you do not have to have armies of insurance doctors, investigators, lawyers and tribunals to see if the insurer has to pay or if it can be dumped on Medicare and the patient.
As far as foreign people using the system are concerned, universal Medicare for people living in Australia is administratively simple, and the cost of treating tourists who have accidents is cheaper than policing the whole system. Enforcement has quite high costs.

In terms of the cost of insurance, US schemes vary from 12-35%R, with the high costs ones being most profitable as they police payouts more thoroughly and naturally refuse more treatments. Note that the CEO of Unitedhealthcare in the US was recently shot, with the words ‘deny’ and ‘delay’ on the cartridges used. Surveys have shown that 36% of people in the US have had a claim denied. Claims are accepted here, but in a survey of my patients 60% of my scans and referrals of CTP patients were denied by NRMA. i.e, We accept the claim, but deny the treatment.

What Is needed is a universal system, free at the point of delivery.
What about over-servicing? The current system makes trivial problems of people with money more important than major problems of people without money. Underservicing is the major problem with ambulance ramping at EDs and long waiting lists.
In a universal system, which doctor is doing what is immediately accessible, with comparisons to every other doctor doing similar work. It is just a matter of checking up on the statistical outliers.

The problem is simple. The major political parties are given donations by private health interests to let Medicare die. Combine this with the Federal/State rivalry that makes cooperation very difficult and a reluctance to collect tax and you have the recipe for an ongoing mess.

The NDIS is an even bigger mess. It is a privatised unsupervised welfare system that arbitrarily gives out money and is subject to massive rorting.

The welfare system that looked after people with disabilities, both congenital and acquired by age or circumstance had grown up historically in institutions that were fossilised in their activities and underfunded to prevent expansion or innovation. People with disabled children looked after them with whatever support they could find. As these disabled cohorts reached middle age, their parents, who were old, were worried about what would happen when they died and wanted to lock in funding for their adult children before they died. They were an articulate lobby group with real problems and were quick to point out the flaws in the existing systems. They visited institutions that had no vacancies and thought that they had put their names on waiting lists. But no central list existed, and the institutions tended to give their beds to whoever came first when a death created a vacancy. ‘Just give us a package, and we will decide how to spend it’ was the parents’ cry. But then NDIS experts came in and interviewed people and gave away ‘packages’ based on an interview. A new layer of experts was created. District nurses or others who might have been able to think of more innovative or flexible options, or who could judge who in their area needed more than someone else had no input. People with real disabilities were given money, but did not know how to assess providers, so dodgy operators snapped up the packages, delivering dubious benefits. The government had no serious regulation or control system. Now the cost of NDIS has blown out, so the solution is to narrow eligibility and force people off the NDIS and onto other parts of the health system. Sound familiar? People with disabilities and their relatives are naturally worried; and rightly so. The lack of these services was why the NDIS was created. The answer is to have universal services. Set a standard, make it available and police quality in the system. Private interests may have a place, but there is no need for profits, non-profit organisations have been the mainstay of providers for years. For profit providers tend to cut costs, which in practical terms means either services or wages or both to concentrate on shareholder returns. The best way to allocate resources optimally is to empower the people actually doing the job, who also have the advantage of being able to see relative needs as they go about their routine work.

An interesting tome on the subject is ‘The Political Economy of Health Care’ by Julian Tudor-Hart, which looked at the changes in the British National Health System from when it started as an idealist post-war initiative run by those working in it with management overheads of about 0.5%, to when it was fully bureaucratised with overheads of about 36%. He was also responsible for the ‘’Inverse care law’ which is the principle that the availability of good medical or social care tends to vary inversely with the need of the population served. This inverse care law operates more completely where medical care is most exposed to market forces, and less so where such exposure is reduced.

The key point of that people have been taught that governments are hopeless and that you should pay as little tax as possible, so instead of good universal services being developed, a market has developed which is on its way to an American system.. People all agree that the US has the worst system in the developed world at delivering health care. But they overlook the fact that the US health system is the world’s best at turning sickness into money. That is what it was designed to do and that is why it is sustained and maintained. The same drivers are all here.

Note the Federal/State bickering in the article below (and weep).

My recipe for change is to have a Swiss style of government where the people can initiate binding referenda on governments and could simply answer a question like ‘Do you want to pay 5% more tax to have a universal health and welfare system?’ If a question like this got up against the doomsayers, we might have a chance. But of course the change to the constitution to get the referenda in the Swiss model is almost impossible to achieve, the Swiss having been discarded when the Australian Constitution was written in about 1900.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2025/01/25/exclusive-albanese-shut-down-hospital-talks-pressure-states?utm_campaign=SharedArticle&utm_source=share&utm_medium=link&utm_term=VT5jI6Zo&token=Z3cA3Py

Continue Reading

21/12/2024

Vale John Marsden

20 December 2024

We were all saddened to hear of the death of John Marsden. He was certainly the greatest Australian writer of books for adolescents in my lifetime.

I knew him well. He was in my class at boarding school and we were in the debating team together and rivals for the oratory prize. He was a day boy.

He used to wait at the bus stop and talk to the more junior boys there. This was thought of as a bit unusual. No one usually took an interest in kids younger than themselves. Older kids usually went to the library and only appeared just before the bus went. He also did not catch the first available bus, but stayed at the bus stop talking- not many people realised that. It was not until years later that the reason became known to some.

His father hit him frequently and he did not want to go home. Years later he told the story that he had been sitting on his mother’s knee when he was quite young and she had asked him. ‘Do you love me?’ He had replied ‘I don’t know’, and she promptly pushed him off her knees onto the floor. The idea that the question needed to be asked is so odd that the reply becomes less so. There is no doubt that his childhood was very unhappy.

We went out one evening to a debate and came home by train. Some of our group smoked and then when he got home he unfortunately hung his coat over a chair and the cigarette packet came tumbling out. His father gave him a beating as usual, and insisted that all his friends, i.e.us, come to the car park to be ticked off by his father or he would take the matter to the Headmaster- a very serious matter at that time. His father duly drove up, wound the window down and berated us, standing in the car park. John was quietly dying of embarrassment but, hey, that was life at school. But while we were thinking about getting away from school and its problems, he was thinking about how things could be better and talking to kids at their level about their issues. He understood adolescent kids because he talked to them a lot.

He left home soon after he left school and had some years of financial and personal hardship, with some of the parents of his schoolmates helping him.

I lost track of him for some years, as neither he nor I were very active in the old boys for a long time as he had moved to Melbourne. I had become aware of his writing and read ‘Letters from the Inside’, the correspondence between two 15 year old girls who start as pen pals. One is in gaol, though it is not clear why, and the other lives in fear of a violent brother. The fact that he could write so credibly from the perspective of adolescent girls was quite extraordinary, and he left readers tantalised at the end. He met my son when he was just a baby but later my son became a huge fan of his Tomorrow series. He was so enthusiastic about John’s book that his teacher credited him with getting the whole class to read it.

John stopped writing to set up his school, funded considerably from his book royalties and embodying the ideas he had developed from looking at the dysfunctions that he had experienced and the successes he believed were possible.

When John came back as the honoured speaker at a school reunion I caught up with him, which was great. He was working very hard, running the school that he had started with a skeleton administrative staff, and all the while writing to the people who wrote to him, answering their questions, helping them with their fears and firing them with his enthusiasm. But he was still smoking and it had taken some toll of his health so (as usual) I urged him to Quit and put in place a succession plan at the school. He did those things, though I do not claim it was due to my urgings.

I had always had the dream that I would go to his school and teach for a while, things that kids are not taught these days, perhaps in the time after exams when the kids are merely filling in time waiting for the Christmas holidays, or speaking at a speech day. Sadly, it never happened. When I went to Melbourne, it was either term time and he was too busy, or holidays when he went away.

He died suddenly, though perhaps not unexpectedly, so this will not happen now. As we get older, we need to be more urgent with our intents.

Fortunately he will have many friends and many writers able to give credit to his greatness, but also to understand and express his warmth and his humility.

Continue Reading

15/12/2024

Banks Charging $3 a withdrawal- the logical end of capitalist thinking?

11 December 2024
Once upon a time banks functioned to store your money safely giving you some interest for the use of it or lending it to you for a bit more interest.
Then the government made a quick buck by selling the bank to people who had the money to buy shares.
Then the concentration of wealth changed so that most of the money was held by fewer people. And technology changed and the people with the most money used the new higher tech ways of banking.
And then there was less profit in the little people.
And the accounting changed, the CEO salaries went from several tens of multiples of the normal people’s salaries to hundreds of times. But they had to show results to the shareholders to justify this.
So they closed most of the branches and replaced them by Automatic Teller Machines to save all those rents and staff salaries.
And they decided that even to stock the ATMs was too expensive so they put fees on them to use them, but they got criticised for that, so they lessened the number of ATMs, which saved even more.
A few people actually still wanted to go to the few branches left and wait until they could get to the reduced service, but the accountants said that the return on capital to the shareholders from this aspect of operations was not as much as the returns on internet transactions. Clearly the shareholders wanted ‘user pays’ in every aspect of the business so the banks decided to make these little folk pay a fee to get their own money, as had been so successful with the ATMs.
And no one even commented that the function of banks was to provide a service of looking after people’s money, the question was really how to ensure that the shareholders’ returns could be maintained.
And they all lived happily ever after.
THE END

Continue Reading