November 2004 Archives

After a spate of high publicity fatalities involving young drivers in spectacular crashes, the NSW government has released a discussion paper on ways to curb the carnage.

As the father of three kids who will one day get their licence, I have a close personal interest in the subject.

I'm lucky to have survived my first three years of driving. It was before the introduction of RBT, and the combination of booze, speed and inexperience should have been fatal. I put my survival down to a technical interest in how cars work and perform; experimentation that taught me, by trial and error, the limits of the vehicles I drove; and lashings of luck.

I don't want my kids emulating their father.

It seems teenagers' feelings of invincibility haven't changed much. For every death there must be hundreds of lesser accidents and thousands of near misses. The trick is getting young drivers to survive that first three years of holding a licence.

The government's in the difficult position of trying to curtail the road toll by restricting young drivers, while not being too draconian. They're suggesting the following:

1. Increasing the age of getting a licence to 18;
2. Prohibiting young drivers from driving at night;
3. Restricting the number of passengers allowed to travel with a young driver;
4. Prohibiting young people from driving high powered vehicles;
5. Increasing the training required to obtain a licence.

While these measure have merit, to be effective they need to be enforceable. It's not hard to see measures to restrict hours of driving and passenger numbers being routinely flouted.

Restricting young drivers' access to powerful vehicles appeals to the Daily Telegraph, but many more young drivers are killed in the bog standard family sedan than in high performance vehicles.

The only measure likely to make any significant difference to the road toll is the last in the list, increased driver training. And I'm not talking about passive defensive driver training, although that has an important role to play, but advanced training that teaches a driver to appreciate the limits of their vehicle, and methods to get them out of trouble if those limits are exceeded.

Advanced driver training is resisted by the authorities, who argue that it encourages young drivers to push the limits in general driving. Of course, some will, but they're going to anyway, trained or not. I'd prefer my kids to have some advanced driver skills when they push the limits, as they inevitably will.

Postscript: This issue has a couple of interesting sub-plots besides the issue of the safety of young drivers.

I'll leave these to more qualified writers to explore.

At a time when the US and friends are trying to impose democracy on Iraq, the news of crowds demonstrating against the recent presidential election result in the centre of Kiev reminded me of similar happenings in Eastern Europe 15 or so years ago.

With the demise of Soviet power, Eastern European populations hit the streets in mass demonstrations. The communist regimes fell soon after.

I'll never forget the sight of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu's look of horror when he realised the rally he was fronting was actually a demonstration against his government, rather than the stage managed pro-government event he was expecting. Or all those people attacking the Berlin wall with hammers and pick axes. Or the crowds demonstrating in the centre of Prague.

The striking thing about these revolutions is that the new governments have remained largely democratic, despite the difficulties faced from years of prior economic neglect, and the populations' disappointment at the slow pace of reform.

Peoples' revolutions seem to produce lasting change. When conditions are so bad that the incumbent government's security forces won't take action against the demonstrators, change is assured. Time will tell if this is happening in the Ukraine.

The only other successful method of imposing lasting democratic change to a country is to completely destroy it, as happenned in Germany and Japan after WW2.

Contrast this to Iraq, where the US and allies hope to impose a democratic government on a defeated, but largely intact, country. They'll need to do a lot more bombing and killing before they're likely to succeed.

This post is late by blogging standards, but I've only just stumbled across the link, and it's too good to ignore.

Robert Corr's sparked a torrid debate regarding the teaching of creationism as science at schools.

It's simple really; when the god botherers allow the teaching of secular humanism at religious instruction classes, I'll be quite happy to allow the teaching of creationism as science.

Tracey Donovan proved that talent can triumph over image when she won the popular vote on Sunday night. How refreshing.

Did the winning diva swear when she first walked on stage? I thought she did, and was rewarded by having her mic switched off. Perhaps I imagined it.

Channel Ten, on the other hand, proved that ratings and revenue can triumph over the expectations of the show's younger audience. How disappointing.

The final should have been a great TV night for my primary school age twin daughters. They'd followed the competition from the beginning and were keen to see it to the end. We were happy for them to stay up and watch to the advertised end time.

I suppose with the expected high ratings and advertising slots going for $50k for 30 seconds, it was inevitable that the thing would run overtime. But letting it go so far into the night did no favours to our kids or the thousands of others who struggled to stay awake to the end, or to those with tougher parents who made them go to bed before it finished.

In our case, Twin One gave up and went to bed; Twin Two barely made it to the end.

Memo to Ten's management: Start the thing at 6.30pm next year.

For an example of the hazards of private funding of large infrastructure projects, and a good example of plain stupidity, look no further than the Sydney Airport Rail link.

The Sydney Airport Rail Link was commissioned in 1995 by a state Liberal government, you know, the ones that are so good at economic management. In the deal, the government would stump up the cash to build the lines and rolling stock, while a private consortium was contracted to build the stations.

To cover the cost of the stations, the consortium would receive a surcharge on the passenger ticket price. It was obvious even before the railway was completed that the surcharge, about $9 per passenger, would deter commuters from using the service.

To get the consortium to sign before the upcoming election (which they lost), the government guaranteed the commuter patronage, and wrote into the contact that if lack of passenger numbers caused the consortium to default on their loans, then the government would buy the stations!

Sydney Airport is only seven kilometers from the city centre and well served by road transport. Why would air passengers use rail to access the airport, when, for a similar price and less hassle, they could get a cab?

Passenger numbers were way down, and, only months after the railway opened, the consortium went into receivership. Now the government must either buy out the contract for $300 million, or renegotiate.

The public is often told that private organisations run things better than government. As a principal, private involvement of infrastructure projects is sound, but it's irresponsible not to make them take some of the risk.

As far as the airport railway is concerned, if the new arrangements don't result in the reduction of the surcharge, then it's doomed to be a permanent white elephant.

Chris Sheil is closing shop at Back Pages!

Read his last post here.

I'm sure many people will agree with me when saying he'll be missed.

Good luck with the book.

And Chris .... You'll be back. I know this, and so do you!

The US effort to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by conquering Falluja was always a big ask, but the effort has suffered a further serious setback when a marine was filmed shooting a wounded and unarmed insurgent in a mosque.

The footage was taken by an NBC TV cameraman Kevin Sites who was embedded as a pool correspondent with a Marine contingent that had entered the mosque.

Sites said three other previously wounded prisoners inside also had been shot again by the Marines.

The footage showed a man slumped on the floor of the mosque, where rebels had earlier been shooting at US troops.

When the troops realised one man was not dead, a Marine opened fire.

Before his death, the man had been half sitting against the wall, wearing an orange headscarf.

One hopes that this is an isolated incident. The abuse of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib was bad enough. This latest outrage will further inflame the Arab world and spur on the recruitment of even more fighters willing to take on the occupying forces.

Looking more like Vietnam every day.

Not unexpectedly, Colin Powell has resigned from his post of US Secretary of State.

Powell was the odd one out amongst the bunch of oddballs that comprise the US cabinet. The only cabinet member who had any meaningful military experience, he was a moderate in a government comprised of gung-ho conservatives. He would have been more suited to a Democrat administration.

Having experienced war first hand, he was reluctant to advise the use of military force unless absolutely necessary. It must have been galling to watch the US commit to folly in Iraq for the flimsiest of reasons when it hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan.

It wouldn't have been pleasant justifying the US stance on Iraq to the UN, only to find out that the evidence was false. Or when the Defence Department sidelined the State Department for the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq.

Whether Powell should have resigned from his post when he had obvious differences with direction the government was taking is a moot point. Perhaps it was the military background, the creed of not quitting when the going gets tough. Maybe staying on saved the US from bigger blunders. We'll have to wait for his memoirs to find out.

John Howard has finally shown some spine by telling his Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to pull in his head regarding the abortion issue.

Mr Howard yesterday issued a veiled warning to Mr Abbott to keep his personal views on abortion separate from his running of the health portfolio.

"An individual is entitled to express their views, providing they don't in any way administer their policy responsibilities in a way that conflicts with Government policy," Mr Howard said.

And it looks like a private member's bill mightn't be on the cards after all ....

Despite having last week left the door open for MPs to introduce a private member's bill on abortion, Mr Howard said yesterday that he did not expect this to happen when Federal Parliament resumed tomorrow.

From wimpy equivocation to strong direction in a little over two weeks. The opinion polling results must have come in.

Opinion polls or not, there's been no clammer from the public for change on this issue. Howard rightly realises that the issue would cause a divisive debate in sections of the community, one that wouldn't change the other side's views on the issue.

The current arrangements leave the subject up to the individual to decide. It's best left that way.

One of the hazards of having kids (daughters in particular) is that you find yourself watching TV shows you wouldn't normally view. One of these is Australian Idol.

Last year I had little option but to sit through the entire experience. It was hard going early on. The show got off to a shaky start after the judges character assassinated the early contestants. Thankfully, they adjusted the snark balance and saved the show. It got better as the contestants were eliminated, and became compulsory viewing. At the end, Shannon had the looks, but not quite the voice. Guy had the voice, but definitely not the looks. Cynics would wager that in a close popularly voted competition where the majority of voters are teenage girls, looks would win every time, but it didn't happen.

This year it's gone much more smoothly, despite the talent pool being marginally shallower. The excruciating add breaks and the dopey compares are still there, but it would be a brave person to insert themselves between the TV and our hormonal household residents at 7.30pm on Sunday night.

To prove that some viewers are slow learners, a senior family member opined that the overweight contestants in this year's lineup wouldn't go very far. How wrong he was. Both had voices that outweighed (forgive the pun) the advantages of the better looking contestants. Courtney deserved his third place, and Casey is in the final.

What an amazing talent Casey is. Poise that would credit someone much older than her 16 years, and the voice of an angel. The family consensus is that Casey deserves to win. Let's hope that the public votes again on talent and not aesthetics.

You could have banked on it. John Howard is taking his usual spineless approach to a difficult issue, this time abortion. Prevaricate by saying the government is not planning to change anything, then leave the door open for (or encourage?) someone else to take the lead and introduce a private member's bill into parliament.

And it looks like someone, not identified yet, is going to do just that. But what is he hoping to achieve? The only national action the Federal Government can take is to limit medicare rebates for abortions. They can outlaw the procedure entirely in the ACT and the Northern Territory, but they have no jurisdiction to make those changes for the rest of the country.

Medicare changes will hit financially disadvantaged women by making them pay the full fee for the procedure. Banning abortion in the territories will turn the clock back 20 years, when it was common for women to travel interstate to have the procedure. Wealthier women, the Liberal Party's natural constituency, won't be adversely effected by either measure.

There's been no talk from the god botherers about welfare changes to financially support disadvantaged women who are forced to go through with the pregnancy. For that matter, they don't seem to be that keen on doing anything that may prevent women from becoming pregnant in the first place, such as providing sex and contraception education. What these arch conservatives really want is a total ban on abortion, and no sex education apart from teaching to 'just say "no".'

The coming parliamentary debate is about changing arrangements that the majority of the population is happy with. Abortion law is and should be about letting women make a difficult choice based on their own beliefs and situations. It's not for a bunch of middle aged males to dictate what women do with their lives and bodies.

Ideally, Howard should kill this issue stone dead by not allowing the changes to be brought forward.
As this is unlikely to happen, bring forward the conscience vote, and hope that the majority of parliamentarians have the common sense to leave well alone.

Thankfully, I don't have to travel by train any more. As a school student, I endured nine years of train travel across Sydney to my 'elite' private school. Trains in the 60s and 70s were not the air conditioned affairs of today; they were single decked 'red rattlers,' with manual doors and no air conditioning. Hot in summer, freezing in winter, leaked when it rained.

In the past two decades, the rolling stock has improved enormously, but the reliability of the service hasn't. Breakdowns, delays, occasional strikes. Same as ever.

What a contrast to Melbourne. They have a public transport system to die for. Trains that run on time and trams that run everywhere, every few minutes, even on Sunday. Clean and well patronised. An integrated ticketing system. Compared to Sydney, light years ahead.

In Melbourne, going by the signs on the rolling stock, the system is run by private companies. I'm not sure how that works. Like most modern city transport systems, it seems unlikely that they'd make a profit, so the companies would have to be heavily subsidised, but who cares? The system functions.

Melbourne public transport used to be government run, so I assume it was privatised by the Kennet government.

Compare this to recent events in Sydney, where the rail bureaucracy culture dates back to the 50s. A driver shortage exists since a large number of the aging drivers were retired on health grounds. It takes the best part of two years to train more. The remaining drivers claim to be overworked, so start taking a lot of sick leave. There's chaos as services are cancelled. Management responds by slashing weekend services to make more drivers available during the week.

The drivers' union knows they've got the government in a corner, and asks for a 25% wage increase. They respond by offering 12% in return for workplace reform, and a bribe to prevent the drivers from going on strike. It hasn't worked and it looks like they'll out next week.

This sort of issue plays in the hands of the conservatives, who point to a union dominated organisation that is immune to reform. The government backbenchers know just how damaging this issue is, predicting that if the problems aren't solved by the next election, it could bring down the government.

The Sydney rail authority management and its workforce are at the crossroads. If they spit in the face of the government and the public to the extent that Labor loses office, then the incoming conservative government will only be too happy to enforce Kennet like reforms on the organisation. The parties can either bring in meaningful and sustainable change now, or risk having it imposed in the future.

Ideologically, I'd prefer the former way. In practice, I'll back the other if it makes the system work.

What's happened to the Gudgeon Pin? Has the piston seized in the punditry engine of the far right? Or is it just well lubricated by recent world events?

The front page of the soon to be mogulised Sun Herald sports the Governor General, Michael Jeffery, saying his two cents worth on "abortion, divorce, role models, eduction."

The GG has as much right as anyone else to speak publically on issues that concern him, but I make three points:

1. I'm interested to see if those who castigated former GG William Dean for speaking out on various issues (Aboriginal reconciliation and others) do the same to Jeffery. After all, (traditionally) GGs are supposed to be seen but not heard.
2. Did he approach the government for approval before he made the comments? Jeffery, being a straight down the middle ex military man, and one that hasn't put a foot wrong since taking on the Vice Regal gig, seems the type of guy who would ask before saying anything.
3. More intriguing still, was he put up to it by the government?

Of course, we'll never know, but the timing's impeccable.

The editorial of today's soon to be mogulised Sun Herald, (no link) suggested that the real motivation for the abortion debate kicked off by Tony Abbott may be to ease the sale of Telstra.

Queensland senator-elect Barnaby Joyce has hinted at trading his vote on the final sell off of Telstra to the restriction of Medicare-funded abortions.

A reminder; Joyce was the Queensland National Party senate candidate whose election gave control of the Senate to the government.

I don't believe the Telstra sale would be Tony Abbott's motivation; he is a serious Catholic and is in communication with Cardinal George Pell's on various issues, as shown when he was caught out on Lateline during the election campaign.

But I wouldn't put it past others in the government to try this on. Let's hope there are some Senators who don't confuse a moral issue with an economic one.

Johnny Warren, Australia's great soccer ambassador, died today.

Warren was captain of the only Australian team to qualify for the World Cup finals, in 1974. He thought that Soccer would eventually roll over the top of the other football codes to become the premier winter sport in Australia. It hasn't happened. The sport's been racked by scandals, internal divisions and lack of international success.

This year Warren was awarded with FIFA's Centenary Medal of Honour.

On receiving the award, an emotional Warren spoke of his dreams for the code in Australia.

"I want Australia to embrace this fabulous game," Warren said.

"It's not `wog-ball'. This is the game of the world."

Despite his comments, soccer in Australia has traditionally been the sport of European immigrants rather than the Anglo majority. It has a huge amature following, but the professional competition hasn't been very successful.

Warren was keen to promote soccer at every opportunity. Unfortunately, he couldn't do much about Australian soccer's biggest problems; the movement of talented players chasing big money overseas, and FIFA's woeful handling of the Oceania World Cup division.

Although I don't follow the game much at all, I respected Warren's enthusiasm for the code. Soccer is going to need lots of Johnny Warrens if it hopes to succeed in Australia.

At the risk I'll be labelled as one of the social 'elite,' and a bad loser to boot, I'm posting an image forwarded by a friend that puts another slant on the US election result.

I'll stand quietly so the right wingers can take a clear aim.

Disclaimer: It's probably wishful thinking. I haven't verified the athenticity of the information!

The last couple of days silence is due to the upgrading of the blog steam engine. Changes to the templates to take advantage of newer version is not for the faint hearted!

A very good step by step intruction of how to change your MT V2.xxx templates to work with 3.1xx is here. Many thanks to them for going to the trouble of documenting the procedure.

Please let me know if you have any problems with the site.

Other much more erudite commentators have written reams on the US Presidential election, so I'll keep my comments short, limited to hoping, beyond rational reasoning, that J Kerry will scrape in tomorrow. (For those who would like more colourful thoughts on the subject, go here.)

Of course, Kerry has no chance. Like in Oz, the forces of darkness prevail while the punters are economically comfortable, but emotionally insecure.

Like my linked colleague above, I'm sure I don't get any Americans looking at my blog. (Unkind persons would say I get few others from anywhere!) However, if any do stumble my way, they may like to look at the next link.

It was to be expected. The government will soon have the means to pass whatever laws as they like, and the arch conservatives are starting to spruik their pet causes. On AM this morning Tony Abbot tried to kick off a debate about abortion.

From the ABC transcript:

TONY ABBOTT: I certainly share the concerns that many people have about the number of abortions that are taking place in Australia today. We have something like 100,000 abortions a year, 25 per cent of all pregnancies end in abortion and even the most determined pro-choice advocates these days seem to be rightly concerned at the way that the abortion epidemic has developed.

But certainly the Government has no plans to change existing policy at this time.

MATT BROWN: Can you guarantee then that there won't be a change during this term of government?

TONY ABBOTT: You can never absolutely guarantee anything, but…

MATT BROWN: Well you can.

TONY ABBOTT: Well…

MATT BROWN: You're the Minister, you can say you won't do it.

TONY ABBOTT: Well, the Government obviously continues with existing policy until existing policy is changed. But the point that I've made often enough Matt is that there's not currently a constituency for change, but I think a debate has started in the community and let's see where the debate goes.

Doesn't take much reading between the lines to realise what Abbott wants to achieve. More interesting is his response when pressed about whom he's been talking to about the issue.

TONY ABBOTT: Well as I said the Government policy hasn't changed, let's see where this debate develops.

MATT BROWN: What's the Prime Minister's view on this? Have you spoken to him about it?

TONY ABBOTT: I have lots of conversations with the PM on lots of subjects.

MATT BROWN: Has this been a subject, this important issue, an issue in which you're trying to build a constituency for change?

TONY ABBOTT: Matt, I don't ask you about conversations which you have with your colleagues and you will kindly return the compliment.

MATT BROWN: Is it too sensitive an issue for you?

TONY ABBOTT: (pause)

MATT BROWN: Minister?

Minister, is there any work being done in your portfolio, in your department, to examine this issue of abortion?

TONY ABBOTT: (silence)

MATT BROWN: How do you expect the public to respond to this issue now that it's being raised by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, do you think there might be more of a public debate?

TONY ABBOTT: Well I think there is a debate developing in the community and let's see where it goes.

Brown had every right to ask whether this subject is being bandied about the government. The public has a right to know if the government is thinking about changes to this area, or any other policy subject, for that matter. Abbott was being a bit too precious by not answering the question.

Abbott's views regarding abortion are well known, and he has every right to air them. But the public also has a right to know if this issue is up for government review. It either is or isn't. Abbott brought the subject up, and he should be forthright regarding the government's intentions.