I noticed this proposal on Facebook (for what that’s worth!). It takes the form of a change.org petition by Cody Orlando to be presented to the federal government. I don’t support concealed firearm possession or handgun possession in any form, but I’m interested to know the thoughts of others.
This will be a tough sell as most people have never handled a pistol, don’t understand the safety features, and have been brainwashed by the media and politicians for decades – creating a society that has an irrational fear of firearms. Jeff Cooper coined the term ‘Hoplophobia’ back in 1962, describing it as a “mental disturbance characterised by irrational aversion to weapons”.
I want you to put aside your irrational fear of firearms for a moment while I present you with some facts:
It is not possible to ban guns from a society
Violent crime in Australia is up and comparable in many ways to the United States. The media and our politicians love to hide this fact from you. In Australia, a woman is three times more likely to be raped than in America.
You might say you don’t want an American gun culture. I don’t either and I’m not proposing that. I don’t support the idea of self-regulation and the private sale of firearms and ammunition to anybody and everybody. Background checks, licensing and training are essential for anyone who wishes to use a firearm in Australia.
Because Americans have guns they are more likely to shoot each other. You will often see statistics of gun deaths in America compared with other countries claiming this is the case. What they fail to mention is that most of those deaths are attributed to suicide and because firearms are so readily available, they are the tool of choice for suicide in the US. Suicide is just as concerning in Australia, it’s just that we choose instead to jump at the gap or gas ourselves in the garage. The population of America is 14 times greater than that of Australia, so a per capita comparison is more like 715 America / 60 Australia deaths by firearms. I have included a graph below that shows how much more likely you are to die by other means in the US.
In the last two decades, the UK has introduced the most restrictive gun laws in the developed world, banning many types of firearms. During this time crime has skyrocketed and criminals are the only ones with guns.
As a law abiding Australian citizen who goes to work and pays his taxes, don’t you feel the Government should be doing more to protect you from violent criminals? I’m sure they believe they are doing the best they can, but the problem is their strategy is wrong. Criminals get too much of a free ride these days. Violent offenders brazenly rob, rape and beat people with little fear that a good citizen will step in to put a stop to the attack.
Police cannot be everywhere to protect everyone. There is about one police officer per 500 citizens and each officer works 40 hours during a 24/7, 168 hour week, reducing the ratio to 1:2100. Then you need to factor in how much time they actually spend on the beat, rather than doing paperwork, time in court etc.
Policing is not a proactive business with respect to violent crime. It’s impossible to tell when and where a rapist might attack and potentially give you a nasty disease. There’s not much you can do about that disease after the fact either. You can’t sue AIDS or Hepatitis C in a court of law.
Now I’m not suggesting for a moment that you or your daughter carry a concealed weapon to protect yourselves, but what I am proposing is that those good citizens who are trained and licensed to use pistols should be legally allowed to carry in public in their own personal time.
Why can’t an off-duty police officer choose to carry a pistol when he is doing his grocery shopping, or an armed security guard or sporting pistol shooter for that matter? Approximately 0.5% of Australians are trained and licensed to use pistols. How brazen would a criminal be knowing that 1 in 200 citizens would be only too happy to step in and assist another good citizen like yourself in distress?
You have a choice. You can continue to believe the media, political spin, lies and fear-mongering, or you can choose to believe that authorities recognise they cannot control criminals, so they control the law abiding. Lobby your government to allow licensed people to carry and remind them Article 3 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
Justine Damond spent her last moments trying to help a stranger.
At 11:27 p.m. Saturday, Ms. Damond called police to report a possible sexual assault, according to a 911 transcript obtained by the Star Tribune Wednesday, later published by the city of Minneapolis.
“I’m not sure if she’s having sex or being raped,” Damond told the operator. After giving her address in the quiet Fulton neighborhood, Damond continued: “I think she just yelled out ‘help,’ but it’s difficult the sound has been going on for a while, but I think, I don’t think she’s enjoying it.”
“OK,” said the operator, “I’ve already got an officer on the way.”
Soon afterward, one of those officers, Mohamed Noor, fired his gun from inside a patrol vehicle and killed Damond.
The death of Ms Damond, 40, sparked international controversy, including in her native Australia, where the prime minister called it a “shocking” and “inexplicable” killing and demanded answers. As the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) investigates, details have been scarce, and the 911 call further explains why the officers were there in the first place. The city also released police and incident reports Wednesday, though they offer limited public details while the shooting is still being investigated.
“I think the BCA is also stymied by a lack of information,” said Gov. Mark Dayton Wednesday in his first public remarks on the case. “I think everybody wants answers.”
The 911 transcript shows that about eight minutes after making her first call, Damond called police again to make sure they took down her address correctly. She repeated the report of hearing a woman screaming, and the operator assured her the officers were en route.
“Thank you,” said Damond.
Officer Matthew Harrity, who was driving, and Noor, in the front passenger seat, arrived at the scene. They drove south through the alley between Washburn and Xerxes avenues S., toward W. 51st Street, with the squad (car) lights turned off. As they reached the street, “Harrity indicated that he was startled by a loud sound near the squad (car),” according to the preliminary BCA investigation.
911 call transcript
Damond approached the driver’s side window of the squad car “immediately afterward,” according to the statement. Noor shot from the passenger seat, across his partner and through the window, striking Damond in the abdomen. She died at the scene 20 minutes later.
Officers canvassed the area that night, but did not locate any evidence of a sexual assault, said Minneapolis Police Assistant Chief Medaria Arradondo, who has served as the face of the department since the shooting. Chief Janeé Harteau remains out of public view on what a spokesperson called a “personal, pre-scheduled” trip out of state, saying she was expected to return Wednesday. A message left asking if she was back in Minneapolis was not returned.
A State Police spokesman would not clarify what the noise Harrity heard may have been, but Harrity’s attorney hinted that the officers may have believed they were driving into an “ambush.” The attorney, Fred Bruno, declined to discuss the investigation, but said, “it’s certainly reasonable to assume that any police officer would be concerned about a possible ambush under these circumstances,” referencing the case of New York City Police officer Miosotis Familia, 48, who was killed July 5 when she was shot in the head while sitting in her mobile command vehicle in the Bronx.
Noor has refused to be interviewed by BCA agents, so his side of the story is still unknown. Noor’s attorney, Thomas Plunkett, did not respond to a request for comment.
After Noor shot Damond, the officers exited the car and started performing CPR until medical responders arrived. Damond was pronounced dead at the scene.
The officers were wearing body cameras, but they did not turn them on until after the shooting, according to the BCA. Investigators say they are not aware of any video or audio of the shooting.
Bruno would not specify what Harrity told BCA investigators beyond what was made public.
Dayton reserving judgement
Governor Dayton called the death a “horrible” tragedy, but said he had no additional information to draw conclusions about what happened.
He said he left a message expressing condolences to Damond’s fiancé, Don Damond, and another message with the Australian consulate in Chicago offering any aid he could. Justine Damond, a spiritual healer from Sydney, was scheduled to marry Don Damond in August.
Dayton said he would not comment on Noor refusing to be interviewed by police because Noor has a constitutional right to remain silent.
“There’s a paucity of information,” he said. “To the best of my knowledge, there are only two living eyewitnesses. One, who spoke yesterday to BCA officials for about four hours, and the other, who has declined to be interviewed, and he’s obviously the key person in this investigation.”
Dayton said the Legislature should “definitely review” the policies on body cameras, echoing remarks from Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman earlier this week that the officers “didn’t have to turn them on, but [they] should have turned them on.”
Freeman’s office has been briefed on the case, but a spokesman declined to comment Wednesday about what was revealed. Freeman said he will decide whether to charge Noor with the shooting, rather than convene a grand jury.
House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, said any type of violent incident between police and citizens is “incredibly unfortunate,” but said he’d also reserve judgement until more information is released.
Daudt said he expects the Legislature to take up discussions around police body cameras in the future. But he said earlier talks have turned controversial, as lawmakers seek to balance public safety needs with the privacy rights of people who are filmed.
The speaker voiced his support for law enforcement officers across the state, and urged Minnesotans to do the same. “This isn’t easy when it happens for folks in uniform,” he said. “I encourage people to show support.”
Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune – Staff writers Brandon Stahl and Hannah Covington.
Editorial and Opinion
This shooting of a white 40 year old Australian national, in a safe neighbourhood in Minneapolis by a black Muslim officer has a distinct stink about it! Mayor Betsy states that people cannot compound that tragedy by turning to “racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia.” It is unfortunate but all these factors exist until proven otherwise.
The Minneapolis police chief Janeé Harteau remains out of public view on what a police spokesperson called a “personal, pre-scheduled” trip out of state. With an incident as big as this which has the potential to blow her department apart, and become a major international incident, she should have returned immediately to provide executive oversight – but no!
What has Officer Noor got to hide. He refuses to be interviewed by BCA officers. Yes, it is his right to remain silent, but as a serving police officer involved in a “gun on none” shooting, he has an absolute obligation to tell his side of the story. Matthew Harrity has given his statement of events BCA officers, but Noor refuses to do so.
Reports state that Officer Noor had already drawn his weapon and had it on his lap, and when Ms Damond approached the driver’s side window in her pyjamas, Officer Noor raised and discharged his weapon across the front and in the face of Officer Harrity, through a closed window striking and killing Ms Damond. Why was this weapon drawn already? Deadly force is used when an officer is in grave and imminent danger! Noor was ready to shoot irrespective of the situation found!
What did Noor think he was shooting at? How had he appropriately assessed the scene, and any possible threat to his and his partner’s safety?
Why were the officers body cameras turned off? County Attorney Mike Freeman stated that officers “didn’t have to turn them on.” If that is the case, then why are they issued? The officers’ failure to turn on their cameras violates Minneapolis police policy, which has been in place for body cameras since at least 2016. In particular, policy 4-223 says that officers should manually activate their cameras “prior to any use of force. If a [body-worn camera] is not activated prior to a use of force, it shall be activated as soon as it is safe to do so.” It also says that officers should turn on their cameras during “any contact involving criminal activity,” “any contact that is, or becomes adversarial,” and “any citizen contact.” All of these rules indicate that the cameras should have been rolling before police shot Damond. However, it’s one thing to have these rules and another to get officers to actually follow them.
Why was the squad cars dash camera turned of? Why are they fixed to the squad cars if they are not used.
Why do American police have this shoot first, ask questions later mentality? US police kill more in days than other countries police do in years.” Between 1992 and 2011, Australian police shot and killed 94 people. In 2015, US police shot and killed 97 people in March alone!
Constitutionally, US police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defence-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others. Of course, this leads to the unarmed and possibly innocent suspect running away from the vicinity of a possible crime scene, being shot dead with officers using lethal force on limited and/or erroneous information!
The suggestion by officers that they feared they were being ambushed is ludicrous! This dis-information is being spread in attempt to muddy the investigation and to taint the judgement by police and public alike. Where did this information come from? A cynic may suggest from the Minneapolis PD union itself, in attempt to create doubt in favour of it’s members?
Will Noor face prosecution for his actions? Probably not! Even though the victim was white, female, unarmed and the 911 informant, who was shot by a black officer with a limited and erroneous scope of the scene. On the surface of this incident, this seems to be an unlawful shooting, Noor is unlikely to face court. Police are very rarely prosecuted for shootings — because the law allows them wide latitude to use force on the job. It’s because the investigation of the incident often falls onto the same police department the officer is from, which creates major conflicts of interest, and breeds corrupt investigative practices. These police are not motivated to prosecute their own, a position which appears to be supported by the city officials and the judiciary of that location. At other times the only available evidence comes from eyewitnesses, who are not seen to be as trustworthy in the public eye as a police officer.
The vulnerable will continue to suffer and the guilty will walk away.
“We knew Trump was the ‘classic sleazeball’, now there’s proof he’s also a patronising twerp,” says Kate Halfpenny.
Another Donald Trump foreign visit and another awkward handshake – however it was Donald Trump’s exchange with French First Lady Brigitte Macron which has got the world talking.
In a video on the French presidential Facebook account, Mr Trump and Ms Macron extend their hands to one another, fumbling to make contact, before they embrace for a traditional kiss on each cheek…..then they then ungracefully hold hands, for what seemed to be an inordinately long time.
But it was a later comment from Donald Trump at the high-level meeting in Paris, that almost overshadowing what appeared to be early signs of Mr Trump again rethinking his attitude to the Paris Accord.
As Mr Trump, Mr Macron and their wives toured the museums at Les Invalides, the US President turned to the French First Lady and said: “You’re in such good shape.”
He repeated the observation to the French president before turning back to the French first lady, and remarking: “Beautiful.”
Watch CNN’s report of the greeting
Ms Macron was her husband’s former high school teacher and their relationship has drawn international attention because of their age difference – Ms Macron is 64, while her husband is 39.
Does age really matter in good relationship?
The comments have been denounced in some circles as sexist, noting that the Macrons’ age difference is similar to that of Donald and Melania Trump.
The pair has been seen as having a difficult chemistry. Photo: AAP
Trump hints at change of heart on Paris Accord
More substantively, Mr Trump appeared to be holding the door open to a reversal of his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord, but did not say what he would need in return to persuade him to do so.
Mr Trump, who has made few friends in Europe with his rejection of the 2015 Paris agreement and his “America First” trade stance, met Mr Macron in Paris on Thursday as both leaders sought common ground to reset an awkward relationship.
“Something could happen with respect to the Paris accords, let’s see what happens,” Mr Trump told a news conference. “If it happens, that will be wonderful, and if it doesn’t, that’ll be OK too.”
Mr Trump has said the Paris accord is soft on leading polluters like China and India, putting US industry at risk.
“There is no sudden and unexpected change today, otherwise we would have announced it, but there is the shared intention to continue discussing these issues,” the French president added.
Mr Trump and Mr Macron’s relationship got off to a bumpy start, but both have an incentive to improve relations – Mr Macron hopes to elevate France’s role in global affairs, and Mr Trump, seemingly isolated among world leaders, needs a friend overseas.
The nature of their greeting was so highly anticipated because of the long, white-knuckled handshake between the two leaders in Brussels in May in which Mr Macron held on firmly and appeared to try and pull Mr Trump’s towards him.
“My handshake with him, it’s not innocent,” Mr Macron said some days later. “It’s not the alpha and the omega of politics, but a moment of truth.”
A day after that, Mr Macron performed a body swerve away from Mr Trump as he approached a group of leaders, and instead picked out German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Mr Trump’s handshakes have become closely observed moments in his diplomatic interactions. When Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the White House early this year, their handshake lasted for an uncomfortable 20 seconds, with Mr Abe appearing to try and break off several times.
And during his March meeting with Ms Merkel, Mr Trump appeared to refuse to shake her hand despite the pleas of media onlookers.
US President Donald Trump has gone back on his plans to create a cyber-security alliance with Russia, after the proposal was met with severe condemnation by several Republican senators.
Mr Trump raised eyebrows when he initially said on Twitter that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin had discussed “forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit” to tackle issues like election hacking and “many other negative things”.
Perhaps his suggestion didn’t get the traction he had hoped for, because only hours later, President Trump said it would not happen.
Mr Trump’s initial claim came after he met with the Russian leader at the G20 Summit in Hamburg.
Many high-profile Republican Senators were dumbfounded by the idea, questioning why the United States would want to work with Russia given Moscow’s alleged meddling in last year’s US election.
“It’s not the dumbest idea I have ever heard, but it’s pretty close,”Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC’s Meet the Press.
Senator Marco Rubio also ridiculed the proposal, tweeting: “Partnering with Putin on a ‘Cyber Security Unit’ is akin to partnering with Assad on a Chemical Weapons Unit.”
“While reality & pragmatism requires that we engage Vladimir Putin, he will never be a trusted ally or a reliable constructive partner.”
“We have no quarrel with Russia or the Russian people. Problem is with Putin & his oppression, war crimes & interference in our elections.”
And while outspoken Senator John McCain acknowledged Mr Trump’s desire to move forward with Russia, he said “there has to be a price to pay” for the nation’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
The Trump backflip comes a day after he was the subject of a scathing review from Australian journalist Chris Uhlmann, that quickly went viral, and in the same weekend the president’s son was accused of meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer during the 2016 election campaign.
According to The New York Times, Donald Trump Jr was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.
It is unclear whether Ms Veselnitskaya produced the promised information about Ms Clinton, but it was likely she would have done so, according to the NYT’s sources.
Trump’s ridicule continues
President Trump has also been criticised for the release of a bizarre video, which recaps his experience of the G20 summit.
Mr Trump tweeted a two-minute video on Sunday titled, “Make America Great Again”, which featured pictures of himself attending the G20 Summit set to a ‘Make America Great Again’ soundtrack.
Mr Trump raised eyebrows when he initially said on Twitter that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin had discussed “forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit” to tackle issues like election hacking and “many other negative things”.
Perhaps his suggestion didn’t get the traction he had hoped for, because only hours later, President Trump said it would not happen.
Mr Trump’s initial claim came after he met with the Russian leader at the G20 Summit in Hamburg.
Many high-profile Republican Senators were dumbfounded by the idea, questioning why the United States would want to work with Russia given Moscow’s alleged meddling in last year’s US election.
“It’s not the dumbest idea I have ever heard, but it’s pretty close,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC’s Meet the Press.
Senator Marco Rubio also ridiculed the proposal, tweeting: “Partnering with Putin on a ‘Cyber Security Unit’ is akin to partnering with Assad on a “Chemical Weapons Unit.”
“While reality & pragmatism requires that we engage Vladimir Putin, he will never be a trusted ally or a reliable constructive partner.
“We have no quarrel with Russia or the Russian people. Problem is with Putin & his oppression, war crimes & interference in our elections.”
And while outspoken Senator John McCain acknowledged Mr Trump’s desire to move forward with Russia, he said “there has to be a price to pay” for the nation’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
The Trump backflip comes a day after he was the subject of a scathing review from Australian journalist Chris Uhlmann, that quickly went viral, and in the same weekend the president’s son was accused of meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer during the 2016 election campaign.
According to The New York Times, Donald Trump Jr was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.
It is unclear whether Ms Veselnitskaya produced the promised information about Ms Clinton, but it was likely she would have done so, according to the NYT’s sources.
Trump’s ridicule continues
President Trump has also been criticised for the release of a bizarre video, which recaps his experience of the G20 summit.
Mr Trump tweeted a two-minute video on Sunday titled, “Make America Great Again”, which featured pictures of himself attending the G20 Summit set to a ‘Make America Great Again’ soundtrack.
Australian journalist Chris Uhlmann’s brutal dismissal of US President Donald Trump as having “pressed fast forward on the decline of the United States as a global leader” has attracted tens of thousands of hits worldwide.
In a scathing piece-to-camera, the ABC’s political editor said Mr Trump struck an “uneasy, lonely, awkward” figure at the G20 global summit, where he showed “no desire and no capacity” to lead the world.
The US President merely “craves power as it burnishes his celebrity”, Mr Uhlmann said.
In his observations from Germany, the Australian journalist said there was the “strong sense” that some world leaders were “trying to find the best way to work around” Mr Trump.
“He managed to isolate his nation, to confuse and alienate his allies and to diminish America – he will cede that power to China and Russia.
“Some will cheer the decline of America. But I think we’ll miss it when it’s gone.
“And that’s the biggest threat to the values of the West which he claims to hold so dear.”
Mr Uhlmann went on to differentiate between Mr Trump’s more polished, scripted speeches and his “real” off-the-cuff remarks.
“There’s a tendency among some hopeful souls to confuse the speeches written for Trump with the thoughts of the man himself,” he said.
“But it’s the unscripted Trump that’s real: a man who barks out vile in a 140 characters, who wastes his precious days as President at war with western institutions like the judiciary, independent agencies and the free press.”
It was not long before the video footage spread worldwide, with US media reacting strongly to Mr Uhlmann’s assessment.
Despite the video’s brutal analysis, which was likely to have reached the White House, Mr Trump took to Twitter to assert the G20 summit had been a “wonderful success”.
There is something to be said for a demolition “expert!”
Not content with reshaping America, US President Donald Trump is reshaping diplomacy throughout the world.
While the world’s diplomats are aflame with indignation over the seemingly ad hoc nature of Mr Trump’s foreign policy announcements, leading Australian policy experts suggest there could be a silver lining.
Mr Trump has called NATO obsolete, although it has been the bedrock of Western military alliance since World War II. He famously spoke on the phone to the Taiwanese President, throwing the One China policy up for grabs. He has been at clear odds with the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has declared those fleeing war and terror will always be welcome in Canada. He is moving ahead with the wall between the US and Mexico, has jousted with the German leader and turned the relationship with Russia on its head.
On Thursday (AEST), he threw decades of diplomatic effort up in the air when he declared of the Palestine-Israel two-state solution: “I’m looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like.”
How is this going to work? Historically, Israel and Palestine have shown that they can’t come to agreement on moving forward to resolve their differences.
Even in far-off Australia, he’s managed to insult Prime Minister “Trumble”.
One of Australia’s most experienced security advisers Allan Behm, author of the recent book No, Minister and former head of the International Policy and Strategy Divisions of the Department of Defence, argues that for all his iconoclastic bluster and rants against received wisdom, Mr Trump is forcing a re-examination of the alliances which have underpinned the West for 70 years.
“The best thing for friends and allies is they have had to review their position, and that is a good thing,” Mr Behm told The New Daily. “There is an upside when you have to test your fundamental assumptions. If the Prime Minister is going to get a bollocking every time he talks to the President, it is about time we thought about the alliance.”
What has upset much of the diplomatic and bureaucratic class worldwide – Mr Trump’s brazen contempt for established practice – is forcing America itself, along with its allies, to redefine exactly what their best interests are.
Professor of International Politics at the University of NSW Tony Burke told The New Daily the hostility or disdain between the Australian and US leaders was disturbing, “but if it makes us think about having an independent foreign policy, that is of benefit”.
“There has been a tendency to align too closely with Washington’s position on everything. We need to determine our own interests.”
Professor of History at the American University in Washington, Max Friedman, said of Mr Trump’s diplomatic efforts: “The most beautiful and classiest foreign policy ever”, before making it clear he was mimicking President Trump’s hyperbole.
The problem is we don’t know what Trump’s foreign policy is because he doesn’t seem to know.
“He has challenged convention without offering a coherent alternative. We don’t know if he values NATO or thinks it is obsolete. Is he recognising Taiwan or sticking with the One China policy? Does he support West Bank settlements or oppose them? He wants to obliterate ISIS, but is rattling sabres at Iran, the country doing the most to fight ISIS.”
Professor Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College in Canberra, told The New Daily Mr Trump’s regular tweeting was compelling officials to invent policy on the run, all to fit in with his tweets.
“That is unprecedented, that the most powerful man in the world has this way of circumventing his own system and the very, very powerful national security bureaucracy.”
But despite Mr Trump’s spectacular ability to ignore all traditional diplomatic practice, experts are united in thinking, or hoping, that the institutional strength and heavyweight machinery of traditional American governance will ultimately have a tempering effect on him.
As Mr Behm puts it: “The greatest positive I can draw out of it, is while everyone is recalibrating, Trump is learning on the job, and learning how to walk backwards. He has walked backwards on China, I think he will walk backwards on Mexico, he is already walking backwards on Canada.
Governments around the world are reappraising their position, their treaties with the United States, and the future while Trump is learning the hard lessons of being President.
As foreign policy remains so “foreign” to Trump, and so overtly aggressive, there is a distinct risk that the United States will become more and more isolated by following Trump’s “America First” agenda!
It could very well end up an “America Alone” agenda!
Australian politicians have sleepwalked into a housing affordability “crisis” because they were hooked on property taxes and votes, a think tank has warned.
Demographia, a global company based in the US, released an annual report this week that ranked Sydney as the second-most expensive city for housing in the world.
It divided Sydney’s median house price ($1.077 million) by its median household income ($88,000) to roughly estimate it would take 12.2 years’ wages to buy a home – better than Hong Kong (18.1 years) but worse than Vancouver (11.8), Auckland (10) and San Jose (9.6).
Using the same measure, Melbourne (9.5 years), Adelaide (6.6), Brisbane (6.2) and Perth (6.1) also made it into the top 20 of the 406 cities on the list.
Wayne Matthew, the Australian spokesman for Demographia, told The New Daily that our politicians are “only just starting to realise” the extent of the problem.
The report’s release coincided with the first press conference of newly appointed NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, who pledged on Monday to tackle housing affordability, calling it the “biggest issue people have across the state”.
On the same day, senior figures in the Turnbull government made it known that housing affordability will be an “extraordinarily high” priority in 2017.
Politicians have sleepwalked into the “crisis” because they initially saw no problem with the rapid increases in prices, or were too scared of voter backlash to intervene, Demographia’s Mr Matthew said.
“Initially, the Australian dream seemed to be paying fabulous dividends. People’s property prices were going up and they felt good about that. As prices went up, people were able to leverage the equity in the increased property to buy other properties as investments to rent out,” he said.
“That all looked good and enterprising, however it has now caught up with us, particularly in Sydney.
“There have been too many people benefiting from the investment wave, but the goose that laid the golden egg is becoming a millstone around the necks of young people.
“It’s going to create great chasms in our society, with young people being bitter that they can’t afford the home their parents had and that they can’t realise the same dreams. Australia has always been a country where people have had a right to a roof over their head that they could aspire to own themselves, but that great Australian dream is being smashed.”
There are two distinct sides to the debate over housing reform. There are those who argue for supply-side measures (often conservatives, such as the Liberal Party) and those who argue for demand-side measures (such as Labor, which has promised to reduce negative gearing).
Demographia’s argument, as a conservative think tank, is that land prices are high because of an artificial undersupply imposed by state governments, who fear voter backlash if they free up large plots of land for development or allow more high-rise apartments.
“State governments have been concerned about stepping into the market and offering lower-priced land on the basis that they’re fearful it could affect other property prices where investors are dependent upon equity to maintain a balance in borrowings they’ve undertaken,” Mr Matthew said.
“The reality is, and international experience has shown, that’s not what occurs.”
Dr Ashton De Silva, an economist with expertise in the housing market, agreed that supply is “probably the most important factor”, but said Demographia’s data should be treated with caution.
The measure used by the think tank – median house price divided by median household income – is “problematic” because the way home loans are funded varies widely between countries, Dr De Silva told The New Daily.
“I’m very circumspect about this kind of report. I know that Sydney and Melbourne house prices are very high, and I know this causes a great deal of hardship in the community. However, I’m not sure if the problem is as extreme as they say.”
Professor Tony Dalton, a housing expert at the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, said supply is an “important” factor because of the nation’s high rate of immigration, but does not tell the “full story”.
Overly generous tax concessions for landlords, a lack of social housing, and a concentration of “good jobs” in the inner city are also crucial factors, Professor Dalton told The New Daily.
“There are very big differences between house prices in central city areas and the periphery. That’s because of the way we’ve organised and designed our cities. We’ve got all the good jobs, those with greater security and higher income, within a 10 to 12km radius of the central business district.”
To fix the problem, governments shouldn’t focus just on freeing up land. They should also curb negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions and invest more in outer suburb infrastructure and social housing, Professor Dalton said.
“We’ve got first home buyers bidding for properties alongside cashed-up, affluent people who are able to bid for properties for investment purposes.
“Meanwhile, most western developed countries have a social housing system that’s much bigger and more robust than Australia. We are a standout in terms of how little of that sort of housing we provide.”
With a flagged $4 billion to be recovered over four years, Centrelink’s demand letters over alleged debts could be just the start.
The Turnbull government’s mass invoices – constructed from data matching to claim discrepancies exist with Centrelink’s casual, disabled and vulnerable income earners – are expected to be used across the entire pensioner and social security sector. New discrepancies can be created over a recipient’s claimed asset values to substantiate invoices for ‘over-payments’.
The ‘debt’ letters are distressing many recipients, as the public outcry shows. Photo: AAP
Data matching and garnishee was originally implemented by Labor in government, but it was the Turnbull government that devised the more aggressive, presumptive and system-wide invoicing strategy.
While a responsible government has every right on behalf of taxpayers to eliminate fraud and ensure financial control in a country under deficit distress, the anecdotal hypocrisy of MPs who are extended travel allowance indulgences under lax rules adds fuel to what is becoming an explosive backlash across Australian postcodes.
A crowd funded court challenge to the legality of the alleged debt invoices is now expected.
Often stereotyped by tabloid media as dole bludgers exploiting a sense of entitlement, this time many articulate Centrelink recipients are fighting back.
Using the Not My Debtwebsite they are sharing their stories of having been coerced by the Department of Human Services to agree to fortnightly repayments even though many dispute any debt exists.
They have taken their income statements and their Centrelink letters to A Current Affair, other TV shows and Facebook to give public evidence of unfairness.
Distressed and agitated when they have received what appears to be a letter of demand, they have hit the phones to (when they can get through) dispute the claimed amount of Centrelink ‘overpayment’.
The automated matching of their Centrelink-declared casual or irregular incomes, when averaged over 12 months with the amount declared on their Australian Tax Office income tax returns, has created what appears to be a discrepancy or ‘overpayment’.
The onus of proof is immediately placed on the recipient, many of whom have to scramble to find pay slips from employers from five or more years ago, or pay their banks to recover archived bank statements showing the date and amount of income received.
Off to Dun and Bradstreet you go!
A series of Centrelink letters have initiated what looks like a ‘Catch-22’: a bureaucratic entrapment made famous by Joseph Heller’s wartime novel where a paradoxical situation is created from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules.
The recipients of the Centrelink letters seem to be damned no matter what they do – much like the fictional World War II pilots in Catch-22 who were deemed to be sane if they voiced any concern for their own sanity. Photo: AAP
The first letter logged on a recipient’s MyGov account politely asks recipients to check online that their income details are correct.
Many recipients do not regularly access their MyGov accounts. If or when no response is logged a second Centrelink/ATO data matching letter quantifying the ‘overpayment’ is dispatched. Distress quickly ensues, as the quantum of the ‘debt’, in many cases thousands of dollars, is boldly displayed in what looks like an invoice, with credit card and Biller payments options listed at the bottom.
But instead of resolving the factual accuracy of the data matched quantum, the Centrelink call centre staffer says that unless the recipient immediately agrees to at least a minimum repayment (say $15 a fortnight for three months) of the disputed amount, under DHS policy the staffer has no alternative but to send the ‘debt’ for collection to outsourced collectors Dun and Bradstreet or Probe Group. Hence, ‘Catch-22’.
These debt collectors are on multi-million-dollar contracts with DHS. It remains commercial-in-confidence whether or not these companies receive a percentage of the money successfully collected. Opposition spokesperson Linda Burney has asked for the outsourcers’ incentive details to be released.
The strategy has enabled DHS’s Hank Jongen to claim, in an ABC interview, that debt recovery is working and had “identified” up to $300 million in overpayments since 169,000 letters were dispatched.
Mr Jongen claimed eight out of 10 “customers” had thus acknowledged the “overpayment”.
This official claim from DHS will be tested in coming weeks and months. The Australian National Audit Office, which coincidentally is due to report next month on DHS, has been asked to conduct a performance audit of Centrelink’s methodology.
‘This is cruelty’
In the current clawback, Centrelink has repeated its customer risk protocol by referring any distressed recipients to Lifeline for psychological support. More petrol on the fire.
Centrelink’s response to one of the widespread complaints from distressed welfare recipients. Photo: Twitter
One Centrelink senior staffer, who asked not to be named, told The New Daily the anger and rage generated by the data matching strategy had placed counter staff under confronting pressure.
“They just want to spit on us,” he said.
He asked why DHS had not quarantined vulnerable recipients, many of whom were intellectually disabled, from the more able casual income earners.
If DHS had a genuine “customer focus” the entire casual income reporting process would be “bulletproof” for recipients so they could neither calculatedly defraud nor inadvertently fall into error. A department wanting to engender trust with Australians striving to earn sustaining incomes in a now highly casualised economy would act protectively towards them.
“One intellectually disabled bloke screamed, ‘I’ve had a go mate … I did some work’.”
Our informant said the Centrelink data matching strategy would soon be exposed as counter-productive, with recipients now likely to desist in seeking any paid work for fear of losing any of their welfare payments.
With a Newstart allowance at $34 a day and city rents now at extortionate levels, many vulnerable people had little money left with which to clothe and feed themselves.
“We are dealing with the most impoverished and vulnerable sectors of the community. This is cruelty.”
Source: Quentin Dempster is a Walkley Award-winning journalist, author and broadcaster with decades of experience. He is a veteran of the ABC newsroom and has worked with a number of print titles including the Sydney Morning Herald. He was awarded an Order of Australia in 1992 for services to journalism.
You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.
You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.
You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.
The campaign to leave the European Union repeatedly urged Britain to “Take back control”. It is now a week since voters narrowly opted for Brexit, and the country has seldom looked so wildly off the rails. The Prime Minister has handed in his notice. The leader of the opposition is struggling to survive a coup. Boris Johnson has distanced himself from the top job. The pound hit a 31-year low against the US dollar and the banks lost a third of their value, before stabilising. Meanwhile there is talk in Scotland and Northern Ireland of secession.
Every one of these calamities was predicted in the event of a Leave victory, and yet still the country seems transfixed by what it has brought upon itself. It is time to snap out of the daze. The country needs a new leader, a coherent, intelligent and non-nationalist approach to negotiating with the EU, and a fair settlement with those nations within its own union that voted Remain. The damage to Britain’s prosperity and to its standing in the world is already grave, and will become far worse if the country now fails to “take back control” of its future.
Brexit’s grisly first week, and the misery ahead, have already provoked buyer’s remorse. More than 4 million people have signed a petition calling for a re-run of the vote. An instant rejection of the result would be wrong. Although we regret the Brexit vote, 34 million people have cast their ballot and the result is clear. A straight rematch would be no fairer than allowing England’s footballers another crack at Iceland, which inflicted a second humiliation a week after the referendum.
And yet Britain’s fate is still highly uncertain. Although Britons opted to leave the EU, Brexit comes in 57 varieties. The mildest sort would be an arrangement like Norway’s, involving continuing access to Europe’s “single market” in return for the free movement of people from EU countries and a contribution to the EU budget. At the opposite extreme, Britain could cut its ties entirely, meaning no more payments into the EU budget and no more unlimited migration—but no special access to the market which buys nearly half Britain’s exports, either. Voters were told they could have it all. They cannot.
The Norwegian option would do the least damage to the economy. It would also be the best chance to preserve the union with Scotland and Northern Ireland, both of which voted Remain. The ruling Scottish Nationalists, who lost an independence referendum in 2014, always said that Britain’s leaving the EU would justify another ballot on independence. They are right—especially since in 2014 many Scots voted to stay in Britain in order to remain in the EU. But independence would be painful: it might mean promising one day to adopt the euro and hardening the border with England, with which Scotland trades more than it does with the EU. Under a Norwegian-style deal, Scots might prefer to stick with England. The Nationalists should wait to see a deal before asking for a new referendum.
In Northern Ireland, Brexit raises other problems. One is the prospect of resurrecting the border between north and south – although that’s unlikely – a dismal piece of symbolism which might be avoided if Britain got a Norwegian settlement. Another shamefully overlooked snag is that Britain’s exit from Europe will break the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, in which Northern Ireland’s peace process was underpinned by the EU. This treaty has kept the peace in the UK’s most troubled region for nearly 20 years. Fixing the mess will be an urgent task for the Prime Minister.
The PM of no Breturn
Who should that be? Tory party members, who have the final say, may favour one of the victorious Leave campaigners, a mediocre bunch who have disgraced themselves during the campaign: lying about inflated budget payments and phantom Turkish migrants, before vanishing after the vote when the Brexit hit the fan, none of them faster than Boris Johnson. None of them would make a worthy prime minister anyway. And yet the very falseness of the prospectus they flogged may be their best qualification for the job. Britain’s next leader must explain to 17 million voters that the illusion they were promised—all the EU’s benefits with none of its obligations—does not exist. Only when the authors of the Brexit fantasy themselves return from Brussels without this magical deal might Leave voters accept that a compromise is necessary.
European leaders are in no mood to negotiate with their bolshie neighbour. That is why Britain should delay as long as it can before invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, the mechanism for a Brexit negotiation, which sets a two-year deadline. For every extra month that the cost of Brexit sinks in, the possibility of a fudge will increase. Angela Merkel, a champion procrastinator who, like her French and Dutch counterparts, faces angry elections next year, may also feel that accommodating some British demands, such as allowing an emergency brake on the free movement of people during “surges” (perhaps applied across the EU), would be possible, though she may find it hard to sell the idea to other European leaders. She may be lucky to keep Germany in the EU? Her “open door” policy towards Syrian refugees no doubt assisted the Leave campaigners!
Given that nearly half of British voters did not want out, it is likely that a majority might prefer a Norwegian compromise to complete isolation. Whatever deal takes shape in Brussels will be so far from what was promised by the Leave campaign that it will surely have to be put to the British public again, through a general election, another referendum or both. It is even possible that the whole notion of Brexit may stall. A thin majority have said they would prefer life outside the EU to life inside. But it may be that, when faced with the question of whether to endorse a Norway-like deal that entails many of the costs of being in the single market without having a say in the rules, many would rather stay in the EU after all.
Negotiating over Brexit will stretch the tolerance of both British voters and European leaders. Yet the EU specialises in muddled compromises and talking its way around referendums. After months of economic hardship, and a recession-induced fall in immigration, British voters may be ready to think differently about the balance between immigration, the economy and their place in Europe. By far the most likely outcome of this sorry situation remains Brexit. But it would be wrong completely to discount the possibility of an inelegant, humiliating, and yet welcome, Breversal.
AS the final waves of World War II Diggers pass away and social and demographic trends shift, many of the registered RSL clubs across the nation are closing down in the face of unprofitability.
Once considered a bastion of the nation’s social fabric, particularly in rural cities and towns, the registered RSL clubs’ demise is causing dilemma for many who have long called their local RSL a second home.
In NSW, 43 RSL clubs have been closed or amalgamated since 1995 while in Queensland, country areas such as Goondiwindi, and even the mining boom town of Mount Isa has recently seen the doors to their local RSL club permanently closed.
“It’s just devastating what’s happening to the clubs,” said Paul Phillips, a former Goondiwindi RSL president who had worked for the club for 30 years.
“For so many people, the local RSL has long been a way of life, the lifeblood of communities.”
There are a varied number of reasons for the closure facing many RSL clubs, but according to Victorian RSL president David McLachlan, the biggest culprit is nature. “As a consequence of the Second World War veterans going to their maker, we are seeing a lot of closures,” Major General McLachlan said.
Peter Lanigan, the president of the RSL in the affluent eastern Melbourne suburb of Hampton, which is facing severe financial difficulties, agrees.
“The traditional market base of WWII returned servicemen has almost disappeared and the children of those people haven’t got the same emotional connection to the clubs their parents had,” he said.
“There is no doubt a lot of pressure on borderline gaming venues and old-style branches.
“It’s a constant rationalisation. The number of clubs is reducing and will continue to close because a lot of them are past their use-by date”.
RSL Queensland branch chief executive Chris McHugh said one reason for the pressure on RSL clubs — and many clubs in general — was shifting social trends.
“In a lot of occasions, closure has been due to a combination of poor management, market forces, demographic changes and societal changes that have affected the industry,” Mr McHugh said.
“Younger people on a night out are opting for bars, cafes and nightclubs. They’re not going to clubs anymore.” It is clearly evident that RSL clubs have failed to identify this and failed to adapt to the shifting needs of the younger generation. It is has been too an attitude of “more of the same” when it has come to running the clubs, and the younger generation feel to see its relevance to their needs.
In the cities, particularly in NSW, where poker machines are entrenched in the RSL club culture, there is a split between the affluent inner city and less well-to-do outer suburbs branches. The nation’s biggest RSL club, the Rooty Hill RSL in Sydney’s outer west, is hugely profitable.
Rooty Hill RSL and Holiday Inn Phoo: Wikipedia
Last year, its patrons collectively lost an average of $1 million each week in the club’s poker machines and other forms of gambling — $48.8m for the year — which was about two-thirds of the club’s revenue. Take away the gambling revenues and it can be seen that the club is not doing as well. In clubs were members can not afford to use the poker machines, and revenues are much less, these are the clubs going to the wall.
Chief executive Richard Errington said the club had in recent years reduced its dependence on poker machine revenue, opening a major childcare centre, a bowling alley and a hotel.
“Gaming is still an essential part of our business but it is not the only reason we are here,” Mr Errington said.
At Cabra-Vale Diggers in Canley Vale in outer southwestern Sydney,the second-most profitable NSW RSL last year in terms of gaming revenue, punters collectively lost $47.5m in poker machines and other gambling.
But poker machines were not a panacea for all RSL clubs, said Mr Lanigan, as residents of richer regions were less inclined to use the machines.
In Sydney’s east, many RSL clubs have been closed down or amalgamated, including in Clovelly, Bronte, Maroubra, Botany and Mascot.
In Newcastle, north of Sydney, clubs have closed in Merewether, Hamilton, Adamstown, Lambton-New Lambton and Belmont. Some of these to close were the big, prosperous clubs, that perhaps failed to adapt to the generational changes required of them to attract younger patrons. In the case of Lambton-New Lambton its location in the shadow of a large and profitable leagues club, a bowling club and successful pubs did not help its operating position.
The RSL Sub-branches themselves are facing a similar dilemma, as they too fail to attract the young veterans from conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste into their midst. With strategic changes to RSL policy which enable all ex-serviceman — whether veteran or non-veteran — to join as full members, sub-branches have still failed to grow their numbers, as young servicemen and women perceive the sub-branches as old, conservative and out of touch. What the young veterans fail to identify is the mateship, camaraderie and mutual support that the members can offer them.
What is the future for these sub-branches as the older members die out? Only time will tell.
George Brown is a decorated soldier and health professional and 40 year veteran in the field of emergency nursing and paramedical practice, both military and civilian areas. He has senior management positions in the delivery of paramedical services. Opinions expressed in these columns are solely those of the author and should not be construed as being those of any organization to which he may be connected.
He was born in the UK of Scottish ancestry from Aberdeen and a member of the Clan MacDougall. He is a member of the Macedonian community in Newcastle, and speaks fluent Macedonian. While this may seem a contradiction, it is his wife who is Macedonian, and as a result he embraced the Macedonian language and the Orthodox faith.
His interests include aviation and digital photography, and he always enjoys the opportunity to combine the two. Navigate to his Flickr site to see recent additions to his photo library.
Џорџ Браун е украсени војник и професионално здравствено лице и 40 годишен ветеран во областа на за итни случаи старечки и парамедицински пракса, двете воени и цивилни области. Тој има високи менаџерски позиции во испораката на парамедицински услуги. Мислењата изразени во овие колумни се исклучиво на авторот и не треба да се толкува како оние на било која организација тој може да биде поврзан.
Тој е роден во Велика Британија на шкотскиот потекло од Абердин и член на Kланот MacDougall. Тој е член на македонската заедница во Њукасл, и зборува течно македонски. Иако ова можеби изгледа контрадикција, тоа е неговата сопруга кој е македонски, и како резултат научил македонскиот јазик и ја примија православната вера.
Неговите интереси вклучуваат авијација и дигитална фотографија, и тој секогаш ужива во можност да се комбинираат двете. Отиди до неговиот Фликр сајт да видите последните дополнувања на неговата слика библиотека.
Discussion on the law that applies to or affects Australia's emergency services and emergency management, by Michael Eburn, PhD, Australian Lawyer. Email: meburn@australianemergencylaw.com
Oh, let's see...distinguished Gen-X'er, frustrated writer and mom living in the confines of a small town that thinks it's a big deal. And have I mentioned Walmart yet?