Dear Senator Evans,

Can you please explain to me why it is that you are unable to grasp the issues around immigration, whilst the opposition shadow minister Scott Morrison has a great understanding of the issues? Can you please explain why the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found that 300,000 immigrants lived in Australia for a period of 12 months or more during 2009, and how you, the relevant minister plan to reduce that number to a more manageable level?

Senator Evans, that figure might include international students here on temporary visas for a minimum of 12 months; but it is my understanding that those students still drink and use water while they are here, they still produce garbage, they still use our roads and public transport during there time in Australia and they still consume electricity. I do invite you to correct me if that understanding is in fact incorrect and they somehow manage to not do any of that during their time here, but I strongly doubt there is such a way.

In addition, it is my understanding Chris that these students also require housing from the general rentals market, and of course as they are students require a place at an approved learning institution, such as an accredited university. Again I invite you to make the same corrections of my grasp on the situation if I do indeed have it wrong. On the assumption however that the above statements are correct however (and I really don't see how they couldn't be) can you please explain why it is that you, as the relevant minister have set the immigration number so high?

As someone who lives in Queensland, were suspiciously the majority of immigrants seem to end up, I have seen a break down of basic and essential services in part as a direct result of immigration numbers being set above manageable levels. When a state starts running out of water, and begins water rationing, how does it make sense to dump tens of thousands more unskilled immigrants into that state? There is also a distinct housing shortage as a direct result of having to house all of these new immigrants, and Queensland is preparing for electricity rationing on top of water rationing.

Last I checked Senator Evans, the idea was to let in immigrants on the basis they would in some way improve our quality of life, whilst at the same time not taking away from it. I fail to see Chris how an immigration policy which both increases the number of immigrants allowed into the country whilst simultaneously directs focus AWAY from skilled immigration is in anyway beneficial to Australia. Sure we get an industry specific economic boom as a result of the international students, but at what price? Do you really feel the reduction in quality of life to your follow Australians is worth that industry specific economic boom?

As the Honorable Scott Morrison has pointed out, the idea of immigration is meant to be to supplement the natural increase in population, not override it. I would like to know what your thoughts are on these issues Senator Evans and what you plan to do about them.

This week there has been a bit of hoo-har in New South Wales state politics; with one politician turning anothers words into a declaration that women are responsible when they are raped. But the seat of the real argument is the over sexualisation of our youth and culture. A culture where young boys and girls are being taught to look at girls as objects only suitable for sexual pleasure.

While a certain state liberal MP seems incapable of understanding what youth of today are doing, the facts of reality are Rainbow parties (where all the girls take turns giving the boys headjobs leaving different coloured lipstick; like a rainbow) happen almost every weekend. Teen pregnancy is through the roof and still escalating, heck children as young at 10 YEARS OLD are having sex. Seriously! TEN! You can buy G-Strings (thong) for girls as young as TWO (2) YEARS OLD, and mini skirts from only a few months old.

Our children are not only becoming increasingly exposed to sex in the media, but they're becoming increasingly exposed to sexualised children in the media. Lets take Lady Gaga for example, the woman who started the media coverage of this political debate. Here you have a woman who is clearly high on drugs for most of her performances, whose lyrics would make a sailor blush and whose "dance moves" equate to little more than a stimulated lap dance. And yet we let 12 year old girls go to her show? I've seen girls as young as 6 listening to Lady Gaga.

But beyond that we have a systemic problem where sex is conveyed as love. While schools may teach the mechanics of sex to children, they are ill equipped to teach the emotions of it. Where as music and their video clips portray it as love, as the begin all and end all. Sure in a loving relationship sex is important to the longevity of said relationship as a bonding tool. But sex with some guy you've known a week and break up with 2 days later... not so much. And someone you just met, yeah sex isn't an expression of anything in that case, other then of course the fact you're easy.

But perhaps this is part of the point, women are becoming WAY to easy. Their sense of self respect and dignity out the window when their idols and role models are people like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lady Gaga. At what point did being a slut become cool? I know when I was a kid being a slut was a recipe to social suicide, now it's the complete opposite! And you only need go stand in front of a club on a Saturday night to see the over the top revealing clothes women are wearing now days.

So to answer the question, no women aren't responsible when they are raped, they're not asking for it. BUT that said, women who dress in a provocative way then go on to flirt and present as somewhat of a slut certainly aren't helping matters. In cases where women have dressed and acted in this manner and been raped; their presentation and actions did play a role. That of course isn't to say it is an excuse for the rapist or in any way taking any of the responsibility off the rapist. We all own our own actions, and at the end of the day, no means no. But you can't shake the fact that acting and dressing like a slut did play a role, however small, in the outcome. Even more so when alcohol is introduced into the equation.

Of course none of this is to suggest that I think we should strip sex from film and all women should dress in burkers. That would just be an over reaction; what I am saying though is young people need good role models. They need to be taught the emotions of sex AT HOME. We need to ban over sexualised video clips from TV screens at times our youth may be watching. We need to make it harder for our youth to get hold of these sorts of songs. And women of all ages need to re-equate themselves with self-respect and dignity.

I think honestly, a systemic lack of self-respect, dignity and self-esteem amongst our women is one of the leading causes towards male attitudes objectifying women. We need to teach our women and young girls that acting like a cheap hooker is not cool. Of course you can have sex (once you've reached maturity) with someone you're dating and want to continue dating. Of course I'm not saying you should only have sex after marriage. But honestly if you give it away on the first night, why should I bother seeing you again? Sex is not love and neither is spreading STDs.

Queensland police a completely useless, getting involved in civil matters, for which they hold no powers, while real crimes are being committed. A level of sexism exists in that they will respond to a female, but if a male is in the same situation they won't respond at all.

My personal example of this is as follows; A few years back my eldest son was living with me, happily when his mother snatched him from my house when I made the mistake in hindsight of leaving her alone with him. I immediately called emergency 000 but was told it isn't an emergency and that I should call my local police department. So I did just that and was told it's a civil matter, and as such they can't do anything. That they wouldn't be sending out a car, that they wouldn't be doing anything about it. They further advised me that I could not lawfully take one step in her yard. I of course ended up taking the matter to court but that's a whole different story all together.

Flash forward to tonight when Sarah and I ended (over what isn't important) and of course I wanted to take Dee with me. What happened in between is of no importance to the story other then to say no criminal action took place. I sat in the bedroom with dee trying to put him to sleep, quietly. At 8pm police arrived at my door to attempt to deal with the civil dispute. I very quickly put the two responding officers in their place and they left as they had no business getting involved. Sarah and I were still in the same house, dee was not in harms way nor neglected in any way.

Clearly this shows that if you're a man and your ex takes your child, the police don't care, but if your a woman and it happens the police respond and make up a bunch of lies. Thankfully I understand the law very well and called them on their lies, put them in their place and they left as they should have. But how many fathers don't know the law, how many fathers get stitched up by the police? That is an utter disgrace!

Now ask yourself this, while they were here arguing with me over the fact they had no right to be here, how many ACTUAL criminal offices took place? Ask yourself, while they were hassling me with my civil matter, how many children in ACTUAL danger went unheard? How many people were assaulted in that space of time on a FRIDAY NIGHT? Heck in the space of that time I heard no less then FIVE (5) people SPEED passed my house.

The Queensland police need to get their freak'in act together. The law clearly states they have no power or right to intervene in a civil dispute. None! They only have the right to become involved when someone commits a criminal act, or threatens to do so; which of course includes an act of violence. Where so such criminal offenses have taken place, or are likely to take place they have NO POWER nor the right under the law to become involved in the situation. They need to go out their and fight crime and stay out of civil matters. Civil courts are for civil matters, not police.

Ok so it's 3:16am and this aboriginal show called "message stick" is on the ABC. This Aboriginal woman was just on and tried to claim that aboriginals are *cough* invisible to Australia. Excuse me? How do they figure that one? Invisible people don't get their TV shows aired on the government run ABC. They don't have special warns put at the front of TV shows which have people who have died in them because that effects their culture. Invisible people don't have land rights like in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Invisible people aren't counted as citizens and aren't allowed to vote. Invisible people aren't given special payments from the government and invisible people aren't allowed government provided lawyers even when everyone else isn't allowed one.

Fact of the matter is Aboriginals get a LOT of liberties afforded to them, a LOT of them. There is a great inequality going on which is now in the favour of Aboriginals and they have the nerve to complain and say they're invisible? WTF? And they want a treaty allowing them to take some powers away from the state governments because they were here first? They're not even joking, they're being serious..

Seriously, how many Aboriginals alive today where alive in 1788 when Australia was colonised by the British? Oh right that would be zero. Ok, so what about the generation immediately before them, how many of those are alive today? Oh right, that would be zero. So what they're saying is NO LIVING Aboriginal has EVER lived in an Australia which wasn't colonised by the British. But beyond that, NO LIVING Aboriginal has EVER lived in an Australia which didn't contain WHITE AUSTRALIANS, that is to say white people BORN in Australia. Excuse me but if you've never known a world other then the one you live in now outside of stories, then seriously what makes you think for a second you have a right to go back to it?

EVERY country on the planet has at some stage in its history had people who invaded and took over. Deal with it. Stop living in a past that you've never known, we're talking about something almost 300 years ago here!! Seriously! You don't deserve ANY special rights at all, NONE!

You're an Australia, no better or worse than any other Australia. Stop making excuses to get special treatment, because nothing is going to make all the white people pick up and leave, nothing is going to turn the clock back 300 years and NOTHING is going to make Aboriginals in charge of Australia. Deal with it.

I'm getting fed up with all this nonsense, it's seriously time to move on with yourselves. Stop beating each other up and breaking the law. Stop getting drunk off your head all the time and chroming. Stop all the anti-social behaviours and blaming white people for them. Take some responsibility for your own damn actions. GET A JOB! And don't give me some crap about no one will give you a job because you're Aboriginal because that's just utter bullshit now days. Sure there was once a time that was true, but now days it's an utter lie. Not only will employers give Aboriginals a go if they have the right skills, but there are even employers and jobs that ONLY aboriginals are allowed to apply for, which in itself is absolute bullshit. Apparently the anti-discrimination laws don't apply if you're a healthy, normal, fully functional white person who is discriminated against.

I'm tired of the excuses from Aboriginals, and I think most Australians are getting fed up with them too. There were a lot of people 10 years ago who were behind the Aboriginals, who helped fight for their rights and junk; whom now can just see a lack of movement by the Aboriginal community to better themselves. People who once backed Aboriginals, can now just see Aboriginals seem all about excuses and getting something for nothing. It's stupid and it needs to end.

And I'm sorry but none of this is racist. Racism means that I am prejudice against someone because of their race. I don't dislike Aboriginals (I think some of the most amazing Australians ever have been Aboriginals who did something with themselves), I'm not trying to harm them, I'm not saying they shouldn't have equal rights, I'm not trying to belittle them or anything else along those lines. What I am saying is that they are getting ridiculous in their claims and their demands. What I AM saying is that instead of talking about something from 300 years ago, instead of talking about how different they are and their delusional land rights, they need to accept themselves as AUSTRALIANS. They need to accept the COUNTRY THEY LIVE IN and they need to focus on how they are the same as other Australians, what they have in common with other Australians and just become productive, useful members of society.

It's a decision each individual person in the Aboriginal community will need to make for them self. That instead of sitting around fighting to have more power and free money, put all that energy into bettering the country for ALL Australians not just a select minority. If we want to stop racism, then those who feel persecuted against have to stop making themselves out to be so different! Stop going on that you're black because the colour of your skin makes no difference to me, that you're aboriginal, that you need this special treatment or blah blah blah. Just get on with it and people will follow suit. Geez, common sense much.

The long talked about and much contested Australian mandatory internet filter has new opposition in the form of the "Australian Library and Information Association and Inspire Foundation". Dubbed the 'Safer Internet Group' and with members such as web giants Google and Yahoo! the group actually stand a good chance at achieving their objectives, which would see a revision of the legislation to better target illegal acts such as child porn while leaving the rest of the internet open, uncensored and free to use.

The filter works in the same way any home blacklist software on either your modem/router or home PC does. The government plan to place URLs of websites they and the public find which you wouldn't want a child to see onto the black list. Once on the black list no one in the country will be able to view the site or any pages listed on it. This I believe is why companies Google and Yahoo! are stepping in, because at the end of the day it would hurt their bottom line.

Take for example if the URL to a specific YouTube video was placed on the list, this would have the effect of causing ALL users who visit YouTube to pass through the filter leading to YouTube videos that aren't blacklisted under the filter not loading and a general slow down of the site. Independent testing by the government in Tasmania in 2009 showed the filter would also significantly slow down general web usage, dropping your speed by 30% during normal usage periods and during high traffic periods by up to 70%!

The Safer Internet Group is points out something I have argued since the inception of this filter, stating

"As a large proportion of child sexual abuse content is not found on public websites, but in chat-rooms or peer-to-peer networks, we know the proposed filtering regime will not effectively protect children from this objectionable material,"

and continuing

"In fact, the policy may give parents a 'false sense of security' encouraging them to reduce their supervision."

Under this filter arrangement websites of a criminal nature will NOT be mandatory passed on to the police, they will ONLY block the content under the filter and leave the matter there. The AMCA (the government body responsible for rating commercial TV and radio) will manage the filter and attempt to apply the same guide lines to the internet that apply to TV. Meaning if they find something you wouldn't want your 9 year old to see, then no one in Australia can see it either, regardless of age.

As I have already previously stated, if the goal is ultimately to stop cyber crime there are FAR better and more effective ways of achieving that goal than instituting a mandatory filter across the internet. Education is key, explaining to the general public internet safety, about email scams, phishing and so forth. It troubles me that there are still grown adults who will today fall for a Nigerian 419 scam (The ones where they say you've won a stack of money, but you need to give them a few grand to collect it). And the filter isn't designed to combat these types of problems, in fact it really isn't designed to combat ANY kind of truly harmful cyber crime.

Kiddie porn will still be just as prevalent as it is now, but legal porn won't be viewable. Everyone will still get just as many spam and scammer emails as they are right now, but watching a legitimate video YouTube will become slow and tiresome. Phishing websites will still continue to exist as often by the time anyone figures out it's a phishing website the phishers have already abandoned the site in search of the next prize. Yet internet banking will take forever (opening people using wireless internet to even future hacking attacks and fraud).

The ONLY criminal activity that I can see the filter would actually combat is the downloading of copyrighted materials such as music, movies, games and software through bit-torrent sites and so forth. But again, that will only stop the use of it in a web based way, it will NOT stop peer-to-peer downloading using software like LimeWire. Beyond that, it will all be business as usual to the cyber-crime world. The ONLY people who are impacted by this filter are the law abiding Australian public whom will lose their right to freedom of information. Not only will legal porn sites be blocked, but so will any sites which even so much as TALK about things that are "undesirable". This includes NEWS sites and BLOGS which are seeking to educate on the issues surrounding a criminal activity or just talking about a criminal activity in a negative light.

Think about it, all those websites giving you tips on how to avoid pedophiles getting in touch with your children, clearly community education groups, being added to a blacklist that no one can visit. How does that make logical sense?

Thankfully with the "safer internet group" lobbying the government, combined with the legal action the Australian Internet Services Association are taking to try and block the filter things should hopefully change on this front. Hopefully someone amongst this group can get Senator Conroy to understand he does NOT know what is best for Australians better than they do themselves, nor does he know what is best for our children better then we their parents do. Lets hope they move fast on this though, as the legislation only needs to pass through the senate before it's law and is already scheduled to be in place by the end of THIS YEAR!

Links;

iTWire Article

The Queensland state government has now lifted a ban on Homosexual couples and single people accessing surrogates. Apparently it's the state governments policy that everyone should have a baby, regardless of nature. Perhaps they should just send out roving vans handing out free babies or something? What part about a SINGLE person, that is someone who has no relationship, being able to have a baby does Anna Bligh think is logical? Do we not have enough out of control kids living with single mothers as it is, that Anna Bligh feels she needs to give them access to more, without needing a man or even having to go through pregnancy? That is TOTALLY INSANE!

Contray to what Anna Bligh seems to think it isn't backward to not want to give single people the ability to have babies; that's something called common sense. I know it seems to be something that is very thin on the ground now days and a concept that is certainly new to Anna, but common sense is this magically thing where you actually use your brain to figure out that your actions are going to have negative consequences before you do them, and then decide not to.

How is the state government going to justify the removal of this ban to all the children who result? Children born into a world with only 1 parent, ever! Doesn't matter which gender the parent nor the child is, it's a proven bad idea. If the government actually knew even the slightest about child psychology they'd know just how bad an idea this truly is. They'd know that children model behaviour from both gender parents, as well as learn how to function, interact with the opposite gender and even gather part of their self identity from BOTH parents. That is to say a MOM and a DAD are both EXTREMELY important. You only need to look at the last 30 years worth of psychological data, psychologist reports, medical intervention, suicides, crimes and other statistical data which stem from children of broken homes to see my point made. But perhaps and far more likely, they do know that, but simply don't care.

This is clearly a bid to grab some minority votes by a government which have burnt more bridges than you can poke a stick out. Anna Bligh is undeniably the WORST premier Queensland has EVER had. This is just another in a long line of REALLY bad decisions that the Bligh government have made, crushing our once great state into the ground. And what a waste of time and tax payer dollars the 3 days of debates over this issue where, when the Bligh government always had the majority of the house so it was always going to be passed. What was the point? To make us think like it was debated and this was the best idea that came out of it? Or to give an illusion that Australia still operates democratically? All I can hope is that the Bligh government will be voted out at the next election and the resulting new government will have enough sense to repeal the new law so that no more children will be hurt in this sick political game.

On the 15th of December it was announced that a Mandatory Internet Filtering system would indeed be installed in ISPs around Australia and should be switched on within 12 months time. Supporters of the filtering cite that it will stop child pornography so it's a good thing. How wrong can you be?

"Fact, online child pornography is most often distributed by private email attachments to avoid detection. The internet filter will ONLY block out websites"

Child pornography which is distributed online, is most often by private email between pedophiles as apposed to putting it on a website which would open the creator of the website, and it's members up to all sorts of criminal prosecutions. Simply put, if the main distribution network for child pornography was websites, then there would be a lot more pedophiles in jail. If your sole reason for supporting the filter is stopping child porn, then you need to rethink your position.

So what are the facts about the list? Well, the filter has it's roots all the way back in 1999 when the then liberal government introduced laws which gave the Australian Communications and Media Authority; authority over internet content displayed in Australia. Under that law Content hosted in Australia and classified Classification restricted, or 18+ without an age verification system would be issued a take down notice. Such content hosted internationally would be added to a black list for use in voluntarily installed software on home PCs.

In August 2007 the Australian government through it's NetAlert department offered free, voluntary downloads of internet filtering software to be installed on home PCs. Late 2008 the scheme was shut down, with ACMA Senator Stephen Conroy citing it had not been successful with very few Australian's downloading the software. Clearly that should have woken him up to how Australians feel about filtering the internet, but instead it only inspired him into ISP level filtering instead.

"This very much seems to be a situation where Stephen Conroy feels he knows what's better for Australian's then they do for themselves. If you look up fascism in the dictionary, it will define it very much in that way."

During the elections which seen Labor form the federal government, they claimed the ISP level filtering would be an opt-out scheme. Of course an opt-in scheme would have been more desirable but at least in an opt-out scheme you of course have a way to not be filtered online and gain unrestricted access to information on the internet. But since forming government the policy has changed to one of mandatory filtering at the ISP level. This means every household, school, business, organisation or other entity connected to the internet will be under the power of the internet filter without any way to remove it. If you have an internet connection, the internet filter affects you.

So what is the big deal right? I mean surely they're only going to block out websites that are illegal... right? Wrong! All Restricted Classification content, X18+ content and R18+ content will be blocked. Speficially the AMCA criteria states;

• * Any online content that is classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board. This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
• * Content which is classified R 18+* and not subject to a restricted access system that prevents access by children. This includes depictions of simulated sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes.

In other words, ALL pornography will be subject to the filter not just child pornography. As well anything which is of an adult nature, that being something you wouldn't want someone under the age of 16 to see. All added to the filter and blocked from view for EVERY Australian, regardless of their age. But this isn't subject just to porn, there is so much more on the list than porn but before I get into that, consider this.

On the 18th of March 2009, wikileaks leaked a copy of the black list onto the internet. A user of the popular internet consumer forum whirlpool posted a link to the black list on the site. The AMCA then issued a notice to Whirlpools hosting company Bulletproof Media that fines of 11,000AUD would apply per day, for every day the link remained on the site. The AMCA furthermore when to extraordinary lengths to forcibly have the black list removed from the wikileaks website. So, consider this, the black list comprises simply the URLs (or domains names) of websites which can not be viewed through the filter. If the filter is such a great thing, then why is it that they are so guarded against the general public viewing the list?

The answer? Because of what the list actually blocks out. From the leaked list it was found that a Brisbane dentist's website was blocked, as was a tuckshop vendors website and the website of a dog kennel. These websites clearly have nothing to do with anything even remotely illegal or 18+ in nature, but yet somehow they're on the list?

But it goes further. In may of 2009 the Australian press, citing wikileaks as it's source broke the news that Dr Philip Nitschke's online Peaceful Pill Handbook, which is a website dealing with euthanasia has been added to the list, as have a range of other websites dealing with the same topic. Apparently the right to a peaceful death for the terminally ill remains out of the scope of reasoning for the federal government even though it isn't illegal in several Australian states.

But still, EVEN MORE FILTERING! In June 2009 the AMCA and the Australian government confirmed that the internet filter will block downloadable games, flash-based web games and websites which sell physical copies of games (like ebay and amazon) that do not meet the MA15+ standard. If the AMCA don't think someone under 16 should see it, then neither should anyone over 18 apparently.

"This isn't about stopping cyber crime; it's about controlling information the public see"

Already many anti-censorship websites campaigning for the filter to not go through have been forcibly taken down by the government. Other sites containing content which is anti-government, or does not support the government has been either forcibly taken down, or added to the black list.

In short the filter classification system stops anyone from not only committing an illegal act online, but from discussing anything that is illegal online, be they for or against the action. It further stops any member of the Australian public, regardless of age viewing any content not suitable for children. It blocks out anything that is deemed to be racist, or that submits a view other than that shared by the censor. Under this classification system, websites like wikipedia (which is a free, user contributed online encyclopedia)have already been announced to be added to the black list; and social networking websites like facebook (due to their user groups, fan pages and applications) have only a limited amount of time before they too are added.

It seem the ONLY way this filter is going to be revoked is if the majority of the Australian public, publicly announce this distaste for the filter and their desire to axe the scheme. If even that didn't work, well then it would be clear that we indeed no longer live in a democracy society. As it stands the labor party are moving very steeply toward a fascist dictatorship not only on filtering but on many issues. It time Australia, that we cut the government back down to size, before we end up in a situation where we suffer from tunnel vision due to lack of information and millions of Australian jobs are lost.

Links;

Wikipedia Article
Electronic Frontiers Australia
No Clean Feed
Labors plan for cyber safety (pdf)
USA Today article
Sydney Morning Herald article (March 19)
Sydney Morning Herald Article (December 15)
ABC News Article

So often we preach of free society, so much so we are willing to send our young men and women off to protect it. But in a country where democracy has mutated into the beginnings of dictatorship what freedoms do we truly have left?

Our system of government is meant to function in a way where a politician is merely a representative of their electorate, no different then any other member of the public. It is designed this way because it's far easier to have 1 person demonstrate the general will of their electorate then it is to have everyone in the electorate demonstrate it.

To do this a politician is meant to be a part of the community able to understand what the majority of that community wants and how they feel on issues. They are then meant to take that will and represent it in parliament, doing their best to achieve said will. This is democracy, how it is meant to run. Democracy isn't just the choice for who to vote for, it is a set of rules on how they will operate once voted in.

What we get today is NOT democracy. Sure we get to vote, but what happens after we vote? Are our voices heard? Is the general will of the people followed? People talk so much now days about politicians being "out of touch" and brush it to the side as if it is just normal. But the mere fact they are "out of touch" is a demonstration of how little democracy is actually left.

Another is the fact that hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars are spent on advertising to sell us new schemes, laws, taxes or anything else the government want to do. In a democratic society these things shouldn't need to be sold to the public, because they should already be the will of the public. If you have to sell something to us, then it shouldn't be happening in the first place.

We but face facts, we are not a democratic and free society anymore. We are a society where a government tells us what we can and can not do. We are a society where our wills are not heard nor followed. We are a society where our freedoms and privacy are lost, more and more daily. None of this is down to a terrorist in a far off land, it is due to greedy, power hungry people in our own country. And it is a violation of the constitution by which this country is governed. Think about it...

Taxes; they're meant to go to keeping this country running. They're meant to go into Hospitals and Schools, into Roads and essential services. They're meant to go into a fair, equal and reasonable welfare system. But they don't. TJandSarah.com has received insider knowledge of Australia's social welfare system and how through it, you're paying to keep drug addicts in habit.

Centrelink has many payments which it offers, which with different rules. None of which however is more cooshy then the Disability pension which see's recipiants not required to look for work, but still earning quite a reasonable and livable sum of money. It is a payment which is meant to be for people who have a disability which prevents them from holding down employment.

TJandSarah.com have been advised by a source at centrelink that this payment is NOT living upto what it is meant to be. We were advised of a case involving a man who had lost one of his arms and had come into centrelink to claim the disability pension. You would think this would be easy for him wouldn't you? But his claim was denied because he still has one arm which apparently makes him capable of work.

So what does this all have to do with drug addicts you ask? Well while people who have lost limbs are denied the pension, TJandSarah.com have been told by a senior Centrelink offical, that Drug Addicts regularly qualify for the payment. Apparently chosing to drink excessively, shoot up or otherwise take drugs qualifies you as a disabled person under Centrelinks definition.

A payment, whose funds are gathered from our taxes, and was meant to support those in our society phsyically incapable of doing so themselves is being rorted by drug addicts the nation over. While you go to work day in, day out these addicts are able to live it up on money collected by the government from YOUR tax dollars! They then use this money to continue thier lifestyle of addiction, and even to purchase their substance of choice!

Furthermore, by being under this payment there is no incentive for them to ever stop their addiction. There are no requirements to look for work, no requirements to seek rehab, no requirements to report in at all. Drug addicts are getting a free ride, and we the tax payers of Australia are funding it.

If we want to truly battle the drug problem then how can we honestly enable these people in their addiction? Why would anyone ever stop using if they get such a sweet ride because of it? If anything the system in it's current state encourages addicts to remain that way, as if they were to ever clean themselves up, they would lose their payment.

We need urgent welfare reform to (1) disqualify any addict from receiving the disability pension (2) require all persons whom have addictions to not only seek employment but to undergone a mandatory drug rehab program and (3) make the disability pension easier for persons who genuinely have a disability to access and claim.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has his sights dead set on having an emissions trading scheme in place before the Copenhagen conference on climate change later this year. Like a kid who wants to have a toy before the other kids, Mr. Rudd is pressuring the federal opposition to pass the proposed emissions trading scheme. But all non-government senators have blocked the bill, and with good reason.

While there are a few countries in the western world considering an emissions trading scheme, and even a couple ready to implement one they are doomed to fail on both an economy and environment front. Economically, as Australian steel manufacturer OneSteel points out, an emissions trading scheme will cost jobs. The rise in costs will cause companies to do business off sure in countries which do not enact such trading schemes. With the relaxed laws it will be business as usual, smog and all.

This leads us to the simple fact that without global consensus on an emissions trading scheme, then you end up with mighty large holes in your trading scheme. If some countries, regardless of how small fail to enact an emissions trading scheme they stand to gain from increased business flowing into the region.

With a global economy which is already in the toilet, can we really afford to lose our major industry to smaller, less environmentally friendly countries? I mean it's all good and well to think of the environment, but only as long as you can afford to feed yourself. We have painted ourselves into a corner so to speak. On one hand we love our capitalist society which equates the ability to survive to how much money you can manage to earn. On the other hand we have to transition to an environmentally society.

At some point we in the west need to realise that the time for nationalism has passed, as has the time for such extreme capitalist society. We must now find a way to work together as global partners, not just with the large nations, but the small developing ones too. We must now find a way to benefit our selves, our countries and our neighbors, while not harming the environment. It is a harsh lesson we have been set, but one that is much overdue.

Links;

ABC news story on OneSteel

Australia's annual water report card has warned water prices will rise in all of Australia's capital cities over the next 5 years. This comes as a result of strategy change for civil water from dams to waste water systems and desalination plants.

In dams we had a relatively cheap source of water, fed by rain; the power required was minimal compared with these newer sources. Desalination plants have been traditionally expensive to run, and not a lot has changed now. This is due to the enormous amounts of energy required to strip sodium from sea water.

As we find ourselves in a position where electricity prices are rising, and will consider to do so dramatically over the next decade, we can expect water prices to follow. We have set ourselves into this position through a society of pollution and ignorance toward the environment, and not much has changed.

As climate change continues to have an effect on our country, and thus our water supply we can further expect prices to rise. And in the rising price of water we can of course expect a flow on effect into all products which require water. Yep, your grocery bill just got higher...

Links;

ABC News story

With the government uncoupling the Renewable Energy Targets bill(RET) from the Emissions Trading Scheme bill (ETS) the RET is expected to be passed through into law quite soon. The bill will legislate that energy providers supply 20% of their energy from renewable energy sources by 2020. But the big question for most people is, while it's all great that the environment is being helped, what does the RET mean for the average Australian? And you won't like the answer.

The coalition have joined the government in support of the energy sectors plan to rise energy prices in order to pay for the installation of renewable energy sources. It seems the major parties have taken on the interests of a minority, let rich business sector; above those of their wider constituents. The energy sector stands to gain dramatically from the drastically cheaper cost production associated with renewable energy sources.

Greens deputy leader Senator Christine Milne commented on the greens party website yesterday;

"While this is a disappointing move, the critical point is that we bring on the renewable energy target legislation as swiftly as possible, to unleash the tremendous potential of renewable energy to re-energise Australia and create tens of thousands of jobs.

"Modeling has shown clearly that the renewable energy target will reduce the pool price of electricity because it will smooth the most expensive peaks. Under this deal between the big old parties, the polluters will get windfall gains from cheaper electricity without having to pay to install the renewable energy in the first place. How is that fair or reasonable?

"Both the big old parties have been using Australia's clever and clean renewable energy industry as a political football. Both old parties bend over backwards to sandbag the old polluters, but neither is willing to give priority to the renewable energy powerhouse that the Australian community wants."

I agree with Senator Milne in that the energy sector are somewhat double dipping so to speak. They will on one hand gotten infrastructure for free, by forcing we the consumer to pay for it. On the other hand, their bottom line will increase as a result of the cheaper priced electricity, and the increased cost to consumers. Not only is this not fair, but it's completely un-australian.

Links;

Greens website

In a move which shows they were only ever playing politics the federal government has folded on pressure to decouple the Renewable Energy Targets bill from their Carbon Trading Scheme. The Carbon Trading Scheme which will cost the nation billions without having a dramatic effect on climate change is doomed to fail in it's current form, yet the government has promised to bring it back to the senate in November.

The greens and the liberals who have been calling for the government to unlink the two sets of legislation will no doubt be happy. The Renewable energy targets means a better cleaner environment, and new jobs for Australian's. With this legislation in place we will see the beginnings of a future industry in Australia that will employ far more people then the energy sector (including coal mining and transport) does currently.

Australia is uniquely positioned to be world leaders in renewable energy, an opportunity we have constantly faulted at. With the renewable energy targets in place, we are a step in the right direction. I look forward to a day when the energy targets increase from 20% of energy production to 100%.

Links;

ABC News

Live in another country? Sick of it and want a change? Perhaps you're being persecuted, or maybe your country just sucks. Think living in Australia would be great? Awesome, no need to fill in those pesky immigration forms to get permanent residency buy your way in! Yes dear reader there is a back door into Australia and it is the source of the Indian and Asian flood.

Legislation was passed awhile ago which made it guaranteed & easy to get permanent residency in Australia if you are an international student who studies here. The legislation which has no caps placed upon it, is now being exploited. In a move which is nothing more than people smuggling fake colleges are being set up around the country for the purpose of allowing people to buy there way into the country.

Students whom enroll in these fake colleges simply pay their money to the "college" then are told to go on holiday and they'll be marked as attending classes. We have a situation where people are not properly screened when becoming a student, nor are they screened when becoming a permanent resident as a result. This has caused a situation where-by persons whom would not ordinarily gain entry to Australia, let alone permanent residency are doing so.

Can you smell the hypocrisy? On one hand we are told "boat people" are evil and should be imprisoned. The cold truth about "boat people" is they are often simply people whom have undergone tremendous adversity and persecute in their own country and have paid to flee to somewhere "safe". Yet Australia is building an international reputation for mistreatment of assimilate seekers, as we imprison them without charge nor defined length of imprisonment, in appalling conditions.

Meanwhile on the other hand, we are now letting random people from anywhere in the world enter and gain permanent residency without effective screening, simply because they came to Australia to study. It looks to me that your treatment in Australia depends on where you spend your money. Perhaps someone should let the "boat people" know all they have to do is pay to become a student and they'll get to fly legally into the country.

We need to plug this hole which left as is, will crumble our country and our culture under the feet of Indian and Asians. We need to set clear limits as to numbers of persons whom can study in Australia as an international student. We need to set clear legislation as to what constitutes an educational facility, and create a body capable of monitoring and enforcing said legislation. And while access to permanent residency should be made easier for international students in order to keep their skills in the country, they should not be exempt from the proper immigration process. Furthermore, permanent residency legislation in regards to students should be confined solely to Universities and TAFE colleges. Private college students should be exempt.

There are numerous countries around the world whom by way of immigration policy, their society is crumbling. The UK and America are examples of which. We need to heed the warnings which these examples demonstrate and create an immigration policy which protects our way of life, our culture and our society.

Digital TV; the government and the networks are plastering it as this wondrous thing. But realistically it isn't all that great. Sure I have a few more channels, and if you're lucky enough to own an LCD TV capable of 1080p then it looks a bit better, but at the end of the day, digital isn't that great. None the less, ABC Business News reported last night that by 2013 the government will have spent 63 MILLION dollars of tax payer money on advertising the digital switch over to you.

That is to say, some of the money the government collects from the pay YOU EARNED is then used to advertise a system which is being forced upon you; which in turn means you now have to spend some more of your hard earned cash to buy new television equipment. All for a system which lets face it isn't really going to benefit you much of a lot, but is certainly going to make a few rich men, even richer. Yep, great use of tax money there.

But this is only one example of gross amounts of tax payer money being used to advertise government programs, or what otherwise should be referred to as government public service announcements. What ever happened to the original idea that when it came to such announcements, the government would have free air time? Back in the days when swearing on TV could cost you your broadcast license, and the evening news actually reported the facts instead of meaningless gossip.

Spending such copious amounts of tax payer money on trying to get us on their side is just ludicrous. Sure free-to-air television stations are businesses too, and of course they rely on advertising revenue to make a profit. But responsible and reasonable legislation which would allow the government free advertising space on any network, say 3 times per hour, per network as a condition of holding a broadcast license would free up so much tax payer funds. Heck, there may even be enough for a tax break in there.

And going back to my original example, why are the government even advertising it in the first place? This is a situation where the television networks lobbied the government in the late 90s to allow for not only digital transmission, but the ability to cease analog transmission. This was granted. This is not a government fueled program, it is a free-to-air network collaborative program to improve their bottom lines, simple as that. So why should tax payers be fitting the bill, when they should be advertising their own damn program.

The court room rant by suspected terrorist Wissam Mahmoud Fattal on Wednesday echo the inevitable culture clash. 33 year old, salami born, Mr Fattal said that the Australian military kill innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan and continued

"You call us terrorists, I've never killed anyone in my life."

before expressing his dislike of Australia and that he wanted to leave.

But the last I checked up until he was arrested for allegedly plotting to kill Australian soldiers he wasn't being held captive here. In fact, if he disliked Australia so much and wanted to leave, why didn't he do just that? And this is the point, he didn't because even though he has Australian citizenship and thus swore allegiance to Australia; he still views himself as a Samali. And as a Samali man he wants justice for the people of "his" country, and friendly nations.

The point I have been trying to make isn't racist, it's simply an inevitable fact. If you bring people into a country, and those people still act as if they are in their previous country, and still have allegiance there to, you will no doubt create civil unrest. If you want a peaceful society, everyone has to be on the same page. That is to say, multiple cultures can not peacefully co-habitate the same area for an extended period of time.

As Australians we have, through the course of our history developed our own unique culture. A culture which is now under threat. This is not to say that people from another country are somehow inherently bad, or wrong or anything of that nature. It is not to say that we don't get many people immigrating who at their core are good people. What it is to say, is that for our community to exist peacefully, immigrants have to let go of their old culture and lives and embrace ours.

I would not for example expect I could immigrate to Iraq without accepting their local customs and ridding myself of those I learned in Australia. Similarly those moving to Australia can not expect to immigrate here without doing the same.

Wissam Fattal's comments highlight just how easy it is for extremists to gain entry into Australia. We have an immigration system now, which has inadequate screening and processing of potential immigrants. No person should be able to permanently reside here, who is unable to speak English, and who is unwilling to assimilate into Australian culture. We have gone from a system which let in 10,000 people a year, to one which lets in a similar number each month. Our country and our economy can't cope.

The Australian Federal Police, in co-operation with ASIO and a number of other policing agencies conducted 19 raids across Melbourne suburbs this morning. Four men of Somali and Lebanese decent have been arrested as a result of the raids, charged with conspiring to commit an act in preparation for or planning a terrorist act.

Police say the men whom are allegedly affiliated with Islamic militant group al-Shabaab had planned to attack Australian military bases and kill as many soldiers as they can before they themselves were killed. This marks the first ever planned suicide attack on Australian soil, in the history of Australia. Police are not ruling out further arrests as the case unfolds.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland commented there had been seven months of surveillance leading up to the raids. He continued by stating

"Details of the planning indicated the alleged offenders were prepared to inflict a sustained attack on military personnel until they themselves were killed,"

and that

"The investigation has also identified travel of Australian citizens to Somalia to participate in hostilities in that country."

Fearing reprisals on the general Islamic community the Police have commented that, any such reprisals would only further fuel the "recruiters". But this goes back to the fundamentals of who we are letting into this country. We have ridiculous laws which imprison "boat people" without charge or release date, under the false pretense we have to watch who is coming into the country. Then something like this happens, and four men who legally gained entry into Australia and in fact became citizens start causing trouble.

These are some of the very problems I'm talking about when I say that people should assimilate and leave their old culture in the country they're moving from. We are seeing problems brought onto Australian soil which should not be here and it is all down to our now lax immigration policy. It is as simple as if we weren't trying to flood the country with immigrants in some idiotic hope of warding off the aging population and keeping the economy afloat, then we wouldn't have acts like this even being planned.

What is it going to take in order to change the immigration policy of the Rudd government? Will Australians need to be killed by terrorists on Australian soil? Will that do it? Or would that too have no affect on the governments immigration policy? We have a situation where the flood gates have been opened, and if Australia's culture is to survive we need to work at closing those gates, and quickly.

Links;

ABC News
Channel 10 News
Press Conference

I went into a 3 shop on Saturday to buy a phone charger and walked out knowing Australia as we've known it is in great danger. I was served by an appropriately dressed lady, in her early 20's and of Asian decent, no problems at first glance, but then we tried to communicate and it was a disaster. While I must credit her she tried her best to speak English (something many Asian immigrants don't bother with), her use of the language could be at best termed as novice.

As a result it took me not less than 15 minutes to get through to her that I was after a car charger that would fit both mine and sarah's mobiles. After all that effort I got the thing home, opened it up and found it was the wrong one. In the some almost 20 minutes I was in the shop, of the 10 or so customers who came and went, 95% of them were Indian, barely able to speak a word of English either.

Like wise, my local 7/11; once inhabited by a man with a 24/7 smile that made him look like he'd had one to many red bulls; is now over-run by Indians. Again, they are barely able to speak English and in some cases are completely incapable of it. In the week prior to my new mobile arriving I attempted to by a phonecard to use in payphones so I could call Sarah in hospital, but the Indian woman behind the counter couldn't understand what I was talking about; continually trying to sell me a telstra mobile recharge instead.

Increasingly I run into retail assistants who are incapable of communicating in English. Last I checked we hadn't changed the national language, so what is the deal with this immigration policy which is flooding our country with persons unable to communicate with Australians? If the current trend is to continue, the number of people speaking languages other than English will out number those whom speak English. So my question is, what is the government doing to combat this problem? To me, what needs to happen is immigrants from countries where their nation language is one other than English, should be mandatorily enrolled in English & Australian Culture classes. What do you think?

A Doomadgee girl has died after allegedly being refused medical attention on 4 separate occasions in the week leading up to her death. Doomadgee Hospital has allegedly been turning away patients and choosing to treat people outside, amidst fears of Swine Flu. The girl was finally admitted to Doomadgee Hospital Wednesday, but died Thursday while awaiting transfer to Mount Isa Base hospital.

The understandably upset grandparents are choosing to play the race card, stating that her treatment, (or lack thereof) was because she was Aboriginal. I on the other hand disagree completely. Far to often issues are turned into a racially orientated thing, when they aren't even close. Instead I put it to you that this incident demonstrates quite clearly the inadequate medical staff and training in Queensland hospitals.

Far from living out in the sticks, I a white man living in South East Queensland, have experienced the constant lack of regard for life Queensland Hospitals have become known for. Even so far as our current experience with Queensland Hospitals as a result of our son being born. The level of incompetence is unequivocally off the scale, to the point up until my intervention today they had no clue how to switch Dee from bottle feeding to breast, because they had failed to offer him a breast feed within the first 12 hours of life.

Far from being a race issue, the true problem here is that Queensland Hospitals simply aren't up to scratch. We have staff who are allegedly turning people away from medical care; disgraceful. But it isn't anything new! Ipswich Hospital's Emergency department adopted a new strategy in dealing with their overload of patients; simply turn some of them away. In fact, if after a 2 minute glance by a nurse if you're deemed "non-urgent" you're told to see your GP instead.

We have an underfunded, overstretched health system in Queensland, staffed by underpaid workers. This is hardly a recipe for attracting the great minds in medicine; yes come work 72 hour shifts with equipment that doesn't work properly and is older than you are, for next to minimum wage. They'll truly have them lining up out the door won't it. Wake up Anna Bligh, it's time to do your job properly and fund out health care system adequately. The blood if this little girl, and all others who have died as a result of the incompentency of staff and inadequate funding from the government is firmly on the hands of the Queensland Government and those whom administer Queensland Public Hospitals.

In Queensland we have massive population growth; with each week bringing a few hundred people to our state. Our infrastructure is already failing, as I talked about in Wednesdays post. It also seems to be people from India, Africa and Asia whom are flooding in the most and there is much new coverage on this.

But what no one seems to be talking about is societies most vulnerable; those who struggle daily to keep a roof over their head and food on their table. Those whom are unemployed or working for minimum (or sometimes below minimum) wage.

It is the poorer areas of South East Queensland like Logan, Ipswich and Caboolture which are seeing the most dramatic influxes of people. This new demand for housing pushes the housing price up, bringing higher paid people who then demand better standards of living, better resources and infrastructure. When delivered, the housing prices again rise, bringing even higher paid people in whom start the cycle over again.

And so it continues over 15 - 20 years until the area grows and develops into a rich, sort after suburb. So if this is the fate of Logan, Ipswich and Caboolture, where exactly will the poor people whom classically live in these places be displaced to?

Already developers in co-operation with the Ipswich City Council and Queensland Government have plans to turn Ipswich and it's surrounding Ripley Valley area into a Mega City, projected to rival Sydney in size. New estates are popping up every day as more land, which once was farms become zoned for development. High rise apartments have started to appear in Ipswich CBD, which will one day be grander than Brisbane.

But for now, Ipswich still contains a large percentage of people who can barely rub two dollars together. And it is the fate of these people would should concern ourselves with. Growth and development are great, brilliant for the economy, but we must not forget the people factor in this, else end up with a homeless problem resulting. Or a position where people have to travel several hours in each direction, each day in order to get to work, as they are pushed further into rural towns.

And this to destroys the very culture of these towns. Will it one day be the case that the great Australian outback won't exist anymore? That out of shear over population and piss poor immigration laws, the outback town will go the way of the dodo, replaced by cities and suburbs? And if this is the case, where will food production come from as more farms are brought up to make way for housing? Will we become a country dependent on imports for food supply?

Queenslanders for several years have apparently bathed in the humble glory that was the petrol excise. The Queensland government would pay 8c per litre of petrol you brought in aide of keeping petrol prices down. But now the Bligh government have drowned the state in debt the excise has been hopelessly abandoned.

As of July 1 petrol was meant to be 8c per litre more expensive right? But 17 days after the excise has been dropped that isn't what we're seeing. Indeed it's very much prices as usual as if nothing changed at all. Petrol is still hovering between $1.16/L and $1.29/L on June 29 Petrol was $1.30/L so it's actually managed to drop since the excise was removed.

This leads to one hopefully obvious question. If petrol stations are delivering petrol to us for the same price per litre at the pump now, as when the petrol excise was around, did we ever actually benefit from the governments generosity? Or did the petrol stations pocket the money as an extra money stream on top of their already outrageous prices? As Queenslanders I think we have a right to know what happened to the some 500 Million taxpayer Dollars which went into the petrol excise scheme. I for one am not up for petrol stations double dipping into my pocket, taking from me at full price then taking from tax money. How about you?

People are flocking to Queensland in the hundreds, with an estimated 124 people showing up in Ipswich ( of all places ) every week! For an area of that size, with a single public hospital covering it, 6448 new people moving there a year is far too many. That's 6448 new people on top of standard population growth by way of births and will see infrastructure and standards crumble even further.

As it standards there are no major developments planned on hospitals in South East Queensland, and certainly not in Ipswich. While there are planned upgrades to public transport they are limited to Queensland rail (by way of duplicating lines) and to Brisbane City Council Buses. All other areas of South East Queensland which, mind you are the fastest growing, are left with no upgrades.

Here we have a situation where people are flooding into Queensland all of a sudden, and the state and local governments are dumb founded as to what to do next. We have issues with water because of it and are getting close to a point where we will soon find electricity rationing essential as well. The housing market as well is over run, making it next to impossible to find a rental property, although I'm sure the real estates are loving the artificially boosted housing prices.

Queenslanders are used to a certain standard and quality of life and while I appreciate how tempting that way of life might be, people need to understand that only a certain amount can enjoy it. Beyond that amount the boat starts to sink so to speak, ruining it for everyone. Of course the matter is made dramatically worse by the clueless Bligh government which was voted into staying for another 3 years recently.

I must say that I am concerned about the living environment which we will be forced to reside in within the next 5 to 10 years. An I am concerned with the amount of fresh immigrants who are flocking into Queensland. Someone certainly needs to turn the tap off on people who are immigrating to Australia coming to live in Queensland. At least for the time being whilst the government sorts itself out and fixes the infrastructure. I'm sure there are parts of Australia far more in need of population boosts and if not, perhaps it's time to consider slowing the stem of immigration into the country period.

Sarah told me today about a store in England called "Iceland" where food is super cheap.

A 60 piece party platter for example costs a whopping £5!
24 mini chocolate eclairs are a whole £2!
A Frozen pizza is a whole £1
While 4 100% Beef patties each weighing half a pound costs £2.

Can you imagine how much these things would cost in your local supermarket? It's made me wonder, why do we not have something like this in Australia? The answer comes down to a couple of things, the first of which is obviously our geographical placement. But the price of food in New Zealand very low compared to Australia so it can't just be our geographic placement alone.

The other part of the answer comes of a more sinister nature and I bet you can guess it already. Woolworths and Coles, Australia's 2 main supermarkets have somewhat of a stranglehold on the market. Their agreements with wholesalers, manufacturers and farmers means combined they basically control the grocery industry completely. And make no mistake about it, when it comes to matters of mutual interest they do work together. Remember when Audi first came into Australia? They both fought long and hard to have Audi banned from coming into Australia. They lost the fight to have them banned but did win on the size of operation Audi was allowed to have.

Where Audi had originally wanted to open supermarkets the same size or bigger than the average Woolworths or Coles, they were told they couldn't. Which is why Audi is such a tiny store. When you put all this together with the simple fact that gaining even a slight ongoing portion of the grocery market is extraordinarily hard and you understand why stores like Iceland don't exist in Australia. The only way to change this is to change the laws to dissolve the hold Woolworths and Coles have on the Grocery Industry. By doing this food prices would drop, which I think we can all agree would make our lives just that much easier and better.

Links;

Iceland foods Ltd.

Since the introduction of tasers for Queensland Police 6 months ago there have been a flurry of reports of misuse. The latest; and perhaps scariest yet; is of a man who was reportedly shocked 28 times! The man has subsequently died from a heart attack within a week of the incident.

As a result I thought it might be a good idea if we explore what a taser actually is, how it works and what training Queensland Police are receiving in relation to there use. A taser is a weapon which uses electricity to incapacitate it's victim. It works by shooting out 2 small electrodes which embed in the victims skin and deliver an average of 1,500 volts into the victim with every subsequent trigger pull. The excess volts then overload the nervous system causing it to temporarily shut down. By comparison the average power socket in Australia delivers 240 volts.

This method, while sounding quite violent (and it is I guess) reduces the need for lethal force to be used. But this is only the case IF the user is properly trained. The Queensland Police website demonstrates that Police aren't being trained effectively as it states they are trained for a whole 8 hours once a YEAR. That's it, 8 hours in a single day every YEAR. The site makes no mention of ongoing training through-out the year. This for a weapon which is only 6 months old, and a policy and training framework which is still under development. And yet the Queensland Police still reject any claim that their training is inadequate.

It is obvious from the voltage utilized by tasers that discharging the weapon 28 times into the same subject on a single occasion could prove fatal. This risk would only increase by discharging into the area immediately around the heart. While the taser poses obvious positives in aiding of law enforcement, in the wrong hands it quickly becomes a lethal weapon.Inadequate guidelines, policy and restriction, coupled with only basic training & overuse due to novelty make the taser in the wrong hands.

I am however not saying that tasers should not be used by Police; only that some firm rules must be set with adequate punishment for breaking of those rules. A taser should only be required for use in a situation which would otherwise require lethal force. A police officer has tools other than a taser which better suit situations which would not normally require lethal force. It is the simple fact that tasers are being used in situation which would have been better suited to the use of a different tool which is causing the biggest problems. Again for this, I point to the novelty of the device.

Here we have a Bligh government which introduces a potentially lethal device into the community, then sets the policy AFTER problems arise. A Bligh government incapable of successfully initiating even the simplest of tasks. And a police force which operates under the could of a buddy system, to cover up mistakes, injustices and general wrong doing from within their ranks. A police force which has very much allowed the "power" of their job go to their heads.

It is therefore the responsibility of every Queenslander, nay; of every Australian to demand better. Better from the Queensland Government and Better from Queensland Police. Together, we can do anything.

Links

QPS Taser Engagement Strategy
Wikipedia
CBC News
Taser (The company who make the weapon)

American government science administration NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ) has released a damning report on climate change. The report finally recongnises that it is undeniable that we are already seeing climate change in action, and that it is down to human actions that these climate events are occurring.

The Obama administration is hoping the report will win over support in congress to pass through a carbon reduction scheme by the end of the year. This comes as other governments around the world, including Australia's continue to bicker over petty targets to be reached by 2020. The leading negative argument is always the economy, and more over the loss of jobs which would result.

But what both sides are failing to realise is that we don't have nearly as much time to deal with these issues as they seem to think. As NOAA has finally acknowledged climate change is already occurring and while it has so far been a gradual trend there is a tipping point where things speed up dramatically. One CSIRO scientist has already said we're past the point of no return, but I don't necessarily agree. We have at most 20 years to have carbon emission levels in the negatives, not 2000 levels, not 2005 levels, negatives.

This means a dramatic change in thinking, doing business and organising society, NOW. It means massive investment into research of technologies which will capture and store carbon, CFC's and other pollutants from the air and atmosphere. Arguing about whether we'll reduce carbon emission levels to 2000 levels by 2020 is not only useless, but counter productive. We do not have an eternity to deal with this problem, and it won't go away on it's own. Humans simply CAN NOT continue to live in the way they currently do, nor continue to rape the planet of it's "resources". You've been warned, don't say you didn't know.

Links;

CSIRO 2007 Climate Change report
CSIRO / Business round table report
NOAA FAQs Page
NOAA early action report
NOAA weather events report

Where is a cop when you need one has never been as true as for the Queensland Police service. Their response times are dreadful, and sometimes they don't even bother to show up.

In 2007 I unfortunately lived on the gold coast and my teenage couple neighbors at the time fought incessantly. One day I witnessed the male assaulting the female in the street around 10am. I immediately called the police and then stopped him touching her. The police station was literally somewhere close to 300 meters down the road, but they did not respond until 3am in the morning when they knocked on my door. Thats 17 HOURS to respond to an assault in progress.

A review of Police response times in 2007 found that it took on average 40 minutes for police to respond to incidents reported inside Brisbane CBD and a staggering 60 minutes plus for incidents reported in Ipswich! To bad if someone is trying to kill you, apparently the police have better things to do.

Today I witnessed a mother and child being harassed by police because they where on "truancy patrol" and it was inside school hours. I'm sorry but if a child of any age is with their parent then that is NOT truancy and the police have NO right to get involved. However I do see teenagers from the local high schools being truant EVERY day, but yet I have NEVER seen a police office deal with them. All they would need to do is just down the street from the local high schools and they would get loads of them.

But they don't, and why? Because that would mean they actually had to do their job. Better to harass a child with their parent because that means they can look like their doing their job, without actually having to do a whole lot of anything.

So to answer the question where is a cop when you need one? More than likely, driving around wasting time harassing innocent people instead of doing their job.

Links

Noosa News article 1
Noosa News Article 2