Let’s get down to business.

posted by Paul Roberton on Thursday, February 25th 2010

We have  a New Members Night coming up but we’re not calling it a New Members Night because it’s for all members.
It’s a great night to get out and catch up over a cuppa.  It’s a night to rub shoulders with a few familiar souls.  Have you ever thought about the impact your presence can have at such an event?
Shortly after I joined the party a little under a year ago, David Collyer invited me out for a coffee. We talked for hours. He then invited me to a New Members Night. When I turned up at Bell’s Hotel last June, the first person I saw was David.
It made such a difference to the way I approached my first party function.
For those of us who aren’t candidates but support the ideals that we embrace, perhaps the single most important thing we can do is to be a friendly face for a new member.
Your presence could make a huge difference. Your encouragement or inspiration might entice a new member to leap out of their comfort zone. Your support for a member might lead to their standing in the forthcoming election or for one of the other many roles that need to be filled this year.
My father was a Natio in the Vietnam war.  He wasn’t a solider though – he was a surgeon.  For every soldier in the jungle there were  ten people behind the scenes,  just like him, supporting each Digger.
While I’d never compare politics to war, the analogy fits. Coming to a New Members Night and showing your commitment to the party is like standing behind a candidate or office bearer and giving them your support.
So stop for a moment.
Imagine a warm room, of old friends and the fragrance of after dinner coffee.
Feel the buzz of conversation.  Feel the firm handshakes, and strain to hear your conversation over the one next to you. Feel the energy.
Imagine the effect that will have on the newly committed Democrats,  nervously finding their way.
See you at 7:00.
Friday March 19th
Bells Hotel
Cnr Coventry and Moray Streets,
South Melbourne.
RSVP
Robin Davis (9752 – 6466) or (rbd<AT>knox.hotkey.net.au) or
Paul Roberton (0421 74 84 55) or paul<AT>paulroberton.com “

Rudd Abbott Wars – Episode XVVVV – Religion And The Education System Strikes Out?

posted by Paul Roberton on Friday, January 1st 2010

I am a teacher and was a practicing Anglican for many years.

I have taught in some very different schools, where a range of religious teachings are followed.
In Victoria, Religious Education is taught sensibly and sensitively. In primary schools it’s usually optional and non denominational.
In secondary schools the two main religious subjects offered to VCE (Year 11 & 12) students are Religion & Society and Text & Traditions.
They lend themselves well to a personal reflection on religion, comparative theology and the impact of religion on society.

There is a wide expanse of territory for study. Within Text and Traditions there are four recommended texts: Ezekial, the Gospels of Luke and John, and the Qu’ran.

Students may choose to study one of the four texts in isolation before comparing with others.
It has never been an issue.

Let’s be clear though, what I’m referring to are electives for senior students. Students, one would hope, who have a grasp of their own beliefs and some functional critical thinking.

We know religious beliefs are  deeply held and highly personal. Most of us let it sit quietly; some choose to evangelize.
Some go to war in it’s name, but it still extends the promise of a healthier, more tolerant community.

I find it ironic Mr Rudd  and Mr Abbott, two Christian politicians, are prepared to dance around each other on an issue that could actually bring them – all of us – together.

They could agree that universal messages of tolerance, compassion and forgiveness in senior classrooms are a good thing, or they could agree to both stay out of the debate.

They could agree diversity of faith makes us stronger and philosophical debate makes us wiser.

Instead, they’re eyeing each other off like feather-weight boxers, twitching and flinching each time the other makes a move.

Prime Minister Rudd used a back bencher, Senator Landy to question the merit of the Bible in the new National Curriculum. Opposition Leader Abbott immediately weighed in.

This threatens to degenerate into a circus.

We must send a clear message: We resent the exploitation of religious belief for political gain. It cheapens politics and demeans our beliefs.

If religion is to become nothing but a lever for politicians to pull,  we may have to pretend we’re all Jedi so they leave the matter alone.

May the Force be with you.

Paul Roberton

Australia Had A Skills Program. Howard Dismembered It. Rudd Is Driving A Stake Through It’s Heart.

posted by Scott Kane on Tuesday, September 15th 2009

Once upon time, in the far off 1990’s, I used to teach.

I taught a variety of courses from introduction to computers, office and job seeking skills as well as training business start-ups. These courses assisted long term unemployed people re-enter the workforce.  They were accredited TAFE courses and recognized nationally.

I also worked as a consultant to a variety of organizations including TAFE and private enterprise.

It was a challenging and a necessary job,  one that could easily drain you by days end.  It also had pretty simple rules.  It was about outcomes.  It wasn’t how low an organization could bid, it was how many “hits” the organization and it’s trainers could achieve.  My average was 73%.  That means on average 73% of my students achieved full time employment by or soon after the twelve week course.  This was considered a very good ratio given these people were often 3 to 10 years or more out of work. At or just above 50% and you probably wouldn’t be called to teach next term.

It was not a perfect system.  But by and large it worked.

The job seekers’ self esteem was considered.  They were treated as humans – not as statistics and certainly never as a “problem.”

When John Howard took government, it all went.  His new system meant the lowest bidder got to make the biggest bucks.  Outcomes were not as important as low cost.  Trainers such as myself – who were paid more than trainers in equivalent positions today – were told our services were “too expensive” under the new regime.

Performance fell across the board because we didn’t have the resources or staff to achieve it.

The entire job-training structure was bastardized.  I should know, I wrote part of the curriculum for one Australian state that was used during the Keating years and until Howard’s hatchet job.

I’m not complaining about the loss of the contracts. I’m a software developer and teaching was a great way to unwind.

But for the unemployed or those re-entering the workforce, it became a soul destroying exercise when the guilt is laid on as thick as treacle. The index finger of authority started chiding the unemployed and untrained, laying the blame squarely at their feet.

Howard’s regime was agony with it’s soul destroying “Work for the Dole” incarceration.  Conservatives self-servingly believe people without work “…it simply has to be their fault!”  And “They should work for the price of the bus fare.”

Some thought when the ALP took office – bugles blaring for the Aussie worker – we’d see a return to decency, consideration,  self respect and empathy.

Instead the system is  worse.  I know of one professional – bachelor degree education and fully qualified in her field – struggling to return to the workforce in a compressed labour market.

Instead of helping, the Centrelink-appointed private agency is trying to get this person to work in a coffee shop!!   Hell!  The agency doesn’t get a commission if this  professional selfishly and incoveniently finds a position she is actually qualified for.  The agency makes money by shoving them into a cafe to serve drinks, not by finding work that matches their skills .  This is no isolated incident.  It’s virtually “policy” under Labor’s mash up of Howard’s cruel scheme.

Yes – that’s the future of our professionals who step back from the workforce to perform “unimportant things”.  You know,  like child rearing; you know, Australia’s future.  Instead, force them into unsuitable casual jobs, because some coffee shop has an immediate vacancy.

How can this be?  This is idiocy of the first calibre.

Now – a conservative lost so far down the garden path he needs a machete to get back – Malcolm Turnbull is calling for the ALP to fix a system his predecessor butchered like Vlad The Economic Impaler.

Turnbull the Transmogrified said:

““They (government) need a thorough top-to-tail review of the whole program … to see which parts of it are working and which parts of it are not.”

Well Malcolm, in a sense they did – they used your government’s model and expanded it’s underlying ethos.  The real problem here is the replacement is more reactionary than even a conservative would dare put their name to.

It must be excruciating for Malcolm Turnbull to realize, as embattled leader, that the left are operating farther right than his party is.  Maybe he should have joined the ALP after all – back in November 6, 1999?

Seriously – the Liberal Party of Australia needs a new leader.  Somebody who can “keep the faith”.

They need these qualities right now.  So I’m taking this opportunity to act as a temporary, and entirely unofficial (though fully qualified), Job Network provider for them.

If you have the qualities below, please consider nominating at a Liberal office in your state.  You will need the following skills and disciplines:

A raft of Simplistic Solutions.

A years supply of one liners for “Question Time”.

The ability to “…feed the chooks.”  (the press).

Clueless Enthusiasm.

A firm commitment to the gospel of St Howard that “…all workers are unwashed, lazy peasants!”

The ability to place both feet in mouth simultaneously.

The ability to yell abuse at constituents who disagree.

The capacity to speak for a very long time saying absolutely nothing.

A firm, unshakeable belief that you were born to rule.

A signed, life sized poster of your favourite person in all the world – the name better start with John and end with Howard.

A unique conservative friendly policy that Labor haven’t hi-jacked yet.

The ability to select the right colour for each occasion.

I think they should appoint their very own Fran Bailey.  Fran has already proven she has these qualities and more.  Fran knows that there is only one colour for any occassion:  pink.

It’s the panacea the conservatives need – as they sit out the coming decade in the political wilderness of opposition.

————–

Scott Kane

Australia Has Copyright Laws – Flouting them Deters Innovation and Creativity.

posted by Scott Kane on Monday, September 7th 2009

The Intellectual Property Problem

affects just about every small business in Australia today, particularly if you have a website.  The goodwill in your business is a form of intellectual property too.

It’s a matter ignored by politics and poorly understood in the community.   It is also a highly emotive issue, both for and against.

But it is an issue Australia can ignore no longer.

This is not going to go away and involves crimes that touches  each and every one of us.

To avoid the inevitable and irrelevant discussion on the nature of the crime, let me make this  perfectly clear.

Every country in the Berne Copyright Convention – and yes, Australia is a signatory – has copyright laws.  While these laws vary slightly,  they are consistent in respecting creativity and innovation.  Generally, using works – including everything in the digital domain – without the permission of the owner:

1.  Is a criminal offence.

2.  Infringes or violates the rights of the owner or creator of the work.

3. Can lead to  jail or large fines or both.

4. Allows the holder of the work at their option to seek damages using civil law for loss or hardship, and to institute criminal proceedings.

So, the law internationally sees it consistently as a violation or infringement of rights if any person uses or takes items so covered without permission of the copyright owner.  This includes: books, movies, music and software, poetry, photographs, images, data in some instances, substantial text, paintings, sculpture, pottery and so on.

Copyright in Australia requires no registration and exists from the moment of “creation” of the work.  This is regardless of whether a copyright notice is placed, claimed or referred to and regardless of whether or not the © symbol is used or displayed, unless the owner specifically states in writing that such rights are waived.

For the lovers of semantics the reference to “substantial text” can be applied to any body of work, regardless of it’s perceived quality.

Glib comments disparaging the quality of a work and concluding therefore it has no protection under copyright are merely childish.

A sentence is not copyright – though it may be covered by Trademark – whereas an article such as this is automatically extended copyright cover.

Organized Crime

Iincreasingly, individuals illegally downloading content with file sharing tools like Limewire, Kazaa and torrent tools like Azureas are being detected and prosecuted in the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany.  It is only a matter of time before prosecutions become more common in Australia.  The stakes (and the losses) are too big for companies and individuals producing intellectual property to ignore.

An ironic benefit, to the average person, from this enforcement is that by not using tools such as these they limit their exposure to viruses, trojans and malware which literally fill the services that offer cracks, keygens, serial numbers (often written serialz) and circumvention of DRM – Digital Rights Management, all of which aid in the copyright circumvention of owned music, video and software.

It is not illegal to have these downloading tools on your computer.  They do in fact have legal and valid uses.

But it becomes illegal when they are used to access items without the permission of the copyright holder.

That many of the circumvention tools – cracks, keygens etc – are created by organized crime groups such as the Russian Business Network or RBN is also significant.

The Arguments Against Intellectual Property Protection

Objections to copyright protection seem to be most strongly voiced by those who hold no creative works.  Whereas those who do and are affected are among the most passionate supporters of copyright law.

Most arguments against IP revolve around semantics.  Every time the topic is discussed, it seems, its critics throw out:

1. “It’s not theft because nothing tangible is stolen”.

2. “It’s not piracy, piracy means rape and plunder at sea”.

3. “Software is different to music and films”

4. “The statistics for IP infringement are wrong, I do not accept them.”

On the last point they generally refuse to produce any evidence to back up their dismissal of evidence.  Then they move to announcing they’ve “won the argument” by resorting to their first point.  This is circuitous logic.  It becomes infantile to debate this when they insist on using these arguments  – which is entirely the point of them using them.

The first three points are entirely irrelevant.  It’s the act that is illegal and remains illegal no matter how desperately one tries to align it to other crimes – comparing apples to oranges is simply futile.

With point four – software is no different to music, movies, books or art.  It meets the requirements of the Berne Convention and the individual laws of countries that apply it – such as Australia.

To argue about a magical perceived “difference” is to divert the argument – a rather common technique employed by people on shaky  legal ground.  This argument does not hold up in a court of law.

The simplest argument for justifying the protections of  Copyright Law, for which one never receives a reply (with the possible exception of those who burst into expletives in rage) is -

“As soon as you and everybody else goes to work for free, and that doesn’t include a government pension, and manage to eat, pay for a roof over your head and care for your family I’ll consider the possibility of doing the same.”

This infuriates opponents as they are being asked to do exactly what they demand of those who make a living through the creation of intellectual property.

In other words “putting their money where their mouth is” or “eating their own dog food”.

Those who claim “Intellectual Property wants to be free” are operating under a severe deficit.  They don’t really believe this though.  It’s merely a way to  express a socialist doctrine: that the creative process should not be a business endeavor.   An inverted piece of socialism that borders on anarchy.

The Need For Intellectual Property Protection

It doesn’t matter whether you’re creating paintings, pottery, books, magazines, movies, music or software, individuals  need strong and  enforced copyright laws and in specific instances patent protection.

Without those laws and their committed enforcement no one can make a living on the Internet – the commerce channel of now and the future.

In practice, our legal system is soft on intellectual property prosecution.  It does not always recognise the extent of the problem of intellectual property violation online.

In order for these protections to work, our court system must enforce the law and its reparations.

If the court system treats it lightly the community will too.  If a crime is free of consequences, then the seriousness of the crime is diminished.

Simply put there is no data these thieves are prepared to accept.  Not past, present or future.    Copyright holders, small businesses and large cannot have a reasonable, logical discussion with them while the antagonists of copyright law engage in this stupidity.

But make no mistake here.  They do not give a flying fig for you, your family or small business – including your children and your children’s children should they choose to earn an honest living through the creation of intellectual property.

A Concern For All Australians

Copyright protection affects us all, whoever produces the material.

We are entering an era where the internet plays an enormous role in the economy, much bigger than now.

Unless the work of those who make the things we use are properly rewarded, the collective possibilities of the internet will be permanently diminished.

Small business and individuals – too small to influence government and the opponents of copyright laws – who do not have recourse to a legal system to ensure their right to earn a living will have to seek employment in other fields.

That means the end of new music, videos, art, software and books.

Creators do have to eat.

Current Penalties

For readers who do not appreciate that stealing creativity is a crime, below I have reproduced two extracts from Copyright Australia as a brief introduction and by way of conclusion to this article.  I have merely scratched the surface of this matter.  It is deep, complex and worthy of further consideration.

The extracts below link to further documents.  I highly recommend you read them.

Note that in at least one instance an Australian citizen was extradited to the United States for copyright infringement.

“Penalties vary, and depend on whether it is an individual or a corporation that is convicted. For some indictable
offences, an individual who is guilty may be fined up to $93,500 or imprisoned for up to 5 years, or both. For
importation of material that infringes copyright, fines of up to $71,500 and/or imprisonment for 5 years may be
imposed on an individual. Penalties can be much higher where the infringement involves the digitisation of
copyright material from hardcopy (for example, from cassette to CD or from video to DVD). An individual who is
found guilty of a summary offence may be fined up to $13,200 or imprisoned for up to 2 years or both.
A corporation may be fined up to 5 times the amount of a maximum fine.
Where an individual is convicted of a strict liability offence, the maximum penalty is $6,600. However, where police
issue an infringement notice, the maximum amount of the penalty for an individual is $1,320. In some cases, the
offender must have already forfeited infringing copies and illegal devices to the Commonwealth. Some of the
benefits of the infringement notice scheme include that, so long as the infringement notice is not withdrawn and
the offender complies with the other requirements of the scheme, the offender is not taken to have admitted
guilt, nor to have been convicted of the offence, and no prosecution can be brought in relation to it.
Where a matter goes to court, courts can order that circumvention devices, infringing copies, and devices and
equipment used to infringe, be destroyed, or handed over to relevant copyright owners, or otherwise dealt with.
Again, for acts that took place before 1 January 2007, you will need to refer to the provisions of the Copyright Act
that applied before that date.”

“Circumventing technological protection measures
“Technological protection measures” (TPMs) are technological mechanisms used by copyright owners to prevent or
inhibit either or both:
• unauthorised access to copyright content (access-control TPMs); and
• unauthorised use of copyright content (copy-control TPMs).
The Copyright Act includes sanctions against manufacturing, importing and supplying devices and providing services
to circumvent copy-control TPMs. There are also sanctions against:
• circumventing an access-control TPM;
• manufacturing, importing, or supplying a device to circumvent an access-control TPM; and
• providing a service to circumvent an access-control TPM.
Sometimes a copyright owner can take court action against people who do these things, and sometimes this
conduct is a criminal offence where action is taken on behalf of a State or Territory, or for the Commonwealth. The
sanctions implement Australia’s obligations under the AUSFTA, which requires more extensive protection for TPMs
than was provided in Australia before 1 January 2007.
There are limited circumstances in which a circumvention device may be legally manufactured, imported or
supplied, or in which a circumvention service may be provided. These circumstances are much more limited now than
they were pre-2007. The new provisions also allow a person to circumvent an access-control TPM to get access to
copyright content in certain situations. Some of these situations are set out in the Copyright Act; others are in
Regulations to the Copyright Act. However, there are no provisions that allow the importation or supply of
circumvention devices, or the supply of circumvention services, in relation to access-control TPMs.
Remedies and penalties relating to circumvention devices and services are mostly the same as for copyright
infringement.“

“Altering or removing electronic rights management information
Copyright owners sometimes place “electronic rights management information” (ERMI) within digital copies of
their material so they can identify, and in some cases track, their material.
In some situations, copyright owners can take action against people who remove or alter ERMI from the copyright
owner’s copyright material without permission if this would enable or conceal a copyright infringement. In some
cases, removing or altering ERMI is a criminal offence. Copyright owners may also in some cases take action
against people who distribute, import or communicate to the public copyright material from which ERMI has been
removed or altered. Distributing, importing or communicating to the public this kind of material may also be a
criminal offence.
Remedies and penalties for these actions and offences are mostly the same as for copyright infringement.”

Scott Kane

NT Aboriginal Housing – Consultants Make Hay – Australians Pay – Heinous For Indigenous People.

posted by Scott Kane on Wednesday, September 2nd 2009

That sickening, disheartening immoral Aboriginal housing scam being perpetrated on Aboriginals and Taxpayers that goes by the acronym of SIHIP simply won’t be righted, will it?

For too long the policy of the Federal and Northern Territory governments has been ’shoot the messenger’.

Nothing has changed it seems.

Now, the consultant who warned them the aboriginal housing scheme under the $672 million Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program was seriously off-track has been removed from his position by the NT government.

Isn’t that what consultants are supposed to do?

He warned them the scheme:

“might deliver as few as 300 houses, less than half of the 750 promised by the federal and NT governments.”

It is demonstrably a bad move for consultants to provide fearless advice to the NT government if it upsets the gravy train!

And a gravy train it is too…

Kerry Gearman and Bronwen King were employed as remote audit building managers by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, later seconded to work with the scheme in charge of public housing in the NT.

They said they were paid $71,000 each and in an interview with a News Corporation paper reported they:

“…spent five months, along with five other managers, doing “absolutely nothing” during their employment with the NT government.”

“They paid us wages for months to basically do nothing, because there wasn’t anything for us to do,” Mr Gearman said. “We were told to do a bit of research, go and introduce ourselves to people, but essentially we were given nothing to do.”

Apparently the couple quit their jobs in disgust at the wastage and mismanagement they witnessed.

Quite right too!

“Rivers of money” are flowing into the NT to address the terrible struggle of indigenous people, but little of that money benefits the misbegotten.

“I think Alison Anderson is right,” Mr Gearman said. “An awful lot of this money is going to disappear in consultants’ fees and other things when the hope was the stakeholders would pull together and get something done. “

What A Disgraceful Mess

The very people with integrity – as measured by their resignations or dismissals – bear the brunt of the Australian Labor Party’s standard approach of  “bring in the consultants for a cash smorgasbord” in running states, territories and this country. What a disgrace.

The Chief Minister should hang his head in shame and retire. And it is only reasonable to call – again – for the federal minister – Jenny Macklin – ultimately responsible for this consultant “love in” to also resign in disgrace.  That is what is expected under the Westminster system of government.

Disgusting!

Scott Kane

Australia’s NBN will be aerial, not wireless; cheap not secure. Feed Senator Conroy to the Possums!

posted by David Collyer on Tuesday, August 25th 2009

Australia desperately needs the new National Broadband Network.  Our business and social communications labor under two impediments: the tyranny of distance and lousy internet speeds.  Lousy!

The cost of the NBN is staggering – $43 billion and rising; the cost of not installing it promises to be higher.  Our ability to play a meaningful role in world affairs utterly depends on the quality of our communications network.

Minister for Communications senator Conroy has found a way to cut the capital outlay:  aerial cabling.

That’s right.  Slung underneath the minimum five wires of three phase power and Foxtel’s cable that pass every house in built-up areas, will be our broadband connection.

So every street tree will have to be pruned even harder (remember the tree vandalism when the Foxtel cables went up).  With our big houses, small blocks and extensive paving, street trees are usually the most important shading and cooling feature we have available.

The US Defense Department designed the internet’s decentralized network to survive a nuclear war.  Your connection will be at the mercy of possums, tree branches, bushfires and passing trucks. This vital service will not be reliable enough.

And (Ahem!) extra aerial cabling will lower property values by reducing the amenity and aesthetics of your street.

Conroy thinks this is progress.  He is protecting the nation from wasteful spending.

Think again, senator Conroy.

We don’t have to dig trenches everywhere. There has been significant advances in laser-guided horizontal boring – you will have seen the equipment on the streets –that minimize disruption and are LOW COST.

We could underground all the electric wires at the same time.   I’d like to see that!