. = V E N T = .
Letters to the Editor


From time to time, a commentary on the world will bubble up inside of me to the extent that I'm forced to write a letter to my local, metropolitan, daily newspaper, The Age. This is where I blow of some steam. Feel like venting too? Add your own comment or visit my homepage.

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

<     >

Philanthropy

When a wealthly industrialist starts dispensing medicine for what ails us, it's worth noting. Richard Pratt (25/1) suggests redirecting 1% of corporate profits to community groups, effectively bypassing the taxation and representation functions of governments. While corporate philanthropy should be applauded, Pratt's Compact warrants closer scrutiny as it is displacing the role of governments. In terms of fairness and efficiency, how well do these schemes perform?

Firstly, under the present arrangements we contribute taxes into a pool and then collectively decide on policies and priorities through Parliament. One adult, one vote. But under Pratt's Compact, the more shares you own, the more of a say you have about funding projects. Over time, we can expect the priorities of the shareholding minority to take a front seat. My prediction is for lost dogs homes and grafitti to do well at the expense of rural poverty and the elderly.

Secondly, it's not clear that direct corporate funding of community projects is more efficient than taxation. There is a lot to be said for the "economies of scale" and integration of projects that governments can achieve. Canadian author John Ralston Saul examined this issue in the US and concluded it can cost up to six times more to raise funds this way than through taxation, while the taxpayers still contribute around eighty percent of the money. This makes sense as those society balls, naming ceremonies, celebrity engagements and other costs of wooing sponsors really add up. As Saul noted, the "reversion to charity has brought with it, to a degree not seen even during the Renaissance, an indulgence of the ego of donors".

Before we are urged to go yet again down the American path, we need to hear more discussion about how corporate philanthropy out-performs the existing funding allocation system.
Vent!         


Tuesday, January 20, 2004

<     >

Globalised IT

What did we expect - that India and China wouldn't climb the global version of Latham's ladder of aspiration? As they move into high-value IT services, the challenge is not to hold them back but to get Australia's onto the next rung.

I do not want to pay for Telstra to be a sheltered workshop through higher charges, lower dividends and missed global opportunities. This will happen if the Australian IT sector is not exposed to global competition.

IT professionals are better placed than most to take the hard knocks of globalisation: often drawn from other professions with a range of skills, the are mobile and adaptable. IT is a driver of jobs growth here (The Age, 16/1) and a recent report by US Bureau of Labour Statistics predicted IT making up eight out of the ten fastest growing jobs this decade.

Opening up Australian IT to global competition will increase its competitiveness. The Indian IT sector has made better progress as it has embraced international accreditation. Also, during my time in IT at Telstra, I met many people who were educated in South Asia and whose standard of work was fantastic.
Vent!         


Tuesday, January 13, 2004

<     >

Black-out Bars

I doubt Geoff Clark would think "Black-out bars" are a new concept (12/1).
Vent!         


<     >

Gays 'Depraved'?

Archaic heirarchies do not produce independent, open-minded free-thinkers who speak their mind. Should the Pope declare homosexuality compulsory, Cardinal Pell would support that too. Monica Hingston, you will have more luck getting a Maccas spokesperson to concede the burgers are better at Hungry Jacks.
Vent!         


<     >

Badge of Humanity

Terry Lane (11/1), there is a badge or marker for those who are humans first and foremost: our faces, unique yet universal. Babies' eyes instincively follow faces in their field of view because it's a pattern hard-wired into our brains. Try the following word-association test: riot police, executioners, Jason (from "Friday the Thirteenth"), clowns, Melanie Griffiths, stormtroopers (from "Star Wars"), bank robbers. Systematically hiding or obscuring our wonderful faces is dehumanising and scary.
Vent!         


Sunday, January 11, 2004

<     >

Education and Taxes

So the government is obliged to fund private education (Bethany Clarke, Letters, 9/1), yet has no right to dictate the content (John Taylor, Letter, 9/1) - a case of shut up and give us the money. But who's money is it? One argument is that "tax-paying families [are] already unfairly punished" for electing to go private (Philip O'Carrol, Letters, 9/1). Presumably, private school parents want the proportion of the their taxes earmarked for public education (for all) to be redirected into private education (for themselves).

This view stems from a misunderstanding: taxation is not levied on a fee-for-service basis. Taxpayers are not entitled to a refund (cash or in kind) if they don't use directly the museums, libraries, roads, public transport or police services offered to all. Taxes are pooled and spent according to the political process. In this regard, we are citizens, not consumers - a crucial distinction.
Vent!         


Friday, January 09, 2004

<     >

Ruling on Sydney Car Tragedy

The ruling by magistrate Elaine Truscott in the Sydney driving tragedy warrants comment. Accepting it was likely the car hit a wet patch on the road, she said "I cannot think of anything, in the way she drove, that [she] could have done or should have done anything to avoid the accident". The VW Golf had eight people in it, instead of five, and two young men in the boot died in the crash.

That vehicle was operated at the edge of, or in excess of, its design and test parameters (depending on the model and passengers). That extra two hundred and fifty kilograms of passengers in a one tonne car could be significant. Surely a case could be made to a jury that the vehicle was so obviously compromised that no amount of concentration could have ensured safety. But now we'll never know.

If I strapped a baby-grand piano onto the roof of a VW Golf and rolled it and people died, well, wouldn't I have to face a jury, regardless of my on-road skills? The decision to accept those circumstances and drive anyway should not be divorced from the assessment of driver performance and culpability - which must include judgement.

I hope this isn't a case of "she's already learnt her lesson", as in last year's case of the SMS-driver who killed a cyclist. Such a view undermines community confidence in the law.
Vent!