Money Matters

While we are on the subject of election policies and money matters - there was an article in the Saturday edition of the Canberra Times quoting sources in the Independent Newspaper that may be a worry to those who are interested in financial matters:

Darling signals tougher stance on sovereign funds

By Danny Fortson

Published: 18 October 2007

The Government is to support calls for reforms of sovereign wealth funds, chancellor Alistair Darling indicated yesterday, marking a major departure from his previous laissez-faire attitude toward the state-controlled funds that have become aggressive buyers of UK companies.

SWFs, set up to invest excess state revenues from record oil and commodity prices and foreign exchange reserves, have grown to control $2.2trn (£1.1trn) around the world. Analysts are expecting this to rise by as much as six-fold over the next decade. Yet some of them, including the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the world's largest with an estimated $625bn to spend, are very opaque. Worries about their influence and motivations are growing in the UK, which has become a primary hunting ground. Nearly half of the London Stock Exchange is now owned by Dubai and Qatar. A fund backed by the SWF of the latter is close to launching a takeover of supermarket giant J Sainsbury.

I don't know about anyone else, but I for one am worried about this much money that is being invested in companies by sovereign sources.

Qatar, Dubai, Singapore, Saudi Arabia as examples, are countries that do not inspire any confidence when it comes to their stability and given the wealth that they own and are investing around the globe - it is moot as to what would happen should they suddenly have a radical change in their governments.

In combination with their wealth and what is happening at present in countries that also hold nuclear weapons like Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan and that also happen to have very large sovereign funds, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that if these countries destabilise then we may not have to wait for the effects of global warming to create some crises that become uncontrollable.

"Me Too" ism by Kevin Rudd

The media continues to criticise Rudd and his party for too much of the "ME TOO" philosophy and thus does not stop very often and actually ask what the differences are.

Is it such a bad thing to have both of the major parties actually agreeing about basic and fundamental economic issues that are destined to safeguard the economic prosperity of the country?

Would it hurt anyone to actually have a look at the differences instead of focusing on the similarities?

Let's look at the local issues concerning Industrial Relations, at the differences between the parties for the Health System and Education, affordable housing and while we are on the subject superannuation and the future for those Australians who are no longer part of working families.

Internationally, let's look at the extent to which there are differences in the way that the parties see themselves supporting the alliances that are in place and at the same time acting to preserve and enhance Australia's contribution to the international scene.

The Liberal and Country Party coalition comment that some 70% of the leadership of the Labour party has come from the union movement. Well what's wrong with that?

At a time when the union movement has been decimated by the policies of the Howard led government for some 10 years any sensible and astute person who supports the basic rights of Working Australians would recognise that simply sitting around and waiting to be picked off is a stupid policy - so senior members of the union movement have taken up politics on a different front and actually want to demonstrate to all and sundry that the only way to achieve change in some areas is to enter the fray where it counts - in party politics!

Let's not forget that the people in the Labour party who come from these union backgrounds did NOT just get to the parliament by appointment. They were ELECTED by the people who KNEW their union background and who thus showed through their voting behaviour that they WANTED people with the knowledge about how to deal with management and industrial matters as their representatives!

It's all very well to recognise that those people who are in employment need to be protected against a variety of ills that have been introduced into being by the current government.

On the other hand, neither party should not forget those people who are in the so called "baby boomer" group that have or are about to retire and so become "former" working families.

These are the people who have managed to survive the vagaries of life and have worked for the last thirty plus years to make Australia what it is. Now as they get older and wish to be able to take their retirement and live off the proceeds of what they have accumulated, they do also require that the parties take them into account.

Each day this group or retirees becomes more and more numerous and as such their interests should feature in the policies of all the parties.

The current government CAN claim that it has managed in the last ten years or so to increase the number of people who now have superannuation and who thus will be less likely to require a pension. However all parties need to recognise that the savings that these people have invested into the Australian Economy through their superannuation schemes are the backbone of a lot of the prosperity that this country now enjoys - it would NOT be a smart idea to to introduce any policies that threaten that future of what is still the majority of people in the community.

So what's in it for us?

As someone so wisely said "Show me the money!"

It's ON!

Today is Monday 15th October 2007 and the first day after the end of the so called "phony election campaign." The PM has finally done the deed and after calling on the Governor General called for the end of the current Parliament and new elections.

In the opening salvo of this campaign the aspirant to the position of PM - Kevin Rudd has made another of those speeches that are starting to give me chills. He talks about a "New Leadership" and talks about "Working Families" and he talks about the plans he will disclose during the campaign.

Why the chills?

Well in the first place - we are not as yet sure about WHO will provide this new leadership that he talks about. In the second place I would like to start to hear something about people like ME - those who have laboured hard for the last forty + years to enable politicians to talk about their 'successes' and who are now in retirement. Were it not for the massive numbers of people in the so called "Baby Boomer" generation who are now ready for retirement there would not BE the 33 year lows in unemployment. It is WE who by retiring have made way for those masses of young people who have been unable to get employment. It certainly has not been government.

Those involved in the business community have managed to take most of their means of production overseas to ANY country that has lower wages bills and fewer conditions of employment.

Meanwhile of course what the current government has done is to introduce a system of industrial relations that is based purely on greed! For the business community it has meant the opportunity to break the power of unionised labour and for those people who are well educated and with skills and/or knowledge to sell an opportunity to secure contracts of service (ie AWAs) that have some hope of making them rich (at least in the short term).

Meanwhile what of the baby boomers who are entering or have already entered retirement?

Who cares! They are past it! They have made their contributions and while they can still vote they are the people who present more of a problem than anything else. After all they had their chance to put together their nest eggs and now it's the turn of someone else.

My criteria for deciding WHO is to be elected - like those for many others in the community will, I suspect be increasingly selfish as the campaign heats up.

I for one will take MY projected needs over the next three years and ask who in government is most likely to do the things that will make MY life bearable!

With prices rising and my illness making it virtually impossible for me to return to the work force if I need to, the number of options about how I can maximise the "what's in it for ME" option, will help to determine the direction of MY vote.

Alas, I live in an electorate in which I am for all practical purposes disenfranchised!

The incumbent happens to belong to a party that has held the electorate for decades and as a result unless there has been a funny and major change to the demographics the nature of the vote is unlikely to change.

The so called "marginal seats" a lot of which appear to be in Queensland, will be interesting.

Queensland is a state in which there have been major demographic changes with lots of people from among the baby boomers seeking out the milder climactic conditions for retirement. The question is - whether they now would continue to support a party that they MAY have voted for all their lives - Labour - knowing that they are no longer part of working families and are really part of the generation that is seeking to have the next few years in the sun able to enjoy their retirement.

Who will offer them the best deal?

Is it Rudd with his promises of plans that may or may not work or something tried and true that will at least maximise investments that are the backbone of superannuation funds!

THAT I suspect is where the answers will come in this election. Of course the media may well manage to change perceptions and actually convince these old codgers that promises of plans will necessarily equate to dollars in the bank.

Let's wait six weeks and see.

The Good Old Days - Where are they now?

A Slice of History

1971
Australia's population is 12,755, 638 at the time of the 1971 Census. A total of 2,579, 318 born overseas (20 per cent of the population).

People from the United Kingdom (and Republic of Ireland) are the largest group (1,088,210), followed by Italians (289, 476) and Greeks (160 200).

The largest humanitarian group the Poland-born, who mainly arrived as Displaced Persons after the War totals 59, 700.

1973
In January, the new Whitlam Government announces that future immigration policy would not distinguish between immigrants on the basis of race, colour or nationality. The White Australia Policy is finally abolished. The implications of this new policy for refugees are not tested until 1975, with refugee crises in East Timor and Vietnam.

In September, a military coup in Chile overthrows the socialist government of Salvadore Allende, and Australia takes in Chilean refugees. The Chilean program has bipartisan support and marks a break from previous refugee programs that tended to support refugees who were fleeing Communist governments. Between 1974 and 1981, about 6000 Chileans are taken in and, thereafter until the ending of military rule in 1990, hundreds continue to be admitted each year as part of either the Special Humanitarian Program (introduced in 1981) or family reunion program. The Chilean population in Australia increases from 3760 at the 1971 census to 24 042 in 1991

1974
The Department of Immigration is disbanded and a Department of Labour and Immigration established by the Whitlam Government. Hon. Clyde Cameron MP succeeds Grassby as Minister in June.

Displaced persons from Cyprus are admitted after the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus. The Cypriot population in Australia increases from 13 267 at the 1971 census to 21 629 in 1976

1975
The defeat of United States-backed regimes in Vietnam is accompanied by massive displacement of Vietnamese people from their homes. Refugees flee to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong and the Philippines.

Violent civil war in East Timor in August 1975 produces a wave of about 2500 evacuees to Darwin. About 700 agree to go to Portugal but the remaining group, which includes families without breadwinners, the elderly and unaccompanied children, are accommodated in Commonwealth Government hostels in Sydney and Melbourne. The December invasion of East Timor by Indonesian military forces leads to widespread resistance and guerilla warfare that lasts until independence is achieved in 2002. Throughout the 25-year struggle, a continuous flow of Timor-born people seek refuge in Australia. At the 1996 census there are an estimated 9200 Timorese born people in Australia.

The Migrant Service Section, together with the TIS (Telephone Interpreter Service) provides outreach services to these refugees at the Commonwealth Hostels.

Social Workers, Welfare Officers and Interpreters are sent to the Hostels on a sessional basis where these people are housed, to offer them information about what is available to them in terms of income support, housing and other services in the community .

Headed by EVA BYRNE Former Board member, Good Neighbour Council of NSW; former Principal Social Worker, Settlement Services, Department of Immigration; and former honorary consultant to ECC of NSW and to FECCA. and ably supported by Nina Skoroszewski (nee Antonina Libiszowska), herself passenger no. 1060 on the wharf Bremerhaven, waiting to board the transport "Delmenhorst" for Australia. 31 August 1950.


(When she was working for the Department of Immigration she looked a little older.)





In December, following the general election, the Fraser Liberal Government establishes a new Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, with Hon. Michael Mackellar MP as Minister.

1976
In May, Minister Mackellar invites the Timorese who were admitted at the end of 1975 to apply for resident status. More than a thousand take up the offer.

Civil war in Lebanon results in the deaths of 50, 000 people and displacement of about 600,000 Lebanese and 150, 000 Palestinians from Lebanon. The Australian Embassy in Beirut is evacuated in March. Visas are granted to any relatives of Australian residents who have suffered extreme hardship as a result of the war, provided they meet health and character requirements. In the first half of 1976, more than 800 Lebanese are admitted. The flow continues with the worsening war and by 1981 the Lebanon-born community has increased
by more than 16, 000. Funding is provided to assist Lebanese community organisations to set up services for their communities. There are a number of new social workers and welfare
officers employed to provide appropriate culturally sensitive services to this new group of arrivals.

1978
The Galbally Report the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants is tabled in Parliament in May. The Fraser Government announces expenditure of $49.7 million on migrant services (English language teaching, initial settlement services, ethnic media, establishment of an Institute of Multicultural Affairs, and others) over three years to implement Galbally's recommendations.

Acting on the report, the Government establishes Migrant Resource Centres, reshapes the Adult Migrant Education Program, provides grants for migrant welfare workers, establishes the Institute for Multicultural Affairs and expands the Telephone Interpreter Service.

Comment:

What was I think quite unique both for the time and for this country was the nature of the people who worked in this team. For the most part they were social workers, welfare officers and general clerical staff who were representative of the ethnic and language mix that either had or was arriving in this country.

There were people from various backgrounds:- Italian, Greek, Turkish, Cypriot, Maltese, Lebanese, Hungarian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Irish, Welsh, English, Australian, Scottish, Egyptian, Timorese, Ethiopian, Chilean, Chinese, Malaysian, and many other nationalities.

Where are they now when we have settlement issues with people who are from very very different ethnic an cultural backgrounds?

It's all very well to blame those who arrive for not settling into the Australian community however it would be just as well for the current Minister to consider that every time he points a finger at someone - there are three curled fingers pointing right back at himself.