Saturday, November 29, 2014

Long term life in Australia has to be EARNED. If you're willing to run at the first sign of trouble you don't care about Australia, not legitimately, and the boom times are NOT over.

There are about 600,000 New Zealand citizens residing in Australia.  In 2001 the former Howard Government modified immigration policy which saw New Zealand citizens who went over after January 26 2001 (Australia Day) no longer entitled to welfare and being required to go through the normal immigration process to gain citizenship.  New Zealand citizens can still work in Australia indefinitely on the Special Category Visa (444) only intended for NZ citizens. 

Because Kiwis cannot qualify for welfare without going through the normal permanent residency and citizenship process there has been a great deal of whinging from Kiwis. 

At the crux of it, the Howard Government took away welfare entitlements because too many Kiwis were going over to Australia and sitting on welfare.  They became what is known as the "Bondi Bludger" and the Australian Government had to say "NO! No more!", so they did.

That hasn't stopped the steady stream of Kiwis moving to Australia, averaging around 30,000 - 40,000 at its height a couple of years ago.  Apparently the Australian economy is doing badly so Kiwis who moved here to work in the mines are struggling.  Several issues are left out of the articles primarily published by the New Zealand media sites like the NZ Herald and Stuff.co.nz.

For one thing, what the mainstream media isn't telling you (because it's basically a publicity campaign by IT firm Xero and an attempt by the Government to get people back) is that these people who are struggling with work are the types of people who didn't finish school, they didn't go to university or tech/TAFE and then when they lose a job, the only one for which they are actually qualified, they struggle to get another one.  They're the types of people who are "at the bottom of the pecking order" for want of a better phrase.  This means that in a recession they're the first people who will be made redundant.  They're the people who Australia doesn't really want because they don't add value to the economy and can't contribute long term.

For those who read the Australian media, you'd know that the NSW economy is booming.  That's according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald earlier this week.  In a nutshell, NSW is actually carrying the Australian economy, and it's not all doom and gloom.  We have a booming property market (which I won't go into in this particular blog) and people, as you'd know, are still trying to get to Australia from the Middle East despite our tougher immigration policies.

I want to expand on the issue of welfare today however.

I returned to Sydney on Christmas Eve and I'm not going to lie.  Things have been absolutely tough at some points.  I've had three jobs for the last few months plus unpaid work experience.  Some weeks clocking up 50 hours a week.  I've had casual jobs and not had any security.  I've not known when I'm working week to week and although it changes this week when I move into a full time permanent job again it's been mighty tough.

But this is what I want to highlight.  Those who truly are committed to Australia will make it work, they won't whinge about not qualifying for welfare, and why should Kiwis qualify for welfare?  If you're going to run at the first sign of trouble as so many Kiwis are then why should the Australian taxpayer, myself included, help you out.  I understand everyone goes through tough times, but those who truly want to, those who have transferable skills and those who truly desire will make it work.  They won't let anything hold them back.  Those with the goods will have no trouble finding a job, even if they may need to take casual jobs to get by.

If people had access to welfare it would be easy to think, "I'm not going to do that job", or "that job is beneath me", and that's exactly the type of mentality the Australian Government is trying to stop with this policy.

Some Kiwis say that they're second class citizens, but here's the thing folks, you're not an Australian citizen at all, so in all honesty the Australian Government actually doesn't owe you a thing and you're privileged to live in the greatest nation on earth.  It's time Kiwis actually realised that.  The Australian Government could easily close the border completely and require Kiwi citizens to go through the border like everyone else. 

Broaching the issue of welfare constantly doesn't really help Kiwis' cause.  I'll tell you what would help Kiwis' cause for looser immigration - being committed 100% to Australia, being willing to die for this country, being so patriotic to this country you don't even consider yourself a New Zealander anymore, and basically being Australian in every way other than legally. 

Australian citizenship isn't a right.  It's something you have to work for and prove yourself worthy of obtaining and simple fact is, many Kiwis are not worthy.  If you still support the All Blacks then you're not loyal to Australia.  If you run at the first sign of trouble then you're just in it for the good times.

My concern, and the purpose of this blog is that once again the ISSUE OF VOTING is IGNORED by the NZ media.  Some of us don't care about welfare, some of us just want our basic democratic right.  I'm happy to pay the $3200 to obtain citizenship but I have to work a couple more years in media and IT before I can actually do so, and I'm willing to wait that long for official permanent residency and then the required two years further for citizenship. 

That's where the real issue lies in my book, not having a democratic right to vote.  The NSW election is being held in March and I can't vote in it - I use public transport on a daily, constant basis, I pay taxes to the NSW Government and yet I can't vote.  I can't even join a political party.  If you read on the websites of all the main parties you'll see you have to be a citizen to join, and THAT is not fair, not having a democratic voice is not fair.  The Federal Election is being held in 2016 and because of timing I'll miss that too.  Although I support the Coalition Government I'd like the right to vote in my place of residence, the place I call home.  This is a MAJOR fundamental issue that is being ignored.  Voting is at the heart of our nation's values, and without that right are we (Australia) any better than other countries?

Surely after a five year period Kiwis should at least be able to vote.  I've been here on and off since 2008, and it would be nice to vote.  In the meantime though, I'll travel back to Australia once every three years to keep the right to vote in NZ (as their policy affects me still) until I am an Australian citizen.

When it comes to the financial security many Kiwis are complaining about, it's really simple, just make sure you're careful with money and save save save, that message absolutely needs to be drummed home because it's not really right that Kiwis earn $100,000k + in the mines then when the times get tough they say they have no savings and are going back to NZ to access welfare.  That's exactly the mentality the Australian Government doesn't want.

The lazy Kiwis have ruined it for the hard working ones who will do whatever it takes to make a success of their life in Australia.  Despite the reports, the boom times are NOT over in Australia.  We're just seeing market correction with other industries expanding such as IT.  IT is expanding in Australia too.

If you aren't loyal to Australia, why should Australia be loyal to you?

Friday, November 28, 2014

Why media monitoring is essential and who the primary users are - defence of Immigration Minister Scott Morrison.

Life has been tough for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison all year with various protests being held criticising his stance on asylum seekers.  That flak has moved to another level today, with the Sydney Morning Herald reporting that Shadow Immigration Minister Richard Marles has criticised his media monitoring spend ($120,000) in the last 12 months.

For those not familiar with the field, media monitoring is where the Government pays a company, iSentia, to track mentions of their name or portfolio obligations.  This means that even that article will go back to Morrison's media communications team because he was mentioned, and he'll need to decide whether or not to respond to the allegations of wasteful spending.

What the Sydney Morning Herald didn't tell you is that EVERY government monitors media.  Prior to the Coalition gaining power last September, Labor also used media monitoring firms iSentia and AAP (before they sold the department to iSentia for an undisclosed sum).  It is not just governments who monitor the media for mentions.  Not for profit organisations and businesses such as Dominos do too.  It allows them to quash a media story and set the record straight.  The reality is that with hundreds of media organisations and news outlets businesses and government departments just do not have the time or resources to monitor and track the news so they hire specialised companies, like iSentia to do the monitoring for them.

In this day and age when so much of political information is shared and gleaned in the news rather than first hand experience at meetings and the like, politicians utilise the media to get their message across.  How can you possibly respond to something if you don't know what's going on?  And it is Governments' jobs to know what the public think, media allows them to observe and respond to the public mood and therefore better deliver to their constituents.

The Sydney Morning Herald simply did not report the full story that all governments, businesses and not for profit organisations track mentions and have been doing so for decades, so to blame the Coalition and suggest they're the only ones who do is inaccurate and fuels ignorance.

Is it time to re-think euthanasia legislation in the wake of Phillip Hughes death?

A few weeks ago 29 year old American brain cancer sufferer Brittany Maynard made headlines around the globe after fighting for euthanasia to be an option for those who were terminally ill.  Maynard's prognosis was not good so she had moved to Oregon where they have a Death With Dignity law.  This means that instead of letting the cancer take her naturally she would take a lethal dose of some medication which would terminate her life before she became more incapacitated.

During her campaign the question of whether or not Australia and New Zealand should introduce similar legislation has been called into question.  Maynard died on the first of November.

On Tuesday this week South Australian cricket player Phillip Hughes was struck in the neck with a bouncer bowled by NSW player Sean Abbott.  For those who don't know, a bouncer is a cricket ball that travels at around 135kms and is intended to intimidate the batsman.  Unfortunately on Tuesday at the SCG the ball struck Hughes' neck causing what would prove to be fatal injuries and he succumbed yesterday afternoon after a stream of visitors and well wishers.

The injury he suffered, vertebral artery dissection caused subarachnoid haemorrhage.  This means that the neck injury caused bleeding into the brain.  This is ultimately what killed Hughes.

Had he survived the tragic blow, he most likely would have suffered side effects the rest of his life.

In the first two weeks the chances of a re bleed are extremely high according to literature on the condition. 

Long term epilepsy can be triggered by siezures caused by the brain's increased fragile state.  Other side effects include long term increased fatigue, an inability to work, changing moods and slower cognitive abilities.

There have only been 100 reported cases in the world so there isn't much research to go on, but based on the cases the long term effects would be devastating.

Given the severity of Hughes' tragic blow to his head, which did cause him to stop breathing, and be kept alive by machines for 48 hours, one has to wonder.  Although tragic and devastating a man with such potential, just on the way back up to playing for Australia, did he get lucky?  Nobody wants to die, but being as ambitious as he was, had he survived, how severe would the brain damage have been?  Would he have been able to keep playing at a competitive professional level?  Was it better that he was effectively killed instantly?

Nobody wants anyone to die, and nobody wants to suffer in pain, was Hughes luckily spared long term pain and side effects?

No doubt we'll never know because he didn't get the chance to recover, and he will forever be remembered as 63 Not Out, and that little kid from Macksville who always wore a cheeky grin on his face and didn't stop fighting.

Is it time to re-think euthanasia legislation?  When you switch off life support isn't that actually a form of euthanasia?

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Phillip Hughes has passed away at the age of 25

Cricket Australia and the wider Australian community are mourning the loss of batsman Phillip Hughes who never regained consciousness after being struck by a bouncer on Tuesday at the SCG.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has expressed his sorrow at the news.

Twitter is abuzz with tweets of condolences, sorrow and devastation for Cricket Australia and Sean Abbott who bowled that ball.

30/11/1988 - 27/11/2014.

RIP Phillip Hughes and thoughts with your family, friends and colleagues.

Phillip Hughes - Fighting for his life - more serious than first thought according to Alan Jones.

Since South Australia batsman Phillip Hughes was struck on the head by a bouncer bowled by NSW bowler Sean Abbott there has been a vigil by Hughes' side.  He is reportedly in an induced coma and fighting for his life.

2GB shock jock Alan Jones has visited Hughes in Sydney's St Vincents Hospital and reportedly left traumatised.  Jones broke it down saying that Hughes suffered a major arterial bleed on the brain and that a machine is keeping him alive right now.

Hopefully 25 year old Hughes pulls through and returns to cricket, but if he doesn't then everyone must understand the bouncer striking the side of his head was nobody's fault.  It was a freak accident in sport.  All sport comes with its risks as Newcastle Knights player Alex McKinnon who suffered a spinal injury in a tackle playing league earlier this year would know. 

The mainstream media including the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph have both asked why the ambulance took so long to arrive and pointed to the helmet manufacturer.  This is wrong.  They aren't to blame.  Nobody could have predicted the bouncer would hit Hughes and cause a serious life threatening injury.

Of course, nobody wants to think Hughes will die, but if he does the question needs to be asked, what will happen to Abbott?  Will there be an inquiry into Cricket Australia?  And how will Abbott cope?  The Sydney Morning Herald reports today that Abbott is distraught and receiving counselling.

This is pretty much the worst type of injury you can get and it is a very tough time for all players, many of whom are visiting Hughes in hospital.

Hopefully the support will help Hughes in his recovery, much like the support for Newcastle Knights player Alex McKinnon is doing with his.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Commercial and public media both have their place. Cutting the ABC is a bad bad bad move

Okay, the Government has announced they're cutting 10% of the ABC workforce.  Of course as you can imagine, Twitter is bursting with comments that it's the best thing ever, that the ABC is a waste of time and other mindless comments.  The other side of the fence is that the cuts shouldn't happen and that Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull are idiots who don't know the first thing about running the country.

So where do I sit on the matter?  Given I'm writing a blog and given I studied journalism and media and politics I think it's pretty obvious what my position is.

I'm opposed.

So why am I opposed to the ABC cuts?  It's simple really.  I am sick to death of centralisation of the media.  For the purposes of this blog I'm going to compare the Australian media with the New Zealand media.

In New Zealand there are two major organisations - Mediaworks which controls TV3, TV4 and Radioworks.  Then there is TVNZ which has close ties to NZME (APN and TRN).  Radio New Zealand is the only truly public broadcaster and it is often out of date in its broadcasts.  It's trying to move into the digital era but because of budget freezes and increased costs it just can't deliver quality content.

Then there are the private media organisations.  Now I don't like to repeat myself in blogs but you may recall a while ago I wrote about how Mediaworks was planning a Paul Henry Show for breakfast time which would syndicate on both TV3 and RadioLive.  This means the axing of the Hilary Barry and Marcus Lush now.  Ratings aside, do you have any idea what this will do for discourse?  It will mean fewer views are represented, that fewer journalists will have positions.  You may think who cares?  Why do we need multiple journalists at the same event or reporting the same story.  The reason is that no two people will have the same outlook on something and no two people will ask the same questions. 

Then you have to look at what cutting the workforce and shows like Four Corners will do.  Four Corners is a program which reports in depth stories.  So what happens if we don't have coverage in depth?  Well the bottom line is, it means we have less information.  Take a show like Australian Story where Australians are celebrated.  What are we supposed to do if we can't learn about locals who've made an impact?  And what about Nightline?  What about people who work long hours and can't get to a TV until late at night and don't want to use their data streaming shows online?

In a nutshell what it means is a less informed society.  How can citizens make informed decisions if we don't know what's going on?  The fact of the matter is, journalism is being undervalued, and given Prime Minister Tony Abbott's career history as a journalist I'm actually shocked he doesn't care about the field.

Closing the Adelaide production studio is a bad move because if you aren't on the ground you can't get the story.  Some would say citizen journalism plays an important role, and to a degree, but journalists are specifically trained.  So what flow on effects will there be?  Well no doubt with fewer media positions that will see funding to journalism courses cut.

So the bottom line is, in and of itself the ABC cuts will have a devastating effect on the media landscape and related fields.  It will mean a less informed society and more tabloid journalism.  It will mean greater bias and that's not a good thing.  The good thing about the ABC is they offer alternative views to the commercial media, and isn't that beneficial to the public? 

It would be a very sad day if the Australian media and news quality went the way of the NZ media, low quality, unprofessional and sloppy.  With more media cuts that's all I can see happening.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Jacqui and Pauline teaming up is an awful mistake


Tasmanian Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie has been creating quite the stir in the media and within her own party ranks recently.  That came to a head today with PUP leader Clive Palmer demoting her from the deputy leadership and blocking her access to PUP meetings.

Lambie has however found friends in unexpected, or not so unexpected places.  Former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has announced she will return to politics for the 10th time contesting a seat in Queensland.  She has said she is certainly willing to talk to Lambie.  This is no shock given the two share similar views on immigration and a white Australia policy.  Both are opposed to halal being sold when only 5% of the population is Muslim, but that breaks down to 500,000 people or the size of Wollongong and Newcastle put together.

For those of you who don't remember, Hanson was jailed for electoral fraud in 2003 however she was released from prison after eleven weeks.  During her time imprisoned Hanson denied she was guilty of electoral fraud to the tune of $498,637.

In 2011 she ran as an independent in the New South Wales state election.  She was unsuccessful.

Since then she has kept out of the limelight.  That is until now.  Jacqui Lambie appears to have motivated her to return to politics, so what is the likelihood they will be successful if they team up?  Well, given the Australian voting public doesn't tend to like minor parties, least of all women in power it's very unlikely the party will make it to parliament.  This is partially because of the voter system too of FPP.  If Australia had MMP then more than likely the party would get back to parliament.

Of course, as you can imagine the two are copping a lot of flak for their views and being renegades.  That aside, both are receiving an undue amount of flak with the likes of former Pauline Pantsdown singer Simon Hunt saying he doesn't want Hanson's cause to be given anymore airtime.  Others have questioned their intelligence and referred to them in other derogatory terms.

Putting opinion aside, will the duo work together?  My objective analytical answer is no.  It's not that they don't have a message some of the Australian public wants to hear, it's that they are both simply way too strong to work together.  They're both what you would call alpha females and both would want to be in charge.  They'd lock horns and neither would want to come second to the other.

Then there is the fact that Australia doesn't like opinionated female politicians exception being Foreign Minister Julie Bishop but outside of official meetings, Bishop doesn't actually say a lot so there's nothing to say about her.  When an Australian female politician does speak out on various issues, the Australian public and media commentators absolutely hate it and don't give the a fair go.

Should Hanson and Lambie be given airtime to speak their views?  Yes, that's what our democracy is about.  Do you have to like it?  No.  Should you respect it?  Yes.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Islam isn't the scary monster people say it is, it's just another oppressive religion: What I learned in 30 minutes talking to two Muslims.

Today after work I was walking home.  I had hopped off my L90 bus near the town hall and walked up George Street towards Town Hall Station but I wanted to stop at Starbucks first so I walked on the same side of the road as the Town Hall.  There were Muslims handing out brochures.  Because of my curiosity and working in the media I picked one up. 

It said, "About Islam: A brief introduction" so I read it and stopped.  One of the first phrases was, "The Arabic word Islam literally means submission to the one true God (Allah) alone".  My immediate thought was, well that's not too different to other religions.  They all want you to submit to God and live by God's rules not anyone else's and not the laws of the world.  Due to the negative press Islam has been receiving and my own bias against Islam I decided to go back and ask some questions.  In my mind the questions were, "so if Islam says you have to submit to God then isn't that just the same as other religions?" and I also wanted to ask about the Muslim dress like the Chador, Hijab, Niqab and Burqa.

I went back and chatted with two nice guys, Anwah and Roy.  I'm not sure if I have the names spelt correctly but Anwah certainly didn't seem like a terrorist.  He just seemed like someone strong in faith who wanted to spread the word.  And he said that the difference between Islam and Christianity is that Muslims believe that God is almighty and they do not see Jesus as the son and the father.  They see Jesus as a prophet and the son of God/Allah.  So are you with me so far?  It seems like Muslims and Christians aren't that dissimilar.

Other questions I wanted to ask were why Muslim women wear the Hijab etc, and Anwah's answer was that if you had a precious diamond you wouldn't want to show it off the world.  This is a valid point but I still think the clothing is oppressive.  He also raised the point that other religions require women to cover up too - Nuns have to, and in Pentecostalism women are not supposed to even wear make up.  That's pretty standard across all religions.  He said that it's only really in the last few years that people have become more relaxed about what women wear.  He gave me a brochure about the hijab and the basic bottom line was women wear it because they want looks and appearances to be taken out of the equation.  In other words it means that instead of women being sex objects they're treated as people on the inside.  In some ways this could actually prevent eating disorders and reduce pressure.  It would be interesting to know if the rate of eating disorders actually is lower in Islam as a result of the Muslim dress.  Even though Muslims would say the burqa, chador and niqab are not oppressive I do think the burqa and niqab should be banned as they are simply inappropriate in Australia.  And as for Muslim men, they grow beards because that is what Mohammed did according to the Koran. 

Of course, given I was there I had to ask him about ISIS in the sense of, "is it like how some pedophiles are Catholic and some terrorists happen to be Muslim but the two are not necessarily interdependent?" and he basically said yes.  He said that Muslims do want Sharia Law but not in the sense that ISIS is going about things.  He seemed peaceful based on the 30 minutes I spent chatting with him.

Apparently women are allowed to speak in Mosques too.  The only time women can't speak is during prayer.  Further research shows that some men don't want women present in prayer, BUT this wouldn't be exclusive to Islam.  Take for example Hillsong, Hillsong and other churches run women's conferences and men's conferences and in the business world there is still "an old boys club" which very few women manage to break through, but some do.

Throughout history all religions have been guilty of inciting violence and hatred based on their views, but in reality, in my view, based on the half hour conversation, I don't hate Islam anymore.  To me it is like all other religions.  It does oppress and it does restrict freedom, but as I say, that's true of all religions, so if you're going to hate Islam based on how it oppresses then in reality, you should hate all religion not just Islam.

Some people are against Halal because it's like having Islam shoved in your face, but is it really?  If someone wants to pray before killing an animal does that really affect the taste of it?  As long as we still have choice of what we buy and don't have to forsake our Australian values to make religious minorities happy I couldn't care less.  Research shows that even cat food and fitness snacks are halal.  It's harder to escape than you think, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, just don't stop selling certain things to appease a minority and we're all good.

And it is for this reason I am agnostic.  I prefer to live by my rules not a God/Allah which may or may not exist.  Religion has no place in the modern world.  You're either a good person who believes in not killing and respecting your neighbour, or you aren't.  You don't need religion to give you the virtues of common decency.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Aussie businesses have no respect and must think their staff are stupid

It would be a lie for people to say they haven't pulled sickies in the past because let's face it, everyone has pulled a sickie at one time or another.  People tend to use their annual leave when they run out of sick days and need to take a day off.

What if you are legally a casual employee though?  If you're legally a casual employee you have no access to sick pay.  You have no access to holiday pay.  Forget about taking any time off.  And on the off chance you do get sick then lucky for you, you're going to have to go to work sick.

First off, I want to define what a "casual employee" is in the legal sense and then I want to define what it is in practice.

Legally, according to Fair Work Australia, a casual employee:
  • has no guaranteed hours of work
  • usually works irregular hours
  • doesn't get paid sick or annual leave
  • can end employment without notice, unless notice is required by a registered agreement, award or employment contract. 
I want to discuss the first two points in particular.  Many companies are actually rorting the system.  How?  Well, although some industries are legitimately casual like acting work or seasonal work, there are many jobs where the employer will classify their staff as casual even though they are not actually casual.  What I mean by this is that although you're legally casual you probably do work the same days each week and you probably do have around the same hours each week, so why are you being called casual?  My bet is that employers don't realise that people have bills to pay.

So let's talk about that point for a while shall we?!  I don't know about you but I pay rent, and I have to pay rent every week, but when you're casual the reality is, your employer could turn around one day and say, "yeah I don't feel like giving you work today", so what that would mean is that you have no hours.  Generally speaking they don't do this though and generally speaking you will have approximately the same number of hours each week.  If you have approximately the same number of hours a week then in practice you're not actually casual, you'd be part time or full time.  Casual employment is supposed to mean that you do not have ongoing employment with a firm according to the Fair Work website, but many casuals actually do have ongoing work.

Employers will argue that the higher casual loading compensates but it doesn't.  It doesn't compensate because of the lack of security and it doesn't compensate because of the nature of legally casual employment.  Legally casual employment means, as I've said, tomorrow the employer could turn around and say "sorry we don't need you", so anyone with half a brain would prepare for that.  They would get ahead on bills, but getting ahead on bills doesn't mean they stop pouring in.  Financial commentators and advisers will say you should aim to have a window of about three months where you could have no income and be okay.  I have a window of about five weeks at the moment but that's a very tight window. 

This means that those who are legally casual have to act as if they could potentially have no work tomorrow and it means they cannot put money away for if they get sick, plus if you're legally casual then you may be scared to take sick or holiday leave and the employer doesn't legally have to keep the job open for you.  They can let you go at five minutes notice.  Most employers are decent and wouldn't do this but some rogue employers might.

Then there are periods where businesses shut down that you have to prepare for.  Let's take Christmas for example.  Over Christmas casual employees may have two weeks where they don't work so that means they have two weeks of no income, and as I've said, if you're casual you can't put money away for holidays because you have to get ahead on bills and rent or you potentially end up homeless.

So what other drawbacks does being casual have?  Well, apart from not being able to take holidays and having to go to work sick it means you can't do things like rent apartments, you can't take out hire purchases, forget about saving, you've gotta get ahead on bills (which is a form of saving admittedly) and forget about calling in sick because your job may not be there if you do. 

The bottom line and the major point I'm trying to make here is that employers need to stop using the term "casual" when some legally casual staff are not actually casual and do actually have ongoing work with a firm.  Not allowing staff to take holidays and forcing staff to go to work sick doesn't boost productivity and it will lead to higher staff turnover because nobody would put up with those conditions for more than a short term.

The casual loading does not compensate for instability.  Would it really be so hard for employers to put aside 8% (this is what it is in NZ) and five days (based on what you work, so if you work 20 hours a week, then one day would be approx 4 hours) sick pay each year to give casuals some type of stability and security?  This may not occur to employers but when you're casual there are so many things you cannot do.  It's manipulating the system to classify a staff member as casual when in practice that is not actually what they are.  Or would it be so hard to say, "okay, if you have more than 10 hours a week on average for 2-3 months we will classify you as part time flexible"?  If flexibility is what employers want then why not put a clause into the contract saying, "you will work as required and will receive holiday and sick pay based on your work".

What it comes down to is truly casual work is not ongoing, truly casual work means you don't have expectations in the employment.  Truly casual work means you don't have to work every week.  In reality, a lot of casuals are probably actually part time or full time flexible so classify as such or you will lose your good staff who will demand better conditions so they can pay their bills and have security and do basic things like take a day off when they're legitimately sick and rent an apartment.  These are basic things.  Having a roof over your head is a basic human right but people can't rent apartments or houses without stability and it is high time the law was reviewed because it's hurting staff, and making them go to work when sick does NOT boost productivity and it actually means they take longer to get better than if they were able to take ONE day off.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Cost of living isn't the issue, poor budgeting is.

How many times do you pick up a newspaper or go to a news website and see an article about people whinging about the cost of living?  It seems like almost everyday someone is unhappy they can't make ends meet.

News.com.au surveyed readers from the 29th of August about how they felt about their finances and the results of that survey were published today.  53,000 people participated in the self selected survey.  Of those surveyed the general consensus was that no matter what we earn we're still struggling.  Although this is just an anecdotal opinion supported by the comments on the latest News.com.au article this is because the more you earn the more you spend.  If you have a lower income your rent is likely to be lower and you may forgo certain "luxuries" and "wants" that you'd buy if your income was much higher.  It was suggested in the article that people with higher incomes tend to send their children to private school and spend more on accommodation and fancier cars (which really, depending on the year, you can get a luxury car for a similar price as a newer mainstream car.

I can support this claim.  When I was at university I thought $30,000 would be a massive income (at the time I was working part time and earning about $300 a week or $15,000 a year.  Fast forward a few years later and that's nothing.  That wouldn't even cover my rent, well yes, it would cover my rent and my transport and leave about $20 for food, phone etc.  Fortunately my income hasn't been that low in years.  The point I'm making though is the more you earn the more you want.  You adjust because your mentality changes and you start to think, "I can afford that". 

Isn't the purpose of having a higher income to start getting ahead?  How can you get ahead if you're spending more on items and services you don't need?  It would seem to me that you can't.

News.com.au spoke to three people back in August. 

One earned around $50,000 and spent $300 a week on rent.
Another earned $70,000 and spent $250 on rent and was saving for a house.
The third didn't provide information on their rent but said that they had a combined household income of $245,000 and struggled.

In the first case the problem is quite clear.  The woman is spending too much on rent and needs to move somewhere cheaper, although if she's spending $300 on rent, that leaves about $500 (this is based on an assumed after tax income of $800 per week), so where is the money going?  It seems to me she is living beyond her means.

The second is smart.  He's got the right idea spending only $250 a week on his rent.  He said he's saving for a house and putting away $1000 a month on good months.

I'd like to see the budget of the third one.  If you're struggling on $245,000 as a family of four then you are doing something wrong.  You should be able to put away $50,000 each year at least, and that would still give you the ability to live luxuriously.

The bottom line is that people are not struggling because of the cost of living, they're struggling because of poor financial decisions and if you really want to you can get ahead.  You just have to be careful with where you spend your money. 

Saturday, November 8, 2014

So apparently we're back in primary school & calling women dogs is okay - Julia Gillard was right, the men here are a pack of misogynistic jerks

For the last few months the mainstream media has decided to bully Jacqui Lambie.  And it is, it is bullying now.  At the start it might have been disagreeing with her controversial views but when you call her a dog as the image in the below link does, it's a situation that's gone too far, lost decency and just isn't cool.

pic.twitter.com/afn608ehyt

I don't have an issue with people disagreeing with Lambie's views.  Even I disagree with her views on using Remembrance Day to protest ADF wages but calling her a dog is a step too far and is not only derogatory to PUP leader Clive Palmer, it's disrespectful to women.

How in one week can we say catcalling isn't acceptable in various places in the world and then think it's okay to call a woman, an opinionated women a dog?  I try to avoid the issue but poor policy wasn't the only issue with former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, sexism was too.  If Gillard had been a man and changed her mind on the carbon tax it's highly unlikely she'd have received the flak she did as a result.  It's more probable people would simple have disagreed with the bloke, said the policies were awful and then moved on.  Even today however people on Twitter and in the mainstream media still think Julia Gillard is fair game for abuse.

Are we forgetting that Lambie is a person?  Given she was likened to a dog I think that's pretty obvious that we have forgotten that.  As a person she has thoughts, she has emotions and she cares about issues.

Like her or not Lambie has achieved more than these abusive people will achieve in a lifetime so please people, keep it clean.  If you're going to disagree with Senator Lambie, disagree with her, but don't lower yourself to calling her a dog.  It's highly offensive.

The Twitter picture took me to a link where a few people were discussing her and amongst the quotes were:

Bill Leak explained    @BLeakEksplayned

Jacqui Lambie should do what she is told. Women who are troublesome to the government are dogs to be kept on leashes. pic.twitter.com/kkgQ3wmxNx

I have real issue with Bill Leak's comment on the website quoted in this blog.  To repeat.

"Women who are troublesome to the government are dogs to be kept on leashes".

Haven't we moved past those days where women weren't allowed to speak their minds?  Haven't we moved past the days where women weren't respected for their ambition?   How can men here oppose the burqa and oppose Islam because it demeans women then have an issue with Lambie speaking her mind?

In all honesty I have noticed more sexism in Australia than in New Zealand and it needs to change, it needs to change urgently.  We are not just trophy wives, nor are we just supposed to sit there and look pretty or rely on a man to bring in the money (if I ever get married the guy needs to know it's 50/50 all the way - money, housework, everything split evenly down the middle).

So come on Aussie blokes, what are you actually afraid of?  Are you afraid of women in power?  

Dear Sydney Transport: if I could break up with you I would

I've been a public transport user for over 10 years. A few of those years have been in Sydney on and off.  People here whinge about timetables, myself included.  Today's bus was early and isn't too cold like they normally are.  I'm not going to lie, I don't pay full fare for tickets.  At first it was because some weeks my income was low but now it's political.  You see drivers seem to think they can disrespect paying customers.  I'm talking specifically about the Hills Bus company.  Their drivers are the worst and there is no competitor so it's not like people have a choice but to use the service so today's blog, written while on a bus is about my top five gripes using public transport:

1: Drivers treating us like children.  This time I tried to hide my coffee in my jacket after seeing the guy before me was told to throw his out too.  We are not children.  We're not going to spill out coffee.  Just because you have a menial job and are just a bus driver doesn't mean you can disrespect us or talk down to us.  It's coffee and we are not all slobs like you think.  I hate authority and rules.  You're not doing your company any good by patronising PAYING customers.  And on that note, why allow smelly food but not coffee?  That is the ultimate in insulting your customers.

2: Air conditioning.  This may not occur to the planners who probably don't even use transport but the air conditioning is always up so high you have to take a jersey for the trip alone & freeze.  It's not okay to make your passengers uncomfortable.

3: Litter on trains.  I get that some people are feral and think littering trains is okay but nobody wants to see your disgusting empty food wrappers wtc.  Trains should have one bin per carriage and people should teach their children basic hygiene.

4: Not arriving in time.  Some people have work and other places to get to.  If you're not on time then you're incredibly disrespectful to paying customers and messing with their schedules.  You may also be costing them money if they have to get a taxi due to incompetency.

5: Opal card.  Opal is a scam and unless you only use public transport to and from work you're going to end up paying more.  MyMulti is best for people who use public transport a lot.  Opal is just intended to make it look like the state government is doing something about transport issues, much like the investment in light rail which won't fix any transport issues.

These are just a few issues with Sydney's transport system.  If you have your own gripes I'd love to hear them, tweet me.

@lizlovessydney

Friday, November 7, 2014

What Lorde should do with her millions now that she has access due to turning 18 today

I've never seen a diamond in the flesh
I cut my teeth on wedding rings in the movies
And I'm not proud of my address.....

The song lyrics above need no introduction as they're from the most popular song of the year, and Grammy winning Kiwi artist Lorde.

The Auckland star turns 18 today which means that she will now have access to her funds.  She is estimated to be worth $11 million, though by the time her staff and the record company are paid it's closer to $7 million.

As you're well aware, Hollywood is filled with glitz and glamour, however some celebs blow their money.  Business tycoon Donald Trump, Larry King, Gary Coleman, Michael Jackson, Tammy Wynette and even Kiwi actor Karl Burnett have gone bankrupt after making a sizeable amount of money when they were at the peak of their careers.

Lorde is a smart girl with smart friends including Taylor Swift who has had the most successful album of the year with 1.1 million sales for 1989 in the first week alone.  Even smart people can make financial mistakes.

Lorde should use her money wisely and invest it in a property in Auckland, one in New York (seeing as she's buddies with Taylor, but that's a story for another blog, okay it's not really - it's probably been set up by the record labels), buy a nice car (does Lorde have a license?) and open a recording studio for young performers under 25 in Auckland and keep some in savings in case her career suddenly tanks.  That's not entirely out of the question.  Music publicist Paul Ellis told the New Zealand Herald today that once in a generation a singer comes along, and he proceeded to compare Lorde to Alanis Morissette who you may recall from Ironic, You Oughta Know and Hand in My Pocket.  That album was Morissette's most successful album and to date she has not repeated the success, so hopefully Lorde is nothing like Alanis.

Only time will tell.

Media shake ups in Australia and New Zealand - it's a blood bath everywhere

It's not often I read something useful Gossip Columnist Rachel Glucina's New Zealand Herald column but that's exactly what's happened just now. 

There's a shake up in the midst at TVNZ.  Deputy Political Editor Michael Parkin is leaving the network.  Heather Du Plessis Allen is moving into the press gallery.  This will see her depart from Seven Sharp which since its inception last year has struggled to hold onto staff for longer than a few months.  The carnage has been brutal - co anchors Greg Boyed departed to return to late night news broadcasting Ali Mau, Jesse Mulligan left at the end of last year and several reporters have left the show. 

The current hosts are Mike Hosking who also hosts breakfast on Newstalk ZB and Toni Street who is taking maternity time off in February next year as she and her husband are expecting another daughter.  It's unknown who will take over her role.

HDPA has been praised for her journalism style and could have been a future anchor due to her aggressive and fierce nature however now that she's moving to the press gallery after nine years of working to get in there it's unclear who will take over from Street, or if Mike will host the show alone.

HDPA will also work on stories for QANDA which will see her work alongside Rachel Smalley.  I wonder how those two will get along given their competitive natures.  It may be a recipe for disaster.

Speaking of disasters, there's a shake up in Sydney radio.  You would have had to have been living under a rock to not know that the 2Day FM breakfast show has failed since Kyle and Jacqui O quit for rival network Kiis FM at the beginning of this year.  First Mel B left, then Sophie Monk announced she was done with the show and now Jules and Merrick have announced they're bailing.  Merrick is moving to Drive on Triple M and Jules will compete with him for the Drive ratings.  He'll remain at the network until July when Hamish and Andy take control of the reigns. 

In other news it looks as if NZME (formerly GrabOne, The Radio Network and APN) will list ont he NZX next year, although the company's CEO Jane Hastings has said details are still be worked out, which let's face it, is code for, "we want to get our books in order so we can maximise profit and sell more shares".

Lambie needs to sack her press manager and the media needs to give her a break. This country does after all have free speech.

Tasmanian Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie has been quite the controversial MP since taking her seat in the Senate in July this year.  It all started when she said that she wants an Aussie bloke with a big penis and loads of money.  Following that she attracted controversy for her comments and call to ban the burqa and her anti Muslim sentiment.    She has been lambasted by people on all sides of the political spectrum and often appears dazed and confused.

Despite the criticisms from those in the mainstream media I was sympathetic towards Lambie, and still am to a degree.  Although she makes it very easy for the media and social media users to criticise her I do think she is misunderstood to a degree.

However, this week when she said that those in the Australian Defense Force should use Remembrance Day to protest against a low wage increase which doesn't even cover inflation, she went too far. 

Any day where soldiers and other defense force personnel are honoured should be treated as sacred and Lambie should have left it alone.

It's one thing to disagree with her views but people on Twitter and the likes of Piers Ackerman  and co are telling her to shut up and that she shouldn't speak.  This is Australia.  We have freedom of speech.  Remember, you're lambasting her for disrespecting defense force personnel and a sacred occasion yet you're telling her she has no right to enjoy the very freedoms we enjoy today because of them.

This is one issue where Lambie should apologise for what she said but she definitely shouldn't shut up.  She's a politician and we need people to speak their views, but she needs to learn how to better articulate them.

The first step would be for Palmer United Party founder and leader, Clive Palmer to have words with her in private.  Following that it would be beneficial if she hired a new press manager because her current one isn't doing a good job and he's only fueling the fire and anti Lambie sentiment.

And lets not forget, Lambie was fairly elected to the Tasmanian Senate and part of being a politician is of course to speak out on important issues.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

If brands are making women feel bad about their bodies its because women aren't happy in themselves and have low self esteem and they need to work on that

I don't like to write about body image but I am so incredibly sick of hearing about Dove and Victoria's Secret along with other companies like Top Shop being criticised for showing skinny models and according to website, Mamamia, "making women feel shit about their bodies". 

It's getting annoying hearing all this rubbish about how everybody's individual shape should be embraced and that we should be happy as we are.

Before I proceed, I've been every single weight imaginable.  As a kid I was skinny, then I became "the fat kid", then I had an eating disorder (bulimia, borderline anorexia and extreme dieting).  After that I was obese before being told publicly, in an acting class to lose weight.  When I tell people that story they think "oh that's so horrible" but it isn't.  The teacher who "fat shamed" me actually did me a favour.  I went home and something shifted.  I'd known I was obese but hadn't been willing and ready to do something about it.  The acting teacher gave me the push I needed.  Because of my history with eating disorders, and obesity is as much an eating disorder as anorexia and bulimia I knew that if I was going to lose weight and keep it off I had to do it the healthy way.  So at that moment I started going to the gym and working out.  I also modified my diet.  I decided then and there that if I was going to lose weight and keep it off I had to do it the healthy way.  Two years later and it's still off.

When I see headlines like, "stop making women feel shit about themselves" I get so annoyed because that's not what healthy eating and physical health is about and the reality is, if you feel shit about yourself it's because YOU feel shit BECAUSE OF YOU, not because of a mannequin in a shop.  If you're insecure about your body because of a mannequin then sorry, I have some news for you, you're not comfortable in your own skin.  You can only be truly happy in your own skin and not care about a mannequin in a shop when you take care of your body.

I'm not a stick figure.  I'm a healthy weight but mannequins and models don't affect me because I choose not to let them affect me.  I care more about my performance at the gym and I care more about maintaining a healthy weight.  To put it another way, if you don't look after your body then it's like anti obesity campaigner Katie Hopkins says, you will feel miserable about yourself.  I had a month without going to the gym due to financial reasons and I started going again a couple of weeks ago and my physical strength has improved.  This message seems to be lost in the mainstream media.

I am sick to death of reading articles about women feeling shit about their bodies because health isn't about that.  If you know you're healthy then you'll be happy and you won't care about a mannequin in a shop.  I think also that obesity has become so common it's been normalised and we've lost the true reason people should exercise and eat healthily.  It's because if you're not healthy you're going to be lethargic.  There's nothing quite like exceeding your personal expectations at the gym or knowing you're eating healthily.

Until we return to a message of health (BMI 18-25, the only people who say the BMI is rubbish are those who are in denial, which we all have been at some point in our lives) people will never be happy in themselves.  And the reality is, obesity doesn't sell and it shouldn't be promoted, just as anorexia shouldn't be.  The only way you can truly live a healthy life is to ensure you eat a healthy balanced diet and exercise regularly - that means not eating junk food just because it's there or skipping out on the gym.  Being healthy and promoting a message of health will also reduce instances of eating disorders and we need a mental shift or that won't happen; for example, if you have been obese then instead of just losing the physical weight, work out why you gained it in the first place and then you're more likely to keep it off.  This is something that Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig and all good gyms like Fitness First will promote.

Monday, November 3, 2014

What's happening to ZM? Are the managers at NZME trying to kill the station? More axings...

I don't like to make assumptions about stories in the media, or stories which haven't yet made it to the mainstream media, but earlier today I discovered that Luke and PJ from ZM are no longer hosting the night show.

PJ now hosts 10am - 3pm, presumably so Sarah Gandy can focus on her Programme Director duties which she stepped up to following Christian Boston's resignation last year.  And Luke is nowhere to be seen having finished at ZM recently.  You may recall that Jacqui Jensen was sacked last year despite having been with the network on and off since 2003.  She was axed around this time last year without any warning.  It's my understanding from her tweets that she was only told AFTER the show that she was going to be going.  Now Jay and Flynny host the show.  Zoe Marshall, Benji Marshall's wife co hosted for a while before leaving herself.  Jacqui managed to score herself another gig after the restraint of trade was completed and she now works for MediaWorks in various capacities.

In April this year Polly and Grant who hosted the morning show for 20 years were shifted from ZM to The Hits, formerly known as Classic Hits.  They were replaced with Megan, Fletch and Vaughan from The Edge.  Now it would seem Sarah Gandy has taken the axe to the hosts once again.

Guy and Georgia (the intern) now host the evening show and have done the last week.  It appears from Luke's Twitter page that he was fired from ZM because he is now unemployed.  I find it very hard to believe that you would voluntarily leave a gig at ZM to be unemployed.  It seems more logical that he was axed as Sarah tries to make more of a mark on the station.  ZM is owned by NZME, formerly known as TRN and has connections with radio stations in Australia.

Another thing is that Georgia is not an intern.  True interns aren't mentioned by the radio station.  Someone who is truly interning at a station will be behind the scenes and not receive any public mention.  It seems as if ZM is copying Sydney's Kiis FM (Kyle and Jacqui plus Pete the intern).

Are the managers at NZME trying to kill ZM?  It sure looks like it, or is Sarah Gandy trying to axe everyone who posed a threat to her personally?  Or is she simply trying to make her own mark on the station and killing it in the process?  For the first time ever, The Hits actually looks better and more credible than ZM, as does The Edge which has strong personalities.  ZM has killed off strong personalities (other than Megan, Fletch and Vaughan who won't go the distance like previous ZM announcers have).

Viewers are switching off the TV because the content is awful, not because of summer

In the 1990s, people were sick of unrealistic soap operas so the reality TV show genre grew.  It started with the Survivor series which is still going today and has moved far beyond that to cooking shows, home renovation shows and other mindless reality TV.

The newspapers such as Melbourne's Herald Sun and the networks are asking where the viewers have gone?  They attribute the poor viewing to summer saying that people typically stay outside and don't watch TV during the warmer months when the daylight hours are longer.  I however completely disagree that summer is why the viewers are leaving.  Viewers are ditching television because honestly, it's not worth watching.

Why would you watch a show about someone doing up their homes when you could renovate your own home or hang out with friends, or online?  Why would you watch mindless reality TV when you could download programmes from overseas websites?  And why would you watch TV when the quality is so poor and appalling?

I broadcast on Twitter a few days ago that I haven't owned a TV in eight years.  So how does one live without a TV?  It's simple really.  I get all my news online.  Back in 2001 only 37% of households in New Zealand had access to the internet.  I was in that 37%.  That compared with 80% in 2012.  The statistics are very similar in Australia with 37% of households having access to the internet.  In 2012 that number had more than doubled to 83%.

Given the high internet usage in both Australia and New Zealand one might wonder why we even need a television these days.  Unlike other mediums, computers in whatever format - desktop, lap top, tablet, mobile phone (yes, mobile phones are included because today they're more computer than telephone), can do so much more.  One minute on a computer you could be writing an article, the next you could be watching your favourite TV show or movie or reading some news.  Computers are a multi faceted device.

Given this, is it any wonder that TV viewership rates are declining?  Not really, especially when the Australian networks receive television content months after it has screened overseas and when there huge amounts of ads.  in a 6 minute period you're looking at around 14 minutes of advertising time.  Why would you watch TV when you could either download from a site like Netflix or when you could just wait for it to be released in the iTunes or Google Play store?  It's a no brainer really.

Sadly the networks, like mainstream news organisations don't understand that by producing cheaper content they're actually shooting themselves in the foot.  If you want viewers to watch so you can charge a premium for advertising then you must deliver a quality product.  The executives at television networks seem to think that people have nothing better to do with their time than watch mindless rubbish.  This isn't true, and could partially explain why people spend more and more time on their computers/phones/tablets.  Computers etc offer a more interactive experience and you can choose exactly how you use it, without being dictated to by someone else's timetable and what they deem worthy of watching......A prime example of this is The Bachelor, but even the newspapers have jumped on the bandwagon with the Black/Sam/Louise saga gaining traction following the end of the show.  Even if you didn't watch the programme, you may be drawn into reading the drama unfold.  It's being told as a soap opera, so that begs the question, why aren't people commissioning genuine soap operas anymore?  If you want the viewers to come you have to deliver content they want to watch.

Until the networks start delivering new worthwhile viewing, the statistics are going to continue to decline until television eventually dies in its current format.  Will dramas become episodic movies/films, that are watched online or will TV find its way again?  I'm not sure to be honest.  I think it depends on the programmers and if they start listening to what the public wants, because it's not reality TV.  Reality TV has been done to death and the networks need to start producing in house dramas and comedies.

Until they do, more and more people, like me, who hasn't owned a TV in eight years, will switch off.