NSW: The prison state

If further evidence is needed to show that the NSW government has adopted a "lock 'em up and throw away the keys" approach to sentencing offenders, look no further than a sentence imposed by a magistrate in a NSW local court this week.

An offender appeared in a local court on a charge of driving with a mid-range prescribed concentration of alcohol. Admittedly the offender wasn't a clean-skin, but when a suggestion was made that the offender be sentenced to periodic detention the magistrate was told by a court officer there were no places available in periodic detention so that was ruled out as an option. Result: the offender was sentenced to six months’ jail. Read a report on the matter here.

Also, NSW magistrates have stated that their hands are often tied in relation to mentally ill persons when they appear in court. Those persons often end up in jail due to the lack of proper facilities that would better cater for their situations.

A magistrate said, “You shouldn’t have mentally ill people in jail – (it's) just not the place for them. There are clearly people who I’ve had before me – if you look at the facts and their background – and clearly there is a mental health issue – and yet a lot of the times they are held in custody when they should really be in hospital."

The magistrate's comment concurred with a media statement from the Mental Health Council of Australia which stated that jail exacerbated mental illness for sufferers, making the system counter productive." Read about this here.

But things don't end there.

Now, the NSW Attorney General, John Hatzistergos, is pushing for violent offenders to be kept in prison beyond their sentences if they show signs of being insufficiently rehabilitated by the NSW prisons system. Hatzistergos reckons special categories of offenders should go to prison for indeterminate periods, until the government decides their time is up. Read more about this here.

Does Target know something about about the Rudd Government's income management scheme that the rest of us don't?

"In its submission to the Senate inquiry into the new policy, the Society of St Vincent de Paul said: "Income management is returning social policy in Australia to the Depression-era Sustenance Allowance, commonly referred to as the 'susso'. The present legislation seeks to turn back the clock to provide the modern equivalent to a food ticket."
Of the 80 welfare organisations that made submissions to the inquiry, only two were in favour. Government reports have noted bad outcomes from income management over the last two years, including the 2008 Yu report and the 2009 productivity report.
The reports said that since income management began domestic violence reports in the targeted communities have increased 61%, substance abuse by 77%, school enrolments have remained unchanged, child malnutrition is higher and the total number of confirmed cases of child abuse rose from 66 in 2006-07 to 227 in 2008-09." {The Green Left in April 2010}

Nearly fell over backwards this week when I discovered that Target stores in New South Wales are advertising the Rudders-Macklin Centrelink BasicsCard beside their cash registers.
Maud up the Street swears that one store on the North Coast insisted that this income management scheme went operational this month across the state.
Now I know Big Brother government has spread like wildfire in Australia, but surely even Mother Macklin wouldn't impose national welfare payment quarantining for the unemployed, families and students before the NT state-wide trial of this scheme had even commenced.
So has this big multinational chain store got it wrong or is welfare payment rationing being advanced by stealth?
Either way it's not a good look and Maud reckons she's going to think twice about shopping at a store which obviously relishes its role in beating up on the less well-off.

The little town that doesn't....

Doesn't want McDonald's plastic hambugers and wall-to-wall litter that is.

Pic found on Facebook

Mercurius on Hockey-ed Wingnuts

Can't do better today than to read Mercurius across at Larvatus Prodeo as he hold forth on Wingnut as she is spoke: “Personal responsibility”.
Here's the journalist's take on Aussie Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey's free market credentials Joe Hockey blames government intervention for global financial crisis; and here is Uncle Joe's speech IN DEFENCE OF ENTERPRISE' ADDRESS TO THE EIDOS INSTITUTE 12:30PM WEDNESDAY 14 APRIL 2010.
Particularly enjoy the fact that the boy thinks that:
"Enterprise separates the human species from the rest of the Earth’s living creatures. Without it, human beings would have achieved nothing beyond our most basic animal needs".
Yup. Forget empathy, altruism, collective effort and opposable thumbs - 'twas the individual and free markets which set us firmly on the path out of pre-historic Africa.

My old mum was right - Teh Tube makes us dumb

One from the locker that I forgot to post!

I don't know how many times as a teenager I was told that the television in the living room was an 'idiot box'.
All those visions of Frankie Ifield yodelling, rope petticoats swirling and (by today's standards) sedate rocking around the clock apparently set the old grey matter permanently on snooze mode.
Only grandads glued to the cricket on the radio were immune to its insidious effects.
And it looks like my old mum was right - lotsa Aussies have finally forgotten how to turn the thing on!


mUmBRELLA says: "Total prime time TV audiences have fallen below 5m in Australia, according to a new analysis of viewing data so far this year. This is despite the arrival of the new Freeview and subscription TV channels to tempt viewers. According to the analysis of figures across the prime 6pm to 10.30pm slot, the average audience has fallen from 5,027,868 in 2008 to 4,969,810 in 2009. This marks a decline of around 60,000 prime time viewers per evening – or a fall of just over 1%. This is despite the Australian population growing by more than 2% during the same period."

Pic from GraniteGrok

Who was it that told McDonald's that it didn't have to bother with decent supporting documentation for its proposed fast food development in Yamba?

In a previous post I pointed out that the Australian arm of that large foreign multinational McDonald's had included a misleading Traffic Impact Assessment with its Development Application (DA) for a 24 hour eat-in and drive-through fast food outlet in Yamba at the mouth of the Clarence River on the NSW North Coast.

A brief look at the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) it also lodged with Clarence Valley Council in support of this new development shows that its spin above fact attitude continues.

On Page 13 McDonald's describes a prefabricated building of "compressed fibre cement with applied finishes. The applied finishes are in a combination of colours, including grey, black, brown and red that provides a distinctive 'MacDonald's' look" as being "designed to reflect a coastal character".

This hardly sounds like a building with coastal character or one which would be markedly sympathetic to either Yamba's existing post-2000 commercial and original architecture mix in Treelands Drive and environs or to the town's tourism branding objectives.

Based on the basic layout diagrams supplied, the McDonald's store intended for Yamba may look very like the facade of this one at Sydney's domestic airport although positioned differently on the proposed block:
That McDonald's has done better than these aesthetically barren generic pre-fabs is evidenced by what the company has done in other countries which have obviously demanded a more culturally sensitive approach and more appropriately sized signage, as exampled by Singapore:
McDonald's Australia has not confined itself to spin about its architectural plans. At times its description of matters both it and Clarence Valley shire councillors must properly consider in relation to the Treelands Drive DA is downright misleading.

In the text on Page 8 of the SEE, McDonald's states; "Bounding the subject land is a a vacant lot zoned 2(a) Residential under Maclean Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2001...."

However, there are actually two adjoining vacant residential lots at the rear of the site with building entitlements.

Clarence Valley Council's own mapping supplied to McDonald's clearly shows that although both are zoned low density residential and are on the same deposited plan, these are two separate lots. As does Council's online interactive mapping which clearly indicates two different street numbers, lot numbers and land area dimensions:
Google Maps and Google Earth also show these two lots - but just to be on the safe side I telephoned the Yamba real estate agency which is currently selling one of these vacant lots and this agency is under the same impression.

If all this mapping is correct then this is a serious omission on McDonald's part because both of these residential lots in Kookaburra Court need to have any impacts on amenity considered before development consent is either given or refused, as does the house which abuts a rear corner of the development site. Consideration which McDonald's appears intent on downplaying by 'disappearing' one lot entirely from much of its documentation text.

As for its general understanding of the commercial precinct in which it seeks to place this hamburger joint - this would border on the hilarious if the issue was not so serious.

McDonald's asserts that two businesses (which are very visibly extinct in Treelands Drive) are actually alive and well and, doesn't appear to understand that there is a permanent cinema in Yamba which is not only alive and well but in the process of expanding its seating.

Now McDonald's Australia is no stranger to NSW planning legislation and local government requirements, so its very lackadaisical and unprofessional approach to the Yamba development application is quite frankly puzzling.

To recap; this multinational states that it doesn't know details of bus routes in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site, has not done a meaningful study of the two Treelands Drive intersections subject to significant increases in traffic if the development were to go ahead, appears ignorant of the number of properties adjoining the site, obviously has not adequately looked at the character of either the street or town and probably intends to build the restaurant to a set design with no distinctive 'coastal' character.

On 9 February 2010 McDonald's and Clarence Valley Council staff had a pre-lodgement meeting and the company asserts in the SEE Introduction that the DA "meets pre-lodgement conditions".

Which leaves me pondering a question: Who was it that apparently gave McDonald's Australia the impression that it would be acceptable for the company to just throw together a token Statement of Environmental Effects and Traffic Assessment attached to the building design and site layout?

I can think of no other reason for such inaccurate information being so insouciantly presented for consideration by Council in the Chamber in the near future, except that McDonald's has formed an opinion that the Yamba community can be discounted and shire councillors herded like so may sheep.

How Teh Mighty Marohasy has fallen

Had to smile at this from Jen herself:
Jennifer Marohasy is sceptical of the consensus position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and gives entertaining and informative talks on 'Climategate'. Dr Marohasy is quoted in the leaked emails from the UK's Climate Research Unit.
Gee whiz - quoted in a few emails. What fame!