Governments must not allow private, profit-seeking parties such as Facebook Inc.to put the entire global financial system at risk

Wikipedia, 22 June 2019:

A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses strong cryptography to secure financial transactions, control the creation of additional units, and verify the transfer of assets. Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control as opposed to centralized digital currency and central banking systems……

As the popularity of and demand for online currencies has increased since the inception of bitcoin in 2009, so have concerns that such an unregulated person to person global economy that cryptocurrencies offer may become a threat to society. 

Concerns abound that altcoins may become tools for anonymous web criminals.

Cryptocurrency networks display a lack of regulation that has been criticized as enabling criminals who seek to evade taxes and launder money.

The Guardian, 22 June 2019:

Facebook is developing Libra from a base in Switzerland, in partnership with 27 other corporations – including Mastercard, Paypal, Uber and Vodafone – collectively known as the Libra Association.

Financial Review, 21 June 2019:

Facebook has just unveiled its latest bid for world domination: Libra, a cryptocurrency designed to function as private money anywhere on the planet. In preparing the venture, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been in negotiations with central banks, regulators, and 27 partner companies, each of which will contribute at least $US10 million. For fear of raising safety concerns, Facebook has avoided working directly with any commercial banks.

Zuckerberg seems to understand that technological innovation alone will not ensure Libra’s success. He also needs a commitment from governments to enforce the web of contractual relations underpinning the currency, and to endorse the use of their own currencies as collateral. Should Libra ever face a run, central banks would be obliged to provide liquidity.

The question is whether governments understand the risks to financial stability that such a system would entail. The idea of a private, frictionless payment system with 2.6 billion active users may sound attractive. But as every banker and monetary policymaker knows, payment systems require a level of liquidity backstopping that no private entity can provide.

Unlike states, private parties must operate within their means, and cannot unilaterally impose financial obligations on others as needed. That means they cannot rescue themselves; they must be bailed out by states, or be permitted to fail. Moreover, even when it comes to states, currency pegs offer only an illusion of safety. Plenty of countries have had to break such pegs, always while insisting that “this time is different”.

What sets Facebook apart from other issuers of “private money” is its size, global reach, and willingness to “move fast and break things.” It is easy to imagine a scenario in which rescuing Libra could require more liquidity than any one state could provide. Recall Ireland after the 2008 financial crisis. When the government announced that it would assume the private banking sector’s liabilities, the country plunged into a sovereign debt crisis. Next to a behemoth like Facebook, many nation-states could end up looking a lot like Ireland.

Facebook is barreling ahead as if Libra was just another private enterprise. But like many other financial intermediaries before it, the company is promising something that it cannot possibly deliver on its own: the protection of the currency’s value. 

Libra, we are told, will be pegged to a basket of currencies (fiat money issued by governments), and convertible on demand and at any cost. But this guarantee rests on an illusion, because neither Facebook nor any other private party involved will have access to unlimited stores of the pegged currencies…..

Read the full article here.

Will the Clarence Valley see an upgrade of Grafton Base Hospital within the next three years or will it take a decade to commence?

Grafton Base Hospital is a 50-99 bed public health facility which offers health services to an est. 51,647 resident population in the Clarence Valley on the NSW North Coast and an additional annual tourist population which can reach or exceed 1 million visitors.

In the first quarter of 2019 ambulance arrivals at Grafton Hospital were up 11.5 per cent, emergency department presentations rose by 3 per cent, emergency presentations climbed by 4.2 per cent, hospital admissions increased by 14.9 per cent with acute admissions totalling 3,127 patients and the elective surgery waiting times continued to grow.

In that same quarter during the NSW state election campaign the Nationals MP for Clarence on behalf of the Berejiklian Coalition Government promised voters in the Clarence Electorate a much needed $263.8-million overhaul of Grafton Hospital.

At the time doubts were raised about the genuineness of this promise as it contained little detail.

Those doubts are now resurfacing……

The Daily Examiner, 21 June 2019, p.3:

A major hospital upgrade looks to be a while off as the Clarence Valley joins the long queue of regions promised big projects at the New South Wales election.

The $263million commitment to the Grafton Base Hospital redevelopment was made in the final weeks of the campaign in March and is just one of many major infrastructure promises outlined in the 2019-20 Budget Papers.

However, there there was no specific line item in the 2019-20 Budget and Nationals MP Chris Gulaptis was quick to point out it would take time.

“It’s not a line item as such as we are still in the very early planning stages but there is a commitment for works to commence during this term of government,” he said.

“In the meantime, consultation needs to occur between the LHD, clinicians and the community to ensure the redeveloped hospital is able to provide for the community into the future.”

Mr Gulaptis said he had received assurances from Premier Gladys Berejiklian, Treasurer Dominic Perrotet and Deputy Premier John Barilaro that all election commitments would be honoured and provided a letter from Health Minister Brad Hazzard responding to representations he made after winning the election.

In the letter, Mr Hazzard said the project was one of many promised but work would still start before the end of the current term of parliament.

“In the period prior to the March election, the NSW Government announced a significant number of upgrades to hospital and health facilities across the state,” he said.

“This requires a prioritisation of when projects will commence over the next four years and will occur in alignment with the annual budget process.

“Once funding is made available through the budget process, Health Infrastructure will work with the local health district and clinical staff to progress the project through the planning stages.”......

Is Australia really a fair and just country or is it nothing more than a collection of Scott Morrison clones?

In 2017-18 there were on average 236 requests for housing assistance made every day which were not able to be met by specialist homelessness agencies across Australia.

This figure represents in excess of 86,000 requests for emergency housing assistance - from individuals, couples, parents with small children and elderly Australians -  which were not met in thatfinancial year.

Yet social housing stocks does not appear to be keeping pace with population growth or the needs of people living in insecure accommodation or existing on the street.

Social housing as a share of all housing has been falling since the start of this century and, in total state, territory and federal governments spent est. 2.1 per cent of total government expenditure on social housing and homelessness services in both 2016-17 and 2017-18 according to the Productivity Commission's Reporton Government Services in 2018 & 2019.

Affordable and available private rental is also in short supply.

Homelessness is not confined to the cities either. Here in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales there are hundreds of people without accommodation.

By the end of 2018 the Australian population had grown to over 25 million people and an estimated 190,000 were on social housing waiting lists. 

The population now stands at an over 25,384,573, with est. one birth every 1 minute and 40 seconds, one death every 3 minutes and 19 seconds and one person arriving to live in Australia every 56 seconds,

At state, territory and federal levels government is well aware of the housing situation, yet Morrison & Co in particular still describe calls for further spending on government services such as housing as being calls based on the “politics of envy”.

These days I often read comments on social media asking when it was we stopped being a fair, just and kind country.

Well the truth is that Australia was never the fair, just and kind society we liked to think it was.

Just look at out history when it comes to Aboriginal Australia, children in institutional care, our aged and disability care systems and our treatment of refugees.

What governments since Federation have done is paper over the cracks between what we are and what we believe about ourselves. They did this by funding a wide range of government services to meet basic human needs like safety, shelter, food, education and health care.

Since 2013 the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has been walking away from adequately providing many of these basic services, by year in and year out failing to increase funding, reducing funding or cutting funding altogether.

BACKGROUND

This is what the Australian Parliamentary Library had to say on the subject of homelessness in March 2018:

On 14 March 2018, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released their homelessness estimates, based on the 2016 Census of Population and Housing.

Under the ABS definition, a person is homeless if they do not have suitable accommodation alternatives and their current living arrangement:

 is in a dwelling that is inadequate, or

·         has no tenure, or if their initial tenure is short and not extendable, or

·         does not allow them to have control of, and access to space for social relations.

    The key homelessness estimates from the 2016 Census are that:

·         there were 116,427 people enumerated in the Census classified as being homeless on Census night (up from 102,439 in 2011)

·         the homelessness rate was 50 persons for every 10,000 persons—up five per cent from the 48 persons in 2011, and up on the 45 persons in 2006

·         the homelessness rate rose by 27 per cent in New South Wales, while Western Australia fell 11 per cent and the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory each fell by 17 per cent

·         most of the increase in homelessness between 2011 and 2016 was reflected in people living in 'severely' crowded dwellings, up from 41,370 in 2011 to 51,088 in 2016

·         the number of people in supported accommodation for the homeless in 2016 was 21,235; almost unchanged from 2011

·         there were 17,503 homeless people in boarding houses in 2016, up from 14,944 in 2011

·         the number of homeless people in improvised dwellings, tents or sleeping out in 2016 was 8,200, up from 6,810 in 2011

·         people who were born overseas and arrived in Australia in the last five years accounted for 15 per cent (17,749 persons) of all persons who were homeless

·         the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who were homeless was 361 persons per 10,000 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, a decrease from 487 in 2011

·         the number of homeless persons aged 55 years and over continued to increase, from 12,461 in 2006, to 14,581 in 2011 and 18,625 in 2016 (a 28 per cent increase between 2011 and 2016). The rate of older persons experiencing homelessness has also increased, from 26 persons per 10,000 of the population in 2011 up to 29 persons per 10,000 in 2016 and

·         the male homelessness rate increased to 58 males per 10,000 males, up from 54 in 2011, while the rate for females remained steady at 42 per 10,000 females.

Severe crowding and social housing

As noted above, a majority of the increase in homelessness between 2011 and 2016 was a result of more Australians living in severely crowded dwellings. This was also the case between the 2006 and 2011 Censuses.

While homelessness is not just the result of too few houses, severe overcrowding does suggest that there is a need for more housing that is affordable to low- to middle-income earners, and social housing in particular. Social housing is housing that is managed by either state and territory housing authorities or community housing providers and made available at below market rates to people who are unable to access suitable accommodation in the private rental market.

Despite Australia’s social housing stock having grown over the years, this has not been at a rate sufficient to keep pace with household growth and demand. As at 30 June 2017, there were 189,404 applicants on the waiting list for social housing across Australia. A significant proportion of these applicants are likely to be households in greatest need—that is, households that are homeless, in housing inappropriate to their needs or that is adversely affecting their health or placing their life and safety at risk, or, have very high rental housing costs.

Severe overcrowding is particularly prevalent among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, with 70 per cent of homeless Indigenous Australians in this position. The latest homelessness estimates indicate that the rate of homeless Indigenous Australians fell between the 2011 and 2016 Censuses. If this rate is to continue to fall then this may hinge to some extent on the outcome of negotiations currently underway between the Australian Government and the states and territories over Commonwealth funding for housing for Indigenous people following the expiry of the National Partnership on Remote Housing in June 2018.

Homelessness by geography

In the linked spreadsheet, the Parliamentary Library has compiled homelessness estimates by ABS geographical areas and homelessness operational groups. Table 1 details total homeless persons by Statistical Area 2. Table 2 sets out total homeless persons by Statistical Area 3 and operational group.

Table 1 also lists the Commonwealth electorate that is most aligned with each SA2. Electorate estimates cannot be derived from this table.

Addressing disadvantage shouldn’t be a zero-sum game in New South Wales

NSW Council of Social Services (NCOSS), media release, 18 June 2019:

NSW BUDGET DELIVERS FOR DRAG RACING, NOT THE DISADVANTAGED

The NSW Budget is a missed opportunity from the NSW Government to tackle social issues and reduce disadvantage across the state.

When the Premier was re-elected in March 2019 she promised to “…focus on tackling social issues to reduce disadvantage,” but it’s difficult to see how this Budget achieves that.

NCOSS CEO, Joanna Quilty, said despite some positive initiatives, the Budget does not do enough for those doing it tough, particularly on cost of living, housing and support for vulnerable families.

“Overall, there is not a lot to get excited about. By and large it’s more of the same,” said Ms Quilty,

“Disturbingly, there seems to be less money this year for energy rebate programs to help low-income households manage financial pressures.

“While there is $33.4 million for a drag racing strategy there is only $30 million to support children in out-of-home care with complex needs – a reduction in funding made available last year.

“I am not saying that something like drag racing is not a worthy cause, I am just saying that we should be in a race to reduce poverty, and addressing disadvantage shouldn’t be a zero-sum game. 

“The community sector is dealing with ever-increasing demand for services as more people in NSW fall through the cracks, but this Budget does little to address that.

“There are some positives in mental health, with mobile dental clinics, TAFE courses for the young and older people returning to work, and funding to support free school breakfasts to 500 schools.

“But is it safe to say that as a whole, the Premier’s post-election promises to address disadvantage are yet to be fulfilled.”

Despite the Premier’s commitment to halve street homelessness by 2025, there is no new or additional funding for initiatives to support this, nor for additional social and affordable housing.

“In NSW we have a growing homeless population, a social housing waiting list of 60,000 and waiting times of up to 10 years in some areas – we need to be doing more on housing,” Ms Quilty said.

“If people have a safe, secure, affordable place to call home, they are more likely to be able to get a job, be a good parent and be a productive member of their community.

“Despite rhetoric about wanting to intervene early in the lives of vulnerable children and families, there is little mention of early intervention and no additional funding.”

For more information on NCOSS, go to www.ncoss.org.au.

Tweet of the Week

VIC state politician @FionaPattenMLC has released a statement on One Nation's @MRobertsQLD being re-elected to the Senate: pic.twitter.com/RbhlOmeVCL

— Josh Butler (@JoshButler) June 19, 2019

Cartoon of the Week

@cathywilcox1

Clarence Valley Council is considering prohibiting the sale or distribution of balloons on council controlled land

Clarence Valley Council is considering prohibiting the sale or distribution of balloons on council controlled land.

Given the numerous waterways within the Clarence Valley such a ban would be a wise move.

Typically those councillors who are ideologically opposed to any move to protect the environment and local wildlife will be out to quash the motion progressing the proposed ban when it comes before the Ordinary Monthly Meeting on 25 June 2019.

It will be more than disappointing if they succeed, as plastic waste is becoming highly visible in river and beach sand

Excerpts from Clarence Valley Council’s 18 June 2019 Environment, Planning & Community Committee Business Paper:

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. All balloons be prohibited on Council managed lands and facilities.

2. The terms and conditions for the hire of Council parks and facilities be amended to restrict the sale and distribution of balloons.

3. Council’s Market Policy be amended to include a condition restricting the sale and distribution of balloons and the changes adopted.

4. Future development consents for function centres or similar facilities be conditioned to restrict the sale and distribution of balloons.

5. Council implement a public awareness campaign about the environmental impacts of balloons.

BACKGROUND

There has been considerable community debate over many years regarding the adverse environmental impacts from the release of balloons into the environment. At its meeting held on 8 February 2019 the Climate Change Advisory Committee resolved to recommend that Council:

1. Prohibit all balloons on Council managed land.

2. Include a condition in any development consent for function centres (Party/Event venues) to prohibit balloons.

3. Instigate a public awareness campaign about the environmental impacts of balloons.

KEY ISSUES

Any released balloon, at best, becomes litter. They may also end up in the stormwater, rivers and oceans where they are ingested by aquatic animals. The balloons, along with any ribbons or plastic disks attached, can harm the animals by blocking their airways or becoming lodged in their intestines. Balloons and balloon fragments are often mistaken for food and swallowed, which can cause injury and death. The string attached to the balloon can also be dangerous as they can strangle or entrap animals. Birds have been found tangled in the strings of balloons making them unable to fly or search for food. A 2016 CSIRO study identified balloons among the top three most harmful pollutants threatening marine wildlife, along with plastic bags and bottles.

NSW Legislation

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act (POEO) makes it illegal to release more than 20 helium filled balloons, the release of any type of balloon would also be considered a littering offence under the POEO Act.

Management Controls

Council has a number of opportunities to control the use of balloons on Council controlled lands through the terms and conditions for the approval and hire of various parks and facilities. Councils ‘Market Policy’ could be amended to include a condition banning the sale or distribution of balloons. Council can also impose a condition on development consents for any future function centre or similar development restricting the use of balloons. It is not envisaged that Council Rangers would actively enforce these controls, rather they would be managed through the hiring and approval systems with event organisers.

Alternatives to Balloons

There are many examples of alternatives to balloons including flags, banners, streamers, dancing inflatables, bunting, lighting of candles and luminaries, battery operated bubble blowing machine and plants or gifts in remembrance.