|
|
|
Steve's Say - Previous issues of the Month What are your views on the problem of Binge drinking? Binge drinking, especially amongst teenagers, has been a prominent issue in the media of late. Both State and Commonwealth Governments have recently released programs to try and curb alcohol related violence and health issues. The Commonwealth Government has recently standardised the tax on all alcoholic beverages which has resulted in Ready-to-Drink (RTD’s) drinks, commonly known as “alcopops”, increasing in price. Previously, RTD beverages we classed as soft drink containing alcohol rather than just an alcoholic drink. This resulted in a lower tax being placed on RTD’s which in turn meant they were more affordable than beer, wines or unmixed spirits. The change in the tax regime on RTD’s has resulted in an increase of between about $0.50 and $1.50 per drink. So your average 6 pack of RTD’s has increased by around $6. It is hoped this increase in cost of RTD’s will result in teenagers drinking less as they will be less able to afford an amount of alcohol that would result in them getting overly drunk. The State Government has recently implemented the Victorian Alcohol Action Plan which will combat excessive drinking in a number of ways. Key features of the Victorian Alcohol Action Plan include:
What do you think of these approaches? Are these measures going to be successful in combating excessive drinking? Have the State and Federal Governments gone not far enough, far enough or too far? What strategies do you suggest for tackling this issue? Steve’s Say The State Parliament’s Education and Training Committee is conducting an inquiry into school uniforms and dress codes for Victorian schools. As a member of the committee, I am interested in hearing your views about school uniforms. Compulsory school uniforms are often a topic of much debate amongst parents, students and schools. People often have strong views on both the need for and opposition to compulsory school uniforms. Whilst some people argue that school uniforms are expensive, take up too much school time on enforcement, and detract from students' sense of individuality, others argue that they are cost effective, avoid a daily trauma of fashion choice and help instil pride in a young person's views of their school. This inquiry will look at various issues regarding school uniforms and dress codes and I invite students, parents and families to provide comments which I will compile and submit to the Inquiry. Currently, individual School Councils at government schools, have the authority to establish a dress code for their students. This dress code may require students to wear a compulsory uniform or it may set out broad guidelines for student appearance. The dress code must not directly or indirectly discriminate against students on the basis of sex, race, religion or disability and it must apply consistently to all students. It is also important that broader school communities are involved in the development of an appropriate dress code policy, to ensure that the policy is workable. Questions which you may like to consider and provide me with your views on include:
Follow these links for details on the Parliamentary Inquiry and the existing uniforms policy.
Question: Should Victoria have a Bill of Rights? Steve’s Say – Recently, the Victorian Government has flagged the issue of a Bill of Rights for Victoria, and has appointed a prominent four-member panel to lead a discussion on human rights and consult the community on ideas for a Victorian Human Rights Act. Under the proposal for consultation, the Attorney-General, Rob Hulls would be required to certify that all Victorian Law complied with defined human rights standards, and courts would be able to make declarations if a piece of legislation was incompatible with the state’s defined rights and freedoms. The proposed framework for a Victorian Bill of Rights would mean fundamental human rights standards were defined and safeguarded in line with community expectations while upholding the role of Parliament. Modern day Victoria has an excellent human rights record –our basic rights such as the right to a fair trial, protection from persecution, freedom of speech and to the right to vote are all upheld. However, unlike America and most other countries, Australia does not have a formal instrument such as a Bill of Rights that enshrines our citizen rights and responsibilities – one that mediates between the state and its citizens to ensure people’s liberties are protected. In fact, Australia now finds itself as one of the last developed nations not to have a a Bill of Rights. Our fellow Commonwealth countries such as the UK, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand have all passed legislation to this effect over the past 25 years. Even Afghanistan now has a Bill of Rights. As both a current safeguard and a guide for our future civil liberties, a Bill of Rights makes sense. In catching up with the rest of the world, the State Government will now explore the merits of the various Bill of Rights models currently in use around the globe – including the ACT Human Rights Act, introduced last year. It has been argued that it is not possible to enshrine the full spectrum of rights and responsibilities of our citizens in a Bill of Rights, and that the role of our judges in interpreting the law is sufficient. In developing a model most suitable for Victoria, the State Government understands how important it is to strike the right balance. But, first and foremost, we need to have a full discussion with the aim of ultimately improving and securing human rights in our future.
Should the Federal Government take a more proactive role in supporting Australian citizens, such as Schapelle Corby, who are involved in overseas legal procedures? Steve’s say…. As we are all aware, an Australian citizen, Schapelle Corby is currently on trial in Bali, accused of smuggling $4.1kg of marijuana in October last year. The marijuana was allegedly discovered in her boogie-board bag. This case has attracted an enormous amount of attention in Australia over the past month. We have all followed Ms Corby’s plight to plead a case of innocence in light of an extremely punitive Indonesian legal system that serves life and death sentences for charges such as hers. Whilst the case remains a matter for the Indonesian courts, explosive revelations have recently emerged that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have recently dismantled a Sydney drug smuggling syndicate who were using baggage handlers at Sydney Airport to move their illegal cargo. It has also been revealed that these smugglers were operating out of Sydney Airport the day Schapelle Corby left for Bali. This has invoked calls on the Federal Government to adopt a more proactive role in Ms Corby’s case - particularly as evidence which may be pertinent to her case – such as that discovered through the AFP’s investigations – was at their disposal to supply. It is clear that there was an Australian Federal Police investigation under way that ran concurrent to Ms Corby’s case and may have produced vital information supporting her defence argument. Why wasn’t this information tendered immediately, we may ask? Although the Federal Government has since released a letter to the Indonesian judges outlining their knowledge of the investigation, although many may argue that came too late in the process. Whilst we should support the sovereignty of the Indonesian legal system – as we do for ours – these revelations have ignited the issue of the need for a more proactive support role by the Federal Government in situations where Australians are involved in criminal procedures overseas, and where Australian authorities have information pertinent to the case. The Federal Government cannot interfere in the legal processes of another country, however they can and should adopt a more proactive, speedier role and mobilise assistance to Australian citizens as soon as it becomes apparent they are able to do so.
Do you agree with the State Government’s decision to end cattle grazing in Victoria’s Alpine National Park? Steve’s Say – Recently, the State Government has passed legislation that brings an end to cattle grazing in Victoria’s Alpine National Park. In doing so, it will not be renewing the 61 cattle grazing licenses which were due to expire in the park. As difficult and contentious as this decision has been for many, protection of one of our most precious and diverse natural areas – not to mention important water catchment areas – is now assured. The decision finally brings Victoria into line with other states that have long since banned alpine cattle grazing in their national parks. There has been no alpine grazing in the ACT since 1908 and in NSW since 1972. We must accept that the world has changed. We no longer allow logging in the Daintree or commercial fishing on the Great Barrier Reef, and likewise we shouldn’t allow cattle herds in our precious alpine areas. Victoria has always prided itself on taking a lead role on the issues of importance to its people, however on this we had sadly fallen far behind. And the timing of the Government’s decision makes sense, particularly as cattle grazing in Victoria’s Alpine National Parks had already been substantially reduced due to successive bushfires and drought. Grazing will be allowed to continue elsewhere in the high country, in State forest located outside of the national park and there will be no threat to cultural heritage of the mountain cattlemen whose proud tradition will continue on in the region for years to come. Furthermore, the decision will not affect other activities such as horse riding, bushwalking and camping that are an important part of the high country. Perhaps most importantly, there is a body of scientific evidence going back over sixty years that tells us what damage cattle do to alpine environments in the park. Cattle are heavy and hard hoofed, and we know cattle are a direct threat to at least 25 native plant species, 7 types of native animals and 4 entire plant communities. They disturb delicate moss beds and watercourses. It defied logic that this could be allowed to happen when visitors to the park areas can be fined $2,000 for disturbing a single plant! The decision now clears the way for a World Heritage Listing for the area. This, along with the $5.4 million State Government package to help restore the natural condition of the park, make local communities `tourism ready’ and generously compensate grazing moves to the State park means the entire area will have enormous tourism potential.
Do you agree with the Federal Government’s decision to pave the way for more uranium mining in the Northern Territory? Steve’s Say – Recently, the Federal Government has assumed control of the Northern Territory’s Uranium deposits from the Northern Territory’s State Government, in an attempt to exploit world demand for the resource. The move came after the Northern Territory State Government had ruled out the possibility of any new uranium mines under its “No New Mines” 2005 election commitment. This prompted Federal Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane to seek legal advice on the Commonwealth’s ability to assume decision-making control of Northern Territory Uranium. Subsequently, the Northern Territory State Government has bitterly conceded that the Federal Government ultimately has the power to approve new uranium mines. The Federal Government has now given the immediate go-ahead for more than 12 mining companies with uranium exploration licences to exploit the Territory’s known uranium deposits, and to intensify searches for other deposits. In doing so, it has also refused to rule out mining inside the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park, at sites such as Jabiluka and Nourlangie Rock. The decision of the Federal Government to swiftly override the power of the NT Government on this issue, and its refusal to rule out mining in some of Australia’s – if not the world’s – most ecologically unique and ancient areas was rushed and ill-thought out Not only does it effectively erode our ability to keep these ecologically precious areas `out of bounds’ from commercial and industrial exploitation, it also undermines the integrity of our federal model of Government, when proper debate and dialogue between levels of government has been abandoned. It also effectively sidelined the NT Government in an area of great concern to its residents. Whilst there is a current world demand for uranium, it is not good policy for the Federal Government to act so ruthlessly outside of a proper national and public debate on this issue. Such haste and lack of argument can easily come at the expense of our irreplaceable natural areas. Ultimately, these precious natural areas are the legacy we leave to our future generations. It should be the role of the Federal Government to work alongside State Government’s to create an ecologically sustainable plan – not selectively override them from important decisions.
Do you agree with the State Government’s proposals to change Learner and P-Plate driver licensing to reduce the number of young deaths on our roads? Steve’s Say – Recently, the State Government has released a discussion paper in which it has put forward proposed measures to change the existing licensing system for Learner and P-Plate drivers. These measures have been proposed with the aim to allowing young drivers to develop their skills more gradually and safely on our roads. Sadly, research still shows that road accidents remain the leading cause of fatalities among young Australians, with much of that stemming from basic inexperience. Each year, 120 people are killed and 2,300 seriously injured in crashes involving 18-25 year old drivers, accounting for a third of Victoria’s road toll. Such research also suggests that young drivers need more experience behind the wheel before they get their license. The more experience they have, the less likely they are to have an accident. In an area with very high levels of young families and over 3,500 thousand young people between the ages of 16-19, the age when most people are undertaking their Learners or P-Plates, this is an incredibly important issue for our community. The proposals put forward in this discussion paper attempt to give young drivers more time to develop their driving skills and get that extra driving experience which is so vital. And, with the weight of research still telling us that inexperience remains the main cause of young driver accidents, it is important that our driver licensing system be changed to avoid such unnecessary young death on our roads. Clearly, many young people and parents alike will be affected by the proposals that have been put forward in this discussion paper, and I strongly urge our community to voice their opinion. If you would like to write a submission in response to the Review, I will be glad to forward Eltham’s ideas and response on to Vicroads. Copies of the State Government’s discussion paper are available from my office at 718 Main Rd Eltham, or online at www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au.
Should people convicted of a crime be allowed to sell their stories to the media for personal profit? Steve’s Say – Recently, the intense media interest surrounding the release of Michelle Leslie from imprisonment in Bali has sparked debate about the ability of convicted people to sell their stories to the media for personal profit. Ms Leslie, a 24 year old Model from Sydney was caught with two ecstasy pills in her handbag at a Bali nightclub in August, and was sentenced to three months in jail. Her subsequent release and return to Australia has attracted a throng of coverage, with media outlets bidding for her story. Many in our community are angered at the prospect of Ms Leslie, a convicted criminal `selling’ her story to the media for personal gain. However, it should be remembered that once a person has been tried before a court of law and served their sentence in prison, their personal freedoms, such as the right to sell their story, must be respected as any other in our community. If we consider the selling of a convicted person’s story as tasteless, then we all reserve the right to ignore the story and exercise our opposition that way. This is not always easy, as such cases usually attract large degrees of attention by the media, making it hard for us to avoid them even if we choose to. However, we must respect the rights of our fellow citizens, and those in our community that may take an interest in such stories. Living in an age of instant media, it is a responsibility that we all must shoulder together.
Do you think Australia needs a National ID Card? Steve’s Say - All Australians would be required to carry a national identity card at all times under a multi billion dollar proposal currently being considered by the Federal Government. Recently, Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has announced an inquiry into the idea of a national ID card, which would contain detailed personal identification information of the carrier. The nature of what that information would be is to form a part of the announced inquiry. Following September 11 and the increase we have seen in police powers and anti-terrorism measures, there is increasing concern by civil libertarians about the need to protect our personal freedoms and rights to privacy. We all recognise that as a country we need to protect ourselves from the threat of terrorism. However, with increased police and anti-terrorism powers, a national ID card raises the issue of how such a card could be used, or possibly misused. I believe there needs to be a strict balance between the protection of our civil liberties and the ways such a card would be used to increase our security. Such a balance could only be protected through a formal Bill of Rights, which would enshrine our citizen rights and protect our personal liberties. The case is also yet to be made for how a national ID card actively prevents terrorism. Of the 25 countries most affected by terrorism since 1986, 20 have national identity cards. In a post 9/11 world, protection of its citizens is a primary role for Government. However, in that quest we must always ensure that the personal rights and freedoms of citizens are not victimised.
Do you think there should be tougher penalties for sports `drug cheats’? Steve's Say - Athletes using performance-enhancing drugs, or `doping’ is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport. The desire for athletes to gain a competitive edge over their opponents through doping is a major problem facing most countries. And, whilst the recent 2006 Winter Olympics will be remembered for the many incredible performances, sadly it will also be remembered for the surprise drug raids that were undertaken on some competitors suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs. As was the case with members of the Austrian Cross-Country and Biathlon teams, two of whom fled back to Austria in disgrace. The World Anti-Doping Agency provides an international standard to protect the vast majority of athletes who compete free of drugs. Under its code, those found guilty can face two year bans from competition or a lifetime ban for repeat offences. Some countries such as Italy punish `drug cheats’ through its criminal law system, with jail terms applied. In Australia, it is the responsibility of the athlete’s relevant sports federation to impose sanctions for any anti-doping rule violation. For instance, the Australian Swimming and Weightlifting Federations impose 2 year bans on first violations and a lifetime ban on second violations. Every time a competitor wins with the help of performance enhancing drugs, there are many more that miss out on pure physical effort. For the most elite performers, where drugs could give such an unfair advantage, a `one strike and you’re out’ policy should apply. Over 4,500 athletes will be competing at the Melbourne Commonwealth Games this month. With the eye of the world upon us, and our city hosting the largest sporting event in its history, it is vital that the scourge of doping is stamped out - so that the spirit of the Games is not marred in any way.
Do you think parents should incur fines for their children's drinking and `gatecrashing' offences? Steve's Say - The Queensland State Government is set to introduce new laws to force parents or guardians to pay fines incurred for their children’s underage drinking, party `gatecrashing’ and unsupervised youth parties. In 2005, The Queensland State Government appointed the Safety Youth Parties Taskforce to investigate the emergent problem of out-of-control parties, incidences of `gatecrashing’ and underage drinking in the State. The Taskforce found that in Queensland, 69 percent of youth parties were unsupervised, 55 per cent involved excessive drinking and 18 percent were gatecrashed. Drunken behaviour and `gatecrashing’ were identified as major contributors to parties getting out of hand. All 14 recommendations made by the Taskforce to address these problems have now been adopted by the Queensland Government - including the ability to fine parents for their child’s drunken and unruly behaviour. Whilst parents must always play a strong and proactive role in educating their children about the dangers of underage drinking and party etiquette, there must be a balance struck in the allocation of such fines. Of course, Government’s should be concerned when parents are directly negligent through showing disregard for their children’s social activities. The vast majority of parents do an excellent job in monitoring their children and educating them about the dangers of underage drinking, the effects of peer pressure and attending unfamiliar parties where trouble may occur. Whilst parents do their upmost to monitor their child’s movements, the reality is that many young people appreciate their privacy with friends. This can make it extremely difficult for parents to keep track of teenager’s social activities and places where their child may make the wrong decision about drinking. In addition, the increasing use of mobile phones and SMS messages by young people mean that information about parties is able to spread more rapidly and widely, making it more difficult for parents to monitor. These are new challenges faced by parents. And, whilst youth drunkenness and scenes of gatecrashed parties turned-violent have not reached the excesses seen recently in other areas, our children should continue to be educated about the need to act responsibly when they are out. This can be done in the home with family and at school with teachers and friends. We are very fortunate to live in an area where local parents and a vast majority of our youth have a great sense of responsibility for their actions. As a result, we can be proud to live in a very safe and cohesive community.
Steve’s Say – The State Government has moved to ban the sale of sugary drinks in our schools in response to a concerning study that revealed nearly 80 per cent of teenagers are drinking high calorie sugary drinks at concerning levels. The study also found that more than 1 in 3 teenagers are daily consuming more than two cans of high sugar content drinks and, alarmingly, nearly 1 in 10 are drinking more than a litre of high calories sweet drinks each day. Kids who regularly consume high sugar content drinks are less healthy and more susceptible to child and teenage obesity, leaving them vulnerable to lifelong problems such as type 2 diabetes. We are taking steps in the right direction, however the question is how much further should we go, with guidelines around the sale of food and drink in schools currently being reviewed. In Scotland, the government has banned schools from serving unhealthy drinks and also junk food. Similar moves are being made in the United States and Britain. Some may argue that it is the job of parents rather than schools to ensure their kids have healthy eating patterns. However my view is that when kids are at school, as well as learning about maths, science, English, and so on, they also need to learn about the importance of healthy eating. It is hard for them to do this, particularly at a young and impressionable age, when their canteen provides sugary soft drinks and chocolate bars. It is time that we ensure that our schools stock a good range of healthy foods and drinks. A healthy food and drink policy should be implemented in each school which includes the types products sold in canteens. One thing for certain is that we must all take steps towards a healthier lifestyle as parents, teachers and other role models to ensure that our kids are healthy now and in the future. I’d be interested to hear your views. What can be done to improve the management of diabetes in our society?
Steve’s Say -
Federal Government funding currently supports research to help understand type 1 diabetes and find a cure. However there is a need for better programs for the detection and management of diabetes in children, which would include the use of multidisciplinary teams, better use of diabetes management plans and reviews by GPs, and ensuring affordable access to insulin and needed testing equipment is maintained.
Type 2 diabetes is largely preventable, and considerable savings to the human and economic toll would be made by government and the private sector focusing on prevention programs such as those that address obesity and nutrition.
Addressing the causes and consequences of type 2 diabetes – particularly obesity must be seen as a major national health priority.
The Federal Government needs to work in partnership with the States and Territories and across portfolios.
Better data on obesity, a regular national nutrition survey, and research into nutrition and effective mechanisms to reduce obesity are also needed.
I’d be interested to hear from you if you have a view about diabetes and what can be done to improve the management of this important health issue.
Should the Australian Government re-think its opposition to signing the Kyoto Protocol? (The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases, which are a major cause of Global Warming) Steve’s Say Australia is one of many countries suffering from unprecedented climatic conditions. The ongoing drought and the early threat of bushfires are areas of great concern to Victorians. When we look at world-wide climatic change such as; the dissolving of the world’s glaciers, the drying up of inland seas, a massive increase in hurricanes and cyclones, we know that something is amiss with the World’s regular climatic patterns. Scientific studies into these phenomena overwhelmingly conclude that the Earth is experiencing Global Warming as a result of a massive build up of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Leaders from across the World recognise the basic fact that Global Warming is occurring and that the ramifications for the way we live and the future of the Earth are massive. This fact is portrayed most clearly by the ex-US Vice President Al Gore in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ (A great movie highly recommended). Mr Gore makes the point that when Governments come together and work with their communities, they can tackle major environmental threats – this was demonstrated clearly in the world response to the shrinking ozone layer by the banning of non-essential CFC’s. Mr Gore points out that, unfortunately when it comes to World attempts to reduce Global CO2 emissions through the Kyoto Protocol, Australia and America stand out as the only two major developed countries who have refused to sign up. But it is never too late, the massive Australian drought and the danger of a super hot summer are opportunities to re-think our approach to Kyoto. As a nation we need to sign up to more stringent measures to reduce CO2 emissions and to tackle one of the greatest modern day threats to our World’s eco-system.
Would you object to drinking recycled water? Steve’s Say For a long time, all over the world,
people have been drinking recycled water. However, this has generally been a
last resort for governments that have no other option.
|
|
|