Reverse Parking

There is a trend, a somewhat dysfunctional and stupid trend, to reverse park rather than park front in.  This is both selfish and dumb for two basic and very obvious reasons - traffic flow and vehicle access.

What goes through the mind of  someone who rocks into the car park at say South Melbourne market to fill the boot with vegetables, groceries and bottles of cheer to hold up all traffic so they can attempt a reverse park into a tight spot when they know they will be unable to eventually get their shopping trolley between parked cars or anywhere near the boot - if they can open the tailgate at all!  Apart from a lack of thought for other people they foil the very purpose of going shopping – making it easy to get the stuff home.  Instead, why not just spy a car park and zip forward into the space with no traffic hold up leaving the boot with easy easy access then, when leaving, wait for a break in the traffic and zip out.  Simple and thoughtful of others.

Still I suspect thought and a propensity to reverse park are mutually exclusive.

Not dead yet

Does that term conjure up images of a ‘really focused future’?  It should!

Many of us [I am 71] are looking to continue our bad habits of a lifetime in a place of style and comfort surrounded by our ’toys’.  Some of which we may even remember using.  Not the McMansion but efficient utilisation of space and clever design with low overheads.  Simple.

Retirement is a dirty word especially given a future life that is full of challenges yet to be fulfilled.  Indeed, this ‘place’ is not about tennis, skiing or golf or anything other than walking into a self felt nirvana whilst being surrounded by the ‘stuff’ of a lifetime including toys with which we can remember, fondle and dream.  Simple!

So, we need a double plus garage to take the brace of Ferraris [or Ferrari feel a-likes], a library to gather dust, a one-level bathroom with steam room to sooth the aches, a second room come office with fold down bed for those horrible visitors who won’t go home, an open fire to warm the bum, a bloody big TV to watch golf, a usable kitchen with a big dining table for the aforementioned freeloaders, multiple places to hang ‘art’, a security system God couldn’t get past and a small outdoor area where the live-in pooch can deposit their DNA.  Simple!

Boundary build with no waste space to mow or weed except the controlled DNA patch, 14m * 12m, prefab everything, erected to lockup with built-ins in a heartbeat, interiors and surface finish within weeks. Simple!

An internal focus of space and delight from which to leap into a future.  Build anywhere!  Simple!

Life is for living and it starts with human architecture.  Architecture which feeds the soul.

Owning a restaurant

Be in no doubt.  Owning and running a restaurant is not purgatory or life threatening.

What it is, is fun, profitable and enables a lifestyle the envy of most.

People who perhaps should rethink their ability to be successful tend to blame mutually exclusive factors for their demise such as restaurant over-supply , long hours or even Uber-eats.  It’s simply not true.

People tend to blame ‘others’ after they have failed to deal with all the ‘fun’ challengers.  Beware the pontificating dross!   

The first key concept is that owning a restaurant is actually real hands on work not to be confused with just sitting at home directing the minions to achieve.  They won’t!

Secondly, restaurants fall over because they can’t deal with inevitable quiet times or their offering does not meet the ‘wow’ factor or they remain undifferentiated with no discernible focus to attract spenders.

Thirdly, there never were days gone past when all you had to do was open the door and people would throw money in.  It’s a myth perpetrated by those seeking solace or the ‘oh woe is me’ syndrome.

It’s not what happens, it’s how you deal with it!  Obviously there are no guarantees and success can be sometimes a fleeting goal but these failures are nothing compared to the many restaurateurs having a ball.  We had a failure a few years ago but we dealt with it and moved on to more fun than you can shake a stick at.

Currently we have a tiny bistro seating just 16 people which we open 5 days and perhaps 30 hours a week for around 44 weeks a year and we have just been awarded out of London, ‘Australian restaurant of the year’.  Our product is differentiated with just my wife and I working, open short hours, travel the world and, we own the bar!  Did I mention having fun?

The thought challenged with a distracted ego fail on many fronts to deal with all the issues involved expecting to just open the doors and all will be tickety boo.  Life and restaurants are not like that.

I play golf badly, failing all the time to whip that grass into shape.  But it’s still God’s sport and it’s fun.  There is no greater challenge in playing against an opponent you can never beat!  And, it’s just bloody grass!  Restaurants are the same – good days, bad days, fun days and abject misery days.  

Good, isn’t it!

FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT BY BANKS

The dysfunction surrounding financial assessment of a proposed borrower is currently NOT about the borrower per say but about ‘productivity system intervention’ of the process designed to reduce staff costs for the FSP.  Indeed, to achieve ‘productivity’ targets everyone is lumped into categories and ‘assessed’ by software with little ability by people to press anything other than button a or b.  Quick?  Yes  / Simple? Yes / Accurate?  No.

As a matter of fact, it’s rubbish.

For example, I had occasion to shop around for a new home loan with a major bank and was unfortunately transferred to an idiot with no capacity for rational thought [indeed 3 times with 3 banks].  The monthly expenses that they insisted we incurred were a bank construct by a team of further idiots divested from reality [See AFR Sat 17/8/2019 report damning banks incompetence].  He / they just couldn’t understand the fact that we run a company with tax implications affecting our expenses.  He did not want to understand pre and post tax expenses.  A simple concept for anyone with half a brain but not for this bank employee making decisions between A and B. 

Dysfunctional for both the bank and the client!

To further this dysfunction it has been adjudged [same case – see comment on Caviar] that a client can actually self assess their expenses with some degree of alacrity.  ASIC lost the case to Westpac because the judge said that a prospective purchaser could adjust their spending habits to suit their commitments quite easily.  He virtually threw out the banks system of personal assessment.  Drive a Porsche before the house purchase but drive a VW after because there is only so much money. 

Simple.

There is no such thing as one size fits all and no such thing as a low level bank loans assessor with enough knowledge to make informed decisions.  Pushing button A or B doesn’t cut it.

They deal with a financial process over common sense.   So called productivity gone rampant.

The fix?  Training, training, training.  Front line bank staff need to understand finance.  Not just how to press button A or B. 

Assessment is all about risk factors.  Risks for the bank albeit now the impetus is shifting where bad advice and or bad process negatively affecting a client is also seen as a breach of fiduciary duty by the loan assessor / bank with responsibility subsumed by the bank and the application of pecuniary penalties. 

However, in effect, the banks risks are low because they have assurity through say a mortgage guarantee.  The problem for the banks is when the value of that guarantee slips below the outstanding loan as they would then be trading insolvent.

All the risk is on the client being able to make payments.  In the beginning by good financial analysis [not the aforementioned idiot] but no one can predict future events.  We all hope life is tickety boo and that we remain the person our dog thinks we are and we remain financially fluid.  This is where good planning comes in.  There must be a safeguard built in to protect people against short term issues.  A ‘nest egg’ by any other name.  The availability of money to pay loans in times of stress.

These are readily available with products such as offset accounts and interest only loans.  Both allow a financial hiatus in times of stress.  The trick for a lot of people is to keep the ‘de-stressing’ contingency balance without spending it. 

This is where the whole financial system needs to be adjusted and thought through.

We all want our own home and the Porsche returned but banks lending 95%+ disallows this life ambition as there is no risk contingency.  Really, only unemployment can cause headaches because without a contingency the Porsche is gone once again followed by the home.  Not good.

In an expanding market, the banks risks are low as is the overall financial position of the borrower because asset value increases will leave a balance to start again in the event of default.  Not good but not life threatening.  However unemployment in a contracting market will be devastating for the opposite reasons.

Therefore it is critical to factor in say a two year contingency balance to cover expenses in the case of unemployment et alia.  This is not available money to retrieve the Porsche but a controlled fund by the bank [not the idiot] to be made available with proven hardship.  A de-stressing fund.

Let’s assume the idiot gets retrained and becomes human and has to assess John & Mary's home loan application.  Financial alacrity is critical in understanding the expense patterns of the borrowers.  Understanding, not computer driven assumptive rubbish.

John sold the Porsche, structured his finances through a holding company and had the minimum deposit [the sacrificed Porsche].  The assessor analysed past credit card statements to ascertain willingness to repay debt, analysed EBIT to ascertain capacity to repay including pre and post tax expenses, and, sought a credit rating to ascertain past issues.  All keeping in mind that the client wants his house and will fight tooth and nail to make sure it’s kept in the family.  In the same way we drive a car just metres from death yet we have a self preservation instinct stopping us taking risks.

The big difference we need to initiate is the contingency balance concept where the borrower and the bank are assured of financial survival over say a two year default cycle through no fault of John or Betty.

It’s simple and it’s based on an assumption that values will always increase in the long term with short term fluctuations being irrelevant. 

The assessor has figured out that John & Mary pay their debts on time most of the time, have no ‘material’ credit defaults and have a steady income able to sustain a 95% mortgage with the Porsche sale as deposit.

The assessor has also calculated 2 years of expenses for John & Mary as a total figure which happens to come to 5% of the purchase price.

He then offers John & Mary a loan with an interest rate based on a REAL risk assessment [not by the idiot].  In this case they needed 90% leverage for which they received a nice lumpy cheque.  However, their debt was actually 95% with the 5% reinvested by the bank as an offset only to be accessed in a proven emergency such as unemployment.  All these 5% ‘s can reside in a special bank fund controlled by the bank with offsets automatically deducted for outstanding debt.  In this way the client is not tempted to spend it and they receive the benefit.

Simple.

Everyone wins!

This simple change almost eliminates risk for both the bank and the borrower as well as de-stressing everyone because everyone knows there is a ‘2 year nest egg’ of available money if …. !!

I urge the FSP’s to think this through by real breathing humans analysing risk, returns and the provision of a ‘forced’ safety buffer.  It’s a much a psychological comfort system as a financial safety net which would allow everyone to relax just a little bit more toward that tickety boo nirvana.

John & Mary have their house, a dog who believes they are close to God, two expensive kids and John has his Porsche back.  Life is good. 

Security through planning.

DEEMING CLAUSES AND UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT - A LAY PERSONS OPINION

Submission and argument that Financial Services Providers reliance on deeming clauses within their terms and conditions is misfounded … [many sources and paraphrased quotes]

 ‘Deemed’ – to adjudge a point of view as fact [my df].

 “Can an action or intention to action be deemed as unconscionable if that act or intention is against good conscience but as yet has no victim”.  The corollary is that there is no unconscionable intent until someone is affected? [Has the tree fallen if no one sees it fall?].

Take for example a contract and in the fine print there is a clause which stipulates that one party has the right to terminate the contract if they ‘deem’ any issue they wish a breach of that contract and the contract becomes null and void without loss of benefit to the author of the contract.   An obvious nonsense.

Now let’s assume, in the normal run of events, that a company is in a strong position with services in demand or people needing those services.  People sign off the contract including the ‘deeming clause’ because they have little choice.  Say a tenancy lease or a credit card contract.  At what point and under what circumstances does the enforcement of the deeming clause become unconscionable and do we even need an enforcement to recognise this term as unconscionable and to be read down?

I believe that it is enough to make such clauses unconscionable even if there is no victim just because it may confuse, coerce and mislead people and it has the intent of doing just that and advantaging the author unconscionably at the expense of others.

Take most credit contracts.   They will all have a similar deeming clause somewhere in their terms and conditions which allows an FSP to summarily terminate an agreement and demand instant repayment of a loan.  Yet there are provisions within the Code of Banking Practice, the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC act which specifically preclude an FSP from actioning their deeming clause without due process.

So, on one hand we have the FSP with their deeming clauses and alleged cancellation rights and we have the law on the other stopping or at least modifying the same alleged rights.  As the FSP is well aware of the law and well aware of the way their deeming clause is inappropriate then isn’t the inclusion of such a clause by definition, unconscionable and unlawful because the intent of the clause is to take unconscionable advantage - even if it’s never acted on!

Therefore the precursor to any litigation is whether or not the deeming clause is unfair because the intent of the FSP is unconscionable.  I would say that any clause which purports to allow one party to just deem a contract null and void to someone’s disadvantage must be read down as it would be unconscionable to leave it there.

Now, an FSP acts on the deeming clause and we have a victim.  Mr Victim had a credit contract and was using his ‘card’ for everyday things and accumulating frequent flyer points and paying his monthly commitments.  He was late a couple of times but fixed the arrears and all was well.  Then someone from the FSP decided to change policy and deemed the victim’s card cancelled and the victim had to repay the entire debit within a few days because that’s what the deeming clause said.

This put the victim instantly in a state of special financial disadvantage for at least two very important reasons.  Firstly, he had to find the money elsewhere to pay the loan [if he could] and secondly he had relied on the line of credit and had no other money to live on or pay bills.  In effect he had relied on the FSP acting conscionably and in compliance with all parts of the law. Mr Victim complained but the FSP just pointed to the deeming clause as justification for the cancellation.  The FSP was well aware of the law but chose to mislead and coerce the victim into believing they had the right.  Now, not only is the deeming clause unconscionable but the FSP has acted on that clause in the full knowledge of its effect on the victim.  The act is also unconscionable and caused Mr Victim to lurch into a state of special financial disadvantage.

Perhaps Mr Victim has an actionable case against the FSP on at least two grounds.  Firstly, the FSP included such a clause with obvious unconscionable intent and secondly, it acted on it possibly outside the provisions of law.  I would say that pecuniary penalties apply for both inclusion and act and the victim needs to be compensated.

Further …Unconscionable conduct - irreconcilable with what is right or reasonable and show no regard for conscience. [pecuniary penalty circa $1.1m]

Recent decisions (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90) made it clear that for conduct to be seen as unconscionable the determining factor was the respondent’s conduct and not the applicant’s response. It is the ‘conduct’ which is at issue and not the applicant else it could be said that the applicant is being tried for the conduct of the respondent.  A nonsense. 

Whilst it is noted that it is not sufficient for unfair, unjust, wrong or unreasonable conduct by itself to be deemed unconscionable it is quite sufficient when that conduct involves deliberate wrongdoing.

The newly amended prohibition on unconscionable conduct now makes it clear that the statutory prohibition against unconscionable conduct is not limited by the common law concept of unconscionable conduct.  The amendments also make clear that inherent systems or patterns of such conduct are prohibited, whether or not an individual is disadvantaged by the alleged behaviour. The focus, therefore, is on conduct which may offend good conscience, whether or not a "victim" is involved.  Importantly, there is now no distinction between consumer and business transactions in the factors the court may have regard to for the purpose of determining whether conduct is unconscionable.

A clause in a contract can also be declared unconscionable, even if there was no unconscionable conduct in the way the contract was signed. For example the Victorian Supreme Court has held that a clause in the fine print of a contract that created an onerous obligation was unconscionable.

Therefore, given the weight of discussion, why do FSP’s continue to include transparent ‘deeming’ clauses when that very inclusion seems to labeL  them as unconscionable?

Andrews out of control

Our State Government is out of control - again.  Like 5 year olds having found the lolly jar and woofing without thought, the Premier has no fear about ruining Victoria’s heritage or spending what he doesn’t have plunging us once again into massive debt.

The iconic bathing boxes are but a further example of his lack of a history led vision. 

How about Andrews turning an internationally recognised St Kilda ‘go to’ icon into a tram stop.  Acland street has gone and so has the history because some idiot thought it appropriate to build a tram super stop  a hundred meters or so from the already existing super stop outside Luna Park.  This is lunacy and vandalism of our history. 

How about Andrews giving $10m to destroy the last inner Melbourne sand-belt ‘peoples’ golf course being Sandringham.  A public course for over 80 years and what should have been treated as a national icon and lauded as a traditional test of golf.  One of his excuses was that women couldn’t play golf on a normal course and needed a shorter course.  This in itself is sexist and demeaning.  The course should have been treated with respect and with professional grounds people creating excellence.  Not so.  Sandringham golf course is now bulldozed and another slice of our history gone with it. 

How about permits being issued from the State Government at odds with the local council to destroy 2 Victorian mansions at 23 Brighton Road St Kilda and replacing them with 17 by 2 story dog boxes thereby also creating access nightmares .  How about wasting $1.2b of our money by NOT building something being the East West link which will have to be built anyway.  This is lunacy!  And, where is the money coming from to fund all the spending?  This is a big question!!

History proved that Cain / Kirner sent us nearly broke and smashed our international credit rating  – “ Ms Kirner was, of course, a senior member of a deeply dysfunctional government [Cain] which presided over the Pyramid, Tricontinental, State Bank and Victorian Economic Development Corporation financial disasters which undermined the state’s economy and saddled the government with a significant debt burden.” [Australian] – The damage was massive and it seems nothing has changed.

The world wants to impeach Trump before he destroys it.  He is a laughing stock as is Andrews amongst anyone who actually thinks.  Neither are funny.  Perhaps we can impeach Andrews?

How about a proper parliamentary enquiry into ‘our’ finances? 

How about Heritage Victoria actually doing something to preserve our history and planning decisions being transparent before the event? 

How about so called ‘developers’ locked up for frenetic night time demolition of historic buildings? 

How about ‘real’ public debate on contentious issues not just so called consultation ‘after’ the event has been actioned?

Kennett had to rescue us the last time from an out of control government including their unions who were also at their dysfunctional worst.  Think how many tram strikes, power blackouts and sheer angst we had to put up with before Kennett.

Now, who is going to challenge Andrews?

I hope someone will step up.

Sigmund Jorgensen Ave atque vale amicus meus

Here is Sigmund 'at home' plodding around in his workshop at Montsalvat.

I first argued with Sigmund at his restaurant Clichy in the late 60’s [I think] for letting people smoke cigars whilst we were eating.  He just looked at me with his typical ignominious smile, almost said something and moved on, swanning between tables, as he did.

That smile didn’t change.  Indeed, for the past 16 years we have argued, sledged and shared life at Mon Ami restaurant maybe 1 or 2 times a week over most weeks.  That’s 500+ arguments all in good humour and friendship.  

How good is that!

Sigmund, always out there enjoying life and conversation and wine and food and memories.

Ave atque vale amicus meus

Here is a five point plan for our elected Government from the ramblings of a disaffected cook:

It’s neither Liberal nor Labour, it’s Australian and it’s all about people, our people.
There is nothing new about these 5 points but the pontificators and those with a brain mouth disconnect will rattle on at length not knowing when to stop droning and make it happen.
1. VISION .. To borrow and misinterpret part of a well known proverb - ‘without a vision the people perish’ - is about having something to focus on which in turn provides a road-map for all future action. There can be no considered action unless that road-map is clear and that can only happen if we have a vision.
Australia needs a vision which defines us both to ourselves and the world.
Then, the interpretation of that vision is critical otherwise it becomes rhetoric and feeds the shouty dross.
For example, offer and pay the top 50 graduates each year across all disciplines to transparently work together for Australia for a year in an R&D focus to develop our future where we lead the world. This is a ‘vision’ we can all associate with. Think back to the euphoria when we won the America’s cup and you will agree that a singular focus ‘vision’ is life enhancing.
2. EDUCATION.. There is no future without education. This is a simple fact of life and no matter how people argue to spend money on their favourite agenda, it matters squat because, I repeat, there is no future without education.
Every single person must have access to education from kindergarten right through tertiary without being forced to stop eating to pay for it. This is the educational safety net available to all and does not preclude some choosing to pay for private schools on top of the government educational allowance which everyone gets. All people, all walks of life, all abilities, all disabilities - everyone.
3. LIVING WAGE.. A fantastic emotional two word visionary statement as it embodies a myriad of heartfelt concepts. Concepts which people can hang onto. We are a country which makes sure all people are looked after and no one is left to suffer through stupid poverty. At least that’s the theory.
This is not a hard concept to understand as all it means is that if someone is working say 35 hours a week they must be able to make enough to sustain their family and take responsibility for their health and well being without expecting all Australians to prop up their lifestyle including child care. Not in luxury but with warmth, food, a roof, paid appropriate support services and in the knowledge that they are safe. Good word, safe.
The same goes for the pension in that it must also be a basic living wage as must the dole albeit the dole would require work for support as would the pension in a way in that there are many many capable people itching to add value to our country, somewhere?
We live in a 24/7 world with each hour of each day of equal value without religious overtones demanding some days are more special than others. If some people want to make a day special then it’s up to them as individuals and not for Australia to legislate.
Paying penalties is abhorrent as it fails to look at the real issue which is the living wage and it costs jobs. Lots of jobs.
There are many bright people out there who can deal with this actuarial problem and can come up with a number without the attendant crap.
4. HEALTH .. Same story. The safety net allowing all peoples free access to medical care. Once again, safe. Australia has almost got this one licked unlike some other first world countries.
5. HOUSING .. This is the hardest of all because we have a culture grown up around the 1/4 acre block and we are seen as failures unless we have the McMansion plopped fence to fence. This is rubbish and destructive and forces people onto lonely street plummeting towards the working poor. We all want style and comfort in a place we love. Admirable concepts but it should not be driven by size but by architecture, vision and culture.
It is both right and proper in our capitalist democracy that those who can afford it will opt for the McMansion and they will enjoy life. Good.
It is also right and proper that those on the living wage have access to appropriate mid-level housing with style and aplomb in which they also feel safe. Good.
Thirdly, it our duty and responsibility to provide for those whom have fallen through the cracks and are suffering through a lack of warmth, comfort and inclusion. Safe. There’s that word again.
Words but words which can be turned into action through fantastic architecture building housing in which people can leap towards their personal vision and in which there is a culture of inclusion, warmth and safety. Places good enough that the McMansion people would like to move in.
Quite separately, but whilst remaining inclusive, accommodation for those Australia needs to support and make safe. Not ghetto town or disenfranchised sleeping pods but basic accommodation providing a roof, warmth and safety. Break the cycle of homelessness. I could rattle on about the provision of dedicated support services but really with a vision, access to education, a living wage, a health care net and a ‘retreat’ it will take care of itself.
How about offering the top graduates across architecture, mathematics, humanities, psychology, social science et alia the chance to join a team to develop this concept within 12 months to start building in a year. WOW.
So, how do WE pay for this modern marvel?
Don’t waste money on minutia or the unimportant – not one cent. Create an absolute focus without rhetoric or ego driven drivel. This is not hard but requires a desire to create something special for our country. How about an extra billion dollar investment linked to our totally appropriate future fund to be time allocated and controlled by the likes of Keating, Kennett and Costello. Bipartisan with strength of purpose. As I said, WOW

This is what our ‘leaders’ should have said but didn’t:

Dear Australians,

There is no doubt that Australia is the greatest country in the world.  We are safe, we are prosperous and we respect all.

But, we are always at a tipping point.   A tipping point exacerbated by the actions of others literally forcing us to hone our inclusive values and to expand our capacity to get better. 

The first hallmark is respect and it is a God given right, it is not something to be earned.  This is Australia.  A land of respect for all.  This does not mean we have to like someone or agree with everything they say but it does mean we try and respect their opinion and themselves.  Without respect we shrink mentally into a cocoon blocking out life and physically by erecting imaginary borders whilst becoming introverted and just a subsection of what we used to be.

The second hallmark is hope.  Hope is not an esoteric nebulous thought ‘others’ seem to have in abundance.  It is something created, onto which all peoples can latch and ride the wave. 

Hope comes in all forms but without it, we perish.  It is embodied in a living wage from which people can move to a new level expanding both mentally and physically, it is knowledge that our country’s safety net will protect us in an emergency and most importantly it is building our nation from the top down.  Putting in nation building strategies which will propel Australia into the future.

This is where politicians come in because it’s our job to ‘light the fire’, to deliver hope that we as a country are leapfrogging the world by putting in place strategies designed to give us that ‘edge’ and from which we can see our future – as a country.

Just two examples of nation building …

We will offer the top 50 graduates across all disciplines and the country each year for 5 years to work together to come up with practical ideas in exchange for all their Hex fees which we can implement to secure our nation’s future.  Maths and science gives us strength whilst art gives us soul.  The brightest people working for our country – wow!

On a more ground level, we will support the Australian development and production of what will be the world’s best taxi and the world’s best Police car.  Thousands of jobs created and the probability of exports all over the world.  This is not a minutia led pipe dream, it is in fact part of the vision we have for our country to lead the world in carefully chosen areas.

That vision is … ‘Australia is about seeking a future based on knowledge and strength of purpose proving respect and enabling palatable hope for all for a planned future in which everyone will ride the wave.’  

Ms Leigh Sales 7:30 Report response to kitchen nightmares

Ms Leigh Sales

7:30 Report

Good morning,

When we arrived home last night we sought your program on i-view because it addresses what we do for a living and, there are two sides to every coin. 

Firstly, we are not seeking publicity as our little restaurant is busy most of the time.  But, what we are seeking is to deliver another side to the proffered restaurant turmoil replacing the Dickensian workhouse image of steam, fire and sweat eating poor unsuspecting and desperate cooks trying to produce God like food whilst an uncaring overlord is beating them to a pulp with a blunt spoon [with apologies to Alan Rickman as the sheriff in ‘Robin Hood’].

Why bother?  Because, whilst there are sweat shops out there controlled by meglamanic [my word - sorry] uneducated and personally uncomfortable dropkicks, there is actually no need.  But, as long as the sensationalist macho 100 hour sweat box is accepted as the norm, our industry will fail to attract professionals.  Professionals who want to have fun in a constantly challenging environment.

And, it is fun!

Only last week we had a few anniversaries.  I turned 71 as the only overworked cook/dishwasher, our current 16 seat restaurant also turned 16, my other half [Ulla, the lone swan around waitress] and I celebrated 20 years of 24/7 and we popped another cork in honour of our first wedding anniversary.  Add on activities pursued together such as golf [very very average], archery [better], travel [lots] and people [all sorts] and life is a treat.  Indeed, we eat out a lot [we have to, to keep abreast of trends] and enjoy, everything. 

We work around 30 hours a week!

The work is challenging and at times physical [I don’t look a day over 71] but that IS the challenge and one to embrace as the opportunity.  Bending, turning, lifting, thinking, planning, fixing, washing, and even cooking.  On top of that we get to run a business whilst still having time to pontificate at length about personally felt issues.  For example, I spent years downsizing companies globally after they had lost their vision yet I don’t see either of our current Prime Minister hopefuls expound any sort of ‘strategic’ vision for our country.   They deal with minutia because they believe it wins votes whilst as a country we flounder in a sea of conflicting uncertainty.  Where are the vision building strategies? Indeed, where are the strategists?

Anyway, that’s irrelevant to this short note.

Too much fun, but we have now decided to sell our business and allow someone else to realise the opportunities therein.  No, we are not retiring [tried that 16 years ago and it didn’t work] but seek a new challenge wherein we can get excited once again.  Dad was still working as a consulting engineer and was studying anthropology as he turned 93 [right up to when he shuffled off this mortal coil] and I really hope to be able to continue ‘life’ as he did.  Indeed, I see a cranky centenarian post stroke still trying to change the world whilst perhaps studying law.

Restaurants tick all the boxes and yes, we own the bar.

Best regards,

Jon & Ulla Langevad [I could list multiple degrees but at 71 who cares]

Mon Ami Restaurant is fully owned by Langevad Pty Limited and has been awarded ‘French restaurant of the year – Australia 2018’ by Travel & Hospitality Awards [London] and ‘Best Brasserie – Australia 2018’ by the Luxury Travel Guide [London] and 2 hats from Gault & Millau 2018 [Paris] and maintains a greater than 90% review score Australia 2018

Ms Leigh Sales 7:30 Report - response to kitchen nightmares

Good morning,

When we arrived home last night we sought your program on i-view because it addresses what we do for a living and, there are two sides to every coin. 

Firstly, we are not seeking publicity as our little restaurant is busy most of the time.  But, what we are seeking is to deliver another side to the proffered restaurant turmoil replacing the Dickensian workhouse image of steam, fire and sweat eating poor unsuspecting and desperate cooks trying to produce God like food whilst an uncaring overlord is beating them to a pulp with a blunt spoon [with apologies to Alan Rickman as the sheriff in ‘Robin Hood’].

Why bother?  Because, whilst there are sweat shops out there controlled by meglamanic [my word - sorry] uneducated and personally uncomfortable dropkicks, there is actually no need.  But, as long as the sensationalist macho 100 hour sweat box is accepted as the norm, our industry will fail to attract professionals.  Professionals who want to have fun in a constantly challenging environment.

And, it is fun!

Only last week we had a few anniversaries.  I turned 71 as the only overworked cook/dishwasher, our current 16 seat restaurant also turned 16, my other half [Ulla, the lone swan around waitress] and I celebrated 20 years of 24/7 and we popped another cork in honour of our first wedding anniversary.  Add on activities pursued together such as golf [very very average], archery [better], travel [lots] and people [all sorts] and life is a treat.  Indeed, we eat out a lot [we have to, to keep abreast of trends] and enjoy, everything. 

We work around 30 hours a week!

The work is challenging and at times physical [I don’t look a day over 71] but that IS the challenge and one to embrace as the opportunity.  Bending, turning, lifting, thinking, planning, fixing, washing, and even cooking.  On top of that we get to run a business whilst still having time to pontificate [nothappyjon.blogspot.com] at length about personally felt issues.  For example, I spent years downsizing companies globally after they had lost their vision yet I don’t see either of our current hopefuls expound any sort of ‘strategic’ vision for our country.   They deal with minutia because they believe it wins votes whilst as a country we flounder in a sea of conflicting uncertainty.  Where are the vision building strategies? Indeed, where are the strategists?

Anyway, that’s irrelevant to this short note.

Too much fun, but we have now decided to sell our business and allow someone else to realise the opportunities therein.  No, we are not retiring [tried that 16 years ago and it didn’t work] but seek a new challenge wherein we can get excited once again.  Dad was still working as a consulting engineer and was studying anthropology as he turned 93 [right up to when he shuffled off this mortal coil] and I really hope to be able to continue ‘life’ as he did.  Indeed, I see a cranky centenarian post stroke still trying to change the world whilst perhaps studying law.

Restaurants tick all the boxes and yes, we own the bar.

Best regards,

Jon & Ulla Langevad [I could list multiple degrees but at 71 who cares]

0437 23 1948 / 9417 3220

Mon Ami Restaurant is fully owned by Langevad Pty Limited and has been awarded ‘French restaurant of the year – Australia 2018’ by Travel & Hospitality Awards [London] and ‘Best Brasserie – Australia 2018’ by the Luxury Travel Guide [London] and 2 hats from Gault & Millau 2018 [Paris] and maintains a greater than 90% review score Australia 2018

Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris

I took this picture circa 13 years ago of a Gargoyle on Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris.  I just added the red background for obvious and current reasons.
A poignant reminder of futility and history.
The gargoyle has resigned to his fate, 'Oh not again'.

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL POLITICIANS

Dear children,

No, this salutation is not a light hearted attempt to discredit ‘some’ politicians.  It is indeed a statement alluding to demonstrated behaviour by politicians more akin to 5 year old tantrums or petulant immature teenagers with their behavioural ‘I’m not quite ready for the real world’ issues.  Perfectly natural for those two groups but disgraceful for the people who are supposed to lead our country.

I am writing this as a plea for all politicians to spend less time on personality driven small issues and more time and thought on a vision for Australia because it’s only from an accepted vision that ‘we’ can galvanise to collectively move forward.

I am not a fan of Mr Trump, to say the least, but his keepers came up with a fantastic 4 word vision which ALL people understand and rally behind.  ‘Make America Great Again’ is a great vision only flawed, in this case, by the behaviour of the person spouting it.  Unfortunately these negative behaviours are common amongst all so called supremacists in that they believe they are actually closer to their chosen deity which, in turn, makes ‘respect for all as a God given right’ impossible. 

Pity.

But at least Mr Trump had the nous to start at the top rather than dribble around with minutia - which only leads to more minutia.

I was dragged up as a Liberal voter albeit not with eye’s closed.  Therefore I jumped ship a couple of times when I thought it necessary.  Indeed, I voted for Keating and personally told him so one evening because he was the best Liberal Prime Minister the labour party ever had and he achieved great things financially for Australia which has since saved our collective bacon on a number of occasions.  Perhaps a trifle direct in Parliament for me but very able to rally the troops when needed and he achieved ultimate respect.  Wahoo! 

And, this alludes to the second time when I voted for Hawke. Only for the reason he was able to galvanise the whole country behind him.  When we won the America’s cup he was beside himself and everyone followed.  Great stuff for a leader.  On the other side, I voted for Kennett because he had a vision for Victoria and led us out from the disaster labour left behind.  No question and unarguable.

Now we have a Victorian Premier who pontificates at length about building Victoria’s future by maintaining a few level crossings.  This is NOT visionary, it is minutia thinking!

The great leaders focus on vision and strategy and can see the strategic ‘jigsaw’ put together in their heads whilst the 'pontificators' search the same jigsaw in which to put a tiny piece of blue sky then crow about ‘blue sky’ success which, is unfortunately defined as ‘a state in which real world applications are not apparent’. 

Level crossings are ‘blue sky’ pieces.

We have a lot of minutia led blue sky crowers and very few visionaries.

Jon Langevad  MBA

Boarding houses:

There is a solution to housing stress but it requires a cultural and strategic rethink back to the days when ‘boarding houses’ were common for men and women.  They were not seen as places harbouring social pariahs, dropkicks and, to use a disgusting American expression, ‘trailer trash’.

My father was an engineer with multiple degrees and indeed world patents to his name yet he lived in a boarding house, at Kings Cross no less, whilst in his 20’s in the 20’s.  Then, there were no negative social mores associated with boarding houses.  Rather they were ‘homes’ for people who needed good accommodation with a lifestyle.  They were not last refuges for the dross.

To solve at least some of the issues we have, there needs to be a cultural shift away from owning your own Mc Mansion on lonely street to a community based lifestyle.  This is not for everyone but for those who thrive on the ‘Café’ lifestyle it could indeed be a great way of life.

GENDER Quotas:

I can’t imagine anything more demeaning to women than being treated as so intellectually stupid as to need quotas to gain employment.  The whole concept smacks of bottom up thinking by people with little thought or capacity to understand strategic reality from the top down. You can’t fix cultural issues by nibbling away at single concepts with pontificating crap from loud people with a brain mouth disconnect.

Let’s start at the top by recognising the fantastic differences between the genders.  Running project teams all over the globe I always tried to populate those teams with ½ men and ½ women but NOT based on quotas but based on the job and expertise required to do that job.  The genders think differently and act differently with each bringing their own gender based expertise and bias towards a common solution. Women are women and men are men with each celebrating their gender and biases.  This is a good thing and to be lauded.

Campaign funding:

The labour party are in the enviable position of having both ABC radio and television continually supporting ‘labour’ through hundreds of hours of obvious bias.  This through innuendo, words, pictures and indeed even through somewhat blatant jaw dropping comments.  Just watch the nightly news when so called political reporters offer opinion after opinion without fear of retribution or even accuracy.  This is the ABC’s choice but I believe it must be made clear that the ABC is working for the Labour party and the full cost of those hundreds of hours need to be charged to the labour party.   

The ABC is supposed to be independent funded by ALL Australians to reflect proper unbiased ‘reporting’ and proper ‘discussions’ supported by real ‘well educated and life experienced journalists’ [not reporters] also without bias. 

Perhaps an independent analysis of the last say 6 months would identify bias toward any party and, to be fair, any time spent for one party over any other to be charged at commercial rates.

Everyone has opinions and beliefs which shape their delivery and that’s fine as long as the listener / viewer understands the bias.  I have always been a big fan of bringing back the ‘soapbox’ where people can express ANY view without fear except for perhaps a few rotten tomatoes. Gender sedition – fine!  Celebrate racial differences – ‘fine’!  The next Martian attack – fine!!  Global cooling – fine!  Quotas which treat women as less – fine!  People are smart and can decide for themselves and weed out the crap – even with euphemistic tomatoes. 

“I’ll let you go”:

Ego driven dismissive crap used by powerless people trying to give the impression they are in control. It’s insulting and demeaning.  Don’t use it.  Don’t fall into the dross trap of self importance without substance.

BANK - BIG 4

This is a story about the culture within a big 4 bank having an all pervasive internal ethos of – ‘right’. 

Thousands of employees believed they were right in everything they did because their chief executive told them so and defended their actions even though they often bent the law.  Indeed, this bank believed it was above the law because it was big and controlled money and they knew that money was everyone’s lifeblood.  It was superior and knew it was superior because everyone was always nice to them.

'You need our money' preached the bank and people queued up to borrow their dream.  After all, this was its job, to enable dreams.  Or so it said.

Their real job was to buy and sell money at a profit - perfectly commendable and natural for any big public company.  Indeed, most of us sell our time for a profit as do all the employees of the big public company / bank.

Unfortunately, some of the employees of the bank were sick the day ethics were handed out and they did things to advance their own career at the expense of reason and often ignored lawful requirements.  After all, it wasn’t their money or dreams and they knew they were right because their senior managers supported them and even encouraged them to act in bad faith.  Why be a nice guy when you can make lots of money by selling the dream then ripping the dream away – for a profit?

One day, one of the more ethically challenged employees decided, without cross checking, that a client had failed to pay a mortgage payment of circa $2,400 on his home months before.  If the employee had checked he would have realised that it was the bank that had made the blunder but fact checking was not in his mindset so he knee jerked into pious action in the absolute knowledge he could do nothing wrong - because he was a part of the bank and was always – right.

He rang the client with the opening statement, ‘We are going to sell your home in 30 days’.  Needless to say the client was somewhat taken aback, confused and indeed scared because the bank had aggressively threatened his dream without cause or reason or even humanity.

Still, this client had a life’s ethos in that it wasn’t the problem that was important it was how you dealt with it.  He knew he was outgunned by the bank that was constantly increasing its feverous attack and sought support from the Ombudsman.  This stopped the drivel and the insane fervour by the bank because the Ombudsman sported a protective umbrella shielding the client whilst they investigated as an independent authority.

That independent authority found the bank was wrong on all counts and awarded damages, compensation et alia to the much relieved client.  However, the issue now was that the client had lost a lot of money, time and opportunities as a direct result of actions by the bank but the Ombudsman was powerless to award anywhere near the quantum of loss.

The client was confused.  Would he accept the determination and accept losses whilst the bank rolled onto their next victim or would or even could he take it further.

At this point he discovered that the employee who had acted illegally threatening to sell his home had been promoted within the bank.   They were content within themselves that they were right and above the law as they had just promoted the dissident with not one syllable of apology to the client for their unlawful acts causing a great deal of stress and loss.

The client was determined to address the issue and pointed out to the bank they were found to have acted unlawfully by the Ombudsman and should compensate him for sustained losses.

The bank always seeing themselves as – right – refused.

So the client took them to VCAT where a higher level of jurisdiction could right some of the wrongs.

Now, the bank was incensed that a lowly client had the temerity to take them on even though they knew the client was the innocent and the somewhat aggrieved party.  After all, they were always right and strutted and pontificated that fact at every chance.  'How dare he!'

As a power play and not so subtle threat to the lone unrepresented client they engaged multiple lawyers, barristers and employees to defend their position in court.  Cost was irrelevant because it was shareholders money and they knew they were always right.

However, this client had done some homework and blocked every legal ‘trick’ the bank threw at him.  The client was not driven by career or personal gain but by mitigating personal loss.  Big difference and somewhat focus inducing.  At that time the bank was respected as a leader with enormous market power which did intimidate the client somewhat and that reality eventually forced a compromise.  How long could he hold out against dozens of lawyers and million dollar bank employees who were always right?   

After 5 years he settled because of a huge power imbalance and the self promoted invulnerability of the bank

That settlement saw the bank lose quite a few thousand dollars to the client but with a full cost to the bank of over a million dollars.  All for a alleged debt of $2,400.  But that’s alright because it’s only shareholders money. 

The client had mitigated some small part of his losses and the bank pontificated on as the all powerful trying to gag any public response by the client.  But now, enter the Royal Commission where Christian Porter – Attorney General said, “The royal commission has noted is that its standing powers enable it, in effect, to override the existence of any non-disclosure agreements.“  The same logically applies to settlements especially where and when there is a huge imbalance of market power forcing outcomes.

The big public company / bank now had nowhere to hide and its culture was for the first time on show for all to see, and it was found wanting.  It turned out that the bank was not superior, not right and that the chief executive had failed to act in good faith by presiding over a ‘toxic’ culture enabling many and various unlawful acts by various ethically challenged employees.  Indeed, in our client’s case the chief executive knew and sanctioned the events leading to a million dollar plus loss of shareholders money.

That revelation cost the jobs of the Chair and chief executive but still left our client in a loss situation.  A loss situation caused by and through a toxic culture supporting unlawful dysfunction.  Note that fault lies with the office as well as the incumbent executive. You can’t just change the executive and expect that all is now well.  The bank must take responsibility as an entity.

So, now our client has a determination by the Royal Commission which says the bank is indeed responsible for their ‘toxic culture’ causing dysfunction and client losses.  The bank is no longer invulnerable with pontificating executives self elevated above the law and past settlements can be revisited especially where bullying or coercion through size dominance was a factor in the signing.

Our client is now able to pursue losses caused by the bank and will.

The bank must decide if it will do the right thing and take responsibility for its actions or just continue on with an air of invincibility throwing and wasting even more shareholders funds at can’t win legal bills.

The story continues.

QANTAS - They offer platitudes without substance

Firstly ...

Prior to our flight with Qantas this time we were given two passes to the Qantas club as compensation for another Qantas flight which they screwed up.  That ‘honeymoon’ flight was somewhat ruined when our allocated seats were ignored and Qantas reallocated us rows apart.  After I complained to the desk crew they once again reallocated us but to the last row and by the time catering got to us they ran out of food.  Two passes was totally inadequate.  Qantas even said that even though one can book specific seats there is no guarantee that you will ever get them.  Misrepresentation and unfair terms all spring to mind when the ‘fine print’ denied responsibility for advertised benefits such as seat allocation.

Then ...

This time we had time to spare so we used our two passes and entered the Qantas club in Melbourne.

The only acceptable thing about the experience were the women on the front desk who were polite, respectful and helpful.

Picture a Coles cafeteria of the 1960’s awash with people and mess.  This is the sight which greeted us.  Down market is an understatement.  No available seats, piles of used plates and mess everywhere.  Still, our passes were now taken away and we persevered until someone left and we grabbed their table.

We thought that perhaps a glass of bubbly would be nice only to find just over a glass left in the self serve which was not replaced for the 45 mins we were there.  No staff!

Try breakfast.  There must have been over 100 people in the largish facility yet the hot breakfast options consisted of 6 getting cold tiny sausages, a small bowl of scrambled eggs which should have been replaced hours before and slices of warm tomato.  That’s it!

We then sought coffee but found a problem as there were no cups.  We scavenged the entire lounge for cups to find two and tried the machine coffee.  It was undrinkable and we left same.

An original Qantas screw up leading to this ‘compensation’ which proved well below any standard.  No bubbly, food we couldn’t eat, coffee we couldn’t drink and all in a dirty space. 

One has to ask just what Qantas are doing.  What sort of management lets this happen?  Obviously management were incompetent and needed help if not look for another job.

Move on a few weeks to Qantas club in Heathrow and the whole experience was vastly different.  Good front desk, good staff, a clean lounge, a snack buffet of fresh food and nice wines served by great staff.  Toilets immaculate as were the showers.  A good relaxing place my wife and I enjoyed during our forced 10 hour break between flights.

Pity Melbourne is managed so badly.

Then ...

Our actual flight from Melbourne to Singapore was barely above Neanderthal with extremely tight seats further disadvantaged by almost non-existent service.  Cabin crew are wait staff and as such bear a huge responsibility to make customers feel special and to cater for their every need.  Staff chatting in the back of the plane instead of looking after customers is offensive to paying guests. 

The catering offerings were as down market as the Qantas club.  The bread roll was inedible being nuked too long as was the so called pizza.  The blade ‘stew’ was below first year apprentice standard and the mash had the consistency of yogurt.  Absolutely awful.

Then ..

We were told our next flight from Singapore to London [QF1 on the 20th of December 2018] was running 3 hours late with no explanation.  This meant we would have missed all connecting flights to Helsinki et alia despite allowing a 2 hour window.  No reason or alternatives were given despite asking for same.  We found a Singapore flight which would have lobbed us into London with time to spare for the connection.  We asked Qantas to re-book us on that flight and they did but somewhat grudgingly.  We were glad to get rid of Qantas.

Qantas, just what are you doing?

Qantas, like some others, have developed a ‘commuter bus’ mentality rather than a ‘tourist coach’ mentality.  This also applies to the so called club at Melbourne.

Do Qantas care?  Definitely NO!  They offer platitudes without substance.

RESTAURANTS AS PUBLIC TOILETS

Restaurants are NOT public toilets and it amazes me that the downward challenged think they have a right to use what is in effect a private toilet when they feel the need. These people should put their names on a public database so that any and all can come knocking on THEIR door. We have travelled extensively and like everyone else needed to use a toilet at times but, out of respect for the restaurateur, we became a customer and at least bought a beer so we could use the facility [unfortunately a self defeating cycle - wahoo!] .
Good word, respect.

WHERE ARE YOU FROM?

It is the Australian way and is indeed behoven on everyone to embrace all as ‘mate’ but with respect  and generosity .   Make people feel special by welcoming them into your greater circle through recognition of their heritage - because that is their history and that is ‘who they are’.  We are not all the same and it’s the differences that make for interesting ‘everything’ and a successful multi-cultural society.

Embrace the differences!!

Humans attempt to ferret out similarities so that we perceive common ground from which to, make friends.  This is neither nefarious nor does it sport hidden agendas.  It is a simple and genuine desire to interact. 

In Europe where there are many many nationalities the question ‘where are you from’ is an ice breaker question designed to proffer conversation [not discussion].  It is not aggressive or demeaning or threatening or building to a racial ‘discussion’ rather it is an act of friendship to be able to just talk.  Talking is good.

So, for all who see a threat by asking the question, ‘where are you from’, get a life.

Interest only loans

I am having trouble understanding the hoo-hah and drivel surrounding interest only loans.

There are continual reports and articles by so called expert journalists expounding doom and gloom warning that millions are about to lose their homes all due to the borrowers stupidity and having the temerity to acquire interest only mortgages.

Human nature is such that we will believe anything which falls in line with our hopes and desires because we want it to be true.  Financial Services Providers [FSP] know this and advertise their products to appeal to satisfying those hopes and desires.  Nothing knew and something of which we are all well aware.

The FSP throws out a carrot to vulnerable people [all of us] by offering the dream couched in glowing rhetoric.  People look past the 95%+ leverage and the interest only nature of the loan because they can now afford to get into their own home and stop paying rent and the world will now be a place of joy and abundance.

Providing the numbers are correct in terms of affordability and our countries’ economy is solid, this cannot be a bad thing on several levels including growth in the building industry and giving people a smile.

However, FSP’s are treading a fine line to profit because they know an economic hiccup may cause issues.  Even if employment is strong any downturn in prices will see the people who were sold the dream drop into ‘temporary’ negative equity.  This is not an issue for the borrower as property prices will increase eventually but it is an issue for the lender or those people who sold the dream.  Why?  Because their loan books have also hit negative equity and they may even be trading insolvent because they have lent more than their assets cover.

So, it’s not the borrower who has the immediate issue, it’s the lender having overstepped their own risk parameters and panicking.

Everyone then panics driven by stupid sensationalist reporting and spending stops and the country slows causing even more panic and we all, lose the smile.

The issue is NOT interest only loans as this is merely a vehicle to pay and it’s the borrower who must face the consequences and pay the piper if the world’s economy implodes, terrorists blow up Christmas, Tsunami’s hit Uluru and/or unemployment rises.

The issue is leverage and equity.   If global economic meltdown happens and s/he loses their job then they have a nest egg or fail safe to be able to sustain payments providing they have paid off a portion of the loan.   This a comfortable place to be in knowing that even if the worst happens home will still be home.

So, to be able to sleep at rest, go for the interest only loan but with a leverage not exceeding say 90% and pay into that loan account every cent you can muster, live off the credit card and draw only enough to pay that credit card on the last day of interest free periods.  Two reasons, firstly it reduces interest on the interest only home loan and secondly builds a panic fund so if something does happen all is not lost.  Manage your debt and don’t let the dream makers profit at your expense.

And that is the issue.  There is nothing wrong with leverage and interest only providing you use the system to advantage and manage the debt.  I mean active hands on management knowing for example exactly when to pay credit card debt.  Know your commitments and build a simple spreadsheet of all debts on a time line so you know what needs to be paid and when.

The FSP’s know all this but prefer not to have to think about it by offering so called ‘vanilla’ home loans of principal and interest where loan exposure is reduced all the time.  This is an advantage to the FSP but not the borrower.  The FSP’s then load the interest rate for interest only to dissuade people from this type of loan because they know, if it’s managed, they will lose profit.  Worse, the borrower has no fail safe. 

CONSEQUENCES - SOLUTION TO DRUGS ISSUES AT FESTIVALS

The answer is simple – make people accountable for their free choice to take illicit drugs. Instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them to dodge law enforcement and in particular, the consequences of OD, charge the individual the full cost of any and all authorities actions.
Our society quite rightly looks after individuals in the event of mishap and this does not change with helping those who illegally quaff some hope of escape. However, when that activity is illegal and known to be illegal by everyone, then having society continually pick up the bill is tantamount to supporting that unlawful behaviour and flies against the ethos of our system of law.
Some of the so called solutions are bizarre because they accept an illegal act as legitimate which in turn undermines that system of law. Drugs are illegal and, for example, the idea of pill testing legitimises that illegal activity and compromises the Police to even be able to uphold the law. A stupid idea lacking clear thinking or indeed, consequences.
On one hand, if we get caught unlawfully speeding we cop a fine which we have to pay. We don’t expect the country to pick up the tab! Otherwise speeding would become an art form without consequences. These consequences are already well defined and accepted by everyone.
Yet, on the other hand, we cannot ignore the pile of human jetsam derailed from society because of drugs as that would be unacceptable and indeed immoral. But, as long as there is a ‘free’ safety net provided by society, the drug affected dross will continue to take advantage. As they have and do!
Perhaps, start with OD. Calculate the ‘full’ cost of having to ‘rescue’ someone and charge them the total amount to be paid as any other debt to society with well known, ‘already in place through our courts’ and accepted consequences for debt evasion. The same as any speeding fine.
I don’t know what the full cost of paramedics, ambulance, hospital, doctors, medicines etal would be but if it’s say $10,000 [perhaps 10 weeks of value adding community service or army reserves or tax debt] then charging the perpetrator [note – NOT victim] would make them think twice and at least reduce their capacity to buy more drugs.
In this case, Australia is the victim because we are held to ransom by those who play on our quite appropriate moral responsibility to help everyone in trouble. Indeed, those of self proclaimed higher moral judgment will always play the ‘poor little kiddies card’ yet offer no solution other than the wringing of hands in a most sanctimonious yet perplexed manner. But when that ‘trouble’ is illegal, self inflicted and repetitive then ultimate consequences must fall on the perpetrator, not Australia as the victim. As our system of law demands.
Think consequences. Simple.

CARS AND DEVICES

You remember, when the brats were little they used to fight over the ‘Walkman’ whilst in the back seat ignoring the wonders passing by.  Then we saw the rise and rise of technology ‘keep the kids quiet gizmos’ like TV in backrests relegating silence to the back seat whilst they still ignored the wonders passing by. 

Then, as they grew up, the poor sods developed a social enigma called Fear Of Missing Out [FOMO] which is a direct downside of the need to remain socially available 24/7 - at all costs.  They were now glued to minuscule screens on their ‘personal devices’ waiting, waiting, waiting rereading old messages whilst still ignoring, the wonders passing by.

That generation has grown up but are still glued to their minuscule screens hence the proliferation of ‘pop up’ screens on top of car dashboards keeping those same now grown up kids abreast of ‘everything’ on a second by second basis.  Emails, blue tooth, twitter, Instagram, face book and maybe even real life people actually calling.   The giant 12” screen has taken over and, the wonders still pass by.

Just look at any footpath and see the number of people with their activated ‘device’ front and centre whilst walking blind waiting for something to appear on their minuscule screens,  anything!

Addiction is obvious and it translates directly to new cars in that the cars ‘activated device’ pops up front and centre topside whilst the real world of wonders still continues to pass by.   The footpath dysfunction has been replaced by a road dysfunction.

The other day I jumped into my wife’s absolutely classically simple, immaculate  and beautiful 1988 MX5 in a feckless rage with the roof down, no radio [doesn’t work], no phone, tablet, computer, twitter, face book or indeed any connection on any device  of any kind.  I watched the wonders pass by.  I was back in the real world.

Do we need ‘connection’ 24/7?  No.