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.

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.

Education

I don’t understand the hoopla and the political infighting about people’s education.  This infighting gets involved in both diatribe and minutia at the expense of what we want and need as a country.

If we want the best country in the world in which to live and prosper then there is no choice, all education at the median level must be funded and available to all.  This is not arguable. No education means no future either for the individual or the country.   A simple and understandable life’s axiom.

Given that simple overarching thought then it is clear we need to provide that median level through taxes etc so that every person can revel in the truism, ‘learning is fun’.  No question.  We all benefit!

And, once we learn we question and we improve and invent and forge new ideas that change our collective world.  Wow!!

And, all from ingesting a desire to learn and do better.

This is so simple it’s a no brainer.

To do this each and ‘every’ kid including those with different requirements, needs to be funded the same dollars by the collective to be offered this opportunity to experience ‘learning is fun’ and to progress from primary through secondary and tertiary if they can without the burden of having to pay per lesson. 

Some parents will choose to upgrade their kid’s education and that is their choice and nothing to do with anyone else.  It is between them and their school of choice. Not everyone can afford private schools and those private schools and their students must not be discriminated against by those unable to afford the private schools whilst pontificating at length about the subjugation of their unalienable rights.  Not everything is available to everyone else we would all be driving Ferrari's and living in Toorak.

Still, the basic tenet is strong. 

Now, the rider – ‘there is no free lunch!’  After ‘we’ pay for someone’s education then it is up to them to give back say a year to Australia at nominal salaries after they finish their education to R&D on some project which will have impact on Australia’s future.  Imagine if we had 200 people who had just graduated working with Senator Button in the 80’s on his Sunrise Industries Plan – we could have led the world, but we didn’t and we don’t.

Another benefit is that this programme throws young people into the real world after education but by creating a buffer between being coddled and getting a job.

So, we ingest learning is fun, we support all our kids to fly, we help them move graciously to the cut and thrust and we build our ‘smart country’ at breakneck speed. 

Can’t be bad.

ZOMATO

We have owned and run a boutique restaurant in Fitzroy Melbourne called 'Mon Ami' for some 15 years, have been ranked within the top 2% of restaurants globally and are lucky enough to be full most of the time. 

With the rise and rise of everyone's capacity to post their opinions online there are now a plethora of sites which purport to just publish others comments without bias.  Unfortunately this is rarely the case where defamation is rife and so called 'algorithms' are advertised as perfect yet fail time after time.

Zomato is such a site. 

I have complained to Zomato without success with just the latest below:

Zomato,

In simple terms, you are attempting to separate restaurants on an overall spectrum [bell curve] by arbitrarily [in both senses – your use of unrestrained authority and on the basis or random thought] changing the ranking pursuant to the number of businesses on a ranking rather than independent reviewer scores even though even though the respective businesses may be vastly different.  This is a mathematical nonsense because you are not changing scores based on independent grades but based on your assessment without having been to each establishment.  For example you mathematically compare as equals say a pizza shop and a fine dining restaurant where the offerings are different as are the clients.  A dish which takes 2 days to prepare has nothing in common with a dish which takes 15 minutes, yet you ignore the reviewer and arbitrarily change their score . Undoubtedly, your issue is that you will have a lot of restaurants on 3.5/5 because people tend to vote around the mean.  Instead, separation should be based on a more extensive spectrum [maybe out of 100 in decimals from .1 to 10.0] and mathematically weighted by a number of parameters such as cuisine, service, ambience etc.  All of this without independent mathematical influence by Zomato.

It’s the reviewer which should determine scores, not Zomato.

In our case our score drops to 3.9 when the average of actual reviewers scores is circa 4.5 just because there are others on the same score.  Just common sense says look at the reviews and establish whether we sit at 3.9 or 4.5 [?].

If all this was just esoteric argument then it would be an interesting mathematical exercise but in part our business is affected by Zomato based on their changes.  If a potential clients tipping point is say 4.2 then we would be ignored despite past clients ranking us at 4.5.  This can cost us business and is most certainly inappropriately influenced by Zomato AND it misrepresents our business and is thus possibly unlawful.

In addition, we treasure both professional reviewers and blogging diners and take all comments seriously.  However, we do get annoyed when some disaffected keyboard warrior says nice things to us and ferrets off to anomalously write vitriol.  [Why would anyone do this?]  Thankfully, these cases are very rare albeit there was one quickly refuted [by others] chunk of inappropriate vitriol posted recently on Zomato which we demanded to have modified to remove the defamatory comments.  [What sort of people do this?] 

Note that Zomato are responsible for publishing defamation when they are in full knowledge of content.

This unfortunately gets much more important for a new restaurant depending on public reviews to build business.  Zomato can kill them based on their so called algorithm. 

Not good.

Zomato, you need to deal with your methods.

Regards,

Jon

'T' PLATES

TOURIST PLATES

We drive from St Kilda to Fitzroy between 9am and 1am 5 days a week and we watch with some trepidation what happens to traffic, drivers and pedestrians.

 

The national endemic is ignoring red lights by all participants which creates constant ‘mind’ chaos because no one is sure what anyone else will do.  For example, the disaffected personally powerless dropkick deliberately walks across traffic fingering anyone who dares to complain.  Not a good look.

Everyone has a ‘whoops’ moment being caught clipping a red light but this is vastly different from the dross who accelerate through an intersection in the full knowledge it’s red.

Enter the tourist into this mind chaos.  Strange car, strange city, perhaps driving on the other side of the road and in a constant state of panic.  We as locals are used to it and expect others to also be used to it with little quarter given.  Yet, any tourist wants a positive experience and I speak from personal experience having driven all over Europe.

The trouble is that we don’t know who the tourists are so we have no chance to cut some slack or even smile.  These people are not dross, they are tourists enjoying our space but in a constant state of panic.

The solution is simple.

Magnetic ‘T’ plates the same as ‘P’ plates identifying the driver as a tourist who may make mistakes and whom we have a duty to both understand and support.  

Nice people in a nice city doing nice things being supported by nice locals.

Couldn’t be easier really.

IMMIGRATION

There is blanket media coverage about illegal immigrants and whether Australia should accept these people fleeing their own country into our rather minuscule democratic fold.  People with personal agendas rabbit on about human rights, our moral and ethical responsibilities and the benefit these migrants would bring to our country.  The arguments are soulful and heartfelt with each soapbox itinerant speaking from the emotion gland imploring us to allow all and sundry to resettle here.

Everyone has a right to a peaceful and fulfilling life without fear of persecution and without having to plan some form of escape or sedition against their Government to get it.  Some of the refugees were in fear of their lives whilst some sort a better societal or financial future for their family.  Others just wanted to go somewhere else.  All of these motives are valid and understandable and they are entitled to pursue same.

However, this does not entitle them to automatic entry to another country just because they want to go there.  There are reasons people want to come to Australia and that’s because many generations of Australians, including our many immigrants, have built a set of values which define both us and our country.  We have paid for and developed an infrastructure and democratic way of life which everyone wants.

And therein is the issue.  As long as there are people bent on applying force of will through mayhem there will be disaffected people attempting to dissociate. It is neither right nor proper that well managed countries should bear the economic and social result of someone else’s fleeing population. 

But, doing nothing is also not an option.

Most of the people fleeing violence have been subject to administrations guilty of gross ‘war / human rights’ crimes and international penalties for those crimes are defined as are remedies.  If we just accept refugees and do nothing then aren't we just supporting despots and ignoring our own values?

There are reasons people want to come to Australia and that is because it’s safe, despot free and provides hope and sustenance for its relatively small population. This is not a fluke of nature but is as a result of umpteen years of forethought and controlled immigration.  Taking people into our country who respect our values and way of life and want to contribute to that way of life as Australians is crucial.  Likewise, any person disaffected by our values needs to leave to some other place more in tune with their own beliefs.

This is why we need places removed from preferred destination countries where refugees can flee and be safe and protected under a UN umbrella until the despots have been deposed – by the free world.  It’s not about resettling into another country with different values but about protecting the vulnerable from immediate harm. A ‘refuge’.

The world has a set of values and conduct which defines humanity.  This needs to be applied.  These values are not religious or political or country specific or anything else other than a bunch of things which enable all people to feel joy on a daily basis and know they have a chance at a future.

This is not rocket science nor is it even remotely difficult to understand and applies to everyone whether you are rich, poor, in jail, on a cruising yacht or just seeking a better life.  This is a basic human right.

For example, America was brilliant during the early 19c as people flocked to that melting pot because they wanted to shirk their past and become American – a collective of hope and future.  They wanted to be known as American.  Now in Australia we have the opposite in that people want to live in Australia but retain their past identities with all the values associated with that past.  Our national identity is waning.  People want the address but not the values.  One ‘refugee’ who had mysteriously lost his identity papers after managing to pay thousands for his illegal trip said that he would ‘accept’ any country as long as it was Muslim yet Australia seemed acceptable.  Maybe I am missing something.

Not good enough.

On the contrary, we had a close encounter of the migrant kind yesterday in the supermarket.  A woman decided she did not need to queue and barged in front of another woman already unloading her trolley onto the belt. She said something like, ‘I only have a couple of things’.  The second woman turned on her and said, ‘it would help if you said please’ then ‘I'm Australian not a wog’ in a heavy European accent implying the level of misbehaviour by the pusher-in was associated with ethnicity.   It turned out the upset woman was a Maltese immigrant now proud to be Australian and wanted to disassociate herself from the pusher-in.  This sort of person we need – immigrants sticking up for themselves and proud to be Australian but still cherishing their bloodlines.  The pusher-in got a hell of a shock.  Good.

This is a world problem and needs a world solution.  As the only world authority is the UN it is behoven on that collective organisation [our collective organisation] to set and manage a solution.

Greece needs money and the world needs space for genuine refugees.  Refugees who may need years to return to their homeland.  If Greece leased / sold a couple of their islands to the UN on which ‘the world’ developed a community specifically for asylum seekers with ultra quick processing it would instantly solve every countries problem in dealing with illegal immigrants.  This would not be a detention centre or an immigration centre but a refuge in the true sense of the word where family’s felt safe and kids went to school and people were given the opportunity to contribute remembering a refuge by definition is not a permanent state but exists as a state at a point in time to relieve stress and anxiety.  A refuge against what should be a common enemy.

If each country in the UN contributed ‘x’ dollars in line with their population to this UN initiative it could happen overnight.  A place where genuine refugees could once again experience joy. 

A community of possibly several million people all with similar desires to survive and live a happy life looked after by the rest of the world.  A place where respect for everyone, their background and their beliefs was a given as the foremost consideration. On the contrary, a demonstrated lack of respect as a God given right would be grounds for instant removal back to point of origin remembering that most of the people fleeing are doing so because of this one issue in that power crazy despots are shoring up their own gold palaces whilst their people starve or people are killing others because they believe in a slightly different God or are so disaffected and stupid as to create mayhem based on a part phrase from some religious text.  Just imagine some deity looking down on all this – he/she would think us worse than the lowest life form because we choose to act in abhorrent ways.

The primary aim is not resettlement in another country but as a refuge for people who have suffered what can only be described as ‘war’ crimes.  This is a good thing.

Greece wins in the short medium term by surviving, refugees win by knowing they have a place to go which is run by ‘the world’ where they can take refuge against crimes and each and every country protects their sovereign borders without political crap just by supporting the UN to take over the problem. 
Wahoo!! 

What are nab and its lawyers doing?

It would seem that the culture and business practices at nab leave a lot to be desired as proven by just three of many examples:
1. There is a petition on ‘change.org’ which highlights the culture of harassment by both nab and its lawyers, especially against people at a special financial disadvantage. In this case it seems nab and its lawyers [Gadens] are harassing their victim and are determined to sell the house of that victim just to satisfy their own seemingly rabid need for foreclosure at any financial or human cost;
2. In an article written about nab and Gadens by journalist Tess Lawrence she said, “Without question, the police should investigate how and why lawyer [Nab’s lawyers – Gadens] made .. a phone call .. and on what authority and on what grounds .. saw fit to interfere with the course of Justice ..” and, from another lawyer during the same case when addressing the victim in a public hallway, “You’re dead” .. “you f…ing bitch”. “The NAB and I will take you down”… “You will have nothing, you will be destroyed”. Charming.
3. In our case, after considerable maladministration and misfeasance, Nab acted unlawfully with extreme harassment and assaultive malfeasance by cancelling all our financial facilities, including our mortgage, and taking great delight in threatening to sell our home within 30 days – all without due cause. The Financial Ombudsman Service agreed with us and found nab’s acts unlawful and awarded contract restoration, damages and compensation. However, we believed the quantum to be insufficient so we are pursuing nab through VCAT. This has been going on for over 3 years with nab losing their ploy to have the case dismissed or shifted to the Supreme Court [which would have been a huge financial disadvantage to us] whilst employing nasty little tricks like delivering reams of documents the night before a hearing [twice] guaranteeing we had no time to read them, let alone understand them. In this instance and once again nab was found to have failed to have acted in a conscionable manner when the Judge agreed that nab’s actions were inappropriate.
As I said, these 3 examples are but 3 of many and clearly point to a culture within nab which has grown, to be what many victims consider, unconscionable and indeed ferrel.
At the heart of this culture is nabs continual refinement and reliance on their terms and conditions, developed at great expense by their teams of lawyers, which purport to give nab extreme power to do what they like and to whom they like. All three examples above clearly point to this malfeasance. In our case [example 3] it was indeed unconscionable malfeasance as nab knew its acts to be unlawful but ignored the law.
I purport that just the act of including terms and conditions nab knows are unlawful and to be read down are unconscionable in themselves.
The key question is, “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? – note, yes the tree has fallen!]
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 yet that is a standard term for nab. As a matter of fact, any contract which can be broken at will for no reason is not and can never be a contract because no one could rely on that contract. That is why a lawful process to break a contract is legislated – for example S88 and S89 of the National Credit Code.
Now let’s assume, in the normal run of events, that nab is in a strong position with services in demand and people needing those services. People sign off the contract including the ‘deeming clause’ because they have little choice. Say a mortgage 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 the 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 into believing it is valid. This sort of clause has the obvious intent of doing just that by advantaging the author unconscionably at the expense of others.
Take nab. They have similar deeming clause in their terms and conditions which allows them 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 nab from actioning their deeming clause without due process.
So, on one hand we have nab 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 nab is well aware of the law and well aware of the way their deeming clause is inappropriate then isn't the unlawful inclusion of such a clause, by definition, unconscionable 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 nab 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 let’s assume, nab 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 and Nab were still charging lots of interest for the privilege. Then someone from nab decided to deem 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 instantly had no other immediate access to money to live on or pay bills. In effect he had relied on nab acting conscionably and in compliance with all parts of the law.
Mr Victim complained but nab just pointed to the deeming clause as justification for the cancellation. Nab 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 nab acted on that clause in the full knowledge of its effect on the victim. Therefore the act is also unconscionable as it caused Mr Victim to lurch into a state of special financial disadvantage.
I believe Mr Victim has an actionable case against nab on at least two grounds. Firstly, nab included such a clause with obvious unconscionable intent to mislead and coerce and secondly, nab acted on it outside the known provisions of law.
I would say that pecuniary penalties apply for both inclusion and act and the victim needs to be compensated.
In the article written by Tess Lawrence [example 2] it seems clear that there is a culture within nab and its lawyers of ‘f..k you, nab will take you down, you will have nothing, you will be destroyed and we will do what we like including trying to influence the legal process when we want’. In my opinion nab’s conduct in this instance is common assault and should be treated as such.
The culture within nab and its lawyers of condoning these sorts of actions is thoroughly objectionable to any reasonable person. In our case, nab have been found guilty of unlawful acts to our disadvantage by the Ombudsman and yet nab still condone and continue with similar conduct which still can only be described as unconscionable.
Nab know that 99.99% of people will not question a multi-national company because they believe nab’s published terms and conditions are lawful and that nab must have a right to do what they do because it has teams of lawyers and they couldn’t fight them in any case. In our case this assumption is incorrect.
We are seeking more than justice for us. We are seeking an independent umpire [Judicial member at VCAT] to order that the terms and condition which purport to give nab ultimate power are unlawful and to be read down.
In this way people are able to rely on their ongoing financial contract, rely on nab complying with the law and rely on that same law to define a lawful process for voiding a contract and to also stipulate penalties for non compliance.
Perhaps nab need to change the way they think.
Jon Langevad
Tuesday, 7 October 2014

CHOICES AND OPTIONS

There is a war going on.

Not as you might suspect with guns, tanks and bombs but much more subtly with words and actions validated from those words.

Business is all about convincing people to move away from someone else and buy stuff from you.  Simple.  This happens quite lawfully by offering greater choice and options whilst convincing the hapless customer the someone else has less choice and fewer options.

The better our choices and options, the better our life.  “Perhaps the children would enjoy St Moritz this Christmas?” or “Which golf course to play today?” or even, “Do we have lamb or beef for dinner?”. 

The corollary to that is we remove choice and options when penalising people for doing something unlawful.  The more serious matters end up in goal whilst our courts preside over a multitude of ‘offences’ handing out orders which invariably enhance the winners options and choices whilst doing the opposite to the bad guy.

It seems clear that the good side is enhancement whilst the bad is restriction.

Now, for business, the trick seems to be to use language to make sure you retain and enhance your choices and options but at the same time using those same words to remove your client’s options and choices and their ability to go somewhere else for their widgets.  The law steps in when this becomes unconscionable and unlawfully disadvantaging.

The repository for all these ‘words’ is in ‘standard form terms and conditions’ which business trot out to ensure they remain top dog and it seems irrelevant to business whether or not those terms are lawful or conscionable because they rightly assume that people will also assume without reading them that ‘the words’ are indeed lawful  and must be complied with.  Now days they are eminently transparent in plain English and serve almost entirely to remove customer’s choices and options whilst enhancing their own.  This does not mean they are lawful and customers are treated as the bad guys.

Perhaps we should all have our own private booklet of terms and conditions which purport to allow us to enhance our choices and options.  One paragraph could read, “I am allowed to speed on the roads and can’t be booked”.  It’s in writing and must be obeyed!  Perhaps Judge Dredd would not see the point.

The war continues between say banks and legislation.  Banks want to gather in all the power for all the reasons discussed above whilst the law tries to protect people from the more unconscionable terms .  For example the banks deem themselves the sole purveyor of good and evil and demand the ability to remove a clients financial instruments [choices and options] at their sole discretion whilst at the same time denying customers of the same rights. 

The code of banking practice and the legislated national credit code prohibit this behaviour by ensuring the banks go through a process allowing customers options and choices before the banks can deem a client redundant and to be shed.  Yet those terms keep popping up and the courts keep ruling against them.

These days a term can be ruled by the courts as unconscionable whether or not anyone has been affected the same as actions by the banks using those terms can also be ruled as unconscionable.

Yet the game goes on.

Bad people try and take an unconscionable advantage by trying to mislead the public that their glossy booklets are actually lawful and must be obeyed.  Notice that few banks will put anything in writing and they will not want their conversations to be recorded.  Could it be that they know their actions to try and curtail customers options and choices to be unlawful?

This is war.

CAR INDUSTRY

When do we start taking the initiative and look outside political and media driven doom and gloom? 

When do we start to believe in our own Australian expertise and stop flailing about in discontinuous rage as another ‘foreign’ company withdraws ‘hurt’ when the going gets tough but after profiteering for years on uneven playing fields at the expense of our country?

When do politicians stop trying to assure the yet to be unemployed that they are trying to create new jobs through all sorts of ill-thought-through initiatives to make themselves look important and to be seen as doing something? 

Instead  …..  why don’t we bite the bullet and produce our own cars and other vehicles?

We will soon have 3 newly vacated plants which do and can produce cars.  Why don’t we produce our own world leading new-design taxis, government cars, town cars, military vehicles, scram jets, super tractors, planes, farm bikes, fun cars [Moke-a-like] or any other vehicle which is useful for us as a country and can be sold elsewhere?  And no, don’t call any the Kangaroo or the Wallaby or the bloody Dingo!!

I am really sick of the prevailing oh-woe-is-me attitude where we import expertise [because we are so backward, stupid and don’t have any talent] only to find the imports are wanting [EG. The Mexican triumvirate at Telstra or multiple managers at Coles Myer or several Australian icons currently in trouble with imported management].

We have sold our soul to foreign manufacturers who can’t manage a decent profit other than the ‘incentive fees’ we pay them [Ford worldwide a couple of years ago].  And, we accept foreign management just because they are foreign and must therefore be much better than us.

This is utter bullshit!

Abbot and Shorten – how about working together with an Australian collective spirit and foster/create/allow the creation of something special?

We are really that good!!

Yes?

How about starting by immediately enforcing Australian only isles at supermarkets?

ANZ and Corporate Governance

Yesterday in the Federal court ANZ was found guilty for illegally charging customers late payment fees. [All FSP’s and utilities will probably be in the same boat]

These extravagant, exorbitant and unconscionable fees will have to be paid back to all their customers with no time limit going backwards.  It’s not only the late payment fees which have to be refunded but most probably daily interest on each illegal fee going forward from the time of the illegal removal of the fee and any other effects that the fee may have forced such as dishonouring some other payment which should have never been dishonoured. 

Last night a spokesman for ANZ said on ABC radio [paraphrased] that the $15m this was going to cost ANZ is irrelevant to an organisation turning over billions. This rather smarmy comment seemed to sum up the bank’s attitude.  He said in effect that the $15m in paybacks meant nothing to a company the size of ANZ.  That arrogance is outstanding because it doesn't apologise for illegal acts or the effect on customers; he just said that they can afford to pay the fines.  This is appalling.

He didn't care.  He didn't care the bank acted illegally, he didn't care that it was costing the bank some $15m and he didn't care about shareholder losses.  I will also back it in that the $15m is just fees to be refunded and that the bank hasn't included the full cost to the bank for this issue including legal fees, staff fees, the cost of software to work through millions of transactions and the cost of lost customers and their costs including future ramifications from illegal charging. 

How did he know the fee quantum so quickly?  Could it be ANZ were well aware they were breaking the law? 

Remember it was just last week that ANZ had to refund $70m in overcharged fees to home loan customers!  Even ANZ’s own past CEO, John McFarlane said ANZ’s fees were unsustainable.  Greed seems to endemic and it’s getting worse.

Where is ANZ’s Corporate Governance on the rights of shareholders, responsibilities of the board, integrity and ethical behaviour?  Where is its fiduciary duty?

The questions are, ‘Is this the sort of culture we, as Australians, want to portray to the world and are these the sorts of people we want running our public companies? 

ASIC / FOS / TIO / ACCC / CCMC

There is a tendency for all the regulators and interventionists to hide behind 'the – must be followed - process' and from a complainants of view it is frustrating.  I have read the various acts and try to understand the respective charters as 'regulators etal' and I try to understand each department not wanting to get involved in single disputes.

However, it IS those single disputes which seem to point to systemic and endemic issues.

ASIC have taken some flak recently about not acting on vital issues. [Commonwealth Bank] when early intervention could have saved millions.

The cases I have reported to ASIC [and are current] against banks all revolve around banks ignoring provisions of ASIC, ACCC, ACL and CCMC.  These issues are both systemic and endemic and effect millions of people.  Yet ASIC do nothing.

The inclusion of 'unfair terms and conditions' by the banks is prevalent, with them relying on obviously illegal clauses breaching many acts telling their customers they must comply. This is gross misrepresentation.  It’s actually worse because they will not put anything in writing rather relying on call centre staff to issue verbal threats which the customer is not allowed to record the conversation.  Dodgy?

Secondly, they ignore provisions of the NCCP particularly at S72, S88 and S89.  ALL the banks with whom we deal ignore the law yet ASIC don't do anything.

Lastly, I have a case against nab at FOS waiting for determination with nearly 2 years of 'must be followed process' by FOS.  ASIC, CCMC and ACCC refuse to become involved until FOS make a determination.  This is stupid when there is an obvious dysfunction and where a combined approach could expedite the matter and create systemic change.

In our current  case, nab have clearly breached legal requirements and continue to do so at our expense and I dare say at the expense of a few hundred thousand other so called 'customers'.

Yet ASIC seem reticent to do anything instead relying on its own 'must be followed process'. 

With one particular case at FOS for nearly two years you can imagine what I think of their process.  I have been quite direct.

ASIC's website indicates it will take action yet it doesn't happen?

Change does NOT take years – people take years to create change.  There wouldn’t be private enterprise if we took years to make a decision. 

May I suggest a little bit of strategic change management within the regulators etal would benefit our society.  Delays cost money and effect people’s lives in a very dysfunctional manner and - life is indeed finite.  Unlike FOS, TIO, ACCC, ASIC and CCMC the rest of us do not have years to wait for someone to do something. 

Presuming we are going to keep having requests for intervention, and maybe at an increasing rate, we need to create the changes necessary to expedite quality solutions.  Strategic change, resource allocation and people with the desire to protect society from illegal acts in an appropriate time frame.  People who don’t mind pursuing the wrongdoers – publicly and quickly.

Process is only a tool to create action – it is not a change agent in itself or an excuse for not doing anything.

Jon Langevad

Gender Politics

Federal Government – Question time and the gender ‘card’..

It is only fools and idiots who attack the person rather than the behaviour.

Men and women are not equal!  And, thank God for that.

Women think differently and do some things better - and that is a good thing.

Men think differently and do some things better - and that is a good thing.

The world would be a sad place without both sides of thought.

I have run project teams all over the world and have always attempted to maintain a 50/50 gender split.

One is like water and the other sand.  Individually strong in some respects but also easily moved aside.  You can easily move water aside and kick sand into the air but, mix them up in the right proportions and ‘they’ become a strong and resilient force.  Yet sand and water together remain separate, identifiable and unique - not homogenous but working together to become that force.  A partnership

Apart from remaining unique the second criteria is respect where that respect is a God given right for everyone.  Without necessarily agreeing, respect each other and respect each other’s opinions.  It’s actually quite easy and cathartic to assume you will like and respect someone before you meet them!

Perhaps our political leaders need to learn to enjoy our differences and the inherent strength of working together.

Jon Langevad

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

It seems that banks and commercial leasing agents and business brokers and probably anyone with a pen and disregard for the law include in their many and various contracts, terms and conditions which are clearly in breach of various acts.  

When pressed on the phone they quote these conditions endlessly espousing that they are ‘published’; presumably with the thought that mere publishing gives them credence.  They obviously ignore their illegal nature.  This would seem to be gross misrepresentation with the employee and the company being joint and severally responsible.

When it comes to the crunch these illegal conditions will be read down and be as if they were not in the contract but the question remains. “Why are companies including terms and conditions in their contracts they know are illegal and quoting them over the phone as binding?”  There can be only one reason and that is to confuse the customer through a misrepresentation of the facts.

The customer loses money and time forcing companies forcing them to comply with the law.

It seems that the regulatory bodies like ACCC, ACIC and ACMA ignore this practice so to protect myself I now publish my own terms and conditions which Banks, Estate agents and Business brokers Etal [BEBE] must comply just because I have published!  Just 6 of the 7,312 as an example …

1. All BEBE’s must immediately answer my phone calls with a real person with no menus to navigate;

Fine .. 100 Penalty units

2. All BEBE’s must instigate training for all employees to make them realise that we are the customer and that they are not doing us a favour;

Fine .. 100 Penalty units

3. All BEBE’s will accept anything I request, do and say as law and will action any requests forthwith;

Fine .. 200 Penalty units

4. All BEBE’s will immediately remove any confusing, illegal and misrepresentative term or condition and immediately subjugate themselves to my 7,312 published [elsewhere] Terms and Conditions remembering that they must be legal because I have published them. [Keep in mind that even though ‘elsewhere’ is somewhat obtuse and confusing does not mean you can ignore them]

Fine … 300 penalty units

5. All BEBE’s agree that we may change any or all terms and conditions at any time without your consent or knowledge or acquiescence and they still must comply without reservation:

 Fine … 400 Penalty units

6. All BEBE’s agree that any phone communication may be recorded by us for litigation purposes and that may not do the same; 

Fine … 400 Penalty units

Penalty unit = $195 to be paid into my personal ‘collections’ account [the collections department is specifically enabled to collect fines from BEBE’s]

Jon Langevad

CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT

We all from time to time focus on minutia rather than the big picture because it’s easy and allows our addled brains a respite against life’s major challenges.  Golf is the perfect ‘escape’ as it requires absolute concentration on hitting a very small white ball and blocks out all other issues affecting our lives.  The golf driving range is positively therapeutic.

This is a necessity for us mere mortals but I question as to whether or not it is appropriate for our Government to continually focus on relatively small issues rather than platform our country into a strategic future as a world player.

Our leaders should be galvanising our country towards a common ‘world’ future yet what we see is continual bickering over minutia through somewhat cringe-worthy  behaviour as demonstrated every day in Parliament and picked up by the media in sound and video ‘bites’.

There is no doubt that the current Federal Government has lost people’s confidence through a litany of economic, financial and human mistakes.  Mistakes which should not have happened at this level with so many smart people ready, willing and able to analyse, plan and action an almost mistake proof Government.

Our country will engender a change in Government in September because we have lost faith; and for good reason.

But, to what?

Where are the people we can rally behind to drive our country.  People such as Hawke or Fraser who were/are statesman and did indeed represent  Australia with charisma and leadership.  Orators of some skill able to garner opinion and turn it into something positive.  The skill-sets of Obama, Thatcher, Clinton and Blair are awe inspiring and as world leaders are able to create change by unifying their nations.

No one in their right mind would agree with everything they did but there is no doubt they delivered for their respective countries.  Hawke, when we won The America’s cup was fantastic, because he almost single handed expressed what we were all feeling – a slightly larrikin pride in our country as Australians.  He had the ability to galvanise all political persuasions on the big issues, such as whipping those pesky Americans, and he did it with grace and humour.  Read some of Menzie's speeches to see similar statesman humour and listen to the power of Obama when he speaks.

We will elect a new lot in September and we will expect better Government yet I wonder whether or not we will get the leadership our country really needs.

The bickering minutia set is on all sides of politics with everyone playing the media game of the 5 second destructive sound bite.  The Prime Minister with her misogynist attacks was perfect for a 5 second destruction as was Abbot’s Julia the liar campaign.  Unfortunately both were rubbish and did and have tarnished both ‘leaders’ with a 10 year old bully mentality of low intellect.

Politicians try to excuse this behaviour by saying that parliament debate is vigorous .  Vigorous is hitting a white ball, debate is supposed to be intelligent, intellectual and demanding of logic and clear thinking.  Now think of question time.

We are better than this.

Mr Abbot will be our next prime Minister leading our country into a strategic future.

The question is, ‘Can he remove himself from the minutia set and rise above dysfunctional behaviours and become the leader and statesman we all want and need’?

At the risk of trivialising this issue watch Rowan Atkinson move from bumbling idiot to ‘becoming’ Johnny English the secret agent in seconds.  A transformation with obvious links to Mr Abbot.

There is an issue developing with the way we treat people who read what some may call subversive material.

When I was a lad I read everything I could about homemade firearms with a view to building something which went bang!  You remember, a penny bunger down a lump of pipe with a ball bearing thrown in on top – point it at the fence and wait - only to suffer the ignominy of a hiding from Dad when a large hole appeared.  Or, reading up on how to make a boat only to launch an old door off Black Rock beach and float to glory.  Half a mile out and it dawned on our collective pea brain that we were heading into the shipping lane faster than we could paddle back to shore. Rescued by a fisherman and another hiding.  How about reading up on making a bow and arrow only to have my best ‘friend’ shoot me in the face – quivering arrow embedded in my cheek and, you guessed it, another hiding. This is normal boy’s stuff, adventure and projectiles. 

There were a plethora of books available for boys to ponder over and discuss what would be considered by today’s moral police to be subversive and indeed even anarchistic as well as deeming those evil tomes for corrupting the minds of boys leading them into the paths of terrorism and world domination!

Can you imagine what one of moral turpitude could write about my antics as a boy?  “Terrorist plot foiled by fisherman when youths caught in shipping lane on homemade boat waiting to sink American container.  These same despots have previously been caught developing home made weapons of mass destruction designed to inflict maximum damage. They have also been caught with terrorist instruction manuals. They should be immediately jailed for the rest of their horrible and unchristian lives!”

 Sounds like a big call for a couple of 10 year olds somewhat lacking in a sense of self preservation and an overinflated sense of adventure with no allergies or colds or disease or, brains.

The exampled news article from the moral high ground person was created from the very dark side of their own thoughts and desire to sell news papers turning a couple if idiot 10 year olds into perpetrators from the ‘axis of evil’.

I have read part of David Hicks book yet I don’t think I will be developing any desire to go and follow some passion in another country through and by just reading his book.  I can remember reading books by Dennis Wheatley as a kid on the occult and being fascinated but I don’t think I will be buying a pointy hat any time soon.  At our school we had a church service every morning – 2400 sessions of attempted indoctrination - yet I have no desire to pursue a role as a religious do-gooder. 

I have read the bible dozens of times and indeed have a couple of those inculcating tomes floating around the house somewhere.  Does this mean I am a religious extremist with views taken from a collection of part phrases?  Not bloody likely.

As I am scrawling this I am looking around at our library.  Right there in front of me is another mine of information allowing me to research possible malfeasant targets.  This incendiary publication is innocently called the ‘The White Pages’.  I can slobber over this whilst wearing my pointy hat and thinking of my antics as a “despot youth reading unchristian terrorist instruction manuals such as Popular mechanics”.

Then there is the internet.  That terrorist inspired publication, The White Pages’ is on-line!  God help us all.

This week a person was arrested for reading ‘subversive’ material and accused of a crime because someone somewhere deemed the material subversive and of Al Qaeda origin.  Every bloke should therefore be arrested who had read the White Pages, Popular Mechanics, The Bible, any thriller novel or has seen any ‘action’ movie over the last 50 years.

Mao Tse Tung tried to remove Chinese culture by removing books. Stalin and Hitler did the same. These delightful despots believed that if you removed people’s ability to seek information then you gain control.  The sad thing is that they nearly pulled it off and worse, their idea of censorship is still alive and well in today’s challenged dictatorships.

It has been proven time and time again that people will seek information and then disseminate what they think is right and what is wrong.

There will always be people who read into a sentence just what they want to hear and make judgements based on no fact.  Take the fictitious article written about my attempts to sail to glory as a 10 year old - nothing to do with reality.  It’s not the act but the reporting which creates angst.

It’s not what people read, it’s how they interpret it. What’s more, if too many books have been burnt then the total picture is not available and people will make decisions on limited and possibly spurious texts.  Not good.

I was lucky because as part of my 2400 church services we discussed all religions on equal terms with an overriding agenda not to judge.  Obviously, as a Presbyterian school, the preference was to guide us into the true light of that belief, but not at the expense of intellectual understanding.

The same cannot be said for other doctrines which attempt to blind and demand adherence to what is a very small section of life.

Therefore, the issue is not what they read but what they DON’T read.  Balance in everything is good whereas dictated opinion is bad.  Take ‘Reds under the beds’ and ‘George Orwell’s1984’ as examples.

I personally don’t think it an issue that someone reads a subversive document.  Every Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Christian Scientist or orthodox Jew could also be accused of subverting another’s chosen true way if all we had to judge on was the specific written word of each doctrine.

Every one of those believers who decry other’s beliefs should also be arrested and jailed as was the person downloading alleged Al Qaeda subversive material.

Perhaps not a good thought as this act alone is heading towards Hitler’s idea of a free world.

I personally have been threatening to read the Koran.  It’s about time and like Popular Mechanics, The Bible and the White Pages, it’s an obvious terrorist book designed to subvert the masses into a proletarian uprising.

Can you imagine how the same writer who wrote the fictitious article on me as a floating kid could perceive this wanton act.

“Brainless dropkick youth previously guilty of terrorist plots grows up to continue his life of subversion and anarchy by downloading and indeed even reading the other side’s religious text!  His intentions are obviously Armageddon generated from the axis of evil.  God Help us all”

Yep, if that drivel is what we believe and those beliefs guide our actions then truly, ‘God Help us all’.

Jon Langevad   

BURDEN OF PROOF

I find a worrying trend in business and indeed within our legal system, a trend which undermines the very heart of our society. 

A basic tenet of ‘justice’ is that an accuser has to prove their accused is guilty.  It is not up to the accused to prove their innocence. 

In reality, it may be quicker for the accused to establish an alibi and circumvent the process.  However, the accused does not have to prove innocence and it makes perfect sense in that the accuser must have a proper case in order to accuse else there is no capacity to accuse.

Innocent people are left alone to enjoy without having to defend spurious action.

Fast forward to business.

Big companies seem to be trying to reverse that process especially when they are in a position to alter someone’s capacity to enjoy life.  For instance banks, communications companies or indeed any company we deal with.

The reason is obvious in that it’s far cheaper for a company to accuse without proof and sit back and wait until the accused proves they are innocent.  And, they must prove it or suffer withdrawal of some service.

This reverse thinking has also infected our legal system in services such as the ‘Financial Ombudsman Service’ or FOS.

For example, when a financial institution does the wrong thing and one is forced to engage FOS as an independent third party to help defend oneself, the burden of proof to maintain innocence often rests with the accused rather than the financial institution. 

Given this dysfunction, it also follows that accusing without merit carries a responsibility to return the injured party back to the position they were in prior to the fallacious accusation.  Otherwise the innocent party would have paid in some way for defending their innocence. 

Most of the time this cost in its simplest terms will be time.

Time is the one thing we can never replace and it is utterly wasted when we are required to protect our innocence against fallacious claims.

Using the FOS example, you have been accused of something and you must spend time proving your innocence as its charter is specific in that it requires both parties to conciliate and negotiate and you do indeed prove your innocence perhaps spending 50 hours doing so. 

So, the burden of proof was shifted to the wrongly accused and what’s more, the innocent party has spent time defending the wrongful action.  Time they can never get back and time virtually stolen by the accuser.

Yet FOS deem that the wrongly accused or indeed even a winning persons time has no value and will not direct compensation.

For example, a bank does the wrong thing which drastically effects our capacity to live as we had before their illegal action, we are forced to go to FOS to protect our interests and spend hundreds of hours defending ourselves against the banks illegal actions then at the end of the process the bank walks away with not even an apology whilst we have lost the one thing we cannot replace, time.

Not only have we lost our most valuable resource but we have lost our legal right to the burden of proof remaining with the accuser.  So, in effect, we are paying to have our legal rights removed.

Big business is laughing because their costs are reduced whilst the people they accuse suffer.

Doesn’t seem fair and it is most certainly against the meaning of the Westminster system of law.

Jon Langevad

EDUCATION - One person’s semi-educated opinion.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about education with every Minister trying to sound as though it was and is their life’s work to do ‘something’ about every minority interest group wanting to push their own agenda.  The result is a confused debate stuck in minutia.

There is no point in discussing teacher underperformance / pay or disability payments or indeed anything unless, the first question is asked and we all agree on the answer.

That question is – “Where do we want Australia to be in say 20 years?”

If the agreed collective decision is “She’ll be right, mate” then we tootle along as we have and we will all stand back aghast in 20 years when our country falls into third world status with loud protestations from the newly unwashed such as, ‘Not my fault mate, I wanted a new drinks fountain for the 8 year olds 20 years ago and that would have made the difference, but no one listened.  Now look at them at 28 and they are water deprived and illiterate’.

However, if we decide that we want Australia to lead the world in thinking, ideas and a really positive outlook on life then we need to make a few decisions – starting at the pointy end.

There are only two guiding parameters.  Firstly, everyone has a potential to create greatness and secondly, greatness can only happen if we provide the channels through which those magical thoughts can be turned into something special.

To provide those channels we need to accept the fact that an investment is required with all of us needing to contribute to make our country something special.

I have personal opinions as does everyone else but as I am writing this, then ..

Firstly, we do not spend time instilling into our little blighters a thinking ethic.  Sounds a bit harsh telling a four year old that thinking is a good thing until the alternative is realised.  Kids need to do kids things like suck the dog’s tail and live in a fantasy world and have extremes of emotion and know there’s always a hand to hold.  But they also need to experience the joy of thinking and accomplishment.  Personally, I think I realised I was part of the human race about the time I turned 30 and had to go back to school to get my degrees.  But I’m a bloke so I’ve got an excuse.

Therefore, I believe, we need to spend a huge amount of time making sure that when all our little pre-human poo machines turn 6 or 7 they have a joy of learning instilled into them which will enable them to focus and turn the mundane into the great.

Some will say that it’s the parents responsibility, and it is in part, but we cannot abrogate our responsibility as a society because it’s far far too important and, it has to happen early in life.  And, believe it or not, parents are ill equipped because they are actually just learning on the job.

Therefore, if we as a society accept the need to give our kid-ettes a leg up then we need to invest money, time, effort and drive into making it happen.  This is not about endless debate or trials or test cases or any other time wasting initiative actively sought by spotlight seeking minorities doing anything to stick their mono-syllable utterance machines in front of a microphone.

But it is about our Government [remember the ones who are supposed to represent us and do what the majority want] declaring war on ‘average’ and giving our brats and brat-ettes from 4 to 7 a boost into the future through focusing on the joy of learning stuff.

And, I bet there is an absolute plethora of talented people out there who can make this happen quickly, easily and with little politicking.

When we achieve this bunch of kids sneaking up on the age of reason actively seeking new challenges, then it will be a self fulfilling enigma machine because drive will come from within their buzzing and exponentially expanding brains - not from the outside from someone with a big learning stick.   

This should be free to all.

Now, given all the stuff in the middle is accomplished and we are seeking benefit for Australia then we also have a right to expect payback for all the freebies.

Our new and inspiring education machine is now spitting out people with trade qualifications, diplomas, degrees and doctorates at the peak of their intellectualism, creativity and ability to see the impossible as, possible.

 Yet, we shake their hands make them wear a funny hat and say see you later. “She’ll be right”. 

We have looked at the best start and the middle bit supporting a self fulfilling prophesy, now we need to focus on the prophesy bit.

Can you imagine the payoff for all this free education being as simple as giving a year back to the society which supported their success.  And what’s more, as we have instilled a thinking ethic at the almost human stage, these educated thinking machines will be champing at the bit to start their careers with a bang.

That bang is simple.  The first year out of education and prior to awarding a qualification, everyone would be required to join a think tank and work with like minded people to create ‘something’ for the benefit of our country.  Obviously, not everyone will be able to achieve a brain snapping moment but as long as everyone improves something it will snowball with a self fulfilling result – greatness.

Start with a vision to make Australia great, focus on creating a thinking ethic in little tackers, support that thinking / learning right through the education system and let it culminate in think tanks and outcomes and ‘greatness’.

How hard can it be?

Jon Langevad MBA

PS: Critical issues:

We need people who can channel the excitement of learning  – purge the dross.

Education should be free with the same investment in every kid.

Parents may choose a different school with that investment linked to their kid.

Develop and channel learning through the NBN for isolated kids.

Support kids with disability / different abilities to succeed.

Kids who fall out of the system need a hand to hold – not everyone will succeed 100%.

Everyone at any age needs that hand to hold at sometime – this should also be built in.

[note that the ‘hand’ is far more than just monetary benefits – it is also emotional support]

Beware the vocal minority moving focus away from the real issues.