Month: July 1999

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has refused to put Kakadu National park on the in-danger list, and rightly so. However, it will revisit the issue in six months time. Only one of the 21 member nations, Cuba, voted for an in-danger listing.

There has been a confusion of two issues: uranium mining and the world heritage value of the park. People opposed to uranium mining and the whole nuclear cycle have latched on to the park issue as part of their campaign to prevent mining at Jabiluka, which is inside the park boundary. But the cultural and natural heritage values of the park are not threatened by the mine. The park is in better condition now than at any time since its declaration, 18 years ago. And it is likely to improve Jabiluka mine or not. The park has been well looked after under both Coalition and Labor administrations, and is better looked after than any of half a dozen overseas world-heritage-declared sites. The campaign has not been about heritage, but about uranium mining. It was a misdirected campaign and deserved to fail. That is the case irrespective of whether one is opposed to nuclear power.
Continue reading “1999_07_july_leader15jul kakadu”

ACT Government MLAs have got themselves into a bind over the abortion question. They should have left well enough alone a year ago. There was no need to change the law. Moreover, any change to the law would only result in women wanting abortion gong across the border to Queanbeyan. No territory is an island.

But no, Independent Paul Osborne, who is a strong Catholic and has strong anti-abortion views, put up a private members’ Bill to restrict abortion and the Government felt he had to be appeased somehow because the Government needed his vote to stay in office. And it still does. So here we are a few weeks after the no-confidence motion over Bruce Stadium facing another community and Assembly debate on abortion.

A year ago, Mr Osborne sought to heavily restrict abortion in the ACT. Oddly enough he caused some ire in the Catholic Church because his law might have allowed abortion in some circumstances, such as grave medical risk or, in cases before 12 weeks of pregnancy, in circumstances of grave psychological risk, whereas Church teaching is generally to have the woman to carry a child to birth. Giving any significant ground whatever was an anathema to the Church. Mr Osborne also incurred the wrath of women’s groups who saw any tightening of present practice through legal definition of when an abortion might take place as an infringement of women’s rights.
Continue reading “1999_07_july_leader14jul abortion”

The 10th United Nations report on Human Development issued yesterday reveals some interesting trends and makes some misguided suggestions as to how the world might be made better.

The report shows that globalisation is creating more inequality. The average income in the five richest countries is 74 times the level in the poorest five, the widest inequality gap recorded. The 20 per cent of population that lives in the developed world enjoy 86 per cent of the consumption; the bottom 20 per cent has just 1 per cent of it. Thirty years ago, the gap between the richest fifth and the poorest was only 30 to 1.

So the report calls for a rewriting of the rules of globalisation. It wants a new global bank in addition to the IMF and a world investment trust that could redistribute incomes globally. It said the challenge for the new millennium was to find rules and institutions to make global markets and competition work for the people and not just for profits. It also calls for a “”bit” tax on internet use to generate finance for the spread of new technology. It condemned the fact that only the rich in the rich countries were benefiting from the internet.
Continue reading “1999_07_july_leader13jul world equality”

The 10th United Nations report on Human Development issued yesterday reveals some interesting trends and makes some misguided suggestions as to how the world might be made better.

The report shows that globalisation is creating more inequality. The average income in the five richest countries is 74 times the level in the poorest five, the widest inequality gap recorded. The 20 per cent of population that lives in the developed world enjoy 86 per cent of the consumption; the bottom 20 per cent has just 1 per cent of it. Thirty years ago, the gap between the richest fifth and the poorest was only 30 to 1.

So the report calls for a rewriting of the rules of globalisation. It wants a new global bank in addition to the IMF and a world investment trust that could redistribute incomes globally. It said the challenge for the new millennium was to find rules and institutions to make global markets and competition work for the people and not just for profits. It also calls for a “”bit” tax on internet use to generate finance for the spread of new technology. It condemned the fact that only the rich in the rich countries were benefiting from the internet.
Continue reading “1999_07_july_leader13jul world equality”

Two very different views are emerging about The Canberra Hospital. The public has very little chance of deciding where the truth lies and therefore whether the politicians they vote for are doing a good job.

On one hand, we have a line of research from past Grants Commission reports, a more recent Productivity Commission inquiry and several other consultants’ reports. These suggest that The Canberra Hospital is costing up to 50 per cent over the national average and that the extra cost can be put down to inefficiencies of one sort or another and higher incomes than necessary for doctors, administrators, nurses and others. Along with this research are suggestions that The Canberra Hospital does not do a brilliant job medically compared to hospitals that can specialise more in Sydney. These hospitals have the ability to attract the very best in their fields because of the degree of specialisation and the volume of work in the specialisation.

On the other hand, a very detailed study by the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation paints a different picture. It shows a hospital that works in a different way from virtually every other hospital in the country. The Canberra Hospital takes the most serious cases from a very large area in NSW. Moreover, as it is the only major hospital for miles around it does not specialise, unlike hospitals in Sydney and Melbourne. It tends, therefore, to treat a patient from start to finish as one event. In short, Canberra hospital episodes (separations, in the jargon) tend to be longer, more complex and more comprehensive than the average in other states. Further, hospitals in larger cities had lower cost structures.
Continue reading “1999_07_july_leader12jul health”