Submarines

Posted this today on RN Facebook.

About submarines.

Why are getting someone else to build our submarines? Because we can't. What happens at the end of this process? Will we be able to build them, then? 

. What about the paperwork and intellectual property? Will we own it all? Can we then sell that design? Those plans? Just what have we bought? Can we then build and sell submarines? If not why not? 

. We can build submarines - we built the Collins class and it is proposed we build these news ones - so what is it we can't do? Just what are we buying? A design? That is all it can be. We are paying $50 billion for a design? 

. This is not a new design. It is the French Short Fin Barracuda - a nuclear sub. It will be retrofitted with diesel. If it is not a new design this means it doesn't have to be designed. This means the design should be cheaper. Why isn't it? Why wasn't the process marketed as a design purchase? 

. If we have purchased this design that means we can manufacture Barracuda submarines and sell them. I doubt this is going to be true. So what have we done? We have promised to pay $50 billion to rent a design for the period of a build. How good is that? 

. All of the above is essentially non-military. It's just looking at the thing as though it is proven to be sensible and needed. And looks like, sensible and needed or not, we're just throwing money away, as usual.

Legal Aid In Need of Funds - and some light shone on it.

 

Post on Radio National's Facebook page this morning, regarding Legal Aid in Australia. 

The interview because the budget failed to provide sufficient funding and the organisation is facing a 30% reduction in funds over the next three years. (starting OEFY next year).  In three and four years time I think we could opine that the need would be possibly 30% greater that now - but they choose to decrease funding.  

 

Does that mean they have some reason to believe the demand will decrease?

 

Interesting interview regarding legal aid this morning. Would have been interesting to inquire into a couple of things:

. What is at the bottom of the high demand? Is it the poverty itself? Or use of drugs? Or drink? Or homelessness? Or family violence (why the violence?) ?

. What particular groups if any are turned away amongst these thousands you claim are turned away every month (!?). Is there a group therefore effectively with no hope of legal aid?

. Why does it cost so much? Is it the cost of counsel alone? What sort of counsel? Is their remuneration excessive ? (almost certainly). How many millions per year goes directly to remuneration of counsel if it is this way?

. Why is counsel required (if it is)? What are they arguing for the most part? Is there a recurring argument that could be a good reason for new legislation?

Just as a ' for instance.'

Boat People

Just made a post on Radio National.

There's no limit to Peter Dutton is there? Advocates giving false hope he says.

In sober fact all you have to do is read the UN Declaration on Human Rights to people and, in the Australian context, you've given them false hope.

Australia's stance is quite clear: contravention of the charter of human rights to all who come here by boat.

(Or is it? What about those who jump ship, overstay their visas, when arriving on tour cruise ships, ocean liner, cargo ships? We never hear about that. Our media too busy toeing the line I suppose).

That's the sober truth.

The next sober truth is that we manifest that attitude by deliberately adopting inhumane and callous practices.

Sorry if I spoil your day, but it is true.

We could have exactly the same official policy towards 'boat people' that we have now, in contravention of supposed human rights, without doing any harm to people whatever. Without imprisoning them for years in horrible conditions. Without dumping them in third world countries from which they'll never get the chance to flee.

We could treat people well, and with kindness and understanding, help them as much as we could, but still take them back where they came from, or to wherever they wanted to go that was possible, or just keep them in prisons that were in fact humane and gentle places.

We could demonstrate a firm and gentle policy. We could explain our total fear of inundation from the sea of thousands, millions, of refugees and our decision to block that traffic by denying anyone what arrives in that way any possible chance of settling in Australia.

We could explain that honestly and kindly and confess that it is a poor reaction but that we are incapable of thinking of any other solution. Could they perhaps suggest one?

We could go through all the same mechanisms and leave out the inhumanity, the cruelty, the callousness. And, incidentally, leave out the treatment of the Australian electorate as a bunch of half wits not worthy of consideration, of the access to the truth.

That's what could happen. That's what, at the very least, should happen.