Loading...
Loading...

May 07, 2010

A growing risk in cannabis: A review of the Queensland drug trade



http://city-news.whereilive.com.au



Brad Pitt, John Mayer, Charlize Theron and even "Californian Barbie" Jennifer Aniston all have more than just their A-list star status in common: they're all cannabis advocates.

So if gorgeous, svelte and uber successful celebrities can be linked with the drug and still retain their star power, it mustn't be that harmful, right?

Wrong, say community drug experts, who say the drug has been so glamorised in popular culture that it's often mistakenly viewed as a "soft" drug, and a fashionable and subversive one at that.

Indeed, cannabis was one of cornerstones of the hippie, alternative movement.

But with cannabis potency at a reported all-time high and users in their 20s-40s smoking it more dangerously when combined with a host of other drugs such as heroin and amphetamines is it time we rethink our attitudes towards the drug?

The Crime and Misconduct Commission, an independent law enforcement body set up to combat major crime in Queensland, released the report Illicit Drug Markets in Queensland in February.

It detected significant changes in Queensland's illicit drug market over the past five years, particularly in the production, supply and use of cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy.

It found that recent cannabis use in Queensland (9.5 per cent) is slightly higher than the national average (9.1 per cent).

This represents about 323,000 Queensland residents using cannabis in the past 12 months.

And it reflects an above-average rate of recent use by both Queensland females and young people (both sexes) aged 14-29.

CMC director of intelligence Chris Keen said the damning figures (see fact box, right) were of grave concern because the health risks of cannabis are high and the dangers and illicit nature of the drug have been vastly underestimated by the public.

"The traditional view of cannabis as a soft drug fails to recognise the high level of criminality involved in the supply side of the market," he said.

"There are significant health and community harms associated with cannabis use, including a growing body of evidence on the relationship between mental health problems and cannabis use.

"There is also strong evidence of the adverse impact of cannabis on driving performance."

The CMC report also found cannabis continues to dominate drug-related policing activity in Queensland. Almost 70 per cent of drug-related arrests in 2007-08 involved cannabis, although almost 90 per cent of those were for consumer offences.

And in 2007-08 almost two in five alcohol and drug-related treatment episodes in Queensland were cannabis-related.

Dr Dennis Young, executive director of Bowen Hills' Drug Arm Australasia and Centre for Addiction Research and Education, says cannabis is the second most commonly used drug in Brisbane by young people, after alcohol.

He also abhors the misconception that cannabis is harmless.

"I don't think any illegal drug should be deemed as soft," Dr Young says.

"The use of any drug can cause harm.

"The community hasn't given enough attention to cannabis use we've been focusing much more heavily on heroin or amphetamines use. Heavy cannabis use is very dangerous. And don't forget, it you smoke cannabis, you run the risk of all the cancers attached to smoking nicotine lung cancer, throat cancer.

"Drug-driving is also a huge problem. Police reports show there are significantly more people driving around on our roads under the influence of drugs than there are those under the influence of alcohol."

Dr Young says while he believes recent media reports that cannabis potency is 30 times stronger nowadays are "exaggerations", cannabis is at least 10-20 per cent stronger than in the past.

"The strength of cannabis has increased over the past 20 years, no doubt. To what extent, I'm not sure there's no conclusive evidence," he says.

"What's also changed is that young people are using cannabis more dangerously than in the past. They seldom use just one drug by itself."

Dr Young said many cannabis users didn't understand that they'd crossed the line to dependence until it was too late.

"A good way to assess if you have a cannabis addiction is to ask yourself if it's interfering with your day-to-day life and your health," he says.

"If it's crippling your relationships or your employment prospects, you've got to stop."

Meanwhile, about 10,000 people from around Australia swarmed to the annual cannabis love-in that is the Nimbin MardiGrass Festival 2010 on May 1 and 2.

I spoke to Michael Balderstone, president of pro-cannabis decriminalisation lobby group Nimbin Hemp Embassy, on the phone late last week, amid his preparations for the event.

Held since 1993, MardiGrass is "dedicated to ending the ridiculous war on weed", Balderstone says.

"It's MardiGrass you should come down!" he urged.

"Cannabis users want cheaper prices, better quality and not to be viewed as criminals.

"I think the drug should be legalised and America is showing us the way. It's got to be regulated and taxed, and that way you'd have quality control.

"I'm not saying it's harmless. Cannabis, for some people, doesn't work at all, just like alcohol doesn't work for some.

"If you have a predisposition to, or family history of, psychosis (mental illness) I think you've got to very careful. But I think under a cloud of fear, which prohibition creates, cannabis is much more harmful as people don't respect the law and it becomes more of a forbidden fruit; attractive.

"I'm not surprised it's so popular in Brisbane. It's probably the safest of all the illegal drugs out there and people enjoy it.

"It's relaxing and stirs a lot of creative juices: it's manure for the imagination."

But even Balderstone's concerned about young people's dangerous cannabis habits.

"Pot is not addictive, I find. I can smoke every day for a week and then not smoke and I won't notice it. But smoke cannabis with tobacco, and you're crawling up the walls," he says.

"I just think prohibition has created so many societal problems. I see so many young people who have criminal records, from being busted with cannabis, and they can't get jobs."


Australian Teenage eBay, PayPal Alleged Fraud: Bank error revealed $2m teen mastermind Philip John Heggie

INTERNET FRAUD ON A GRAND NATIONAL SCALE

A $2 million bank error led to the detection of a series of online frauds allegedly committed by a Brisbane teenager, a court has heard.

University of Queensland student Philip John Heggie, 19, was banned from using the internet from New Year's Day this year when he faced court following his arrest on fraud charges.

The charges were laid after the Suncorp Bank erroneously deposited $2 million into an account allegedly held and operated by Mr Heggie using a false name.

A suspicious bank teller alerted police after Mr Heggie allegedly transferred the entire sum before trying to withdraw $5000 at Garden City Shopping Centre, south of Brisbane, on New Year's Eve.

But ongoing investigations into his online banking affairs led to further charges and, in March this year, the discovery that he was allegedly continuing his internet fraud while on bail.

This morning the business student was back in court on a further 54 charges relating to him allegedly committing more online fraud by hacking computers.

Prosecutor Rebecca Marks told the court police had found Mr Heggie had set up 38 accounts - a mixture of bank, eBay and PayPal accounts - all in fake names and used the accounts to sell non-existent goods online, then keeping the cash transferred through the bogus accounts by the consumer.

In opposing an application for his bail, Ms Marks said Mr Heggie had committed some of the offences while on bail with a condition not to use the internet.

The investigation into his affairs was continuing as his computer had been seized and was being examined by police, she said.

"If he's released there's an unacceptable risk he will continue to defraud the public," she said.

But solicitor Emily O'Hagan, for Mr Heggie, said her client had been in Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre for the past two months after he was charged with the latest set of charges.

She said if released, he could re-commence his university course and secure a job as a pizza deliverer.

This, along with a move to live with his mother on a farm in Toowoomba, would would give him "structure, support and supervision".

Ms O'Hagan said her client's mother was prepared to provide a $5000 surety and Mr Heggie understood if he breached any condition of his bail - including an order he not use the internet - his mother would lose the surety.

But Magistrate John Costello refused to allow bail for Mr Heggie, who faces a total of 57 charges including fraud, attempted fraud and uttering a false document.

The teenager also faces 39 charges of obtaining and or dealing with identification information, 10 counts of computer hacking and or misuse and five counts of receiving tainted property.

"The evidence is strong," Mr Costello said.

Mr Heggie was remanded in custody.

His case will be back in court in June.

..................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT:  Under our legal system, individuals are regarded as innocent until proven guilty.
But if this teenager is eventually found guilty of these alleged crimes, nothing but a long stint
in a  state penitentiary will suffice as a deterrent to others contemplating such online fraud. 
Heggie would get all the "structure, support and supervision" he would ever need in the loving
comfort of a Queensland prison cell.



Former Queensland state candidate Robert Paul Mcjannett could be free in weeks after Bali drug conviction

BrisbaneTimes.com.au

Former Queensland Parliament candidate Robert Paul Mcjannett is  arrested in Bali.

Former Queensland Parliament candidate Robert Paul Mcjannett
is arrested in Bali.

A former Queensland election candidate who brought marijuana into Bali last year has been sentenced to five months' jail.

Robert Paul Mcjannett, of Perth, was arrested at Denpasar airport on December 28 with 1.7 grams of marijuana in his luggage.

Mcjannett, 48, initially claimed he was the victim of a set-up but later admitted the drugs were his.

Authorities initially charged him with importing a "group one" narcotic - which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' jail - and drug possession.

But prosecutors eventually dropped those charges and asked the Denpasar District Court to jail Mcjannett for seven months for the less serious charge of drug use.

The court on Friday sentenced him to five months' jail. With time already served in Bali's Kerobokan Prison, he is expected to be eligible for release later this month.

Mcjannett refused to answer the Australian media's questions after his sentencing and covered his face to prevent being photographed.

"You tried to make it worse, you bastards," he told journalists.

"Get lost."

Mcjannett's lawyer Pande Made Sugiartha told the court during the trial that Mcjannett had been using drugs for more than 30 years because it relieved stress and helped him sleep.

"The defendant was stressed because of his domestic life, because of his divorce and separation from his children," he told the court earlier this week.

"This was a huge burden for the defendant that made him feel anxious, depressed and unable to sleep.

"But after using hashish the defendant felt his anxiety disappear, he could forget his problems and get some sleep."

Mcjannett, a crane operator and leading trade unionist, travelled to Bali for a five-day holiday with his son.

He was a regular candidate in Redcliffe City Council elections and most recently appeared on the ballot during the 2005 Redcliffe by-election for State Parliament.


AUstralian Tax System: The Henry tax review: where have we come to?

http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au


By Andrew Clements and Kai-Chen Chang, Mallesons Stephen Jaques

The long awaited report of the Henry tax review (Report) and the Government's response to it was released last Sunday with much fanfare. Evocatively titled Australia's Future Tax System, preceded by media lockdowns and at the colossal size of over 1,309 pages, the Report and the Government's response to it promised much, not only for Australia's tax community, but all Australian individuals, families and businesses.

It seems an opportune time to reflect and consider: What will change? What will the Report mean for lawyers generally or tax lawyers in particular?

Based on the Government's response, the answer for many appears to be, in the short term, "not much". The Report does provide a clear indication of a Treasury "blueprint" for tax reform in the future.

Although the Report makes approximately 138 recommendations for reform, the Government's response appears to adopt only around 10 of the recommendations made in the Report.

The Government's response does not appear to be the "root and branch" approach that was advocated in the Report. The Government has adopted a number of the important recommendations from the Report, but has largely eschewed adopting some of the more controversial recommendations.

The Report's and the Government's response to it, necessarily operate on a high level, policy-based plane. Businesses and individuals are, at this stage, likely to be performing preliminary assessments of how the proposed changes are likely to impact on their affairs. But as always, the "devil" for tax reform lies in the detail.

It will take some time for the Government to determine how its response will be implemented and drafted. We would not expect Australian businesses and individuals to be immediately making significant changes to their operations and activities until further certainty and detail is available regarding the measures.

The Report does offer some useful guidance to Australian tax lawyers and practitioners regarding the direction for future tax reform, development and administration.

One of the areas of focus of the Report was the governance on the Australian tax system. The Report emphasises the need for greater community consultation prior to making significant tax reforms. It recommends an expansion of the existing roles of review and oversight bodies that are independent from the ATO in the Australian tax system, such as the Board of Taxation, Inspector-General of Taxation, the Australian National Audit Office and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It also recommends a new body be established to advise the ATO on the general organisation and management of the ATO.

It is hoped that the Report's consideration and scrutiny of these issues will raise awareness of the importance of the governance aspects of the Australian tax system.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the Report is that it now essentially acts as a potential "shopping list" for future reforms over the coming years. It is hard to anticipate that any significant amendments to the overall policy design of the Australian tax system to be made without consulting or relying on the comprehensive recommendations made in the Report.

This raises questions regarding previous reviews of the Australian tax system that have been undertaken, to the extent they are inconsistent with the Henry recommendations. For example, the status of the recommendations made in the Johnson report, regarding Australia as a financial centre, is uncertain, as it is not clear whether the Government intends to pursue the Henry reforms in preference to the Johnson recommendations.

BREAKING NEWS: Australian Immigration Minister suspends Offshore General Skilled Visa applications from midnight tonight


The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Senator Chris Evans has today announced a temporary suspension of certain general skilled migration visas.

The move hopes to ensure that all offshore general skilled applications made after today are in accordance with the occupations included on the new Skilled Occupation List (SOL), to be released later this month.

The Minister has not indicated when the suspension will be lifted, however it will be no earlier than the announcement of the new SOL.

The Minister has announced that his Department will not accept applications for the following visa subclasses from 8 May 2010 until further notice:

  • Subclass 175 – Skilled Independent;
  • Subclass 176 – Skilled Sponsored; and
  • Subclass 475 – Skilled Regional Sponsored.

Therefore, any applications received by the Department after 8 May 2010 for one of the above visa subclasses will be returned and the visa application charge refunded.

Queensland 'Cancer cure' man appeals legal order in Federal Court of Australia

SMH.com.au


A Queensland man claiming he can cure cancer with diet and exercise wants to appeal a court order shutting down his business and website.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) won an interim injunction in March against Darryl Peter Jones, the founder of The Darryl Jones Health Resolution Centre.

In the Full Court of the Federal Court in Brisbane on Friday, Mr Jones sought permission to appeal the court order.

The ACCC alleges Mr Jones' medical treatment claims are misleading or deceptive under the Trade Practices Act.

Before it was shut down, Mr Jones' website advertised a cancer treatment program involving an exercise regime, the consumption of vitamin B17 and restriction of glucose in the diet.

The injunction stopped Nambour-based Mr Jones from promoting his treatments without first obtaining written medical or scientific advice in support of his treatment from a registered medical practitioner.

His website was blocked with a court notice from the ACCC, but his Facebook page remains operational with 46 members.

The court order also forced Mr Jones to surrender his list of clients and provide each of them with a copy of the court order.

Mr Jones' lawyer Bruce Levet argued that the court did not have the power to restrict the website because Mr Jones was not a corporation but a sole trader and not engaging in interstate commerce and trade.

Mr Levet told the court his client had been forced to close his business because of the court order not to make any representations about his treatments.

"At a large cost to Mr Jones ... and at the cost possibly to the patients who rely on him for treatment," he said.

Mr Levet asked for an extension of time for his appeal due to special circumstances. The court was told Mr Jones had moved out of his home and out of his business premises.

Mr Levet said Mr Jones had cash flow problems and was not eligible for Centrelink or Legal Aid.

The lawyer for the ACCC, Matthew Brady, said Mr Jones did not have to close his business if he could get medical and scientific evidence to back up his medical claims.

"This man is not a doctor and has no medical qualifications at all," he said.

"There is no substantial injustice."

Justice Berna Collier reserved her decision and will decide whether Mr Jones can appeal the court order in the next two weeks.

.....................................................................................
COMMENT: Is Darryl Peter Jones a cancer quack like
Milan Brych in Queensland over 20 years ago or is he
a genuine cancer therapist? You be the judge.

Conroy has Telstra by the b*lls - Now their hearts and minds will follow!

http://www.zdnet.com.au

As parliament resumes for three days next week for the Federal Budget,
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy will again attempt to reintroduce
a Bill that could starve Telstra of mobile spectrum required for next-generation
mobile technology if it doesn't split into two.

Stephen Conroy

Stephen Conroy

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 has offered Telstra a choice to voluntarily opt for structural separation or face an imposed functional separation coupled with tough sanctions, including a possible ban on acquiring spectrum for 4G wireless services.

The draft legislation program for the Senate has placed the Bill on Wednesday next week — the second of the three-day sittings — and last on the list to be considered for that day.

At the release of the National Broadband Network (NBN) implementation study, Senator Conroy said there was a misconception that the Bill before parliament forced structural separation. "That's not the case," Conroy said.

"This Bill deals with the existing structure of the market today," Conroy said. "This Bill talks about a whole range of new powers for the ACCC to try and deal with some of the problems this sector has had endemically."

Conroy has also given Telstra until the end of June to negotiate on whether it will handover any of its network to the Federal Government.


US Company in International Ripoff: StoresOnline ordered to pay ACCC in Australia

http://www.computerworld.com.au

ACCC chairman puts international corporations on notice

The Australian Federal court and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have found e-commerce marketing companies, StoresOnline International and StoresOnline, to be in breach of the Trades Practices Act 1974, by misleading their customers on the price of products and services offered at workshops and seminars.  

The judge overseeing the case, Justice Edmonds concluded both StoresOnline International and StoresOnline advertised a discount on their software packages purchased at workshops and seminars but had no intention of selling the same products for a higher price. Software packages were offered at a discounted price to workshop attendees for 90 days after the workshop was held. It was also found that the products were not sold during this 90 day period.  

The outcome of the case against the American company demonstrates the willingness of the ACCC to pursue matters concerning Australian consumers on an international scale, according to ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel.

"International corporations are on notice that if they mislead or deceive Australian consumers they will risk similar court action by the ACCC," Samuel said in a statement.

StoresOnline was also ordered by the court to pay ACCC's costs.

StoresOnline was previously found to be in breach of section 87B of the Trade Practices Act, when the ACCC ordered the company to make adjustments to misleading presentation slides from marketing presentations made in Australia in October 2006 and March 2007.

iMergent Provides Update on Australia and ACCC lawsuit


http://www.marketwatch.com



iMergent, Inc., a leading provider of eCommerce software, site development, web hosting and search engine optimization for businesses and entrepreneurs, today announced that the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales, entered an Order on the remaining issue outstanding from a 2007 law suit filed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) against iMergent ( the "Company").

The ACCC in a 2007 action alleged violations of an earlier settlement. The suit alleged that the Company had (i) failed to notify the ACCC of seminars held in Australia; (ii) failed to provide copies of tapes of seminars to the ACCC when requested; (iii) failed to notify purchasers of the three-day cooling-off period (right to rescind); and (iv) failed to provide certain disclosures relating to the software, which were enumerated in the previous agreement. The ACCC also alleged that the prior sales offer, which had been discontinued prior to the suit, whereby the Company compared the price of the software package sold at the Workshop to a list price available to attendees for 90 days (the "90 day offer") was deceptive.

The prior settlement resolved issues related to the manner in which sales disclosures are made in Australia, compensation of Australian purchasers and all fees and costs incurred by the ACCC relating to the legal proceeding which occurred prior to December 1, 2009.

The Court has found that the "90 day offer" was misleading, it found the Company did not intend to sell software at its list price and that therefore comparing the price of the software sold at the Workshop to a list price was misleading or deceptive.

The Company disputed the position of the ACCC and argued that a list price or comparison to an MSRP is not in any manner misleading. The Company does not expect this ruling to have an economic impact on the Company as the prior settlement resolved issues of restitution as well as costs and fees up to the final submission of written evidence on this issue. The Company is not limited in holding workshops in Australia.

Jeffrey G. Korn, iMergent's Chief Legal Officer commented, "We vehemently disagree with the reasoning of the Court. The "90 day offer" was not intended to mislead customers; it was presented as essentially an MSRP/list price which to us was not unlike a car manufacturer who rarely if ever sells at list price. We always made clear to customers that it was our intention to sell the software package at the Workshop, and not sell at the "list price." Selling with a time sensitive discount is a very standard sales practice and we believe it was inappropriate to conclude that such a sale was misleading or in any manner deceptive. The ruling has no current effect on the Company or its customers, as the Company did away with the "90 day offer" more than three years ago - which was before the allegations by the ACCC or the filing of the law suit. The discontinuance of the offer had nothing to do with the claims by the ACCC, we found the offer was confusing to customers and actually impeded the sales process as opposed to supporting it."

Korn added, "We made clear to the ACCC and the Court that the sales practice was something we had discontinued. We further agreed that the sales tactic would not be reintroduced. We unfortunately believe the fact that the "90 day offer" had in fact been discontinued may ironically have made it easier to enter a ruling that it was misleading. The prior settlement with the ACCC resolved restitution and this ruling will have minimal financial impact on the Company as the only costs and fees which can be entered relate to the time period after the settlement, and those costs and fees are minimal. StoresOnline has made great strides over the last several years in improving its sales process and attempting to be transparent to its customers, those processes were in place well before the law suit by the ACCC, and continues on an ongoing basis."

About iMergent

iMergent provides eCommerce solutions to entrepreneurs and businesses enabling them to market and sell their business products or ideas via the Internet. The company sells its proprietary software and training services which help users build Internet strategies to allow entrepreneurs and businesses to market and sell their products, accept online orders, analyze marketing performance and manage pricing and customers over the Internet. In addition to software and training, iMergent offers site development, web hosting and search engine optimization (SEO). iMergent, StoresOnline and Crexendo Business Solutions, Inc. are trademarks of iMergent, Inc.

Safe Harbor Statement

This press release contains forward-looking statements. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a "safe harbor" for such forward-looking statements. The words "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "will" and other similar statements of expectation identify forward-looking statements. Specific forward-looking statements in this press release include information about iMergent, (i) belief that "90 day offer" was not intended to mislead customers and it being presented as essentially an MSRP/list price which to us was not unlike a car manufacturer who rarely if ever sells at list price, (ii) selling with a time sensitive discount being a very standard sales practice and that it was inappropriate to conclude that such a sale was misleading or in any manner deceptive, (iii) the discontinuance of the "90 day offer" having had nothing to do with the claims by the ACCC and the Company finding the offer was confusing to customers and actually impeded the sales process as opposed to supporting it, (iv) the ruling having minimal financial impact on the Company, (v) StoresOnline having made great strides over the last several years in improving its sales process and attempting to be transparent to its customers and (vi) those processes being in place well before the law suit by the ACCC, and continuing on an ongoing basis.

For a more detailed discussion of risk factors that may affect iMergent's operations and results, please refer to the Company's Form 10- KT for the six months ended December 31, 2009 and the Company's form 10Q for the period ended March 31, 2010. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements are made, and the company undertakes no obligation to update such forward-looking statements, except as required by law.


Australian Telecommunications: Telstra out in cold on broadband


http://www.tmcnet.com


The report released by the Australian Government on its planned national broadband network shows that it will cost as little as $A38bn yet cover 93% of the population.

Consultancies McKinsey and KPMG also argue that the roll-out is not reliant on the co-operation of dominant telco Telstra, shares in which closed $A0.05 lower at $A3.08 on 6 May 2010.

Network operator NBN Co would be privatized by about 2025.

A special levy would be introduced to prevent providers choosing the most lucrative options only when gaining wholesale capacity from NBN Co.

BLOODY HOPELESS: Typo led to US market crash: report

A typing error by a sharemarket trader may have been responsible for the US equity market crashing by nearly 1000 points overnight.

CNBC is reporting that a trader entered a "b" for billion instead of an "m" for million in a trade involving US consumer goods giant Procter and Gamble.

The dive sent shock waves around global financial markets as $US1 trillion ($1.1 trillion), or 9 per cent, evaporated from US share values in minutes.


The Dow Jones Industrial Average later recovered some of the losses but still closed more than 3 per cent lower.

Rubbish sinks $1.5million racket across Australian and India


http://www.bordermail.com.au



ROADSIDE rubbish has helped Wodonga police smash an international telecommunications racket worth more than $1.5 million.

Sen-Constabl e Branko Ivic, of the Wodonga divisional tasking unit, said a VicRoads employee discovered fake Indian drivers' licences, Australian Air Express parcels and Telstra invoices dumped by the Hume Freeway south of the city in December.

Subsequent investigations led police to uncover a scam with connections in Melbourne, Sydney and India.

Four Melbourne-based Indian nationals have been arrested and are expected to face 1600 charges.

"In terms of this type of scam ... it's the biggest one this place (Wodonga) has seen," Sen-Constable Ivic said.

Police allege the men had ordered high-end mobile telephones, including iPhones, Blackberrys and HTC Touch Diamonds, over the telephone from Telstra, arranging for payment using fraudulent details.

"These phones were then delivered to vacant addresses, the details of which were provided by the offenders when ordering the phones," Sen-Constable Ivic said.

"Because there was no one present to collect the package, a card was left and the package was delivered to the nearest post office for collection.

"They would then attend at the post office with fake ID and false Telstra bills as proof of identity and place of residence, at which time the package was handed over."

Sen-Constable Ivic said an Indian man had been arrested while trying to collect a fraudulently obtained iPhone from Barnawartha's post office in January.

"A search of his vehicle revealed further false Indian drivers' licences in various names, more Australian Air Express packaging, several do-it-yourself identity kits and a number of brand new iPhones," he said.

The bulk of the alleged offending was not committed in the North East; police raided several homes in Melbourne in early February, arresting the other three men and seizing computers, mobile phones, GPS units and documents.



Grandmother's $77,000 Centrelink scam

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au


A GRANDMOTHER was found guilty of defrauding taxpayers of more than $77,000 through Centrelink welfare benefits .

Between August 2002 and August 2008, Patricia Mary Stapleton, 71, of Richmond, claimed an age pension while still working as a parking officer for Hawkesbury City Council.

Over the six-year period, taxpayers paid a total of $77,720 in social security payments - an amount that has now been paid back in full.

Mrs Stapleton received 157 payments of almost $500 a fortnight before she was caught by the Australian Taxation Office. She was given a 12-month suspended sentence and a good behaviour bond because of her previous good character and clean record.

SHOCK DECISION: Turn a blind eye, Australian Tax Office tells staff

http://www.smh.com.au

The Tax Office is refusing to pass on personal tax information to courts or police, even if they believe a taxpayer has been the victim of fraud.

The decision is based on internal legal advice which says handing over any information would breach privacy rules. The only time information can be given out is if it is needed to enforce tax laws.

But, according to Canberra sources, the in-house legal advice also says the reason for the policy is to protect the Tax Office's reputation and prevent its staff from having to testify in court.

It is understood the ATO is also failing to co-operate with police investigations on fraud involving self-managed superannuation funds despite knowing about the problems for more than a year.

The fraud, believed to total many tens of millions of dollars Australia-wide, is committed by illegally rolling over money into a self-managed fund, without the knowledge of victims.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority issued its second alert this year warning funds of forged Tax Office correspondence verifying the registration of self-managed funds.

Last year there were more than 400,000 self-managed funds. The Tax Office took compliance action against 500 funds where they detected somebody had illegally withdrawn money.

A spokeswoman said the office had no choice on co-operation with authorities. ''We have to comply with secrecy and privacy laws.'' Such laws defined what information it could give to other agencies, she said.

In NSW 22 people have been charged in the past 20 months with super fraud offences worth more than $6 million.

The scam involves mail theft and identity fraud, and relies on the fact people don't regularly check the balance of their super fund. Also, super funds do not have the same stringent requirements to check the identity of people asking to roll over their money as banks.

About $50 billion in super funds are rolled over every year.

The shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, called on the government to explain when the regulatory agencies were alerted to the problem of ''systemic rorting'' of the self-managed super system.

A spokesman for the Superannuation Minister, Chris Bowen, said the relevant agencies had taken ''a series of measures to help reduce the risk of fraud around the illegal early release of superannuation''.

Unisys fraud expert David Chadwick said people could reduce their risk by securing their mail, guarding PIN numbers and shredding documents.

Fertiliser execs have case to answer: Senator Bill Heffernan

http://sl.farmonline.com.au


CHAIRMAN of the Senate's select committee on agriculture, Senator Bill Heffernan, says there appears to be a good case for the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) to reinvestigate the fertiliser industry.

Senator Heffernan said evidence presented in Canberra last week pointed to fertiliser companies trying to alter fixed price contracts with farmers or lock producers into purchase agreements that were subject to changes in price.

"The ACCC will find those reports very interesting," he said.

"Farmers have told us the fertiliser market is still in chaos and hasn't improved since last year's Senate hearings.

"It seems pretty clear all the recommendations made by the committee last August still apply and need to be addressed thoroughly by the Government and the industry."

He said local prices were still out of kilter with the global market and "seem to be predatory".

"While I accept global prices are rising, when you look at the local price for single super it has doubled since last spring and it certainly has not jumped as much as that on world markets."

The Senate committee is also considering recommending mandatory testing for fertiliser in a bid to get fertiliser suppliers paying closer attention to the quality specifications of product they import or produce locally.

Farmers addressing last week's hearing reported various examples of high analysis fertiliser not measuring up to label specifications, with variations of 10 to 15 per cent reported by a producer from Peak Hill in Central West NSW.

Other evidence included reports of MAP fertiliser being heavily discounted for sale out of Melbourne after suppliers realised it did not measure up to label specifications.

Junee district farmer, John Martin told the hearing his independent tests results proved a consignment he used last year was different to what he was told he had bought.

The fertiliser company responsible accepted the independent tests and offered to recompense Mr Martin for the variation in the fertiliser ingredient.

However, the company had not offered to cover any reduction in crop production that may have resulted from the crop being short changed in nutrient application.

Senator Heffernan said the select committee was not impressed with the limited information offered to last week's hearing by the Fertiliser Industry Federation of Australia and wanted Incitec Pivot and Hi Fert representatives and possibly other fertiliser company bosses at the next hearing.


Analyzing Australia's new cigarette packaging regulations


http://www.packworld.com



The headlines are as recent as a puffed smoke-ring, wafting intact: Australia proposes regulations mandating plain packaging. Plain, in this instance, bears no relation to the "less is more" school of thought subscribed to by many designers; rather, it means sans logo, branding images, and color. Furthermore, promotional copy will be limited to brand name and product designation, and even then of a standard font, size, position, and color. In dwarfing contrast to that austerity, will be graphic, color photos of cancer, augmenting prominently-placed warnings. The intended end-result is packaging that, at a distance (for example, a sales counter), is indistinguishable across brands. As such, a more apt description might be generic packaging.

Enactment is slated for July 1, 2012. In the interim, the principals (government and tobacco) will spar fiercely; however, punches and counterpunches began flying years ago, when rumors of the regulations first floated. At this juncture, the fight plans of each corner seem clear, in terms of their fundamental arguments. Given that the regulations are a world-first and might serve as the template for other governments invites analysis of those arguments, but not just from the perspective of a single industry.
 
Government: Plain packaging would reduce smoking

A major aspect of the argument is that packaging makes cigarettes appealing, in particular to youth. There is some empirical muscle to the allegation. Young people, indeed, are impressionable, as a consequence of that stage in life; nonetheless, it doesn't automatically follow that the decision to smoke and the decision to smoke a particular brand are influenced equally by packaging. The former can be influenced by many social and lifestyle factors, and packaging doesn't have to be one of them. As for the latter, a plausible contention is that packaging is trade-dress, distinguishing among choices, after the decision to buy cigarettes already has been made.

Another aspect of the argument is that packaging imparts an aura that reduces the effectiveness of the warnings and that plain packaging would not convey the false perception that some cigarettes are safer than others. Surely, the vast majority throughout modern societies accept science's claim that smoking can cause cancer and other serious ailments; yet, people continue to light up, some from addiction, but what about the newcomers?  The answer can't be assignable all to packaging, not when, for years, packs have carried explicit, conspicuously-placed warnings. Is it now reasonable to postulate that the effectiveness of a warning is a function of its size, in justifying devoting a large portion of the front panel and the entire back panel to it? Moreover, promotional qualifiers such as low-tar, mild, light, etc., can be proscribed by regulation and have been in various countries.
 
But no matter how an analysis is finessed, packaging can't be dismissed as a potential influence in smoking. That's because for decades, promoters of packaging have hailed the discipline's effectiveness, relative to impulse buying and brand building. It's almost redundant to say that packaging plays a role in consumer packaged goods. The issue, in the case of cigarettes, is whether the role is the one alleged.

Tobacco: No proof plain packaging would reduce smoking, and mandating it constitutes theft of intellectual property

The logic in the no-proof part of the argument is implied by the proposed regulations' being the first of their kind. In compensation, the government cites a combination of approvals, recommendations, and studies from a variety of sources, including The World Health Organization (an agency of the United Nations). Even so, the prestige of a source does not exempt it from the evaluation of the methodologies and assumptions underlying the inputs from that source. Packaging is a multifaceted discipline, and any undertaking that does not adequately reflect that fact is likely to produce findings that are simplistic at best and misdirected at worse. It's a truth that's applicable even to cigarettes, a product that is unquestionably deadly; for, the objective should be the implementation of measures that achieve what they propose to achieve. It's not a support of smoking to say that the government should go beyond citation to disclosure, so that analysis can be made—yes, by tobacco—but, more importantly, by disinterested parties.

Any allegation that packaging induces product usage simultaneously concedes that packaging is a valuable corporate asset. It can't be otherwise, when packaging is the medium that conveys logo, brand, product description, and promotional copy through structure and graphics. Packaging is the embodiment of all the time, money, and resources invested in building a consumer packaged good. It's an incontestable argument, then, that packaging is intellectual property; the contest is over the degree of control and restriction that a government should exercise over it.

One might ask, on what basis is it that packaging, as intellectual property, should be sacrosanct, when practically every other aspect of the tobacco industry is regulated, in accordance to the government's stances. Even if the proposed regulations are implemented unrevised, packaging will continue to exist as a promotional medium (although greatly reduced) for tobacco; however, for years, other media, particularly television, have been banned. The tobacco industry should steer clear of complaining of being singled out, which, in large measure, steams from its products' being like no other consumer packaged good. The prospects for sympathy are slim. Instead, the industry would seem better served by pinning its defense on the protection that it believes it's entitled to under international trade treaties and the like.

Beyond Australia, beyond tobacco

Now that Australia has taken cigarette packaging regulations to new heights (or lows, from tobacco's view), some governments will not wait the time required to determine the success of those measures before following suit. Over the years, the tobacco industry has been able to thwart proposals for plain packaging of cigarettes in the U.S. What Australia has done might give impetus to renewed efforts, especially in light of next month's expansion of the Federal Food & Drug Administration's governance of tobacco. Plus, the FDA will be just one of several agencies governing tobacco; therefore, packaging regulations can take a variety of paths.

But few things damage the credibility of an analysis more than an unwarranted slippery slope argument, which would be the case to assert that the Australian regulations diminish packaging, in general. That said, consumer packaged goods companies, in general, should recognize the need for reflection.
 
The government in the Land Down Under sees packaging regulations as a means to reduce the number one preventable cause of death—smoking. But the list is longer, there and around the world, including drunken driving, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. What they have in common is a link (of varying directness) to what people consume. How might packaging regulations address those linkages? How wide-ranging can the call for plain (or at least, pared down) packaging stretch?

What if regulations restricted the alcohol industry from using packaging designed to increase sales and consumption? There go beer labels that change color to indicate coldness, beer bottles with spiral necks for faster dispensing, and liquor closures that double as shot glasses. Why not protect children from the influence of sugary cereals that are marketed in cartons unquestionably designed to appeal to them? And isn't society better off without the salt content for which many prepared foods (i.e. packaged foods) are known?
  
It deserves repeating that tobacco is a deadly product, unlike any other marketed, so, this is not an attempt to equate it with the aforementioned. That notwithstanding, it is a reality that the redeeming qualities of a host of CPG's are debatable. Just as much of a reality, however, is that until a product is banned Prohibition-fashion, the company has a duty to seek adequate financial returns for its shareholders. A large part of that duty is monitoring the packaging regulations horizon for the broadest implications and to do ones best to comply with the present and to plan for the foreseeable.


Australias's new banking landscape: 2 pillars, 2 stumps, 3 minnows



http://thebull.com.au


Tight offshore credit markets combined with the two-tier cost of the government's wholesale funding guarantee is seeing Australia's banking landscape morph into a two-horse race.

Analysts and industry players say competition over funding and its impact on the mortgage market is eroding the clout of Suncorp Metway, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and Bank of Queensland, leaving Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) and Westpac Banking Corporation the clear front runners in the sector.

Wilson HTM's banking analyst Brett Le Mesurier said regional banks not only had to pay more than the major banks to access the federal government's wholesale funding guarantee, but were now charged an additional margin by professional investors.

"They are effectively paying in the wholesale markets for term funding a 100 basis points or more than the major banks, which is a tremendous disadvantage," he told ABC Television on Sunday.

Regional banks pay 150 basis points to rent the federal government's triple A credit rating in order to compete against foreign banks for access to offshore wholesale debt markets from which Australian banks now raise around 40 per cent of their total funding requirements.

The guarantee was introduced last October following a credit market freeze triggered by Lehman Brothers' collapse, and costs the double A-rated big four banks 70 basis points to access.

The triple B-rated regional banks are considered riskier and therefore, pay 150 basis points.

Global credit markets have eased dramatically over the last six weeks as the Libor (London inter-bank offered rate) and credit spreads narrowed, allowing National Australia Bank (NAB) to complete a $1 billion non-guaranteed offshore term debt issue earlier in May - a first among the local banks.

But access to these markets still favours the government and the double A-rated big four banks, leading chiefs of the regional banks, including Bank of Queensland's David Liddy, to lobby the government and Treasury for a uniform fee for the guarantee.

"Investors are looking beyond the government guarantee without looking at the individual issuer so we get double-dipped and that needs to change," Mr Liddy told the Sky Business Network on Sunday.

Higher costs of wholesale funding - used to fund mortgages - have seen regional lenders elbowed to the edges of the home loan market, with recent credit growth figures from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) showing CBA has maintained its mortgage market dominance.

During March, CBA took its market share to 23.5 per cent, with Westpac in second place with a 16.5 per cent share even without subsidiary St George Bank's 8.7 per cent share.

All of the big four grew their home loan books at the expense of the regional players, with Suncorp losing 5.9 per cent of its loan volumes, and Bendigo losing 2.3 per cent.

"Clearly when elephants dance, ants tend to die," Mr Liddy told ABC Television on Sunday.

CBA and Westpac's industry dominance has been boosted by their acquisitions of BankWest and St George, respectively, which led ANZ Banking Group's chief executive Mike Smith on Thursday to describe an evolution in Australia's banking sector.

"We all talk about four pillars. Well we've now got two pillars and two stumps."

Competition concerns recently prompted chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Graeme Samuel, to warn the regulator would run a fine tooth comb over any more mergers or acquisitions before giving approval.

But Mr Smith remains unfazed, telling reporters on Thursday ANZ would consider domestic and Asia acquisitions.

"I think this issue of: `Are banks being competitive?' is crazy. People have a choice.

"We don't have three or four big retailers, and there isn't a limit on the number of oil companies or mining companies. Why should there be a limit on banks?"

VFF wants JBS Swift beef company expansion investigated by ACCC


http://www.abc.net.au


The Victorian Farmers Federation wants the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate the expansion of the world largest beef company in Australia.

Brazilian-owned JBS Swift now owns over 10 abbatoirs and five feedlots in Australia including Ipswich in Queensxland.

Michael McCormack, from the VFF's livestock group, says farmers are worried less competition will mean lower prices at saleyards.

"I'd like to call on the ACCC as the regulatory body to just keep an eye on this consolidation and to make sure that we still have some competition in the marketplace," he says.

"Because the marketplace is what drives our price."

Powderfinger anger: Fans give extra dates the finger

SMH.com.au

Powderfinger

Powderfinger: A career in pictures

Powderfinger

  • Powderfinger
  • Posing for an early publicity shot in 1997
  • At the 2003 ARIA awards
  • Playing at the 2001 Big Day Out
  • Posing for an early publicity shot in 1997
  • The crowd responds to Powderfinger's set at the 2005 Wave Aid  concert
  • With Silverchair for the joint 2007 Bridging the Divide tour
  • Powderfinger in 2007
  • Bernard Fanning and Silverchair's Daniel Johns sing a duet at  Homebush in 2007.
  • Powderfinger performs at the 2008 AFL Grand Final in Melbourne.
  • Powderfinger ahead of Take 40 Live performance.
  • Powderfinger at the BDO in Sydney
  • Powderfinger lead singer Bernard Fanning performs at the Big Day  Out 2010
  • Powderfinger at the Australian F1 Grand Prix in Melbourne this  year.

Some Powderfinger fans have reacted angrily to a venue change of their 'last ever' concert, complaining they have been duped into making travel plans to Victoria.

The finale of the band's Sunsets farewell tour was originally slated for Ballarat, and keen fans had splashed out on tickets in the hope of witnessing some musical history.

But the band announced on Wednesday it would perform another six shows and return to their hometown of Brisbane for their final curtain call.


This is the last goodbye: Powderfinger


"I'm really annoyed about this. Really annoyed. F***ing hell, just paid $400 to see them and secure tickets to what I THOUGHT would be their last shows," one ticket holder wrote on a fan website.

"We have lives, plans to make, time to take off work, flights to organise ... It seems all the work put in last week to get tickets for shows we thought would be their very last in particular cities was for nothing!"

Powderfinger's manager Paul Piticco said in a statement the band had only decided at the weekend to perform additional shows in capital cities in response to overwhelming demand.

"We certainly hadn't planned these extra dates but are thrilled to be playing to more fans across the country," Mr Piticco said.

"These will be the last ever shows in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide with the band ultimately finishing the tour in their hometown of Brisbane."

But fans are sceptical of the seemingly last-minute decision.

"I fail to see how they didn't know this was going to be huge. Surely their heads aren't that far up their own arses?" one fan wrote.

Another wrote: "Management would've predicted this a long time ago. It's a trend we've seen in the last few years."

The eleventh-hour addition of extra shows has long been common practice in the music business - particularly for farewell tours.

But that didn't stop some fans questioning if the well-established practice was entirely ethical.

"Why wasn't this announced at the start? I think the first lot of ticket sales were a little misrepresented and I find that disappointing," one fan wrote yesterday.

But tour publicist Rina Ferris said extra shows were "conceived and confirmed" after tickets went on sale last Friday.

"The reason for doing this was to appease the thousands of fans who were unhappy about missing out on tickets," Ms Ferris said.

"On balance, we believe the addition of these shows was the best way to move forward to make as many of the band's fans as possible happy."

Choice spokesman Christopher Zinn told brisbanetimes.com.au that under the Trade Practices Act, advertisers could make a "future claim" - like advertising the time and place of a 'last ever' concert - if they had a "reasonable basis for making the claim at that time".

"There's a history in the music business that final tours go on even after the alleged final curtain drops - that talks something about the popularity of the artist, but it can also on occasions can talk about the opportunism of the promoters," Mr Zinn said.

However, Mark O'Connor of Bennett & Philp Lawyers said disgruntled ticket holders may be entitled to compensation if the advertising of Powderfinger's Ballarat concert was found to be misleading.

He said promotion of the gig did not need to explicitly state it would be the last in order to breach consumer protection legislation.

"It can be implied ... upon a plain reading of an advertisement," Mr O'Connor said.

"The tour is called the 'farewell tour' and that's strong enough. There was also sufficient information out there in the media, which the band issued themselves."

A Melbourne solicitor tried to file a class-action against Australia's comeback-king John Farnham in 2004.

He claimed the singer had falsely advertised his "Last Time" tour two years earlier, only to return to the stage with Tom Jones.

But the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission did not take on the claim.

The ACCC told brisbanetimes.com.au yesterday the rules that applied to all businesses were the same for bands and their promoters: "Be honest and truthful in your dealings with consumers."

"In general, in looking at matters, the ACCC will look at the basis on which representations were made; whether consumers were likely to have been mislead; and any harm that might have been suffered," an ACCC spokesman said.

Queensland University of Technology associate music professor Andrew Brown said it was sound business practice for tour promoters to withhold shows until first-release tickets were sold out.

"You don't want to have six, half-full concerts if you can have three sold-out concerts," Mr Brown said.

"It's reasonable risk management."


Mulrunji Doomadgee report leak illegal, police claim

TheAustralian.com.au

QUEENSLAND'S police service has branded illegal the leaking of a bombshell report into the Mulrunji Doomadgee death in custody affair, further straining fraught relations with the state's Crime and Misconduct Commission.

Police said last night the partial leaking of findings of a draft CMC report, recommending disciplinary action against some of Queensland's top police, had breached the secrecy provisions of the corruption watchdog.

Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson is understood to have opposed the publication of the report, due to be released later this month after the handing down of findings from the inquest into Doomadgee's death in the Palm Island watch-house in 2004.

Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley was charged and acquitted in 2007 of Doomadgee's manslaughter.

As revealed by The Australian last year, the CMC has slammed a police culture of "protecting their own" and demanded Mr Atkinson reform the service.

It has also emerged that one of the officers who led the initial death in custody investigation - attacked by Deputy State Coroner Christine Clements in 2006 as "lacking transparency, objectivity and independence" - is likely to escape punishment. Sergeant Darren Robinson, one of four officers from the original investigation who the CMC has recommended face disciplinary action, took stress leave last year and is understood to be seeking retirement on full benefits.

The Australian revealed yesterday the CMC has also recommended two senior officers, handpicked by Mr Atkinson to review the discredited investigation, face disciplinary charges.

A draft CMC report has accused Ethical Standards Command officers of running a biased investigation to protect police.

It is alleged that witnesses were guided in their answers in interviews, with some provided in advance with copies of the questions they were to be asked.

A further allegation is that some key witnesses were not even interviewed by the officers.

The CMC declined to comment yesterday.

Queensland police said they were unable to comment and took a swipe over the leak, adding: "Whilst clearly that has been breached by parties unknown to us, the QPS is still bound by . . . the Crime and Misconduct Act".

Acting Premier Paul Lucas would not comment on the report but offered his support to Mr Atkinson.




Santows plays politics over new Australian tax laws

http://www.iii.co.uk

Santos Ltd, Australia's-second largest oil and gas producer, said it will defer for up to six months a decision on whether to build an LNG export terminal in Gladstone in Queensland state, as it assesses the impact of a proposed new tax, the Australian newspaper reported on Friday.

"I will make that decision in light of all the risks we face," Chief Executive David Knox said after a shareholder meeting in Adelaide, according to the newspaper.

"Obviously on Sunday afternoon, with the announced income tax, this is an additional risk which I am going to have to address and fully understand before I can come to a decision," Knox said.

He said a decision would be made by the end of the year, instead of by mid-year as previously planned, according to the newspaper.

Global miner Rio Tinto has also said it is reviewing its Australian operations after Canberra unveiled a hefty new 40 percent mining tax last weekend.

JPL ignores JWH's advice on LNP in QLD

BrisbaneTimes.com.au

LNP leader John-Paul Langbroek will ignore former Prime Minister John Howard's advice and continue the party's opposition to the Bligh Government's privatisation plans.

Mr Langbroek last night attempted to downplay a report on brisbanetimes.com.au yesterday that revealed Mr Howard urged the LNP to to reconsider its opposition to the Bligh Government's planned sale of state assets.

Although he conceded the report was accurate, Mr Langbroek said Mr Howard had been "selectively" quoted.

"[Mr Howard] made some points very stridently that he's a retired politician and therefore doesn't give advice in the sense of specifics," he said.

"It was a vote of confidence in the LNP, him being here, and it was great for morale that he was here for members who've respected and known him for a long time, but in terms of specific strategy, he certainly didn't tell us things we weren't already aware of."

Mr Langbroek said Mr Howard conceded he "wasn't as aware" of the situation in Queensland as he could have been.

And the LNP leader said although the party was opposing the asset sale, it had no qualms with the principle of privatisation.

"[Mr Howard] understood that in Queensland it was also to do with the honesty and integrity issue, which is our real position on privatisation, not the principle of privatisation itself," Mr Langbroek said.

Mr Langbroek said the party would not budge on its position on the asset sales in the lead-up to the next election.

"We oppose them, we have opposed them, we will oppose them. For us, Queensland is not for sale," he said.

Mr Langbroek said the government's plan was "not a genuine privatisation", but rather a "fire sale of assets to fix a debt situation" and that was why the LNP opposed the sales.

brisbanetimes.com.au asked Mr Langbroek whether the LNP would support a "genuine privatisation" of Queensland assets.

"That's a speculative question because we can only deal with the models that the government are presenting for us," Mr Langbroek said.

"We'll have our own policy platform and at the last election, we didn't have any privatisation as part of our manifesto and we'll make sure that we're up-front with the people of Queensland before the next election.

"Even if we were to propose something, we'll make sure people have the chance to vote for it."

It has been a turbulent week for Mr Langbroek, who faced internal revolt yesterday when Aidan McLindon and Rob Messenger deserted the party to sit in parliament as independents.

Mr Langbroek said he was confident rumours of an impending third desertion would not come to fruition.

"The opportunity was there [on Wednesday] for anyone else to join the other two and that was not taken up," he said.

"Whilst I don't want to divulge the contents of the meeting specifically, it was made pretty clear that those two had made their decision and [it was asked] were we all happy to proceed with the day and the answer was yes."

He also remained confident of his viability as LNP leader and said he did not expect to be challenged before the next election.

"I'm trying to do something that opposition leaders don't do much anymore and that's serve a full term in opposition," he said.



6 privacy concerns Facebook users should be aware of

http://www.pcauthority.com.au

6 privacy concerns Facebook users should be aware of


With over 400 million global users and more than 25 billion user created news stories, blog posts and photo albums shared, the world's largest social network is massive, but it's also causing all manner of privacy concerns.

Initially designed as a student university friend-finder, the site has been the focus of numerous concerns over privacy. Recently, four US senators made their objections known to Facebook when it came to protecting personal data. Only last month, Facebook reclassified data that was once only seen as 'private' into publicly available information.

But the biggest thing to remember about Facebook is that your data is not, unlike the bulk of websites online - considered private by default. And in some key cases, you might need to opt-out of certain features that might expose your personal preferences.

According to a Computerworld report, the full Facebook privacy agreement contains 5,531 words - slightly more than the time it takes to click 'I agree'. In all, reports Computerworld, there are 11 separate data categories that need your attention when it comes to privacy settings on Facebook.

Here are six privacy concerns Facebook users should be aware of.


1) That annoying security hole that keeps on popping up

It seems that each month that goes by, another potentially privacy-killing security issue is discovered, promptly fixed, patched and then buried - as though nothing ever happened. The latest of these privacy flaws is the so-called 'chat bug', which recently gave some Facebook users the opportunity to see private chats taking place between friends.

TechCrunch has reported that the security flaw was made possible through the 'Preview My Profile' function available on a user's privacy page. It's a little ironic considering that the very page that is responsible for individual privacy settings also gave users the option to invade the privacy of others.

In addition to the chat problem, users were also able to view pending friend requests - which could be slightly embarrassing if you were to see just how many people an ex-partner was trying to friend. As a consequence of the privacy gaffe, Facebook temporarily disabled the chat window.


2) Hitting the "like" button

In April this year, Facebook announced at the 2010 F8 developer conference that they would be placing a great deal of emphasis on the Open Graph protocol. Open Graph gives Facebook an opportunity to become more aware of users' interests, preferences and 'likes' and then put a dollar value on those things.

The 'like' function, which allows you to flag the content you like, will bring in money for Facebook. The company will sell this data to marketers and businesses keen to promote those products most related to your interests - even those based on your page searches, for example.


3) Tagged photos

If there are things on Facebook you really don't want others to see, now might be the perfect time to review those tagged photos, especially those inappropriate drunk gestures of goodwill, that are mostly enjoyed by your inner circle of friends - but probably not your future boss.

Given photo tagging has become something of a cultural norm on Faceboo - but the tag-once, forget about it later approach is now coming back to haunt some users. For example, that provocative fancy dress costume might not be so hilarious when it's posted in the local newspaper, as it happened for two school teachers from Warwick High School in Queensland in March this year.

The solution? Perhaps the only effective way around all this is to manually un-tag each and every photo of yourself or at the very least, think twice about using your real name on Facebook (using a pseudonym instead).

Another concern is that Face.com has released an API to software developers who are keen to use facial detection technology on their own websites.

That would, in effect, turn the entire internet to a photo tagger, with the potential for Google and Facebook to come in, apply search data to those faces and turn our pictures into marketing data or a really easy way for others to find and collate pictures of us online. Face.com already has 50 million tagged users on its database.


 4) Facebook IDs for sale

Security researchers from VeriSign iDefense reported this month that 1.5 million Facebook accounts have been made available for sale in a web forum, apparantly by someone who goes by the name 'kirllos' and is said to have already sold 700,000 accounts. You also might be disappointed to learn that for Facebook accounts will less than 10 contacts, the going rate is about 0.025 cents for each of these accounts (purchased in groups of 1000 at a time) and slightly more for those accounts with more than 10 contacts.

Like other forms of ID sought after by scammers, Facebook accounts can sometimes provide key data about an individual including their date of birth, place of birth and marital status. And by searching through older message posts, valuable address and mobile phone data could be obtained, if for example, you've sent asa messaking a friend to call you on 0XXXXXXXX at XX ADDRESS. If you put the information out there, it's possible for others to intercept it.

Avoiding the pitfalls of having hackers break into your account might be a good place to start. A typical money scam involves friends of a friend asking for money while trapped overseas. Malware and Trojans downloaded in fake emails and from unverified downloads may contribute to your chances of having your Facebook account compromised.


5) Advertisers

A major privacy concern hit the headlines three years ago, relating to Facebook's Beacon advertising model, which provided advertisers with an opportunity to seize on a user's personal interest data, via a small piece of JavaScript imbedded on the vendor's website and sent out to the user as 'alerts'. If a user clicked on the alert, the user would then let Facebook know when and how often they surfed the advertiser's website. It was a pain to opt out of difficult to apply privacy controls to on an individual basis.

In December 2007, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologised to Facebook users after complaints that it was violating their privacy. A class action lawsuit was filed in August, the following year and Facebook later settled for US$9.5million.


6) Connections: tell the world what you really like

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been a vocal critic of Facebook in the past and the new 'connections' function announced recently, has triggered more warnings.

Connections is Facebook's new way of collating highly marketable personal data into one place. That, says the EFF, includes your work history, hobbies, interests and your education: the type of social indicators advertisers crave. Now all these details, once private, are to made public.

This gives data miners a ripe opportunity to find out what millions of Facebook users like and why they like it, without ever needing to be a friend to find out. The EFF claims Facebook will continue to store and use your connections data, even after you have deleted those preferences.

And perhaps most disturbing of all, is that Facebook will not respect your old privacy settings in this transition to connections data. You cannot opt out. It's the Facebook way or the internet highway, says the EFF.


May 06, 2010

DAY OF DRAMA: Gloves off as AAIA formation sees Motor Industry Bodies Split from MTAA

http://www.themotorreport.com.au


SPLITTING THE RETAIL MOTOR INDUSTRY
STRAIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF AUSTRALIA

VACC (Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce), MTA-Queensland, MTA-NSW and TACC (Tasmania), have broken away from the national motor trades body, MTAA, and today announced the establishment of a new national representative body, AAIA - the Australian Automotive Industry Association.

These state associations, formerly federated into the Motor Trades Association of Australia (MTAA), represent the commercial and political interests of the retail service and repair sector (RS&R) of the motor industry: new and used car dealers, crash repairers, mechanical workshops, etc.

The fight with the national body has been brewing for some years. At issue has been dissatisfaction among the eastern states' bodies with the leadership, direction and political effectiveness of MTAA.

Now, with MTA-NSW having picked up its bat and ball and also lined up with MTAQ, VACC and TACC, the new Australian Automotive Industry Association can claim to represent 80 percent of businesses across Australia in the automotive RS&R sector.

It would seem that other key groups - heavy hitters in Australian industry - are backing the move.

At the press conference today to announce the new national body was Andrew McKellar, Chief Executive of FCAI (the national body for vehicle manufacturers and importers), Peter Anderson, Chief Executive of ACCI (Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry), FAPM (Federation of Automotive Parts Manufacturers), the ACCC, SAE-A (Society of Automotive Engineers) and other influential industry groups.

 

"Reform from within (the MTAA) was not possible," MTA-NSW CEO and President of the new body, AAIA, James McCall said. "In the last 10 years it has grown stale and does not effectively represent the motor trades in political forums."

"We are confident that the remaining members of MTAA (MTA-WA, MTA-SA, MTA-ACT and MTA-NT) will eventually come over to the new association," he said.

 

What is clear is that the gloves are off: industry representation is now effectively split between the eastern states and the rest. Not so clear is what impact, if any, the establishment of the new body - effectively emasculating MTAA, and leaving it adrift without a financial paddle - has on the motor industry superfund, MTAA-Super.

AAIA President James McCall (left) and MTAQ Executive Director Ian  Field.
AAIA President James McCall (left) and MTAQ Executive Director Ian Field.

While VACC Executive Director David Purchase said, "Nothing we are doing today should, or would, impact adversely on the MTAA Superannuation Fund", the issues are complex. The state bodies are shareholders in the Trustee company which manages the Fund, but the administration has been provided by MTAA.

The performance of the fund and the dual role of the Executive Director of MTAA, Michael Delaney, who is also Executive Director of MTAA Super, in overseeing both the industry body and MTAA Super is clearly also a matter of contention.

Certainly the MTAA Super fund has returned disappointing results over the past year.

While the announcement today brings things to a head, there has been some significant manoeuvring over recent months as each side has shaped up from its respective corner.

In early March, an attempt by Mr Delaney to have MTAA Super buy its own name - thus transferring the MTAA name from Motor Trades Association of Australia Limited to the super fund - was derailed by the state motor associations (including VACC, MTA-NSW and MTAQ).

There is still a lot to be played out, however "the new national body has no commercial ambitions for the provision of administrative services to the Superannuation Fund Trustee", VACC Executive Director David Purchase said.

It will be interesting to see how the members of the new association (motor industry employers and their employees) will now have their interests represented in their industry superfund.

The performance of the fund aside, at the root of the dissatisfaction with MTAA is its perceived ineffectiveness as a representative body.

There is growing frustration among small businesses in the motor industry with the increasing power and political influence of big business. Crash repairers feel increasingly screwed by insurance companies, independent service station operators feel increasingly screwed by oil companies, franchisees increasingly screwed by franchisors... and so it goes.

The argument of the new body, AAIA, is that it can better represent the small business interests of its constituents than the current "bureacratic" and "ineffectual" national body.

"It's time for the industry to get hold of its own agenda," Mr Field said.

We're yet to hear from MTAA and the remaining states. Watch this space. 


Optus slams Telstra over Australia's National Broadbank Network Project


http://www.computerworld.com.au


Optus spokesman Maha Krishnapillai has told Telstra to "get out of the way" of the National Broadband Network (NBN) adding it will succeed without its help.

The former Macquarie Telecom executive said entities with "vested interests" should step aside, referring to the $25 million NBN Implementation Study released today which claims the $43 billion network is financially viable.

"It's pretty bloody good," Krishnapillai said of the study.

"It is a major win for competition and validation that the network is commercially viable and that [a] $50 access price is achievable.

"We must get on and build the network and those with vested interests should get out of the way," he said.

Krishnapillai backed claims in the report that the NBN can be built without Telstra's network, adding that "Telstra better get with the program".

He said there were no surprises in the report since Optus had worked "very closely" with government and industry stakeholders.

Conroy confirmed the Telstra separation Bill will be introduced Wednesday, and told a press gallery the "Bill deals with the existing structure of the market today… and gives new powers to the ACCC to try and deal with some of the problems this sector has had endemically".

Telstra said it will "consider the report findings in detail".


Australian government says broadband net viable

http://www.timeslive.co.za

Australia's planned fast broadband network will cost up to A$43 billion to build and will be viable even without the involvement of phone giant Telstra, a government commissioned study says.

Shrugging off criticism that the massive network would be too costly and outdated when complete, the report said the fast fibre services would reach 93% of the continent and be affordably priced.

"It will put affordable genuine fast broadband within the reach of every Australian," Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said at the release of the report which put the cost of the network at between A$38 billion and A$43 billion.

The faster network was a key election promise that helped propel Rudd to victory in 2007, painting the then-ruling conservatives as telecommunications luddites opposed to infrastructure that would boost national productivity.

Australia has slower and more expensive Internet services than many developed nations, raising concerns on competitiveness, and communications access will be central to elections later this year, which most surveys indicate Rudd is expected to win.

The study recommended the government strike an eventual deal with the former state-owned monopoly Telstra to sell its fixed-line assets into the government-controlled NBN Co operating the network, saying that would lower the cost further.

The government is still in talks with Telstra, which is concerned at the cost of being part of the network and the cannibalising of its ageing copper-based system as customers migrate to the new fibre.

"We are in lengthy and very complex negotiations with Telstra. They are ongoing. If both parties felt there was no point in those discussions continuing, we would terminate them," Conroy said.

"I wouldn't imagine that we could keep talking through to the end of the year, I wouldn't imagine we could keep talking until the end of June. At some point you have got to make a decision. either we are going to get there, or not, and then shake hands." The study said state backing for Australia's biggest proposed public-private partnership yet would be necessary in the early years and would peak at A$26 billion after seven years, with full privatisation due five years after the network launched.

Investment returns would outstrip long-term returns on government bonds, at around 6-7%, and the government would recoup around A$40 billion by the time of privatisation, the study by KPMG and McKinsey & Co. forecast.

Telstra shares slid sharply after the announcement the project could push ahead without its involvement, with the company's price dropping 1,28% by mid-afternoon, although still better than the broader market's 2% fall.

Failing to strike a deal with Telstra would make the roll-out more costly and would force the public-private NBN Co to compete with the country's biggest phone company, the report said.

"We will not be deterred, despite the opposition of some of the largest Australian companies, from this occuring. We believe it is in the national interest for this important piece of national infrastructure to get out there," Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said ahead of the report's release.

Australia's conservative opposition Leader Tony Abbott has nominated the project as prime target to curb spending if he wins elections later this year.

Conservative communications spokesman Tony Smith said thee network would be dumped in favour of a cheaper rural and regional network using wireless and wired technology.

The political uncertainty over the network's future has weighed on shares in phone companies including Telstra and Singtel.

The government last year rejected bids by firms that it said failed to offer value for money and said it would ask private firms to join the country's biggest infrastructure project.

Rudd said the new network would be built with money from a A$20 billion national infrastructure fund and the sale of bonds, following an initial government investment of A$4,7 billion. Private sector investment would be capped at 49%.

The study ruled out allowing the network to compete for retail customers, easing concerns at Telstra and rival SingTel Optus that NBN Co could go beyond its original remit to provide wholesale services on equivalent terms to all retail service companies.


COMMENT: If the Liberals win the next Federal election and hold good on their threat to scrap the NBN Project, it will be the most-cyncial and disgraceful decision witnesed for many decades in  Australia.  Urban Australia is crying out for a high-speed, national fibre network servicing 93% of Australian homes yet the Opposition is threatening to scrap this ambitious, internationally-acclaimed project.

PaulGTully@gmail.com