My personal reflection
I feel sorry for Lindy Chamberlain about what happened to her. It is true that life is sometimes not fair. Especially, someone has to suffer a lot for prejudice. It's really really really hurt. But I believe that honesty can uncover all the real story, even it needs a lot of patience and toughness. God bless us.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Lawstuff - Superannuation
Superannuation is a special kind of savings or investment that gets "locked away" through his/her employment so he/she has money put aside for when he/she stop working (retire). Every employer has to pay a certain amount to a superannuation fund for each of its employees who satisfies the Superannuation Guarantee (SG) conditions. If he/she is regularly employed and he/she qualifies for SG, his/her employer should be paying 9% of what he/she earns into a superannuation fund for him/her.
An employer does not have to pay SG for its employee if:
-he/she earns less than $450 in a particular month
-he/she under 18 and work less than 30 hours a week
-he/she is paid to do domestic/private work for 30 hours or less each week
The people or companies in charge of superannuation funds are called trustees. They look after all the money that comes in for members of their fund, and invest it in different ways. They have to follow laws that are specifically designed to keep his/her money safe until he/she retires. Their duty to him/her is governed by a legal document called a trust deed.
One of the big differences between superannuation and other kinds of savings or investment is "preservation". Essentially, this means that his/her savings are "preserved",which means that they can not be touched until he/she reaches retirement age (usually, this is 60 years old).
An employer does not have to pay SG for its employee if:
-he/she earns less than $450 in a particular month
-he/she under 18 and work less than 30 hours a week
-he/she is paid to do domestic/private work for 30 hours or less each week
The people or companies in charge of superannuation funds are called trustees. They look after all the money that comes in for members of their fund, and invest it in different ways. They have to follow laws that are specifically designed to keep his/her money safe until he/she retires. Their duty to him/her is governed by a legal document called a trust deed.
One of the big differences between superannuation and other kinds of savings or investment is "preservation". Essentially, this means that his/her savings are "preserved",which means that they can not be touched until he/she reaches retirement age (usually, this is 60 years old).
Newsagents fight minimum hours law
The Australian
Monday, 24 May 2010
Page 4
Summary
Rudd Government requires newsagents as employers to employ their delevery staffes for three hours a day when they were often needed for only one or two hours. But the newsagents did not accept this and applied to Fair Work Australia to vary the minimum three hours shift provisions of the retail award.
According to the chamber's manager of the workplace relation policy, Alexandra Marriott, the minimum and maximum hours for part-time workers could be varied by the use of an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA). In contrast, federal Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gilard found that the Australian people did not like condition-stripping AWAs which workers did not have any job protection in the workforce like compensation.
Tonny Abbott did not agree about the new law. In this case, opposition workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz supported the capacity of employers and workers to have more flexibility.
My personal reflection
In my opinion, Rudd Government made an attempt to protect part time workers. But in other side I agree with Ms. Marriott that this new law does not support to employ young and vulnerable workers who often need less than three hours work a day.
Monday, 24 May 2010
Page 4
Summary
Rudd Government requires newsagents as employers to employ their delevery staffes for three hours a day when they were often needed for only one or two hours. But the newsagents did not accept this and applied to Fair Work Australia to vary the minimum three hours shift provisions of the retail award.
According to the chamber's manager of the workplace relation policy, Alexandra Marriott, the minimum and maximum hours for part-time workers could be varied by the use of an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA). In contrast, federal Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gilard found that the Australian people did not like condition-stripping AWAs which workers did not have any job protection in the workforce like compensation.
Tonny Abbott did not agree about the new law. In this case, opposition workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz supported the capacity of employers and workers to have more flexibility.
My personal reflection
In my opinion, Rudd Government made an attempt to protect part time workers. But in other side I agree with Ms. Marriott that this new law does not support to employ young and vulnerable workers who often need less than three hours work a day.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Workers wind up company to get paid
The Australian
Monday, 10 May, 2010
Page 3
Erwin Hannan
Summary
This article is about how the union of timber workers had successfully liquidated their former company in order to secure entitlements for employees. Employees of Harwood Resources in the southern NSW town of Tumut were sacked in April 2009 after the company effectively ran out of money to pay the workers. Their union took legal action against their company that lefts workers without entitlements.
As a result, the Federal Court decided to grant the union application to place the company in liquidation. It means the employees will have access to payments from the federal government's general entitlements scheme. As we have seen, because of this success the trade unionism has shown a good advertisement in the public.
My personal reflection
It seems to me that the legal strategy could be used if essential against companies that left their employees without entitlements. In addition, this union has shown a great benefit of being union's member where many members secured strong result.
Monday, 10 May, 2010
Page 3
Erwin Hannan
Summary
This article is about how the union of timber workers had successfully liquidated their former company in order to secure entitlements for employees. Employees of Harwood Resources in the southern NSW town of Tumut were sacked in April 2009 after the company effectively ran out of money to pay the workers. Their union took legal action against their company that lefts workers without entitlements.
As a result, the Federal Court decided to grant the union application to place the company in liquidation. It means the employees will have access to payments from the federal government's general entitlements scheme. As we have seen, because of this success the trade unionism has shown a good advertisement in the public.
My personal reflection
It seems to me that the legal strategy could be used if essential against companies that left their employees without entitlements. In addition, this union has shown a great benefit of being union's member where many members secured strong result.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Accepting the reality of healthcare costs
The Daily Telegraph
Friday, April 23, 2010, page 40
Malcolm Farr
Summary
It would be a great progress in public hospital systems, which the federal government has promised to spend extra money on public health. Recently, the Council of Australian Government (COAG) meeting had given the public health reforms as a result. It showed that the states wished getting more money while the Prime Minister would like a systemic change in operating of health services. Actually, they have to face two economic realities. The first reality was that within about 30 years, health costs under current arrangements will be much more they will accept the whole state budgets. Nothing will be left over other important services. The second reality was the rate of rise in health costs would be about 10 per cent or possibly even higher for some states. Therefore, states had to look for some solutions to have more money for health. Obviously, there are no probable state taxes which do not press growth, productivity, and employment.
Now the goverment will provide more money for healthcare costs with changing in public health systems for getting more efficiency and having possible saving for other purposes. The states will also have to put their health contribution into the transparent area and will not able to distract it to other spending destinations.
My personal reflection
In my observation, the idea is quite good that the government will provide more money to improve the health systems in Australia. Alternatively, there is a tendency to saving of state budgets in health costs for other purposes, if the health funds would be spent on the right address. However, I agree that the reality of healthcare costs should be acceptable and realistic. Therefore, in this matter the transparence is very important, so voters will have trust in these public health reforms.
Friday, April 23, 2010, page 40
Malcolm Farr
Summary
It would be a great progress in public hospital systems, which the federal government has promised to spend extra money on public health. Recently, the Council of Australian Government (COAG) meeting had given the public health reforms as a result. It showed that the states wished getting more money while the Prime Minister would like a systemic change in operating of health services. Actually, they have to face two economic realities. The first reality was that within about 30 years, health costs under current arrangements will be much more they will accept the whole state budgets. Nothing will be left over other important services. The second reality was the rate of rise in health costs would be about 10 per cent or possibly even higher for some states. Therefore, states had to look for some solutions to have more money for health. Obviously, there are no probable state taxes which do not press growth, productivity, and employment.
Now the goverment will provide more money for healthcare costs with changing in public health systems for getting more efficiency and having possible saving for other purposes. The states will also have to put their health contribution into the transparent area and will not able to distract it to other spending destinations.
My personal reflection
In my observation, the idea is quite good that the government will provide more money to improve the health systems in Australia. Alternatively, there is a tendency to saving of state budgets in health costs for other purposes, if the health funds would be spent on the right address. However, I agree that the reality of healthcare costs should be acceptable and realistic. Therefore, in this matter the transparence is very important, so voters will have trust in these public health reforms.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Health plan may fail to cure a sick system
Malm, T, Radnidge, P, Moore, G, Thompson, B, Forbes, A
Daily Telegraph
Tuesday, april 20, 2010
page 15
Summary
People find that the new health plan would be unsuccessful to fix an ill sytem because of the following reasons. Firstly, the voters are unsure whether Kevin Rudd and the politicians would really deliver what they have promised with a better health system. Secondly, the health plan looks like that it will just focus on the threatment rather than the prevention to keep people healthier. Therefore, the Prime Minister, premiers, and chief ministers should spend the new health fund wiserly on prevention, health promotion, primary health care centres, mental health, and oral health.
Meanwhile, the government does not present the spent details of the realizing of the health plan reform. It is need to be more transparent to reveal accurately what, who, and how much is included in this health plan.
My personal reflection
People are full with the government's promises. They are also tired to expect that the problems of the health system could be fixed correctly what they wish. Now, they may be sceptical with it.
Daily Telegraph
Tuesday, april 20, 2010
page 15
Summary
People find that the new health plan would be unsuccessful to fix an ill sytem because of the following reasons. Firstly, the voters are unsure whether Kevin Rudd and the politicians would really deliver what they have promised with a better health system. Secondly, the health plan looks like that it will just focus on the threatment rather than the prevention to keep people healthier. Therefore, the Prime Minister, premiers, and chief ministers should spend the new health fund wiserly on prevention, health promotion, primary health care centres, mental health, and oral health.
Meanwhile, the government does not present the spent details of the realizing of the health plan reform. It is need to be more transparent to reveal accurately what, who, and how much is included in this health plan.
My personal reflection
People are full with the government's promises. They are also tired to expect that the problems of the health system could be fixed correctly what they wish. Now, they may be sceptical with it.
Monday, April 26, 2010
States to receive $14bn windfall
The Australian, Monday, April 19, 2010
Samantha Maiden
Summary:
Actually, the states has increased GST, which a third of GST revenue will be spent on health. Furthermore, $4 bn of health funding will be deliverd to NSW over the next 4 years and $ 3 bn to Victoria which will provide 60% of the cost of hospitals and 100% of primary care. In fact, the main reasons of additional resources from GST are because of the stimulus, the impact of stimulus on consumption, and the strong rise of Australian economy that have produced this additional revenues to the states of a 14 bn. In brief, the state government has to make the right decision, in which sectors and how much money to spend the budget more wisely.
Personal reflection:
It seems to me that the state government has to face the next difficult task to decide, whether it is fair or wise that a third of GST revenue will be spent to provide growth funding for the health reform plan. I am convinced that the government is able to make the right decision that most of taxpayers would be happy and able to have its benefits, e.g. better health services. However, the government should controll and double check the realising of this health reform plan to avoid other controversial problem or condition like overstimulus of school building costs recently.
Samantha Maiden
Summary:
Actually, the states has increased GST, which a third of GST revenue will be spent on health. Furthermore, $4 bn of health funding will be deliverd to NSW over the next 4 years and $ 3 bn to Victoria which will provide 60% of the cost of hospitals and 100% of primary care. In fact, the main reasons of additional resources from GST are because of the stimulus, the impact of stimulus on consumption, and the strong rise of Australian economy that have produced this additional revenues to the states of a 14 bn. In brief, the state government has to make the right decision, in which sectors and how much money to spend the budget more wisely.
Personal reflection:
It seems to me that the state government has to face the next difficult task to decide, whether it is fair or wise that a third of GST revenue will be spent to provide growth funding for the health reform plan. I am convinced that the government is able to make the right decision that most of taxpayers would be happy and able to have its benefits, e.g. better health services. However, the government should controll and double check the realising of this health reform plan to avoid other controversial problem or condition like overstimulus of school building costs recently.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)