Maximum TWO visitors

When I was in intensive care at Royal North Shore there was a strict rule applied to all patients.  That was a maximum of two visitors per patient at any one time.  This was STRICTLY enforced, and for obvious reasons.  When Aunty Val and Uncle George came down from Brisbane, and were visiting with Mum & Dad and Sharon, they'd do things via tag team, with three waiting outside and two inside at any one time.  I must admit at very brief periods we would have had three people at the bedside, but this did not last for long and we complied with the spirit of the law at all times while in the ICU.

One unfortunate patient who was in a nearby bed had mesothelioma.  This form of cancer is one of the most vicious and horrible diseases you will ever get.  No-one ever survives it (compare testicular cancer which has a survival rate of over 95%) and it kills within a relatively short period after diagnosis.

It is also a horrible way to go.  Your lungs cannot absorb oxygen properly and it feels like you are always short of breath.  As Bernie Banton described it, it feels like your lungs are encased in a concrete silo.  You cannot take in a deep breath as there are restrictions on the outside.

This unfortunate chap happened to know about his diagnosis, and knew then end would be soon.  So he was tidying up loose ends and ensuring all was taken care of when he was no longer around to do it.  So one afternoon he had a visit from a couple of guys in suits and his wife was also at his bedside.  They were working out his will.  There was a solicitor and his assistant acting as a stenographer, the guy's wife, and the guy himself and they were in quite deep discussion as to what was going to happen.

A nurse walked in, noticed there were THREE visitors at the bedside and asked one of them to leave.  She had no idea exactly what they were doing, but she knew the two visitor rule was being infringed.  I think if she had asked exactly what was happening (his will was being prepared) she probably wouldn't have brought this up.  I'm sure her embarrassment was greater than the nasty taste it left in the mouths of those preparing the will.

Speaking on behalf of?

I recently posted an email containing comments about the proposed Wyong Shire Cultural Centre, and have published the spruced-up text of that email here on the blog.

Strange thing has happened.  It has been contended that my comments were purporting to be that of Wyong Drama Group.  How the hell this can be inferred is a little beyond me.  I reckon it's pretty obvious from reading the comments that the opinions are mine and mine only.

Granted, I am a member of Wyong Drama Group (I have been since 1987 and was made a Life Member back in 2002).  So I am sort of stuck with the brand.  In fact, I am probably never going to be able to cease being a member of Wyong Drama Group.  However, the way it's going, if I go down to the shops and buy a couple of litres of milk, I'd be not surprised to hear that I was speaking on behalf of the group - and I know at this point in time with about 4 litres of UHT milk in the Green Room fridge, Wyong Drama Group does not actually require 2 litres of milk!!!  Therefore I speak with forked tongue!!!  Okay, ridiculous, but exactly the point, it IS ridiculous to assume I speak on behalf of Wyong Drama Group when I simply mention that I am a member.

If I was not a member of the Drama Group then I'd say my association with Wyong Memorial Hall would not have been as initimate or as long, and I'd not know about the sort of audiences we get to WDG shows.  However guys, let's amke a deal.  Unless I specifically say "I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF WYONG DRAMA GROUP" (and hell, to do so I will get a motion from a meeting to do so) then please assume that I am actually expressing my own opinion.  I mean, really.  Some of the words like "I reckon" and "personally" must surely indicate that the comments are opinions of the author of the opinion and no-one else.

Why have a government?

Why indeed.  This is a question a lot of people are now asking given we have a hung parliament.  There is a lot more interest in what a government does and why we have one.  Here is a very short answer, which is by no means complete.

A government is basically a mechanism where market failures are addressed. Generally, open markets can supply the needs and wants of a society. However, in many cases, certain goods and services would not be supplied or may be supplied at economically inefficient levels. Such services might include the extremely socially desirable areas such as health, education, roads, police and legal services and so on ad infinitum. Although some services previously provided by governments are now undertaken profitably by private enterprises (such as our national airline, the Commonwealth Bank and the like), there are large numbers of services that a government must still provide, such as health, social order and social welfare. These services are never provided by private enterprise.

Governments also go into the business of providing services that could be supplied by a private enterprise. There are two main reasons for this. One reason is to achieve economies of scale in an operation. Consider the Post Office, which is able to maintain an excellent distribution network because it is the only body performing this service. Private letter delivery companies do operate, but at far lesser efficiencies than the Post Office.

Another important reason is to avoid, or at least control, the development of a monopoly in a market. An instance of this is where a distribution network, such as a pipeline or an electrical transmission grid is required. This is funded and setup by a government organisation, which can then regulate who gets use of the network, whilst still achieving economies of the scale for the network. The rollout of the Foxtel and Optus cable television cable networks about ten years ago is a classic example of the inefficiencies of having two distribution networks for the one product, and corrective steps have recently been taken by Optus and Foxtel to solve the problem.

Another example is the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) owned formerly by Telecom Australia. While the telecommunications industry was developing, the government was able to supply the services as a monopoly and fund the provision of the network. Now, external competitors to Telstra have access to the PSTN, and legislation determines its use. This would not be possible if the PSTN was owned by a private enterprise. After all, a business is hardly likely to give competitors free and full access to one of its privately owned income-generating assets.

Another major function of government is to stabilise economic fluctuations. Throughout the economy various measurements of the economic activities being carried out (such as the All Ordinaries Index) are subject to constant flux. In general, indices increase, but sometimes the movement is in spectacular gains, followed by equally spectacular falls. A government works to try evening out the peaks and troughs in various indices.

A government has a vast array of mechanisms it can use in order to achieve this. It can spend to stimulate demand, and bring an economy out of recession. It can increase interest rates and invoke a credit squeeze in order to slow demand, and bring an economy out of an overheated situation. It can also channel resources into sectors that may be deserving of them, such as into Health, Social Security, Defence and the Arts, areas private enterprise may be neglecting. It can perform these latter actions maybe in sympathy with the business cycle, or maybe to simply re-direct resources within the economy to more “deserving” areas.

In order to fund these operations, a government is entitled to raise taxes. Indeed, the raising of taxes is yet another way the government can influence the economic cycle, by controlling the incidence and amount of tax an economy pays. It can also direct taxation to various sectors of the economy, favouring one section at the expense of another. It can help to increase Research and Development spending, for example, by allowing favourable tax deductions for R&D spending. This encourages certain economic activities that are otherwise being neglected by private enterprise.

In all, the government is an important stabiliser of the economy, and ensures that society still receives the services it needs when there is a failure of the open market to provide them.

The Greens have been criticised lately due to their policies to introduce new taxes.  They certainly do have a number of new taxes they'd like to introduce, but their implementation simply serves as a mechanism for evening out the imbalances in society.  As a government, taxation is one of the most important tools at your disposal.

Wyong Shire Cultural Centre

I’d like to make a few comments about the proposed cultural centre for Wyong Shire and as a current user of Wyong Memorial Hall can speak specifically as to the needs and requirements it will need to address.


Wyong Memorial Hall was built in 1964 to be a major venue for events in the Wyong Shire. It was built at Wyong for a reason: it is the administrative hub of the Tuggerah Lakes area. After all, Wyong Council itself is firmly entrenched in Wyong township and has resisted the many temptations to move over the years.

The hall has reached the end of its useful life and needs replacing. It needs replacing IN WYONG. The same reasons for its initial construction still apply today.

The history of various theatrical groups on the coast needing a cultural centre venue is chequered. There have been quite a few other theatre groups over the years, but only three major ones REMAIN: Wyong Drama Group, Woy Woy Little Theatre and Gosford Musical Society. There are quite a few other groups around, but most cannot point to a history greater than ten years, and many have simply fallen by the wayside. Wyong Drama Group was founded in 1952. Woy Woy was the mid 1960s and Gosford Musical Society also from the mid 1950s.

The main factor contributing to these groups' longevity has been the existence of a venue (now provided by the local councils), for the groups. Woy Woy has the Peninsula Theate, Goford Musical Society has Laycock Street, and Wyong Drama Group has the Wyong Memorial Hall. When compared to the other two, it is immediately apparent that we are the poor cousins of the other two groups. The other theatres are worlds away from what we've been provided for some time in regard to standards and facilities offered.

The contention that a theatre should be provided closer to the southern boundaries of the shire would be okay if there were only one major venue on the Central Coast. Unfortunately that is NOT the case. Along with the Peninsula Theatre at Woy Woy, and Laycock Street Theatre at Wyoming, Gosford City also has a couple of other major venues, such as the Conservatorium in Georgiana Terrace Gosford, and Gosford High School Auditorium (GMS's former venue before Laycock). In addition, a 1,000-seat theatre is being planned on premises now occupied by the Central Coast Leagues Club.

It means that Gosford City has a preponderance of concert venues already, with an additional major one on the way. Wyong Shire, which has a population almost as large as Gosford City, has but one - the (decaying) Wyong Memorial Hall. This hall is the focus for people from as far away as Summerland Point, Wyee, The Entrance and Ourimbah. They centre on Wyong. To build a Wyong Shire cultural centre in the shire’s south at (say) Ourimbah or Tumbi Umbi means it actually competes with and does not complement the facilities in Gosford City. It also makes it harder for people living around the upper Tuggerah Lakes to get to the venue.

One element the new cultural centre is aiming to attract is touring shows and theatre companies. This is well and good, however if you are wanting to attract touring shows to a venue, you really need to have it FURTHER away from Laycock Street otherwise you'll find that a touring group will simply play at Laycock Street and then book their next show in Newcastle. To think they will play at both Laycock Street and then 15 kilometres to the north at Ourimbah on adjacent days is hopelessly optimistic.

A new cultural centre for Wyong Shire needs to be in Wyong, or indeed, thinking it through, even further north, (maybe the new Warnervale Town Centre). This is where the hub of the people will gravitate towards. Wyong itself is very much a transport hub of the coast, with a number of Bus Routes and the Railways Station all centring on Wyong itself.

It's quite simple - the Wyong Memorial Hall basically needs replacing. If you understand the audiences we get, where they live and how they are frequently restricted in their travel, you'd immediately recognise that Wyong is the ideal location.

I do have self-interest in mind, as a member of Wyong Drama Group, but I also can relate to the history of events. Obviously the question of where to site the venue arises validly, but note that our group has been doing shows in the hall at Wyong for 45 years. No other group on the coast has such a long association with a venue. And the reason for the long history is that Wyong is an ideal location to have a group based.

Personally, I live at Wyoming (and for ten years prior to that at Narara), and if I only had to commute as far as Ourimbah to a venue, it'd be a lot more convenient for ME. But for Wyong Shire Residents in general, I can instantly see the benefits of siting a new venue at Wyong itself. (Not to mention the need to breathe a bit of life back into Wyong post-Westfield days). Wyong Drama Group itself does not necessarily need to be favoured in the provision of a hall. It's just that if you site a hall where a group with a 50-odd year history is located, then SOMETHING must be right, and other groups will benefit from what's provided to us. IE what's good for a group with a 50-year history is going to be good for other users of the hall and other residents of the shire.

Incidentally, don't be too optimistic about touring groups hiring COUNCIL venues. A lot of touring groups will hire venues already existing in local clubs, and thus not provide much business for a council venue anyway. The council venue should be concentrating on servicing local non-profit groups in preference to touring professional companies from Sydney and Melbourne. Otherwise the council will be competing with existing local clubs raising their ire as well as forgetting the community it needs to serve.

Hopefully we can see reasoned sense and ensure the new Cultural Centre is located at Wyong. It would no doubt be beneficial to ask a few of our audience members with limited resources and travel options. Wyong Drama Group plays to well over 3,000 people per year, so we do have a bit of an affinity with the people using our venue. When we hear misguided conclusions about who will use the venue and where it should be it really gets us upset.

We can give good advice if people want to listen to it. Other conclusions may not be based on putting on shows (in my case since 1987) for local audiences, rather an optimistic prediction of what you'd like to happen rather than what will or indeed does happen.

Thanks for your time.

Vision for the country

The independents have all had their call for measures to improve the country.  I agree with most of them.  However they've missed a couple of very important measures which I think is a wasted opportunity.

These measures would be extremely popular amongst the community, yet constantly are put in the too-hard basket every time they come up.

I've already blogged about making voting not compulsory (see below).  This is one I reckon MOST people in the electorate would be in favour of, yet we hear nothing about it from the pollies, even the independents.  Let's put that to one side, however.

The other one is something everyone seems to agree upon and yet nothing is done.  It's something Bob Hawke and John Howard share a consensus with, and that is, if we were putting the country together again now, then we'd probably do it without having state governments.  Bob wants us to keep the state boundaries for the purposes of Sheffield Shield cricket and State of Origin football, but otherwise let's get rid of them.  It was Don Chipp who said they were "useless appendages that hang on to body politics - they should be cut off" (ref) (mind you, in that same interview he reckoned Mark Latham was a shoe-in to be Prime Minister).

So yeah, how about it Rob & Tony?  We're already going to have a referendum on recognising native Australians in the constitution next election thanks to the Greens.  How about we add in a "let's abolish State Government" clause as well?

And Steve:  yes I still maintain Labor lost the election.  Julia is going to remain as Prime Minister, but no longer with a majority in parliament, which is what she did lose.  Note my prophecies from August 24, however.  IE a Labor/Green/Independent coalition with Bob Katter being the loose canon.  Got that one right, I wonder now about the next bit how we're going to be back at the polls within a year thanks to an external event.  Nostradamus eat your heart out.