Syrian Civil War: Daraya Massacre

The civil war in Syria between the FSA (Free Syrian Army) and Syrian forces has been an ongoing battle for the past 17 months. On the 28^th of August the violence and terror of the Syrian war reached new heights, with the death of over 400 innocent civilians in the Syrian town Daraya at the hands of Syrian troops.

The government troops were raiding houses in search of terrorists and explosives, but it was more a massacre than a raid as many surviving Daraya residents were saying. One resident, Abu Kinan was talking to the Guardian about the massacre and said “One of the massacre survivors told me that when the Syrian army stormed their alley, they put more than 50 people up against the wall. As they began spraying them with bullets, he threw himself to the floor. He was covered with blood though he was not shot. He pretended that he was dead. Four of his family members were killed.” Other survivors also mentioned the executions of families in their houses during raids and the shooting of fleeing civilians.

One rebel activist said he saw an 8 year old get shot in the back while she was fleeing with her parents. “They were trying to flee the army raids. Three bullets hit her in the back and her parents brought her to a makeshift hospital. Nothing could be done for her.” Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad later portrayed the massacre in Daraya as counter-terrorism operation and that the town of Daraya is now cleansed of terrorists.

Abu Mua’tasim, another Daraya resident also gave more information on the house raids and also had something to say about the Daraya massacre, “The Syrian army stayed in some of the houses. One belonged to my friend. People were forced to serve them food and tea. Just before they were leaving they killed the people in the house …I know the family.”

The war has since escalated since the Daraya massacre, with the FSA rebels shooting down a military helicopter over Damascus during a fierce battle between the FSA and government troops, where also over 100 lives were lost. Omar Al-Qabooni, FSA spokesman for the Badr Battalion in Damascus said “It was revenge for the Daraya massacre.”

The rapid escalation of the Syrian war has sparked warnings from various western leaders such as French president François Hollande and American president Barack Obama that the use of chemical weapons will result in direct intervention from their countries.

The rapid deteriorating state of Syria and its people has created much debate between the UN and other Western countries about whether to get involved or not. It is my opinion due to the recent events in Syria and the rising death toll of Syrian people that direct intervention is necessary to prevent further terror and chaos from spreading throughout Syria. I do though understand the need to stop terrorism as it is the world’s greatest security threat today and preventing terrorism saves lives. But the government troops are killing innocent civilians, which is still intolerable. Syria needs a temporary outside force to keep the peace while the Syrian people decide if they want a provisional government or not. Syria is in the middle of a civil war and revolution, that needs the guidance of another country to prevent another Daraya massacre but not too much interference so as the create the sensation of imperialism and to spark a retaliation from the people of Syria.

By Matt Cree

Bibliography:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/combat-chopper-down-as-fighting-rages-in-syria-capital-damascus/story-e6frg6so-1226459323783

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/syria-worst-massacre-daraya-death-toll-400?newsfeed=true

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/syria-darayya-massacre-1281625

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/civilian-massacre-renews-sense-of-urgency-in-syrian-conflict/article4504265/?cmpid=rss1

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1686483/Syria-UN-outcry-over-massacre

 

 

I have noticed from this article that there are a lot of different opinions on what is being discussed. According to “experts” Australian children should be weighed and measured regularly at school to help tackle childhood obesity. 

Researches from Deakin University’s World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre have been trying to gather more recent information to address the issue of Childhood obesity, but their efforts doing so have been restricted by out-dated data.

Deakin University’s World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre believe opening a federal government based program monitoring childhood obesity would help achieve to lower the rate of childhood obesity and would be a “fundamental component of prevention”.

Another positive opinion from researches who wrote in the journal Paediatric Obesity agreed this program would be a smart and helpful idea and the absence of such a good program meant Australia was falling behind other countries in measuring childhood obesity and evaluating strategies aiming at reducing it.

Obesity being a major health concern, the researchers are worried the problem will not get tracked or recognised if no data is being made. Monitoring obesity prevalence provides important data that can be used to track trends over time and identify areas at greater risk.

According to researchers led by Dr Katie Lacy there was no significant difference when height and weight measurements were taken based on a program in Arkansas in the US.  Some parents believed starting a program like this could affect children’s body image, and might jump start bullying or embarrassment.

In the Arkansas program there were no increases in teasing, weight concerns or unhealthy dieting among adolescents after three years of measurements. The researchers noted that problems could be avoided by taking height and weight measurements privately, and keeping the individuals result personal.

Tim Olds, Professor of health sciences from the South Australia University said that those taking part in the voluntary program were not given individual data. Doing so avoids the downside of parents reacting or stressing about the results given from their child’s measurements. Tim Olds, involved in an anti-obesity program explains that the program wants population-level data, which doesn’t tell them much about the individual child.

A dissimilar opinion from health sociologist, Samantha Thomas states that more effort was needed to understand the causes of unhealthy behaviour in adolescents rather than just basic measurements of height and weight. ”Sometimes we can become really obsessed with numbers on a scale but what we really want to think about and encourage is healthy behaviours. Sometimes weight doesn’t reflect whether a kid is engaging in healthy behaviours or not,” she said.

It is still unknown whether the Australian government would consider a program to weigh and measure children in schools.

My opinion is I believe there are more ways other than measuring children and somewhat exposing their personal results. I think it is more so the parents job to control and help their child’s unhealthy behaviour. It shouldn’t be the government’s job to do so. Taking daily measurements of adolescents, in my opinion, isn’t going to change the child’s lifestyle and habits.

It is said that after three years of measurements, teasing, weight concerns and unhealthy dieting had stopped. This tells me that obviously before three years, there would have been teasing, bullying and weight concerns in children beforehand. Therefore, this program has been mentally unhealthy for children, making adolescents experience embarrassment and so forth.  I can imagine this would cause stress and put more pressure on children in school.

An alternative suggestion might be regular weight and height check-ups at the child’s local GP. Involving schools in this issue won’t help anyone benefit from it. With schools running activities and after school programs, immunizations, and so on, there is enough for teachers to balance let alone daily height and weight measurement check-ups. 

 

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life/call-for-school-weighins-to-fight-fat-20120826-24uix.html

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20Sep+2009

http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310132/53_who_collaborating_centre_for_obesity_prevention.pdf

http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/tim-olds-2759

http://www.jpedhc.org/article/S0891-5245(02)88325-0/abstract

Will plain packaging decrease the productivity and sales of cigarettes nationally? It doesn’t take a genius to know that smoking is one of Australia’s major health risks. To indicate the high rate of tobacco related deaths, studies currently show that more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. According to The Fix, nicotine is the third most addictive drug after heroin and crack cocaine and is proven to be more addictive than crystal meth, cocaine and methadone.

It has taken two years for the proposal for cigarette plain packaging to be passed through parliament; from December 1^st 2012 plain packaging will be introduced. The packaging will be olive brown with the main feature as the usual health risk adds covering most of the packet. The brand will also be the least dominant feature of the packaging. The brand name will be displayed in a small basic font at the bottom of the packet with no logo.

Plain packaging is a marketing ploy to improve health in Australia as the first country to introduce plain packaging. Plain packaging will not stop already fully addicted smokers, but the scheme does stand a chance of defacing the attraction to not yet addicted smokers. People who already smoke will continue to purchase cigarettes because they buy them for the cigarette, and not the brand. On the other hand not yet addicted smokers or people who don’t have dependence have less desire to purchase and consume cigarettes because it is not the brand that is being promoted, it is the health risk that falls upon smoking. If less of Australia’s youth take up smoking then the less smokers Australia will have in the future, and less health problems. If Australia’s health funds do not have the demand to supply money for patients with smoking related illnesses, it will create a greater budgit in other health sectors.

“This measure is part of a tool box of initiatives to make smoking less attractive,” (Terry, K Quit Tasmania manager of cancer control and quit services)

As there is currently no evidence that plain packaging for tobacco will consumers, although there are many critics. It would appear practical to implement this initiative. Australia is the first country to implement plain packaging. If a 1-5 year study was implemented to base evidence on whether the method is affective. There needs to be more public involvement with the issue. Such as surveys and open debates. This will help to create awareness and people will then be able to form their own opinion on the issue rather than see it from a bystander’s point of view so that they can be more involved. Of course there is the obstacle of legal and marketing issues that make this difficult.

Regardless of the change in the minimalism of cigarette packets, people who smoke will not change their current perspective. This is simply because the health campaign is pushing on them what they already know and have chosen to ignore. What will be affective is prevention of future smokers and Australia’s youth taking up smoking. As a result the mortality rate will decrease if less young people start smoking and smoking related illnesses decline.

 Keely Lean

• http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/MediaTemplate.aspx [online] [Accessed 3 September 2012]

 

• http://www.plain-packaging.com/Templates/AustraliaTemplate.aspx [online] [Accessed 3 September 2012]

 

• http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality  [online] [Accessed 3 September 2012]

 

• http://www.thefix.com/content/10-hardest-addictive-drugs-to-kick7055#slide2 [online] [Accessed 3 September 2012]

 

• Kempton, H. (2012) ‘Cigarette packs loose frills’[online] Available from http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/08/16/353951_lifestyle.html [Accessed 3 September 2012]

The Margiris

The super trawler Margiris is currently at port in Port Lincoln, South Australia. The Margiris is supposed to trawl for a quota 18,000 tonnes redbait and jack mackerel every year. This will be the largest trawler ever allowed to Fish in Australian waters, at a length of 142 metres long. The Margiris is hoping to change its name to The Able Tasman.  The vessel can process up to 250 tonnes of fish a day and its net is 600 metres long with an opening of 100 metres to 200 metres wide.

Opposition

The Margiris has come under scrutiny by members of parliament, independent MPs, Greenpeace groups, Scientists and local fishermen and anglers due to mainly its impressive quota. Some groups say that a quota, not of this size but a large quota should be shared between lots of smaller boats. This would lower the risk of catching other marine species and would create more jobs for Australia.  

Most Greenpeace groups raise the issue of, “what will happen to the environment?” Greenpeace activists, some animal welfare groups and Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke are worried about the protection and conservation of not only redbait and Jack mackerel but also the welfare of animals such as dolphins, sharks, albatross, seals and whales. There have been reports of large fishing trawlers crushing some of these animals to death. And worry that the Margiris hasn’t got the safety requirements to give such sea creatures safe from similar fates. Gerry Geen, head of Seafish, stated that they placed underwater cameras to nets to observe how animals react to the nets and that the Margiris has a safety hatch to filter out anything that isn’t in the stated quota. Though some scientists have come forward and said that these methods have never been tested on a vessel of this size.

Another issue facing the trawler is the data used for the allowing of the 18,000 tonne quota. Some scientists, politicians and Greenpeace groups have accused Seafish of using ten year old data when deciding on the quota. Graham Pike; AMFA’s Small Pelagic Resource Assessment Group and a leading recreational fishing activist, said that the 18000 year quota was based on flawed science and a ten year old assessment of mackerel stocks.

Questions have also been raised as to Gerry Geen’s involvement in the proceedings of the Margiris. Senator Ludwig said AFMA had received no application for the Margiris to fish in Australian waters. And Recreational fishing and conservation representatives rejected a doubling of the quota of 36000 tonnes before the Margiris docked in Port Lincoln.

There is an upside to this story though, the Margiris could be denied access to any ports for the ports is owned by port authorities and not the Commonwealths responsibilities. Port authorities can deny access of any port to the Margiris, not even Gerry Geen can make the authorities let the vessel enter.

Support

The only plus side to letting the Margiris, or “The Abel Tasman” as it is now called, to trawl Australian waters is that it would create 45 local jobs in Tasmania in its on shore processing plant. But even this has its hidden secrets; the Margiris has on deck refrigeration and processing station. In my opinion, even if the Tasmanian processing plant was opened its promised 45 jobs would either be cut back rapidly or the plant would be shut down due to cost cuts.

However, some experts from the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, the CSIRO and the South Australian Research and Development Institute, six scientists say that the 18000 tonne quota would not harm the environment. These scientists compared this to South Australia’s sardine fishing, which showed that a larger quota in a smaller area showed no negative impact on the environment. However this did not stop the signing of 3000 Tasmanians on a petition to stop the Margiris.

The last word

The super trawler is now on its way home after the Margiris was banned from fishing in Australian waters for two years. On the September 20 the Margiris was told to leave Australian waters. Two years isn’t a very long time, but with the over powering opposition that the public gave I think it would be highly unlikely that the Margiris will be allowed to fish in Australian waters.

 I personally hope the Margiris and other large fishing vessels stay out of Australian waters. We should try to conserve our environment. I think if Australia needs local jobs so badly that we have to ask other countries to send fishing boats just so as to gain 45 local jobs then I think we need to change. I think our Governments should focus on creating more jobs that help the environment not destroying it.

 

             Bibliography

• http://www.theaustralian.com.au

“Abel Tasman Could be banned from Today”: Matthew Denholm, Tasmania correspondent From: The Australian September 20, 2012: accessed 24/09/12

•          http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1688551

“Tasmania Fired up Over Super Trawler”

SBS News: accessed 3/09/2012

• http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/feared-impact-of-super-trawler-margiris-enrages-nsw-anglers/story-fndo317g-1226456928342

“Feared Impact of Super Trawler Margiris Enrages NSW Anglers”: Malcolm Holland

The Daily Telegraph August 24 2012: Accessed 24/08/2012

 

• http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/trawler-company-fights-back-with-science-20120823-24nus.html

“Trawler Company Fights Back with Science” No known writer

21 August 2012: Accessed 21/08/2012

• For more information try; www.canberratimes.com

A childhood is a time for growing, learning and developing both psychologically and physically. Most are remembered as a time of personal growth filled with warm-hearted memories, yet for the minority of children across the world it is a time of constant physical and mental abuse, due to child prostitution. Child prostitution is a global issue, according to a report published from the Lancet, an estimated one million children across the world are forced into prostitution every year, the total number of prostituted children may even be as high as ten million. In poverty struck countries such as Nepal, prostitution is fast becoming a tourist attraction, with authorities turning a blind eye to this corrupt and immoral practice. In South East Asia it is estimated that 270,000 – 400,000 children are involved in prostitution. With such issues becoming more publicised in western civilization, people often fall under the false impression that it is a problem exclusive to poverty struck countries, however the phenomenon of human trafficking has no boundaries, it has happened and is currently present in America, England and Australia.

In America, approximately 250,000 children are trafficked each year, the average age of entering prostitution is thirteen. Many of these children entered prostitution from homelessness or as an escape from an abusive situation. The documentary Very Young Girls introduces the audience to girls who have been manipulated by their pimps, beaten and raped, sold for sex and then sent to jail. GEMS is a free profit organisation aiming to stop sexual exploitation in New York City. One of the girls featured in the film was lured from her home, raped, beaten, held captive, and sold for sex. The police find the missing girl, although it is not the men that are in trouble, rather the 14 year old girl forced to work as an illegal prostitute. In America, a man having sex with an underage girl is rape, however if the child accepts money for sex the man is now a “John” and is let off with a small fine, the girl involved however is usually prosecuted as a prostitute and sent to spend time in detention. The documentary features authentic footage two pimps had recorded while recruiting girls and documenting their day to day lives. The man recording was 32 years old, he stops a young girl in the street and asks her to get in the car to talk with him, this is the beginning of a vicious cycle. “They’re (the pimps) spending 110 percent of their time and energy recruiting, brainwashing, on making this girl feel loved and special and pulling her back in every time she almost leaves.” (GEMS therapy session, Very Young Girls) Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the documentary however, was the victim’s perception of their pimps. Some girls have been so brainwashed by their pimp, that they actually abandon help facilities like GEMS to go back to their pimp,  “First of all, im in love with my pimp. I’m ready to go, it’s hard, because your not going to loose your pimp. He’s not going anywhere. No matter what you will always have him.” (GEMS therapy session, Very Young Girls) The pimps fill a role in the severely emotionally damaged girls psychological state, weather it is the role of a father or a lover, the girls honestly believe that a man who beats, rapes and forces unwilling sex upon them cares about them, because it is the only kind of love they know.  In May this year two Sydney sisters were charged for holding a child prostitution ring, an article features the findings of a Perth social worker, stating that children as young as 12 had been working as prostitutes in inner city parks within the past year.

Child prostitution is a serious and relatively unknown issue in the western world, the documentary ‘Very Young Girls’ provides an insight into the perspective of the children and pimps involved and it is highly recommended that you watch it. Child prostitution is an appalling problem, and whether it is happening in Asia, USA, England or Tasmania; it is our basic duty as human beings to acknowledge that those children deserve a childhood worth remembering.

Bree Postma

ABC News, 2012, Sister’s refused bail over child prostitution, accessed 13 September 2012 < http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-14/sisters-refused-bail-over-child-prostitution/4261842>

Phillips, Y. 2010,  Girls as young as 12 working as child prostitutes, accessed 12 September 2012, < http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/girls-as-young-as-12-working-as-child-prostitutes/story-e6frg13u-1225815484530>

Dhaker street children’s project, 2011, Child prostitution – The facts,  accessed 8 september, < http://www.restlessbeings.org/projects/dhaka-street-children/child-prostitution-the-facts>

David Schizgall, Nina Alvarez, Swinging T productions, 4 July 2008,  USA, documentary, Very Young Girls,

Frundt, T. 2011, Pimped out: Child prostitution in America, accessed 8 September 2012, < http://www.fem2pt0.com/2011/10/19/pimped-out-child-prostitution-in-america/>

Willis, B. 2002, child prostitution: global health burden, research needs, and interventions, accessed September 9 2012, <http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)08355-1/abstract>

 

The FV Margiris super trawler has sparked a fiery debate around its intentions to fish in Australian waters. The 142 meter Dutch trawler was recently given permission to dock at Port Lincon in South Australia. Greenpeace activists chained themselves to the wharf in protest where the FV Margiris was to be docking, forcing the vessel to reverse.

 

In a recent Brisbane Times article, government backbencher Melissa Parke voiced her concerns around the potential damage to the individual populations when two or three marine species are specifically targeted. The impact on the environment does not only affect the target species, but the rest of the ocean’s ecosystems. Animals relying on the target species of redbait and mackerel as a food source could also be greatly effected as a link from the food chain is threatened.

 

The anti trawler activists Greenpeace have been pushing to defend the oceans from the super trawler, last week publishing an article containing a number of arguments against the massive fishing vessel. One issue that has been received with concern by the public is that along with the targeted fish, other marine species such as dolphins, fur seals and sharks are at risk of being caught in the 600 x 200m net. The nets can also entangle sea birds, such as the albatross, as they attempt to catch fish from the captured schools.

 

Capturing these species in such restricted areas, vacuuming up whole schools in one location, can lead to localized depletion and an unbalance in the ecosystems of specific areas. This could potentially wipe out whole areas of marine life that are currently thriving. Although unlike other traditional trawlers, the FV Margiris is a mid-water trawler meaning it will not drag along the ocean floor, which has been a major drawback for trawlers in the past.

 

Many people seem automatically deterred from the idea of the super trawler. This is due to the sheer scale of the operation and the shock of such a confronting change to the way we have operated for years. The idea of our relatively small scale fishing practices being replaced by fewer, large companies also makes people question the impact, not only environmentally, but also on a social and economic level. An article from Greenpeace discusses how with the European super trawler meeting the seafood demand it will be impossible for local fishermen to compete. In having fewer large vessels as apposed to many smaller ones, the issue is raised of having ‘all the eggs in one basket’. If problems were to arise, hundreds of employees could potentially lose their jobs.

The transportation of fish from the super trawler also needs to be addressed before a decision is made to go ahead with the vessel. With the seafood not being collected locally, the resources necessary to transport it to the consumers could be unnecessarily inefficient and result in a large carbon footprint.

However when it comes to efficiency, the trawler has a card up its sleeve. Being able to catch, process and package the seafood on board eliminates the chance of spoilage and assures that none of the fish goes to waste.

Many activists have brought up the situation in West Africa where the FV Margiris recently overfished, depleting the populations and leaving the waters barren. People fear this devastation will be replicated in Australia unless we do something to stop the trawler. However unlike West Africa, the Australian Government has been setting and managing the quota of seafood allowed to be taken out of the ocean to ensure that the Australian fishing industry is sustainable. These quotas and fishing limitations have been scientifically worked out to guarantee the fishing habits can be maintained.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has set a quota of 5% of the total fish stocks which they feel will not pose a threat to the environment. The AFMA has also passed a law that the by-catch of a fishing vessel must also be within a strict quota. This means that the marine life unintentionally caught in the trawler nets is by no means disregarded. The FV Margiris will be monitored during its voyages by AFMA officials, keeping an eye on the practice and ensuring the vessel keeps within its legal boundaries.

 

While the devastation after the trawler in West Africa was a shocking and timely warning that our natural resources exist in a delicate balance, the Australian fisheries is significantly better researched and managed, with more time and money being invested to make sure we don’t make the same mistakes. The question as to whether or not to accept the trawler lies in the reliability and trust invested in the AFMA and their decisions.

 

Jeanes, T. (2012) ‘Super trawler gets mixed reception in Port Lincoln, SA’

Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3579065.htm

Accessed on 1/9/2012

 

Greenpeace (2012) ‘Greenpeace activists obstruct the Margiris’

Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/news/oceans/activists-confront-super-trawler/

Accessed on 1/9/2012

 

Greenpeace (2012) ‘Who keeps the super trawler afloat?’

Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/news/oceans/Who-keeps-the-super-trawler-afloat/

Accessed on 1/9/2012

 

Willingham, R. (2012) ‘Dutch super trawler hits another snag in bid to fish’

Available from: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/dutch-supertrawler-hits-another-snag-in-bid-to-fish-20120830-253hp.html

Accessed on 1/9/2012

 

ABC News, Q&A (2012) ‘Burke can’t block controversial super trawler’

Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-03/burke-cant-block-super-trawler-from-australian-waters/4241194

Accessed on 4/9/2012

It is exasperating how, worldwide, possible solutions are being implemented and debated but no action has been taken throughout Australia. This is, of course, referring to the issue of obesity and poor nutrition.

But why are we fatter than we used to be? During 1985, childhood obesity affected about 1% of children but by 1996, over 5% were classified obese or overweight. These levels had risen to around 25% by 2008 demonstrating that with each generation, the abundance of obesity increases. This all points the blame at a large lifestyle change, and who can overlook the advances in technology that allow so many forms of entertainment at our fingertips and simplify many practical tasks as well. It is possible to watch hours of choice movies and television programs without leaving the room, and purchase anything imaginable while sitting at a computer.

The truth is that many Australians are simply moving less than was previously normal. There are those who go out of their way to exercise but our modern lifestyle with tiring, although often stationary, working hours does not encourage regular physical labour. It seems that being active is no longer a necessary part of day to day life.

The future generation is being pushed into eating high calorie foods. Even though advertisements of such foods are restricted at times when children are most likely to be watching, the brands are infiltrating into positively associated areas of our health habits. So many sports are now surrounded by sponsors’ logos subtly advertising junk food from chocolate and soft drinks to fried chicken and burgers.

Consider Coca-Cola’s advertisement that aired in the USA during the lead up to the Olympic Games. Featuring Jessica Long, the well-known Paralympian who holds five world-records and ten gold medals so-far, Coca-Cola pictured her swimming in her backyard as a child before defeating world championships and drinking a bottle of Coca-Cola. The voice-over says it reminds her of home but the images infer that it’s her constant, dependable companion. Why would a 20 year old who’s given up ice-cream for a year be drinking Coca-Cola. Anyone seeing that advertisement would think that Jessica loves Coca-Cola and would want the same satisfaction that is evident of her face, therefore wanting to drink Coca-Cola. Even being alert for advertising tricks, seeing an athlete drink Coca-Cola makes us think that it can’t be that bad. This seems harmless enough but studies show children are 20% more likely to buy a food and think it is healthy if it is endorsed by an athlete or sports star.

Our problems are not only from eating the wrong foods, it’s that we’re eating too much and too often. The thought of three square meals a day has gone out the window, sometimes replaced by, three not-so-square meals, sweet ‘treats’, salt-high snacks and flavoured drinks. Perhaps these are just the luxuries of life which are now possible but it is difficult to deny that there is a potential threat to our future health.

It is, however, too easy to assign blame and hypothesise reasons. The real issue is what can be done.

Educating people about the fat and sugar content of processed food and exposing children to good eating practices throughout their school programs is vital to positive change. If schools would firmly establish habits of frequent physical activity, children would unconsciously carry this on into adulthood, undoubtedly benefiting themselves and their peers.

Multiple European countries have already employed a junk food tax to deter people from buying high calorie, low nutritional foods and drinks. The high price of wholesome foods, like basic meat, fruit and vegetables, supplies the perfect excuse for Australians to buy fast food and snacks. So, why not use a similar system with tax added to nutrient deprived foods and subsidies on healthy, wholesome foods? Over 70% of Australian participants currently support such a solution, including those with lower-than-average incomes, according to a survey conducted by the Obesity Policy Coalition. This would simply make people think differently about how much they’re eating and, consequently, establish better-considered and balanced diets.

While any attempts to reduce the Australian obesity rate are potentially brilliant, they are practically useless, and creators of unnecessary arguments, if no effects are evident. Surely this calls for a way to systematically monitor the Body Mass Index and general health of Australians, in particular, young children. Instead of taking irregular surveys, an annual, confidential, health check, incorporated into the primary school curriculum, would easily give everyone a consistent understanding of Australia’s children’s health.

Whatever is done, it needs to be done soon. Whether we have to pay more for junk food or if our deteriorating health motivates us to change, the steady increase of Australia’s obesity rate needs to be checked and we rely on the currently action-less government to bring about that change.

Bibliography

Theage.com.au (November-2010) ‘Childhood Obesity Exaggerated: Expert’  Available From:  http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/childhood-obesity-exaggerated-expert-20101109-17l58.html  [Accessed 1^st September 2012]

Young, D (August-2012) ‘Everyone Picks on the Fat Kid’ Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4189284.html [Accessed 1^st September 2012]

Barry, P (March-2011) ‘Just Chew It: How Sport Is Super-sizing Our Kids’  Available from: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/07/just-chew-it-how-sport-is-super-sizing-our-kids/ [Accessed 1^st September 2012]

Betts, M (May-2012) ‘Fat Tax to Fight Obesity Crisis’ Available from: http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-of-living/fat-tax-to-fight-obesity-crisis/story-fnagkbpv-1226360023728 [Accessed 1^st September 2012]

Riley, D (June-2004) ‘Fast Food: Supersizing Kids’  Available from: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/29797 [Accessed 1^st September 2012]

As many will remember, last year 4 Corners aired an episode on the ABC, which exposed how Australian cattle were being tortured and killed in Indonesian abattoirs. Like you, I was absolutely shocked by the footage. Overnight, more than 10,000 people had signed an online petition to cease live exports to Indonesia. As a result, the Labor government halted live exports to Indonesia. This was the right course of action, as the welfare of our cattle had to come first; however, keeping it halted for over a month left the Australian cattle industry in limbo – a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of Australians, many of whom were left in fear of losing their jobs.

The expense to the cattle industry should also be considered. Thousands of cattle were left stranded in Australia’s north, unable to be exported. Not only did the cattle industry have to spend copious amounts of money in continuing to feed the cattle but they then also had to sell them on the Australian market, which drastically lowered the price of beef and resulted in massive losses for the industry. The stance of MLA (Meat and Livestock Australia) was that live exporting should not have ceased due to the economical impact on their industry; it also removed a vital food source from impoverished Indonesians. That being said, they were just as shocked by the 4 Corners footage and acknowledged that standards must be raised to ensure that that cattle were being killed humanely.

It is clear that a short-term compromise was needed.  Exporting of Australian cattle to Indonesia did need to cease in the short term; however, the government’s decision to keep live exports halted for over a month had many disastrous consequences. What we needed was a course of action that ensured the humane treatment of our cattle, but would not leave Australian cattle producers so out of pocket and did not endanger our relationship with our neighbour by depriving them of a major food source. In other words a quick, effective solution had to be implemented until the issue could be addressed more closely.

Bob Katter expressed his view on a Q & A episode in June last year. He said that if he’d been the minister in charge of live exports when exporting had ceased, he would have travelled to Indonesia himself to inspect the abattoirs that were receiving Australian cattle. He would have then lifted the ban, allowing exporting to continue to the abattoirs that had passed inspection. At the time there were 5 abattoirs using stunning equipment. This best practice would stop the animal cruelty while having a minimal impact on all parties. Unfortunately one cannot simply walk into a foreign country and demand to inspect their abattoirs, especially considering that the export ban had already seriously damaged our relationship with Indonesia. That being said, there were welfare officers from the MLA in Indonesia who knew the conditions of the various abattoirs and were able inspect them.

Once this solution had dealt with the initial problems, a more sustainable, long-term solution should have been implemented. Public and political support for compulsory stunning of exported beef, prompted Mr Andrew Wilkie to put forward a bill that would require Australian standards to be upheld by foreign abattoirs. Neither the government nor the opposition supported this, as they both believed it was better that stunning should be outlined as being “preferred” rather than required.

The only good that came of the government’s actions was that the 11 abattoirs seen in the 4 Corners footage were blacklisted and Indonesian abattoir conditions have finally started to improve. This, despite saving many cattle from torturous deaths, only halted the beef industry, resulting in massive losses followed by a lift on the ban, which saw cattle return to other Indonesian abattoirs whose conditions only met “International Standards”, which are well below Australian standards and do not require the cattle to be stunned before slaughter.  Overall, we should be shocked by how the government dealt with this issue and despite being unable to completely solve the problem, could not even come up with a decent compromise.

 

References:

Worthington, A (2011) ‘Live exports to shamed abattoirs suspended’ [online]. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-31/live-exports-to-shamed-abattoirs-suspended/2738896 [accessed: 5 September 2012]

Q&A, ABC (2011) ‘Activism, Cattle and Katter’ [online]. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3236995.htm [accessed: 5 September 2012]

RSPCA (2012) ‘Campaign Updates’ [online]. Available from: http://www.rspca.org.au/how-you-can-help/campaigns/ban-live-export/campaign-updates/ [accessed: 5 September 2012]

Sunday Morning Herald (2011) ‘Wilkie bill to mandate stunning before slaughter’ [online]. Available from: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/wilkie-bill-to-mandate-stunning-before-slaughter-20111031-1mrc6.html [accessed: 5 September 2012]

Heatley, D (2011) ‘An update on the industry animal welfare plan in Indonesia’ [online]. Available from: http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/71764/MLA_welfare_plan.pdf [accessed: 5 September 2012]

The media has publicized the ideas of the carbon tax through the perspective of the Liberal party and their supporters, discussing the negative impact without addressing the other side. But now the truths that have been hidden are finally being exposed, those that are the positives of the carbon tax.

Those that believed the carbon tax would be the end of our economy and the Australian lifestyle have again been proven wrong. The supposed “catastrophe” that would be ignited resulting from the carbon tax has not met the standard that has been preached by Tony Abbott since the tax was announced. Though Abbott attempted to scare Australians with what would be “destroyed”, many Australians see no difference since the tax began in July. More than half of those polled in a Herald-Nielsen poll say the carbon tax has had no effect on their lives. The truth is that the fear of the tax was a lot worse than the reality of it.

Many negatives have been found by Abbott and the Liberal party, whereas the positives of the carbon tax have been hidden in an attempt to sway votes. According to CQU Professor of regional economic development, John Rolfe, the carbon tax is set to not only combat climate change but also assist small businesses. Rolfe believes the carbon tax will improve conditions for local businesses as it will enable businesses to become more competitive. This positive has been hidden behind the threat of lost business and jobs by Abbott, meaning again the media is publishing stories that influence the reader in that direction.

Abbott’s “scare campaign” has attracted many supporters who have been fed exaggerations of the truth. The negatives that Labor have been forced to admit have been inflated into life changing disasters. The media happily latches onto these, causing the public to agree without knowing the truth. After Abbott admitted the carbon tax is not exactly a “catastrophe”, a sort of catch phrase that the media has fed on for months, Treasurer Wayne Swan accused the coalition of running a campaign that was a fraud and continued by saying that we are witnessing Abbott being mugged by the truth.

The Labor party has been defending their tax in hope of the positives swaying Australia’s views. This is somewhat efficient but in some cases stating the obvious, that there are negatives involved to achieve a positive, has worked in their favour. Climate Change Minister Greg Combethas said rather bluntly that the carbon tax “is a pretty tough reform” but then stated the reasoning behind it, “that’s because it is such an important issue”. By addressing the ideas the coalition have used to influence the media and then the public against the carbon tax, Labor is able to influence us to also accept the negatives that come with the massive positive. 

The truth is that the politicians and the media, along with every Australian, should be embracing that Australia is combating what will end up ruining our planet instead of fighting over the negatives that according to the Liberal party may impact our country and that won’t matter in the long run.

Bibliography

Hartcher, P. (2012) ‘Hope for labour: Now a landslide, not a catastrophe’ Available from http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/hope-for-labor-now-only-a-landslide-not-a-catastrophe-20120826-24uke.html [accessed: 29 August 2012]

SMH.com.au (2012) ‘Labour goes for Abbott on carbon tax’ Available from http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/labor-goes-for-abbott-on-carbon-tax-20120826-24u7d.html[accessed: 29 August 2012]

Calderwood, K. (2012) ‘Tax changes benefit businesses’Available at http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/story/2012/09/03/carbon-tax-changes-will-bring-a-level-playing-fiel/ [accessed: 3 September 2012]

ABC News (2012) ‘Controversial carbon tax takes effect’ Available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-01/carbon-tax-takes-effect/4102830 [accessed: 3 September 2012]

Teachers often go unnoticed for the hard work they do every day. I can only imagine how patient and resilient you would have to be to teach up to thirty children, five days a week. It is good that the Government is acknowledging the fact that some teachers teach more effectively than others but is it okay to pay them more than others?

‘If teachers are performing well they deserve extra pay to recognise their performance ‘(Julia Gillard, Prime Minister). The recognition that they would get would be a pay raise. One in ten teachers at primary and secondary schools will receive this performance payout and they will be assessed on student performance data, lesson observation, parental feedback and teacher qualifications. The performance payout will make every one in ten teachers happy and more successful in their career. Julia also says “We want to reward great teaching so the individuals who are doing it experience the benefits of those rewards so we can model what great teaching is to the rest of the teaching workforce”. These teachers will be recognised for their successful performance and the students of these teachers will benefit a lot from this. They are hoping to raise the numeracy and literacy success rates of children in primary and secondary schools.

“Who will decide on who is performing the best? Will the students get to vote, will the teachers have a say or will bonuses be reliant on the votes of colleagues and principals with their inherent biases” (Leanne Wright, Australian Education Union Tasmanian president). It will be difficult to judge how well children are being taught. Some teachers work in teams, does this mean one teacher gets all the credit? Children also get taught by their parents at home so how can you judge what a child has learnt at home and what they have learnt from their teacher? There is also the issue that not every child learns the same way and with one teacher and up to thirty students not all students will find the teaching effective. Opposition education spokesman Stephen Smith (2007) says “The government’s so-called performance pay approach is as much about some teachers getting a pay cut as it is about other teachers getting more money,” he said. 

Something needs to be done to keep good teachers in Tasmania but a better answer would be to offer competitive salaries across the board, not to reward some and not others’ ( Wright, 2011). I do not necessarily think giving all teachers a pay rise is the answer either. Julia Gillard wants to recognise teachers for a good performance. Teachers should be encouraged to improve their teaching skills by getting assistance. ”By aligning our rewards with the standards, we’re ensuring that those teachers who go the extra yard will be recognised” (Peter Garrett, schools education minister). These teachers will be recognised for their student’s results, a teacher’s success should not be judged on their student’s achievement. A teacher’s success should be judged on their own achievements, education level and social skills of which they would need to interact with a class.

The truth is there are too many issues with performance payouts. It will only benefit some teachers, and cause other teachers to feel unequal in their workplace and you cannot judge a teachers success fully on their students achievement as they may just have a bright class or the students parents may put a lot of time into helping their child. This money would be better spent on teacher education, helping all teachers become equal ability.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lackie, I (2012) ‘Performance pay talk for teachers is flawed’  Available from: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/6711917/Performance-pay-talk-for-teachers-is-flawed                                                                                                                                                           [accessed: 3 September 2012]

Thompson, J (2012) ‘Top teachers to get financial rewards’ Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-02/top-teachers-to-get-financial-rewards/2697480 [accessed: 3 September 2012]

Kempton, H (2011) ‘Teacher bonus plan slammed’ Available from: http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/05/02/226951_most-popular-stories.html    [accessed: 3 September 2012]

The Age.com. au (2007)’ Teachers ‘worse off’ on performance pay’ Available from: http://news.theage.com.au/national/teachers-worse-off-on-performance-pay-20070415-7lh.html [accessed: 3 September 2012]

Topsfield, J (2011) ‘Teacher reward scheme slashed’ Available from: http://www.theage.com.au/national/teacher-reward-scheme-slashed-20111124-1nx0y.html [accessed: 3 September 2012