The WHO investigation into the origins of Covid-19 was a bust, China is accused of withholding vital raw data and not assisting the WHO investigation. This was very disappointing but not entirely unexpected, the CCP had been unethical in their behaviour and conduct – we all saw that. When they finally let WHO inspectors in, there was always going to be limited access and the potential for a cover up. The interim report has now been withheld and a new team needs to go back in and investigate with further powers. Basically, the report is scrap and headed to the shredder, this requires a far ranging scope with powers of investigation that it currently does no possess.

The United States is pushing the Wuhan lab theory, but do they have the evidence to back up their claims? Given the US response to Covid-19 was possibly one of the worst in the world, the US President totally mismanaged the response. Furthermore, Donald Trump’s statements have been less than presidential, it has been argued that this has led to attacks on Asian [particularly Chinese] people in the US. The statements Trump made about the Chinavirus could be claimed to deflect from the absolutely useless response of his government.

Was the Wuhan market the origin of the coronavirus? Well, it certainly needs to be investigated as the Wuhan market might not have been the origin of the virus, but where cases first showed up. We need more than potential causes, we need the truth. What is known is the CCP has a biological weapons capability and conducts research. What has already been discussed is the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been involved in biological research. Whilst many nations engage in biological weapons, they need to come clean on their research.

What has been reported was Wuhan Institute of Virology lab workers were falling ill around August 19. The US State Department has released a fact sheet on January 16, the US State Department has revealed that the CCP has prevented interviews with Wuhan Institute of Virology staff. What is concerning is the State Department released this information was released in the last days of the Trump Administration. So this gives us two real options, they were being vindictive and released unsubstantiated reports as fact. Or, they needed to release this information so the incoming administration couldn’t bury the details.

Do I have an answer? No, I do know know the reasons for the timing of the US State Department release in the last days of the Trump Administration. What we do know is the CCP has not been open and allowed the virus to escape Chinese borders. Regardless of the origins of Covid-19, would the CCP intentionally release the virus, I would absolutely say no. This has hurt the very markets China sells into and causing damage to the output. Was it an accidental release, that is of course a possibility and needs proper investigation.

If this is proved to be false then that would vindicate the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that is the intention of the enquiry. The world needs to know the origins of the coronavirus to prevent further pandemics and to assist in future preparation. If the CCP continues to prevent an open discourse, then it would tend to indicate they are actually hiding something and the more they cover up, the more suspicious the world becomes. This is causing damage to the credibility of the CCP and their ambitions of becoming a world superpower.

Having a place to stay really makes a holiday, you can spend time in a city relaxing and getting to actually know a little bit about the city. The days spent on the top floor of the building hanging out on the balcony in the afternoon and evenings sipping on Bordeaux were memorable.

Looking out from the balcony over the street, a morning coffee leaning against the rail being careful not to dislodge the plants, it was a quiet street for vehicles but had plenty of interesting pedestrian traffic. When Iris headed out to work, it was time to wander around the city of Zurich exploring; although her apartment was not in the city centre, I really enjoyed the daily walk to get to my destination – the longer the better and I enjoyed the exercise.

When I started travelling in a serious manner, it was before the internet, mobile phones and digital cameras. I never took a camera with me, there were rolls of film to carry around with you to later develop. It was a hassle I didn’t need. My philosophy was back then that I would keep travelling and not worry about past trips, that way I would always be seeking new adventures and destinations to visit. That was when I was young, fit and muscular, I was in pretty good condition – this is no longer the case.

My memory is still good, I admit, I don’t remember every day of a trip as those trips went for three to six months at a time. Back then, a two week trip was just a short break from work before getting back into it. A three to six month trip meant resigning from my job before returning to Perth to earn some money to pay for the next trip.

As I was either working flat out, well over eighty hours per week when I returned, I never much thought about photography or where I had just been – there was just work and rest. When I was away overseas – I was living. I felt back then I was too busy doing it to ever bother photographing these activities.

Funnily enough, the rare photographs I had of this period were taken by other people and mailed to my parent’s address in Perth, they then had an idea where I was and what I was up to, who I was with and what I was doing. This is the only records I have of these trips. Apart from passport entries and stamps, I have no other record of these trips.

The pension age in Australia has been bumped up to age 67 previously from age 65, it was expected to be further hiked to age 70 but the new Morrison government in one of their first moves was to resist pressure – at least for the time being.

One suspects this was more a political move than a financial consideration, they are acutely aware of their voting cohort and likely poll results in 2019. For this very reason, they decided to reverse the previous decision to raise the retirement age to 70. Blue collar workers such as shearers, welders, construction workers and labourers will really struggle those final 5 years and need all the assistance available.

This is exactly the reason I believe all blue collar workers need to educate themselves on the intricacies of superannuation and retirement options. They above all should be organising their retirement plans and seeking financial advice or alternately getting involved in educational programs to learn retirement planning as an important life skill.

One should never rely on the age pension, this is purely a contingency plan for those unable to support themselves once their employment life has ended. The 9.5 superannuation levy imposed upon employers is really our money, we were forced to forego current pay rises for future retirement planning.

Really, all employees should at least match employer contributions and/or negotiate improved retirement plan participation. One can not rely on the age pension, this is especially true when Australia has an aging population that can either be remedied by increasing migration or providing greater conditions for families.

The age pension was never designed to provide a quality of life expected by many, this is a payment to protect vulnerable older people who do not possess enough assets to support themselves. It is not a right for years of paying tax through work, people who have never worked a day in their life are still eligible for the age pension once they hit the age requirements.

Pension payments for a large portion of the federal budget and governments are unlikely to be raised to levels expected. The age pension is a payment that keeps the majority of pensioners on or slightly below the poverty line, it has served its purpose and I can’t see it raised to levels pensioners desire or expect.

I still can’t get used to paying for toilets, coming from Perth, this just isn’t something that we are really used to. I understand running facilities comes at a cost, but every property owner pays rates in their locality. I don’t think we should start back charging non-locals is the answer.

I recall a line up at the train station in Cologne, there was a long line for the toilets with an entry barrier requiring €1 to enter. There was even a change machine at the entrance where a separate line was required to have the right change ready, then for the women, a new line existed. This was a serious money making exercise, I didn’t hang around long enough to do the math, but if 15 people went through in the minute I was lining up and I multiply by sixty, we can see they are turning over €900 per hour – this is a pretty decent little business.

After my nephew turned eighteen, he completed secondary school, better known as high school here. He won’t be attending university, I was looking to help get him an apprenticeship in a technical trade as soon as he completes high school, that didn’t happen right away unfortunately, but he got there and is in the first year of his four-year apprenticeship.

Now he has an apprenticeship, I will be making sure he signs up to an industry superannuation fund. I would choose Australian Super for him and will advise him on such matters. I will hope he will match employer contributions so he won’t face the issues his father or myself faced when we began paid employment.

He will initially complain about a lack of disposable income no doubt, this especially hurts on apprentice wages. But setting the foundation of saving for retirement at the beginning of his working life will pay dividends in the long-term. A little short-term pain for long-term gain is required, setting him on a path of saving that will change his life.

He enjoys the folly of youth, he has a pretty full social calendar. Sure, he spends a little too much on the party lifestyle, he burns through his money. As his uncle, I need to exert some influence making sure he is headed in the right direction in life. Ultimately, it is his life to lead – I am pretty sure he will strike a balance between living and saving.

When the Australian government announced during the covid-19 pandemic Australia was under cyber attack by a state based actor, it didn’t take a great deal of detective work to identify the potential culprits.

Firstly, you need to ask yourself which country has both the capability and motivation to launch these cyber attacks. The state based actors with the capability and motivation include Russia, North Korea, Iran and China and without too much analysis you can narrow it down to two potential adversaries.

As China has been displeased with Australia for demanding, then succeeding in organising an official investigation into the origins of coronavirus, so there is pretty much one potential state based actor. Ok, cyber attacks have previously been traced back to a location in China, so we need to ask ourselves, what is next? The Australian government didn’t name the country launching these attacks in what can be viewed as a diplomatic protocol.

The government was sending a clear message, we know who it is but we won’t yet name you in a public forum just yet. We do reserve the right to publically name and shame the regime in the future if these attacks do not stop. Apart from the international humiliation, what options does Australia have? Is it possible for Australia to retaliate and coordinate a cyber attack on this facility? If so, what are the ramifications?

Is this an act of war? Pretty much future conflicts will include taking out assets and infrastructure and rendering them inoperative. What about another scenario, we know China has been engaging in cyber attacks and intellectual property theft of private corporations, universities and government agencies. So, if we retaliate, what don’t we target Chinese businesses, facilities such as educational institutions and scientific organisations? The question has been asked of us, what are we going to do about this?

I have been a fan of TAG Heuer for a while, my friend Steve owned a magnificent example of a gold TAG Heuer and I decided I wanted one too.

We were working on the island of Guam in the mid to late 1990s, the local shops were happy to do deals with locals who could provide proof of living on the island and an addition discount if you were employed on the island too, I was pretty happy as I met both criteria. Being a diver, an S/el chronograph was my choice of timepiece at the time. Back then we were decompression diving from tables and needed to accurately monitor the time of each decompression stop and the S/el was an excellent choice of timer.

Well, it has finally happened, a much loved ice cream that only certain members of the community believe an individual would dare eat in public will soon suffer from cancel culture – unbelievable. Is everyone so easily offended?

The Golden Gaytime from Street’s Ice Creams has been petitioned to be renamed as it offends the gay community. Give it up, I have been known to eat a Golden Gaytime in public on a hot day and I’m straight. The ice cream was released in 1959 with a Streets Ice Cream spokesperson stating the term gay had not yet been applied to sexual preference. Possibly the gay community needs to rename their activities to not confuse the terminology.

Based on his petition, Brain Mc, the petition organiser stated. “As a part of the LGBTQIA+ community I believe my sexual identity is owned by me, not a brand and that the outdated meaning no longer applies. Isn’t it time for this double entendre to end?” The term gay was listed as [dated] as light-hearted and carefree but has now been reassigned as homosexual. The Cambridge dictionary listed gay as an adjective that means happy, I am guessing this individual and not the community is unhappy and maybe a Golden Gaytime on a hot day might just calm him down.

I was told “I have been reading your blog, but you really haven’t written anything controversial for a while” so that got me thinking. I was printing and laminating pages from the Public Interest Disclose Act [2003] at the time, so I thought, just go with that and that is the context of this post.

I have not pursued the individual; for me, he absolutely did the wrong thing engaging in acts by committing a series of offenses carrying two years imprisonment or a $24,000 fine. So where do I go from here?  Well, this is kind of an insurance policy; sure, I have been discriminated against in terms of promotion, but I have reinvented myself consulting for businesses not connected to my employer. We have to coexist now – I need to make the most of this situation. 

Within reason, I can pretty much do as I like now. I choose to work hard so if they have any issues with me, it is easy to document. I won\’t ever bother to apply for any internal jobs anymore, that is a waste of time. Instead, I will concentrate on external options. The clauses are clear, I cannot be dismissed, no disciplinary action under a written law or services dispensed with. I make sure they are aware that I have the document in my possession and I am well versed in the clauses. 

Should they want to make poor decisions, my options are to dealt with under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 in the Equal Opportunity Commission. Not only that, I would have the opportunity to question these individuals under oath and I would suggest that would be career ending for them. I don’t think it will ever come to that, I now keep to myself as we have an agreement where I won’t speak out in our open plan office. I will continue to take leave without pay when consulting projects come up and return when the project is completed. 

I used a line out of Wall Street II: Money Never Sleeps where Michael Douglas’ character Gordon Gekko quips “You stop telling lies about me; I’ll stop telling the truth about you” to Josh Brolin’s character Bretton James. I am aware that this is really detrimental to their internal planning, this is their problem of their own doing and not my issue though. To be fair, I wasn’t the one who committed an offense taking detrimental action against a person who should have been protected under the whistleblower provisions.  

So let’s take a look at some of the provisions of the Public Interest Disclose Act [2003]. This is a 27 page document so I have concentrated on the clauses that relate to protection under the Act. While I have excluded some non-relevant passages, this is the main points unedited. I feel a little like Kim Jong-un, I have the nuclear option but the real power is restraint. You don’t mess with someone who has the power to create absolute devastation and is rational enough to only exercise that option in extreme cases of personal threat.

Part 3 – Protection

13. Immunity for appropriate disclosure of public interest information
A person who makes an appropriate disclosure of public interest information to a proper authority under section 5:
(a) Incurs no civil or criminal liability for doing so.
(b) Is not, for doing so, liable:
    (i) To any disciplinary action under a written law.
    (ii) To be dismissed.
    (iii) To have his or her services dispensed with or otherwise terminated.

14. Reprisal an offence

(1) A person must not take or threaten to take detrimental action against another because anyone has made, or intends to make, a disclosure of public interest information under this Act.

Penalty: $24,000 or imprisonment for 2 years

(2) A person who:
    (a) Attempts to commit an offence created by subsection (1).
    (b) Intending that an offence created by subsection (1) be committed, incites another person to commit that offence.

Commits an offence.
Penalty: $24,000 or imprisonment for 2 years.

15. Remedies for acts of victimisation

(1) A person who takes or threatens to take detrimental action against another because or substantially because anyone has made, or intends to make, a disclosure of public interest information under this Act commits an act of victimisation which may be dealt with as a tort.

(2) Proceedings in tort under subsection (1) may be taken against the perpetrator of an act of victimisation or any employer of the perpetrator.

(3) In proceedings against the employer of the perpetrator of an act of victimisation, it is a defence for the employer to prove that the employer:

(a) Was not knowingly involved in the act of victimisation.
(b) Did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known about the act of victimisation.
(c) Could not, by the exercise of reasonable care, have prevented the act of victimisation.

(4) An act of victimisation under this Act may be dealt with under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 as if it were an act that was unlawful under section 67 of that Act but, if the victim commences proceedings in a court under subsection (1).

16. Confidentiality
(1) A person must not make a disclosure (an identifying disclosure) of information that might identify or tend to identify anyone as a person who has made an appropriate disclosure of public interest information under this Act unless:

(a) The person who made the disclosure of public interest information consents to the disclosure of information that might identify or tend to identify him or her.

Penalty: $24,000 or imprisonment for 2 years.