Sunday, 28 June 2020

Nursing Home Tragedy – Institutional and Policy Failure, a Commentary


The Australian Fed and State Governments have done amazing work to contain Covid-19 spread. But the significant loss of life at Sydney Anglicare Newmarch Nursing Home deserve closer look. Why? Without a review mistakes made maybe repeated in the future.

According to the ABC Four Corners Program, lack of appropriate prompt intervention at Newmarch after initial Covid-19 detection, by “18th day [led to] 56 infections, 22 staff and 34 residents, 12 people dead’’, and final total life loss of 19.

So what fell short? Remember families on Tele protesting outside the Nursing Home for days asking info about their elderly folk inside the aged care facility? The Four Corners episode now reveals a more worrying account from interviews with families as per link: https://youtu.be/1b3YJagAkLs

In a nutshell, I am paraphrasing some key points applying policy lenses:
  • There appear to be clear inadequacies in care, clinical management and policy framework to safeguard the wellbeing of residents
  • Elderly people were denied the option of being treated in a hospital setting equipped with higher level clinical care
  • Families not allowed input into clinical management such as having the choice to have their elderly treated in hospital
  • Government orders/regulations were in place to prevent families from removing elderly relatives from the Nursing Home even if the elderly person did not have Covid-19. Families told breach of orders could result in substantial $ fines  
  • The longer elderly people were left in the Newmarch facility, the more of them contracted Covid-19.
  • Reports by some elderly people that they were not given adequate nutrition - expected to make do with peanut butter sandwiches or frozen sandwich lunches
  • Families denied basic communication with elderly residents
  • Poor infection controls
  • One reported lack of readily available supplies to support dehydrated residents
Surprisingly the Government Regulator that is the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner told the ABC thatsays there is nothing that fell short on Newmarch”.


Although Nursing Homes are operated by private and NGO agencies, these facilities are partly funded the Federal Government and individual residents. They are also regulated by Government. Residents in Nursing Homes on paper have similar rights to everyone in the community, even more so in their case as vulnerable groups they have a right to be protected.

At the peak of the Covid-19 crisis, it was clear the Government daily briefs had hospitals and GP medical sites well covered in it its planning at a granular level. There seems to be gaps when it comes to Nursing Homes (even though after the tragedy the Government provided extra funding to these facilities).

To date, it is not clear why the Fed Government in its fore planning did not prioritise giving daily or regular updates on how Nursing Homes were faring – in terms of detection, containment, clinical management reviews, and general care. This is was essential for rapid monitoring.

Why was it that rapid improvements were not being implemented to contain daily spread and offer better clinical care as soon as it was obvious Newmarch had no capacity to offer very basic care? Why is this different to overseas evacuees? Why is the treatment different to many other mainstream clusters?

Why it is that available public info indicates that basic personal care, clinical care and even nutrition were awfully neglected? Quite honestly, is peanut sandwich the sort of meals that would adequately support someone to fight Covid-19 infection? 

We could go on with lack of personal care – how could Government not concern itself where an elderly person has no access to a bath for more than two weeks?


The issues raised by this tragedy go well beyond Newmarch – the Government need to look at its own policy, care and clinical frameworks guiding Nursing Home operations and the interface with hospitals. One could go on staffing issues, perhaps a subject for another day.

Links
ABC Four Corners. Like the Plague: How Coronavirus spread among our most vulnerable elderly residents. Jun 22, 2020. https://youtu.be/1b3YJagAkLs


'No one knows where it came from': Inside Australia's first COVID-19 cluster.

The Sydney Morning Herald, Harriet Alexander, 10 May 2020

Sixth resident of Sydney nursing home dies of coronavirus as national tally rises to 41. April 2020

Thursday, 18 June 2020

Recent Australia’s ABC Podcast on Positives and Alarming Aspects of Artificial intelligence Possibilities


Not to be missed, here is a link:
AI enables machines to 'think' at a speed and depth far beyond human capacity, unleashing incredible possibilities but also the potential for harm. Will we see a new cold war as China and the US battle for tech supremacy?” [ABC]


Tuesday, 5 May 2020

Great BBC Podcast on Digital Surveillance Technologies amidst Covid-19 Pandemic and Beyond



Here is a link to a fantastic BBC analysis of unfolding digital surveillance technologies, absolutely worth your time. The program was also broadcast on Australia’s ABC Radio. You may want to grab a cup of coffee, happy listening.

BBC Podcast Link
Title: Coronavirus: Is mass surveillance here to stay?
Governments are deploying new technologies to fight coronavirus. But at what cost?

Contributors
Shoshana Zuboff - Author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

Stephen Roberts - Fellow in global health policy at the London School of Economics 

Yuan Yang - Beijing technology correspondent for the Financial Times

Tanzania President Questions Covid19 Testing Integrity and Calls for Thorough Research as Pawpaw, Goat, Quail Test Positive

                                          
Courtesy: gardenclinic.com


International media Aljazeera and Voice of America (Reuters News) this week drew attention to shocking and strange revelations about samples from the plant and animal kingdoms testing positive to Covid-19 as revealed by the President of Tanzania Dr Magufuli (see YouTube link).

The Government of Tanzania and security intelligence presented samples to a top referral Lab in the country for Covid-19 testing. The Lab was unaware the items for testing included pawpaw, sheep, goat and jack fruit extracts amongst others. The blind samples were submitted under pseudo everyday Tanzanian human names and age identification.

The Tanzanian President said while people need to take precautions to prevent Covid-19 infection, but from outcomes of the top lab tests in the country ‘clearly something unusual is going on’. He challenged the integrity of some testing kits and motives for those that send aid in a form of questionable testing kits.
To paraphrase & translate some bits from Swahili aired speech, the President says there are disturbing questions raised by what tests are revealing:

  • “We submitted samples of goat, sheep, pawpaw extracts, motor oil and other things without the knowledge of the Lab officials doing the testing”
  • You have “pawpaw sample testing positive”
  • You then have to consider “are there issues with tools?”
  • You also consider “is it sabotage because this is war”
  • “The motor oil came negative, for jack fruit extracts gave what they labelled ‘inconclusive result’, quail came positive, rabbit they said indeterminate result ”
  • “You have to postulate that either there are issues of integrity with scientists or integrity of swabs, integrity of reagents, even the cotton used in swabs comes from overseas”
  • “Strange things going on within the lab…strange things going on in the land – do we isolate goats, pawpaw”, etc.
  • “There are opportunities for our local academic research institutions to undertake research”
  • “So WHO [World Health Organisation] must do its work and elaborate on what’s going on…if corona is positive in goats, jack fruit and paw paws…!”

   
Courtesy: pickpik.com

I have attached a link to VOA News & also Aljazeera. But for those versed in Swahili you will get a lot more granular info on scientific puzzles at play and more.

What also makes this interesting is that this President has a science background with Masters and Doctorate in chemistry. Swahili speakers would note the methodical way he goes about challenging the integrity of the testing regime and why he is also taking WHO to task asking they take a thorough approach in establishing what exactly is going on.

NEWS LINKS






                                              

Wednesday, 15 April 2020

UK Nursing Home Covid-19 Deaths Go Unreported in Daily Official Data Updates!



There is startling news that the official UK Covid-19 death updates do not include figures of elderly people dying in nursing homes.

How is this possible? According to news reports the NHS daily mortality updates only accounts for hospital deaths! Nursing home deaths are only incorporated in the Office of National Statistics weekly stats.

Given the exponential Covid-19 infection growth rates; how does such official reporting lag impact community and policy debates? What are implications for clinical, prevention and policy responses for nursing home clusters? What does this say about the treatment of the elderly?

Click sources below fresh from the press. They include Associated Press, The Guardian & the ABC. Worth a read, what a strange time!

Sources:
Niam McIntyre & Pamela Duncan, 15 April 2020. Care homes and coronavirus: why we don't know the true UK death toll

Robert Booth & Rowena Mason, 15 April 2020. UK coronavirus: care providers allege Covid-19 death toll underestimated. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/uk-care-providers-allege-covid-19-death-toll-underestimated

Jill Lawless & Sylvia Hui, Associated Press printed by the ABC. 15 April 2020. Figures show hundreds of COVID-19 deaths in UK care homes. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/figures-show-hundreds-covid-19-deaths-uk-care-70135462

Sunday, 5 April 2020

Policy Transformation in a Day – Heard Such a Thing!



Historic policy transformations – response to Covid-19 crisis

The Covid-19 pandemic is forcing some key Western societies to freeze significant economic activities as a way to impede the advance of this disease. Concurrently countries such as Australia have embarked on unimaginable and rapid policy transformations shaking foundations of modern neo-liberal economies.

“Whoever heard of such a thing? Can a land be made to bring forth in one day?” This saying reverberated in my mind as I was glued to my TV in astonishment listening to the nature and pace of policy changes at work. So I Googled to confirm which ancient Biblical author said this. It came from the writings of Prophet Isaiah.

In Australia, the announced Government response to Covid-19 so far includes measures costing close to $300 billion:
  • A doubling of income support (social security benefits) for unemployed people, and an additional one-off top up payment
  • A $130 billion JobKeeper Payment to businesses including sole traders as wage subsidy, subject to set criteria
  • Working families to receive free childcare the next 6 months to meet family needs and ensure survival of the childcare sector
  • Access to a portion of superannuation (retirement funds) for those in need subject meeting certain conditions
  • Measures by Government and Reserve Bank to support the flow and cost of credit


In the midst of a dark cloud and grief from impacts visited on the globe by Covid-19, we see rapid formation of humane policies affirming the worth and dignity of all Australians is an absolute miracle to behold. Who wouldn’t want to chronicle this moment even though utter sorrow is around!

It took a Great Depression and World War II to lay conditions for the emergence of what became the welfare state – growth in access to institutional social security benefits, education, housing programs and the like.

The rise of neo-liberalism was equally a very monumental change, but occurred gradually and succeeded in dismantling the welfare state as we knew it, transforming it into a very selective and targeted safety net.

Even the applauded Prices and Incomes Accord of Hawke-Keating era that produced universal superannuation, enhanced family payments and childcare and facets of social wage took time to be negotiated, thought-through and put into place. After all Australia was globalising and going neo-liberal to avoid becoming a ‘banana republic’ (LoL). Needless to say the country needed to tackle stagflation, modernise the economy and minimise industrial disputes.

It is still confounding that the emergence of Covid-19 has had such cascading impacts from loss of life, disruption of economic and social life, etc. To contain its advancement, global movement is shattered – borders closed, planes grounded and tourism stopped. Global supply chains impaired, putting under great test our globalised economic system. Global sports and education operations are disrupted; hospitality industry and the arts are shattered. Financial markets go south. And the list goes on. And these impacts from one virus and reportedly one wet market! Who could have imagined of such cascading effects?

And then back to the now - when overnight some fundamentals of neo-liberalism are cast aside, it is an amazing thing to see. Who is not astonished by the doubling of income support for the unemployed given the political contestation over this issue? Who is not astounded that parents can now access free childcare for the next six months?   
Even the IMF is now largely of similar mind, encouraging state interventionist policies, emphasizing:
The success of the pace of recovery will depend crucially on policies undertaken during the crisis. If policies ensure that workers do not lose their jobs, renters and homeowners are not evicted, companies avoid bankruptcy, and business and trade networks are preserved, the recovery will occur sooner and more smoothly.
Who knows what Australia economic arrangements would look like after Covid-19 is contained or consigned to past history!

It is hard though to imagine the benefits for unemployment people will go back to being so much below the poverty line as may have been the case over the last decade or two.

Similarly it will be interesting to see what tomorrow’s globalised world looks like.

And who knows what economic miracles or challenges await?

But let me do this article justice with an important policy concern regarding the 60+ old plus, and also a different issue about cruise ships.

Protect 60+ Year Olds – Work Settings Covid-19 Exposure
A lot has been said about protecting the 60 year-old plus and ensuring grandkids don’t pass Covid-19 to grandparents. But policy implementation needs to clearly protect 60+olds from work related Covid-19 exposure. For example, contractors in a gig economy such as rideshare and taxis have limited options to social-distance. It is clear people in the community and local travellers can potentially spread Covid-19 in the transport system thus putting 60+ year olds at risk.

This can be managed by simply allowing 60+ year olds in the gig rideshare economy (perhaps even taxi drivers of same age) to take their businesses into hibernation. It is a targeted way of preventing such at-risk groups turning to clusters with serious Covid-19 clinical presentations.

Ship Cruises, Hospital Care & Taxes
Another thing came to mind about taxation and mutuality after the agony the country has been going through connected to Covid-19 Cruise ships crisis. Mainstream media reported that some of these ships are registered in tax havens like the Caribbean and places like that.

Post Covid-19, surely the Federal and State Governments need to look at cruise ship owners contribute direct taxes. The fact is cruise crew and passengers are benefiting from public hospitals and private hospitals that are now treating Covid-19 patients.

Australian citizens and residents during this crisis are coming to terms that their elective and urgent elective surgery in public and private system will be delayed in order to attend serious Covid-19 needs. This is all very well as serious Covid-19 health concerns needs to be prioritised – it is a humane thing to do.

But surely, going forward these cruise companies must be brought into line in terms of taxation obligations. There are strong ethical and moral issues here. Australian citizens, residents and Australian companies contribute taxes and insurance hospital cover. It is an ethical and moral thing to realise that if you are going to use services of a country, you should be paying taxes. In the future it is problematic if these cruise ships that choose to avoid tax by registering in tax haven, yet expect Government support at taxpayer’s expense.



Monday, 20 January 2020

Australia Digital Privacy – Update and Commentary



The rising privacy concerns amidst the growing digital economy are getting clearer for many to see. The idea though that individuals can simply opt out of digital realm to protect privacy neglects the fact that commerce, economic, social and political participation are increasingly conducted on digital platforms. If this is the case, where does Australia go from here in strengthening digital privacy?

Info Analytics, Courtesy: Pixabay illustrations
In my view, it’s not enough to just target Facebook, Twitter and Google. A national digital privacy regime needs to cast a wider net of digital platforms that need to be accountable in how they enhance individual privacy and appropriate use of personal data.

I will give some examples. Last year I was surprised by a reputable state-wide company alerting that their recruitment data may have been compromised through a third party digital contractor. What? I didn’t even know they used external third party for their things digital.

And also another well-known global digital recruiter alerted individuals of similar kinds of data breaches on its platform.

The bit I was able to learn is that so far at most all these organisations need to do is inform individuals whose data they hold, that some breach has occurred. But this is not enough protection really.

Okay, I still have to say in this case I took certain minor steps at an individual level to safeguard some aspects of my info from being misused.

But critically wondered how does Australia as a nation ensure data collected by recruiters and stored on online systems is only used by them for purposes of recruitment and contract purposes?

Privacy governance net should include recruiters on top of the likes of Facebook. But let’s linger on casting a wider net to enhance privacy. Besides, serious policy work requires paying attention in understanding and defining the parameters of the issues you are dealing with.

Take our widespread participation into Customer Loyalty Programs (Reward Programs) be it in supermarkets, petrol stations, liquor stores, you name it. Who wants to be left out from saving costs? Perhaps you go for Flybuys, or Rewards, or Velocity or whatever. As a population we feel relieved when we save a few dollars here and there through these loyalty programs.
If you are a ‘privileged’ frequent airline traveller, most likely you look forward to accumulating enough loyalty points to secure a free ticket or upgrade from Economy to a higher travel Class. Who doesn’t want that?

Recently I was shopping some supplies at a particular outlet. I learnt that I had earned myself some few dollars in cash to be used for discount or later use. So you can earn $5 or $10 or whatever? A more important point is that commerce is now so much interlinked. There are growing cross linkages in loyalty programs. Supermarkets can be linked with fuel stations, airlines, hotel and airbnb accommodation, dining, and liquor supplies.

Not to mention Rideshare Platforms, though presumably some rideshares are subject to some aspects of the European Union privacy framework.

Of course any digital privacy governance should also ensure Australians as individuals are not disadvantaged by use of any data collected by Government agencies state, federal, Local Governments and all their Third Party contractors.

Now, given the spread of data collected across the domain of the digital economy, social and political realm, it is overdue for Australia to develop and implement a national policy and regulatory frameworks to safeguards privacy and use of our data.

The long and short of this is that we now know our data is regarded as ‘valuable as gold’, so how can we guarantee companies  are only using the data for loyalty purposes and that such data is not misused?

We also know it’s not enough to tell people that they can improve privacy by opting out of the digital world. If so, such choice excludes them from social and political communication, commerce and economic participation in the modern digital arena.

The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) looks like it has done some very interesting background work lately drawing attention to emerging concerns about digital privacy.

An ACC Report specifically Chapter 7 calls the Government to address privacy policy concerns at a higher institutionalised and broader social economic level. You can glimpse it on this link. 

Here are also verbatim recommendations that the ACCC makes to the Feds about the need to reform the Australian digital privacy more broadly:
Recommendations in Chapter 7
Recommendation 16: Strengthen protections in the Privacy Act
Recommendation 17: Broader reform of Australian privacy law
Recommendation 18: OAIC privacy code for digital platforms
Recommendation 19: Statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy
Recommendation 20: Prohibition against unfair contract terms
Recommendation 21: Prohibition against certain unfair trading practices
Mind you, to the Federal Government credit, the work of this ACCC Inquiry was reportedly initiated by the Feds (as indicated on the ACCC web). But as already noted the benefits of this background work it seems to me can only be realised if Australia as a federal system follows up with sound institutionalised and broader level reforms.

This will mean reworking big time from our current patchwork of privacy policy. From what I can glean, this is how things interactively work at state and Federal level:

It is still puzzling why relevant Government agencies at both Federal and state levels are not playing a lead role in digital privacy policy development? Is neo-liberalism so entrenched that the significance of proactive policy development is not being pursued? Perhaps that is even the more remarkable that the ACCC has spoken up more forthrightly. 

And luckily, we won’t be starting from scratch. Australia should look at the recent progressive digital privacy policy reforms implemented by the European Union. This is essential if at all Australia is to get serious about protecting our privacy and personal data from misuse.

For readers interested in the way the European Union now enshrines and safeguards individual digital privacy rights through legislation and regulatory frameworks see these links:
If our data comes to be regarded as simply liquid gold by the more powerful without overarching national digital privacy governance, more could be lost than meets the eye.

Monday, 30 December 2019

Australia’s Morrison Government Religious Freedom Bills under Consultation



Latest Update on Religious Freedom Bills:

The Morrison Australia's Federal Government has released its updated version of Religious Freedom Bills for public consultation.

Note that the consultation period for these legislative Exposure Drafts run between “10 December 2019 and 31 January 2020.”

Here is the Government link to these Bills and the processes involved. Worth a look:

Folau-Rugby Australia: Reverberations on Role of the State


The risk for such a worker is increased when some employers and professional groups introduce revised standards, codes and everyday organisational policies that seek to conflict with the way previously religious freedoms had embedded professional ethical practices. It is no secret that in the past a Judeo-Christian ethic permeated certain ways that many Western countries framed laws, policies, professional codes and practices. 

In other words, this case has implications for what in public policy is called the role of the state. When Government (Federal & State) legislate laws, and when it puts in place regulations to guide how individuals navigate society and institutions – it’s all part of what we call role of the state. Even when Governments choose to do nothing, this too is a policy choice with ramifications.

Personally, I support religious freedoms, much as I also believe Christianity in everyday simultaneously calls us not to judge or cast the first stone.

But I don’t believe to be a good citizen in a country or the world you should be forced to reject the New Testament (Gospel). I don’t believe to be a good worker you should be forced to recant everyday Christian teachings that are compiled in the Gospel if that is what you follow.

The thing is, if more organisations feel free to implement employment codes that prevent believers from exercising Christian practices, then in time more Christians in Australia who seek to follow the teachings of the New Testament may get into trouble in situations where religious expression come into conflict with new professional codes. Let’s face it, any other Rugby player who may be doing a normal weekly church reading or lay preaching may find themselves in trouble should someone take offence if they quote some part of the bible about one thing or the other.

I am not questioning the importance being professional and the valuing of all human dignity, but if redefining professionalism and the human dignity to mean compelling people to recant some of basics of the Gospel then that is not a strong foundation for an inclusive society.


If Government does nothing, as an individual employee you are left on your own against new emerging codes, organisational policies and standards of your organisation as these new professional forms are seek to disentangle themselves from the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Basically when commentators condemn Government efforts to legislate legal protections for people not to be kicked out of their jobs for subscribing to religion, what such commentators seem to be implying is that they want individuals to fend for themselves against employer organisations.

Unless Australia enacts a legislation protecting religious freedom, we will see certain entrenched change in some areas of workforce participation.  Much as people of faith are not immune from imperfections, you will have to be a brave person indeed to think that Australian society is better off by excluding some Christians from work spaces because someone quoted a biblical verse.

The words of one public commentator come to mind (paraphrased), if you think as a society our system has issues because of believers, wait and see how the system works out if these groups face institutionalised exclusion.  I suppose that goes for all of us, sometimes your true neighbour may not turn up in a form you expect. 

And just one more thing, employment participation is just one area. As increased areas of professional, moral and ethical practices are being revised such as the recent assisted dying laws and much more, I suspect we haven’t seen the last of religious freedom debates. At the centre of it seems to be effort to extricate from the Judeo-Christian ethic as a dominant form that underpinned the relationship between individual, society and the State.



Saturday, 5 October 2019

Heard about the Right to Repair Goods?


Have you heard about the Right to Repair? Are you keen on responsible use of resources instead of our throwing out your cell phone, electronic gadgets, machinery and such? Are you interested in consumer and small business issues? There is a growing voice of people calling for the Right to Repair – I learnt this some months ago while flicking through radio channels.

Let me start at the beginning. Sometime back I went to repair my smartphone and Telco folks and repairers told me to get a new one. Can’t you just fix it I asked? One Telco retailer tried to sell me a new service contract instead. It seemed too wasteful to throw away after only two years since purchase. And money doesn’t grow on trees (LOL). Eventually I found a repairer who charged almost $300 for screen replacement and data recovery. Ouch, costly! But better than dumping my phone.

So I was really pleased one day when I heard this excellent Radio interview about the Right to Repair.

I turned to Google and realised many people hold similar concerns about diminishing consumer repair options for phones, vehicles, farm machinery like tractors and more.

I also learnt that some small businesses such as auto mechanic centres, some farmers and others are gradually restricted by manufacturers about repair work.

How does this come about? Basically more and more cars, phones, farm machinery are increasingly designed in such a way that they can’t be easily repaired at your local repairer as we did in the olden days. With vehicles we now rely more on service dealers authorised by a manufacturer. The reasons sound complex but may include how manufacturers choose to design products.

Obviously new innovative designs can be a reflection of product improvement and efficiency. But looking at articles on Google, it seems as possible that design strategy can be used as a way to maintain monopoly as to where and if goods can be serviced. Software used in these products is also implicated.

So it turns out there are situations you purchase a gadget or machinery, but you remain locked into the wishes of the manufacturer about your repair options.

Perhaps you have also heard about some big manufacturers using software update releases to degrade phone battery without your knowledge, presumably as a way to get some unsuspecting folk get a new phone or contract costing one or two grand or something (LOL).

This is not to dismiss the importance of innovation and technological development beneficial for society and the broader economy.

But I confess I was surprised to hear even some farmers face restrictions on repairs they can make on their own farm machinery purchased with their own hard cash. Before it is said they had more options to repair their own machinery.

And if opportunity for repair continues to reduce, this impact on small businesses like mechanic services, electronic phone repairers and the like.

But an economy is also how well we use our resources (resource allocation). If a global manufacturer sells goods and designs those goods in a way that monopolise the repair market, that runs the danger of stifling competition. It also means less sustainable small business auto businesses, unless we have market competition, etc.

Should manufacturers be designing items in a way that ensures they cannot be repaired? Is Australia able to impose some kind of standards on design of such imports and local produced goods? Is it sensible that we should be dumping our smart phones every two years so a Telco can sell us a new contract? Given the high value of material used to make these gadgets why not encourage designs that are less wasteful and keep small business like repairers in the market?

This is also the stuff of future economic equality or equity. Policy makers would want to see that small business are a having a fair go through fair competition.

If they put their mind to it, surely policy makers should be able to do a bit of sorting out about which design practices a fair and good innovation. And which product design strategies are merely used to gradually do away with competition.



What can Government Do?


I reckon among other things the Federal Government can undertake what they call Competition Neutrality reviews in relation to designs and servicing of smartphones, vehicles, farm machinery. This is one way of encouraging manufacturers and their dealers to play fair.

Basically the practices of manufacturers and their dealers need to be brought under the banner of Australia National Competition Policy for a particular period.

In such a situation a Competition Neutrality review will help with some baseline understanding of which aspects of manufacturing design are truly about innovation and good technological development, and which bits are just strategies to stifle competition.  

While we can never go back to the olden ways, we can still manage the current situation more fairly.

Don’t miss out the info below.



Links

My blog article above only gives you a glimpse. You will find some interesting media coverage on the Right to Repair on the links I have provided below. They are worth your time and they highlight some really practical stuff.

A link to ABC story about what Australia’s Consumer Affairs Ministers are considering to boost laws that may help consumers have more opportunity to repair their electronic gadgets

A link to ABC story highlighting a call by small business and environmentalist for Government to introduce regulation on Right to Repair


6PR 882 Story on Right to Repair

A Guardian story about manufacturers who got fined in Europe for slowing smartphones using software releases!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/24/apple-samsung-fined-for-slowing-down-phones