Lip Service

I was instinctively disturbed by a news story , based on some university research, about job applicants, with names that are not Anglo sounding, facing more daunting challenges in getting a job in Australia. There were percentages quoted of how many more applications such individuals had to make before they were successful, ranging the lowest for those with Italian ancestry, to the highest with Chinese names. I found it odd that one could link this single factor - names and what they represent -with such a high impact on impressions from recruiters of individual candidates, even before they were considered for an interview. What about personality, qualifications, experience, the ability to effectively communicate and a past record of team work?

This evening, on a day with weather rather best suited to stay-at-home, I came across the persistent efforts of a dear old pensioner lady in New South Wales in trying to ensure that a complaint she had was followed up. It all started with a a tin of canned fruit that caused her negative health effects after she consumed part of the contents. She wrote to the regulatory authorities in her state of New South Wales and to the Federal officials in Canberra, but was told that it was a Victorian state matter, as the manufacturer of the can in question was Goulburn Valley based in Shepparton. The length of time it has taken for her complaint to receive any inkling of a solution or through the intermediate replies is shockingly long. For example, it took six weeks for a Canberra official to reply to her. The matter I understand has still not been resolved.

In the interim, the evidence of the can, which she kept in her home refrigerator, exploded, due to the understandably long fermentation. Industry practice is to not allow such canned food to be consumed four years after it is manufactured, but it looks like the fruit in the can relating to this complaint was made eight years ago and still being sold to that lady earlier this year.

Charade or parade, legislation is meant to provide and protect and nurture equity.
Why are laws passed, and then applied unwillingly, variably or not at all? Maybe it is better to have not passed such laws, if the supporting practice and bureaucracy show that those responsible for implementation are in obvious disagreement with the tenets of the applicable law. Private or public resources are unnecessarily spent to make a semblance of acknowledgement of the related legislation, but which practically never helps the individuals they were meant to protect.

It all boils down to this: there can be no trust for someone who is too afraid to show true colours upfront.