I am now very pleased that Australian public opinion is moving towards levying a tax on the sale of sugar laden soft drink.

I see a series of obese people, young and old, wherever I go, who are in that pitiful  condition partly from too much sugar in the diet.  It will take them years to get back as they were.

Jessica Irvine in article in The Sydney Morning Herald on February 19 informed us that the following governments levy or are about to levy such  a tax: France, Mexico, Chile, Barbados, Dominica, the city of Berkeley in California, and 34 other states in the US.  Jamie Oliver, on March 19, suggested a tax as an obesity-prevention health package in the UK

This is a serious moral issue. I found in 2003 that three liquids were sold to consumers in Australia at about $1 per litre. They were petrol, milk and sugar-laden soft drink.

If your readers were to think carefully about the cost make up of these three products, they would be  shocked. There is the purchase of raw materials, cost of production, advertising, storage, freight and the capital cost of the equipment needed and  the profit.  It is very clear which product has the lowest costs and therefore the highest profits.

Your readers, who are not unintelligent, would probably think such a tax is not unreasonable, and that it should have been levied 30 years ago.  

One reason it hasn’t is that should there be a  whisper of a soft drink tax, many professional lobbyists in the pay of overseas corporations would rush to our MPs demanding an interview to brief the Member on why such a tax is a very bad idea for many reasons. Foreign governments maintain large commercial staff in their embassies, whose purpose is to protect the interests back home. Our own home grown lobbyists representing the sugar industry have also been very persuasive.

It is about time that the federal government seriously consider reinstating its role to provide support and employment services to the unemployed receiving Centrelink benefits. The private sector organisations funded by the government to provide these services have failed; not only in preparing the unemployed for work, but also in being able to place them into paid employment. 

The services of these employment agencies appear limited to preparing  clients' resume, providing basic job seeking skills and facilities to search and apply for vacant positions. In addition they take on a policing role to ensure clients are actively seeking employment.  

In most cases the agencies use a template to prepare resumes, which are of very poor quality. They provide little training and when it is provided it is simplistic and quite belittling, particularly for more mature clients. To get any skills based training is like drawing teeth. Their practice is to point the client to a phone or computer to look for and apply for vacant positions. 

Clients are as a rule required to report to these agencies each fortnight. If you don't report the agency then informs Centrelink whose officers cut the individual concern from benefits. I  am unaware of the basis for funding these organisation. However it is not based on getting people into jobs. If that was the criteria they would be out of business.