Archive

Posts Tagged ‘julia gillard’

Gillard Out! Time to Celebrate?

June 26, 2013 6 comments

Finally the end has come for Australia’s worst prime minister in history. Her exit speech reminded me of Rudd’s exit speech when he was stabbed in the back by Gillard in 2010. He was as stubborn and arrogant as ever, going on about how good a job he did. Similarly Gillard thought she did a great job, but it was sexism that contributed to her demise.

I’m so relieved to see this incompetent prime minister retiring from politics. Gillard was more interested in her legacy as Australia’s first female prime minister, back stabbing anyone who got in her way, rather than having concern for leading Australia and managing our economy. Unfortunately it doesn’t mean the end for the political spin, poor economic management, endless tax hikes and squanderous spending. Rudd is exactly the same. In fact it doesn’t matter who leads labor. Whilst they maintain their corrupt relationship with unions and demonstrate a complete lack of business acumen, they will continue to be unvotable in my opinion. They aren’t an option purely on a philosophical level. No need to even consider who their leader is.

The celebrations need to be kept on hold until the election when we can oust labor and start reversing the damage they’ve inflicted on our country. During labor’s tenure mining investment has ground to a halt. Manufacturing is devastated. Offshoring is rampant. Tourism is in decline. Our share market has underperformed international markets. We need the taxes that penalize investment repealed and power removed from the unions so that business can take control of costs and return to being competitive. Bring on the election!

Julia Gillard Slush Fund Allegations – Worth Pursuing?

November 30, 2012 Leave a comment

So maybe our prime minister Julia Gillard knowingly allowed the misuse of union funds around 20 years ago. Is it worth seeking the truth 20 years on? Should we care about what really happened regarding the AWU affair?

Many people claim it is so long ago that it’s not worth pursuing. If that’s the case then what is the time limit? How recent must a corruption allegation be before it’s worth pursuing? It’s completely arbitrary to specify a time. There is no time limit. Either we have a philosophy of seeking the truth or we don’t. Anything else is more of the same that you’d expect from labor and their supporters – make it up as you go politics and arbitrary decisions lacking a consistent philosophy.

If we ignore a corruption allegation against our prime minister it’s fostering a culture where corruption is allowed to proceed. Let this one go because it happened a while ago and it sets a precedent for allowing more corruption to occur. Those that are corrupt will push the boundaries of an inconsistently applied principle. It’s reasonable to test a corruption allegation regardless of when it happened. Actually there is no time limit. The philosophy is, seek the truth. If the prime minister is not guilty it doesn’t mean we’ve wasted our time. That’s the price we pay for keeping politicians honest.

Even if Julia Gillard is not guilty in this case, I still find it disturbing the apparent conflict of interest present in the labor government from their entrenched history with unions. Many labor chiefs have an association with unions. It reeks of corruption, regardless of the specifics of this particular case. I’m not happy with allowing our country to be run by a group so intimate with unions. We need a more balanced government. One that knows how to run the business of a country’s economy. One that can adopt a philosophy and apply it consistently.

Australian Automotive Industry in Terminal Decline

November 3, 2012 Leave a comment

It’s rare that a week goes by in Australia and there’s not some news about a factory closing and jobs being lost. This week it’s a high profile company – Holden. Automotive manufacturing in Australia is no longer competitive in international markets due to rising costs. This has manifested as reduced demand for Holden vehicles and the announcement this week of the axing of 170 jobs at the Elizabeth manufacturing plant in South Australia. Many people are prediciting this is just the beginning of Holden’s eventual demise.

Along with tourism and retail, manufacturing in Australia is in terminal decline. It’s too expensive. Rising costs means we are no longer competitive in a world economy. The Gillard Labor Government is fueling these rising costs with a continual introduction of new taxes and tax hikes and by pandering to unreasonable union demands that force Australian labour rates to unsustainable levels. What do you expect from a corrupt union run government that lacks any ability to manage a budget?

The Australian economy is faring ok as we continue to be supported by the remnants of the mining boom. Our ability to rely on mining has already been diminished through the mining super tax which is reducing our international competitiveness in the mining industry. What happens when mining eventually declines? We’ll have nothing left. Our economy will be devastated  Maybe labor will counter the problem by increasing the carbon tax and mining super tax whilst getting us to learn Asian languages? This is what Gillard suggested in her Asia white paper. Is learning an Asian language going to give us a competitive edge in a market where we are too expensive? Wouldn’t reducing costs be a better alternative? If I was running a business I’d rather hire a translator and have a lower cost base so that I could focus on delivering a cost effective product.

The Labor government is adding to the cost base of Australian businesses. Australia cannot tolerate this burden forever. I hope this arrangement is corrected by a change in government before it’s too late.

Live Animal Exports

October 10, 2012 Leave a comment

The problem with animal welfare related to live animal exports will not be resolved by banning Australian live animal exports. The problem resides in the countries importing the animals. Those countries have a demand for meat. Whether they get it from Australia or elsewhere does not change how they treat animals. If Australia bans live animal exports to those countries they will find a different market to purchase their animals from. In fact I think the best way for us to help improve animal welfare is by continuing to do business with these nations. That way we have an ongoing interface with their industry. We have leverage to help encourage them to change. Banning exports is tantamount to putting our heads in the sand. The result is less business for Australia and no change to animal welfare.

I don’t claim to have the answer to this issue, but whatever the potential answers may be, I implore the government to avoid repeating the knee-jerk reaction seen with the cattle industry in 2011. The sudden banning of live cattle exports to Indonesia was irresponsible and foolish. Allowing cattle to suffer and die in Australian pastoral land is not good for animal welfare. Further, the knee-jerk reaction was devastating to the businesses involved in the cattle export industry. The current Labor government has a history of suddenly changing the rules on business, mostly through the introduction of new taxes such as the mining tax and the carbon tax, which only serve to help offset their addiction to spending and inability to manage the budget. Sudden changes to the rules on business is extremely poor government policy. The perception of an uncertain business environment leads to deteriorating business investment and a deteriorating economy.

Whatever the changes are to policies that may come about from the latest incident with sheep in Pakistan, they need to be developed slowly and carefully, with consultation to all stakeholders. Of course, unlike the case for banning of cattle exports to Indonesia, potential consequences of any policy changes need to be carefully considered. Negative consequences need to be addressed to the satisfaction of all stakeholders before proceeding with change. Change needs to be deployed slowly to allow business to adjust. Knee-jerk reactions must be avoided.

Alan Jones vs Terrorism

October 7, 2012 2 comments

Like most Australians, I don’t really care about what Alan Jones says, nor do I use him as my moral compass. I don’t support his comments made about Julia Gillard and her father, John Gillard, but I do support his freedom to say it. The people who threaten Alan Jones and the companies that advertise on his program have the same philosophy and ideals as terrorists. Extremists. Fanatics blinded by irrational beliefs. These are the type of people, who if not kept in check, will escalate their opinions and beliefs into actual acts of violence. They make threats. They try to enforce their beliefs through threats. If given the chance, they will act on their threats. They are terrorists. Perhaps their extreme methods are watered down, being labelled as “cyber bullies.” In terms of philosophy, they are terrorists.

Companies should not give in to terrorists. I believe companies should support Alan Jones and his freedom to say what he likes. If you don’t like what he says, you are free to not listen. Pulling support and advertising in the wake of threats is a decision that gives power to the terrorists making the threats. Companies should stand strong against these terrorists. They should not pander to threats. They should not support the idea that opinions can be enforced onto others through terrorism. This only encourages more terrorism. I’d be encouraged to buy the products of a company that supports it’s people in any type of hardship, whether it’s from terrorist threats or anything else. I am discouraged to buy products from gutless companies who pander to threats or do not support their people when they need support. It’s easy to pull the pin. It’s much harder to fight and maintain support.

These terrorists, like most other terrorists, are likely to be hypocrites  They have probably enjoyed the entertainment value of a shock jock at some stage. Whether it’s Australian Idol or one of the other mundane spin-offs or some sort of radio program. Whether with or without Kyle Sandilands, many programs use this device to garner an audience. It’s entertaining. It’s a ploy to get attention. It’s controversial and sparks discussion and interest  People watch it, and in doing so support it. Watching or listening to a show containing this style of entertainment device is a vote in its approval. Part of the risk of this type of ploy is that sometimes some people will be offended. It’s part of the game. It’s unavoidable. Watching or listening to a shock jock is accepting and supporting the fact that occasionally some people will be offended. To be critical and withdraw your support when an unfavourable circumstance arises from a device that you originally supported is hypocritical.

I’ve never listened to Alan Jones’ show. Since I’m strongly against terrorism and hypocrisy  I might start listening now. I want to demonstrate my support for freedom and the right to live in a world where you are not threatened by hypocrites who believe something different to you. Also the show is commercial free now. Bonus.

Australia the Nanny State

August 28, 2012 2 comments

Australia is turning into a nanny state. Politicians are on a crusade to feed their egos and be perceived as visionary leaders by introducing laws that restrict our freedom. Let’s fight together against this oppressive regime. Join me in taking up smoking. Blow smoke in the face of our incompetent government whilst celebrating our freedom of being able to choose to take a risk if we decide we want to. Smoke a cigarette in protest against the nanny state our great country is becoming. It’s not too late to stem this tidal wave of oppression.

read more on about page

Disclaimer: Smoking is bad for you. Do not do anything that is bad for you. However you should wear sunscreen.