General Debate 08/03/11

Looks like the Australian Liberals have the same problem with treachery as we have here in NZ with the National Party. Just what is this man doing in a party that claims to stand for freedom of choice and free enterprise? What the hell is wrong with the rest of the party when they let such a person assume such a senior role?

The Age reports that

the shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, last night called for a 30 per cent quota for women on boards if companies fail to fix the problem. The quotas are controversial in corporate Australia, which has been seeking to boost the number of women executives through mentoring programs, but Mr Hockey told ABC’s Q&A program that over the past decade there had been little change.

On the same program, the Minister for the Status of Women, Kate Ellis, said the government would hold a survey in 18 months to gauge if the number of women on boards had increased and would take action if needed. She said quotas were a last resort but the government was leaving this option on the table.

Just more sovietisation. Why oh why oh why do we keep electing these anti-freedom Stalinist bastards and giving them these Marxist portfolios? Utter madness.


Update- Oh, and forgot to mention, the leftist lowlife filling the position of Governor General brings that “apolitical” office into utter disrepute by brashly leading on the above positions. What a disgrace. What does it take to fire a Governor General?

3 thoughts on “General Debate 08/03/11

  1. That question (why do we keep electing anti freedom statists) has a very simple answer:
    The simple practice of electing “politicians” means that those attracted to running for office are those that a) think to have the best answers for any problem thrown at them; b)think to know better than anybody else how to spend the monies extracted under force and fraud from the same “anybody else”; c)are convinced that being elected means that one becomes a “leader”; d) have not been able to be successful in other gainful activity; or e)haven’t even bothered trying to do something useful at all, but have just focused on becoming a “politician.
    Consequently, we put people in charge of a vastly too dominant part of society (the government) who are least qualified to act as servants and stewards, but see their role as being some sort of visionary prophet for a better society, a role that of course requires that they are treated with reverence and in which they can help themselves to the spoils without restraint or shame. Especially the fact that we don’t require any proof of prior competence or even average intelligence is quite damaging to the end result.
    The only possible solution is to severely restrict government and its importance, and to throughly shackle those that come even near the levers of powers. In that case you’ll still get the leeches, but they won’t be able to do much damage.


  2. Talking of treachery I see an article in the ODT,from the Guardian,about Camerons Carbon Plan to be launched this week. Sorry no link.

    It involves giving NGO’s like Greenpeace a monitoring role over govt depts efforts to reduce carbon whatevers!

    You couldn’t make that up!


  3. Giving independent NGO’s such as Greenpeace a role in monitoring is a very good idea, especially when you see the costs involved in govt monitoring itself, through the creation of MORE NGO’s. In Australia, Greenpeace worked with the Committees who developed the plans for the Olympic site in Sydney – formerly, a toxic waste dump. So they have a track record which lets the govt know they are professional, knowledgable and reliable as a monitoring agency. And Greenpeace, in particular, is well suited to the job because they don’t take donations from corporate sponsors. Govt-created NGO’s by contrast, have a poor track record because you can’t just CHOOSE leadership for not-for-profit organisations like Greenpeace. Their growth is organic.


Comments are closed.