Category: australian politics

australian politics, politics

Australian Government refuses to rule out a seperate state!

The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Penny Wong today refused on a number of times to rule out a seperate indigenous state within Australia.

One Nation Leader, Senator Pauline Hanson today asked Senator Wong “Does the Albanese Government support the establishment of a sovereign independent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nation in Australia, yes or no?”

Senator Wong stated that she “understands the motivation behind Senator Hanson’s question..” but she fell short in providing a yes or no response. This ought to raise many questions behind the motivation of the voice to parliament, with the Albanese Government refusing to outline what the voice actually means, how can ordinary Australians vote Yes in this referendum.

australian politics, politics

NSW Labor has a new tax scam. If you want a new car, I suggest you buy one now!

It’s been awhile since I have posted anything. The reason for that is because nothing exciting is happening despite that in NSW we are expecting to have two elections this year. A State election in March and a Federal election, possibly in May, depending on the shit storm in Canberra.

This morning I was reading the Daily Telegraph sipping my Nespresso latte’ with two sugars when I almost spat it out in shock and awe over NSW Labor’s new tax grab. I mean these cretins are not even in Government yet, and as my previous prediction still stands, they won’t win Government, but in order for them to fund more nurses and midwives – 5500 exact – they intend on increasing stamp duty on boats and cars. Now I don’t own a boat. Probably never will. However I do own a car and I think most Australians do. Now at the moment according to the Daily Telegraph, in NSW we pay $3 for every $100 in stamp duty for vehicles over $45,000. Under Labor’s new scam, they want to increase that to $5. Now, I am no socialist but pretend I am a left wing socialist luvvie, this is great news because it gets to fund for an extra 5500 nurses and midwives YAY!!!

Hold on!

Labor’s new scam will only generate $240million over three years yet it’s going to cost the Government about $500million to fund this policy. Shit! I am not that good at maths but isn’t that $260million short of $500million??

Hmmm.

So where will the other $260million come from? Even the NSW Labor Leader Michael Daley admits there is a shortfall but has declined to mention how they will fund for it.
Mr Daley goes on to say that the top end of town needs to pay their fair share, so is he suggesting that people in rural areas who are already struggling with farming costs, with the drought and lack of COAL power, that they are the top end of town? Many farmers own vehicles which often cost more than $45,000 to be able to perform their duties as farmers. This will just add further heartache for hurting farmers in the bush.

This scam by NSW Labor is just policy on the run. It is a feel good initiative for Labor to try and win votes from the apathetic voter. This is what Labor does best, they hide tax grabs by covering it up with feel good emotive populist policies. No Australian would say no to more nurses and midwives however it does come at a cost.

 

 

australian politics, christmas, politics

Merry Christmas and have a Fantastic New Year!!

Merry Christmas Everyone – and hope you all have a fantastic New Year.

Before I leave it at that here are some of my predictions for 2019.

TRUMP

Nothing will happen in this respect. Trump will still be President and will remain the most vilified President the US has ever seen. We will see more Trump Rallies as he gears up for primaries and 2020 Election.

NSW STATE ELECTION

NSW State Election is due in March of 2019. I don’t believe the Coalition will lose Government but I do think they will lose seats. You got to remember in 2015 the Liberal and National Parties (more so the Libs) gained popularity because of the charisma of Mike Baird therefore they have a fair amount of capital to lose without costing them Government (Admittedly they have almost maxed out their political capital card). I think the biggest losers at this State Election will be the National Party. The seat of Barwon is the one to watch. The Nationals are only polling at 33% – the Shooters who are the next favourites have a good chance of winning this seat after preferences.

The NSW Legislative Council will be interesting. We will see One Nation pick up a seat with Mark Latham re-entering politics and potentially picking up a second seat.
As One Nation and the Shooters indicating preference deals we will see more seats go to the Shooters in the Upper House.
I don’t believe the Australian Conservatives will do well unless they pick up votes from Fred Niles Christian Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats will only pick up seats if they work with Glenn Druery the preference whisperer (why? Thats a story for another day).
As for the Greens, their votes will be down, they will lose some upper house seats. The Green vote will go to either Labor or some other left leaning micro party.

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLITICS

2019 will bring us a Federal Election around May. Given Labor has just given the Coalition a wonderful Christmas present by softening their policies on border protection, increase funding to the United Nations and wanting to increase the Foreign Aid budget, the Coalition has a chance of redemption. I do believe the Coalition will lose Government but I do think Parliament will be a hung one with potentially Labor forming an alliance with the left leaning cross-bench to form Government. In other words the dynamics of the House of Representatives will be a similar make up to what we see now. I don’t think there will be a Labor landslide, they may pick up a hand few of seats but ultimately the kingmakers will be the cross-bench.

As for the Senate, minor parties will continue to dominate. I think the Green vote will go down and will come across to Labor similar to what we saw in Victoria or other micro party. One Nation will retain WA and pick up another seat in QLD (remember Hanson is in for 6 years). Depending on how well they perform in NSW State Election they could pick up a seat in NSW. Brian Burston the former One Nation NSW Senator – now Palmer’s Puppet – will lose his seat. Palmer will struggle to win a seat despite all the money he has invested in political adverts.
The Liberal Democrats will struggle to retain their only Senate seat unless they have an effective campaign strategy and speak to the ‘preference whisperer’ as mentioned earlier.
Cory Bernardi will retain his Senate spot but just by a whisker and The Australian Conservatives will fail to get anyone else elected.
As for the other micro parties, we will see a mixed bag, I don’t want to predict who or what else may gain seats.

AFL

The mighty West Coast Eagles winning the Premiership again! (This is more wishful thinking than a prediction)

 

Im hoping to expand on The Weekly Seed in 2019 with having more writers, more opinions on different subjects (other than politics) and potential investigative reporting. If you want to contribute please get in contact.

Once again MERRY CHRISTMAS everyone.

 

 

Animal Welfare, australian politics, politics, Regulation

It is time to regulate the Pet Food industry in Australia!

It burns me to write this post.

It is at odds with my belief of limited government interference. I admit I will sound hypocritical but I will justify my position.

According to the RSPCA approximately 62% of Australian households have pets and it is expected that in the next 12 months a further 13% of Australian households will make a pet part of their family. Long are the days where we see a pet as just a pet, now they are seen as loved family members. Australians are spending approximately $12 billion a year on our pets and this proves that we want the best for our furry friends, in fact we are seeing a trend especially amongst millennials that they are opting to have pets rather than children.

 

If we are to adopt Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs on our pets, you’ll see that both human’s and pets need basic (and psychological) needs.

maslow-5

Billy – the Golden Retriever – still needs food, water, warmth and rest just like his Masters. Billy also needs security and safety and of course interaction with his Masters and other dogs (which can lead to self-fulfilment needs). Unfortunately Billy cannot provide food or water for himself, he relies on his Masters to do this. It is important that pet owners have a full understanding on what they are feeding their pets. This can be rather difficult given that there are many products available and given our busy lifestyles we tend to be lazy, humans are like that when it comes to their own choices. (It’s easier to go to McDonald’s than to cook a meal).
The difference between humans making a choice about their own food options and that of their furry friend is that human food is regulated. There are many regulations on food for humans and often can be punishable under law. For example in Queensland, a local Government shut down a Chinese Restaurant after finding rat urine and droppings in its kitchen. Another example of how food regulation (for humans) has worked well is Heinz ordered to pay $2.25 million after misleading consumers that their product was healthy but in fact contained 60% sugar.

In Australia, pet food is self-regulated through the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia (PFIAA). Pet food companies are not obliged to stick to these standards as they are voluntary. These standards are not made public unless you want to pay $128.19.
Currently there is a parliamentary inquiry into regulatory approaches to ensure safety of pet food. The terms of reference of this inquiry is;

  1. the uptake, compliance and efficacy of the Australian Standard for the Manufacturing & Marketing of Pet Food (AS5812:2017);
  2. the labelling and nutritional requirements for domestically manufactured pet food;
  3. the management, efficacy and promotion of the AVA-PFIAA administered PetFAST tracking system;
  4. the feasibility of an independent body to regulate pet food standards, or an extension of Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s remit;
  5. the voluntary and/or mandatory recall framework of pet food products;
  6. the interaction of state, territory and federal legislation;
  7. comparisons with international approaches to the regulation of pet food; and
  8. any other related matters

As a free market, free enterprise kind of guy I should be against these regulations because it will put a burden on business, rise up the cost of the product and possibly cost jobs.

Wrong!

In 2008-2009 only 4,543 people were employed in Australia within the Animal and Bird food manufacturing industry. This would hardly make a blip in the economy if regulation were to be implemented and jobs were lost.
As already mentioned earlier, households are choosing to spend more on their furry friend, therefore if the cost of the product increases most households would accommodate this as Billy – the Golden Retriever – is a family member.
Even under a regulatory framework, competition would still be available and it will provide the consumer greater options when deciding what food to buy for their pet therefore pet food companies would be forced by the free market to be better than their competitors.

It’s a win-win!

Overall I generally do not support regulation but when it comes to pets that’s a different story. Pets trust us to make sure we make the right choice when it comes to feeding time. The pet food industry is a self-regulated industry which have standards that are only made available if you pay money to receive it. This alone is ludicrous and proves that the industry is a closed shop. By regulating this industry, you open it up to scrutiny, it provides greater choice to consumers, increases competition, which in return makes the product better. Whilst I sound hypocritical when it comes to regulation the difference here is that animals don’t have a choice when it comes to food. We do!

 

 

 

australian politics, free speech, politics

Why I decided to join the Liberal Democrats!

The Liberal Party in Australia is imploding! One Nation is controlled by Pauline Hanson! The Australian Conservatives have taken on the religious right! Who the heck do I support? Australian Liberty Alliance? Well they are too focused on kicking out all muslims to care about other important issues that affect many Australians. Help!

I have been involved in politics one way or another since 1998. I have been a member of both a minor and major political party, most recently the Liberal Party. I supported the Liberal Party because I believe in small government, low taxes, low spending, individual responsibility and strong border protection policies. I left the Liberal Party for several reasons. In 2015 when they knifed a first term Prime Minister I felt that the Liberal Party was no different to the Labor Party when it came to revolving door of leaders. In the 2013 Federal Election we campaigned strongly that under a Liberal Government you would see stability – well that didn’t work out. This issue alone wasn’t the only reason why I left the Liberals. I felt that Malcolm Turnbull – despite my disliking of the fella – deserved to be given a chance. The catalyst of me leaving the Liberal Party is the ever growing factional warfare, especially within the NSW Division. Seeing potential new members being rejected on the basis that it would weaken a certain faction, or candidates pre-selected on the basis of which faction they belong to rather than on merit made me think about my future within the Party. Liberal Party members are treated as political pawns, they are just there to campaign, hand out how to votes and be potential donors. It was time to find a new home.

Admittedly I was flirting with the idea of One Nation but their instability and policy flip flops turned me off. Then there was the new kid on the block, the Australian Conservatives led by former Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi. The problem with this party is that it prides itself on religious values, as I am not religious I believe I would clash on some social issues. The only other party that is worthy of a choice is the Liberal Democratic Party. This party is based on Libertarianism and looking at their history it has been slowly gaining political momentum. At the time of writing this blog the party only has two parliamentarians: One federal Senator in NSW, David Leyonhjelm and one Member of the Legislative Council in WA, Aaron Stonehouse. There could be one more in the Victorian Upper House as voting continues post the Victorian State election held on the 24th November 2018.

On further investigation of the Liberal Democrats I am finding myself more in tuned to their philosophies:

The Liberal Democrats stand for greater freedom, smaller government and personal responsibility. We promote the following principles:

 

1. Economic Principles

  • Free markets and freedom of choice
  • Low tax, limited public spending and minimal regulation
  • Widespread ownership of private property

2. Social Principles

  • Civil society and volunteerism
  • Civil liberties and individual freedom
  • Individual liberty and personal responsibility under the rule of law

3. Government Principles

  • Constitutional liberal democracy
  • Ethical and impartial government under the rule of law
  • Devolution of power including decentralised government and competitive federalism

4. International Principles

  • Free trade in goods, services and capital
  • Free trade in ideas and culture
  • Freedom and human rights

Whilst political parties often do have feel good philosophies or objectives which are often outlined within their constitutions, what really matters is their policies. The Liberal Party of Australia have similar philosophies to the Liberal Democrats but their actual policies or direction is completely opposite. Here is an example of the philosophies of the Liberal Party and compare this to what they actually deliver in Parliament.

Liberal Party of Australia

We Believe:

In the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative

In government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor’s corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.

In those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy – the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.

In a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.

In equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.

That, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals – not government – are the true creators of wealth and employment.

In preserving Australia’s natural beauty and the environment for future generations.

That our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.

In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise; and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you.

As you can see these philosophies are very similar to the Liberal Democrats and I guess this is why I was a member of the Liberal Party.

As stated philosophies alone do not make or break a political party. So I examined the Liberal Democrats policies. Given that there are so many policies on their website I will only outline a few which I think are prudent to what my own philosophies are. The first policy is Immigration. I am a firm believer that all sovereign nations should have strong border protection policies. As former Prime Minister John Howard once said;

“….we decide who comes into our country and the circumstance in which they come”

Most minor political party’s have developed a discriminatory policy or a knee jerk approach such as banning certain religions from entering the country or only accepting migrants from certain countries. Most Australians accept that migrants, regardless where they are from – can and have – contributed positively to Australian society. The Liberal Democrats take a pragmatic approach to immigration. Reading their policies they appear to support good quality migration by implementing a fee for those who wish to become permanent residents. New migrants will not be eligible to receive welfare but they will be able to contribute to society by working. As for illegal immigration they support the closure to offshore detention but support the idea of detention for health and security assessments. The following is a summary of their policies from their website.

Policy

  • Negotiate Free Immigration Agreements (FIAs) with compatible countries to allow unrestricted movement of citizens between those countries.
  • Replace the current points-based quota system with a tariff system where immigrants pay for the right to become a permanent resident (PR) in Australia.
  • No eligibility for welfare for PRs except where reciprocal arrangements have been established through a FIA.
  • Increase barriers to citizenship so Australia can sustain a high level of immigration and relatively free movement of people without the risk that new immigrants will undermine our democracy or social harmony.
  • Adopt a liberal approach to temporary residency for workers and tourists.
  • Detain unauthorized arrivals for security and health checks, after which they can be temporarily released on payment of bail equivalent to the immigration tariff while their application to stay (as asylum or other) is processed.

This approach to immigration is sensible. It provides opportunities for good people to enter the country and enjoy what Australia has to offer. It also offers illegal immigrants an opportunity to escape their woes and allow them to work. The idea of stopping welfare to all migrants including illegal immigrants will reduce people entering Australia purely because of our generous welfare system. Whilst it is unclear whether or not refugees will receive welfare under their policies it would be fair to say if they did include this, then who needs a discriminatory immigration policy?

Low taxes, low spending and less regulation is one of my own philosophies. When you look at the Liberal Democrats taxation policy they certainly follow through on this. The Liberal Democrats believe that taxation should be cut so that there is more money in our pockets to be able to spend things on what we want to spend it on. If we had more money in our pockets then we can spend more on things like health insurance or on goods and services, this in return will benefit the economy because consumer confidence will be higher and if we spend money on good health insurance we are less likely to rely on medicare. Here is an example of the Liberal Democrats taxation policy.

Policy

  • Limit the federal government to defence, immigration, basic public services (e.g passport services, regulation of hazardous materials, air and sea transport regulation), and assistance to the least well off.
  • Stop all transfers from the federal government to other levels of government, including grants from the pool of GST revenues.
  • With the associated savings, cut federal taxes by more than half, through:
    • lifting the tax free threshold to $40,000, cutting personal tax rates to a flat 20%, and cutting the company tax rate to 20%; and
    • abolishing tobacco, alcohol and fuel taxes, import tariffs, carbon pricing and mineral resource rent taxation.
  • Limit state governments to the provision of: police, courts and prisons; fire services; animal control; roads and other transport services; libraries; local amenities; basic public services (eg consumer protection, building standards), means-tested vouchers for health and schooling, and welfare services.
  • Replace insurance taxes, taxes on vehicles, stamp duties on property transfers, along with various other nuisance taxes collected at the state level with less inefficient taxes, while ensuring that the overall level of a state or territory’s taxes as a proportion of state GDP declines over time.

I hear some people say “well if we cut taxes what expenditure will need to be cut?” As you can see from their policy, the Liberal Democrats want to decentralised Government. At the moment the Federal Government is funding for schools, education, hospitals and roads. Under the Australian Constitution these issues are all the responsibility of State Governments, somehow the Federal Government has decided to stick their noses into it. We do not need a Federal Department of Education, we do not need a Federal Department of Health, having these departments federally just doubles the amount of bureaucracy adding cost to the taxpayer. The Federal Government only needs to tax to be able to fund for defence, immigration, welfare and medicare. The Liberal Democrats also want to cease Foreign Aid. The idea of the Government borrowing money just to give it away in foreign aid does not make sense. It would be like you having a mortgage, struggling to live day to day paying bills, raising children and buying food but then going to the bank and asking for a credit card of $10,000 just to give that money to Amnesty Australia. It does not make sense at all.

The last example I am going to discuss is Freedom of Speech. One Nation and Australian Conservatives claim they believe in freedom of speech yet they want to ban organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Hizb- ut-Tahrir have been known to express extreme islamic beliefs and some would argue it is a terror organisation. One Nation wishes to ban this organisation, given their strong views on Islam I understand their point of view however banning such organisation – like most extreme groups – it would go under ground. Allowing them a platform provides you and me an opportunity to critisise them and to point out their fundamental flaws. The other issue is if you ban one organisation you will need to ban all organisations that cause offence, and given that being offended is subjective, where will it end? The Liberal Democrats policy on freedom of speech does not wish to ban these organisations because one is allowed to hold these views despite how distasteful they may seem. We do not want to go down the same path of the United Kingdom whereby the Government prosecutes people who posts an offensive video.
The Liberal Democrats policy on Freedom of Speech is as follows:

Free Speech

The Liberal Democrats believe that freedom is precious, that our freedom is not conferred by government, that government poses great risks to our freedom, and that the role of government is the defence of freedom.

Policy

  • Freedom of speech and expression.
  • A free media.
  • Freedom of association, assembly and movement.
  • Freedom over one’s own body, beliefs, privacy and property.

Discussion

Freedom of speech is fundamental in a democratic society.  The free exchange of ideas and opinions allows these ideas and opinions to be tested, with the more robust being accepted and the less robust being rejected.

Freedom of speech and expression should not be limited because the speech or expression is defamatory, offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates, because it is thought to be wrong, or because it is immoral, indecent, or contrary to community expectations.  Freedom of speech and expression should only be limited under long-standing laws against aiding or inciting a crime or disturbing the peace.

There should be no government filtering of the internet, and there should be no bans on movies (except where depicting an actual crime), books or games for adults.

A free media

Along with free speech, a free press is particularly important for constraining government.  There should be no constraint on owning any media organisation, radio spectrum should be auctioned without conditions, and no one should be required to reveal one’s sources.

Freedom of association, assembly and movement

Restrictions on freedom of association, assembly and movement represent government over‑reach.  Freedom of association should not be limited by bans on membership of bikie gangs or groups deemed to be terrorist organisations. Long-standing laws against conspiring to carry out a crime are sufficient.  Freedom of association should not be limited by prohibitions on joining a trade union,  nor on requirements to join one.  Freedom to gather in public places without hindering the movement and peace of others should not be limited by curfews, ‘move along’ powers, or laws against loitering and peaceful protests.

Freedom over one’s own body, beliefs, privacy and property

Freedom over one’s body includes freedom to take one’s own life (and to assist others to do so), to control one’s own fertility and to have children, to refuse medical treatment, to obtain one’s own medical records, and to give binding health directions in case of subsequent incompetence.  We should be free from harassment, from physical harm, and we have a right to privacy, to our own thoughts, opinions and religion, and to our own property.

I have only touched on three policies of the Liberal Democrats however there are plenty more that could be discussed. You can access their policies here https://www.ldp.org.au/

After examining their policies and studying their actions in both the Senate and WA Legislative Council, I believe the Liberal Democrats are a viable option for those Liberals who want to find a new home. Having a sensible approach to issues is what Australia needs right now given that we are lacking leadership. After 12 months of contemplation I decided to join the Liberal Democrats and one can only hope they can move forward and build upon their organisational structure to provide hope to hard working Australians who want to see more money in their pocket; freedom and less government interference.

*Editors note: This blog is my interpretation of Liberal Democrats policy, at no stage am I writing on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I welcome any comments or criticisms.

australian politics, politics

Liberals need a new leader but not a conservative!!

Malcolm Turnbull is hated in Australian politics. Within the Liberal Party he is hated as much as Bill Shorten. The fact he has lost 30 Newspolls in a row has proven that he is an unpopular Prime Minister. This experiment of having a left wing leader of a centre right political party has failed them miserably, however choosing a conservative to lead the party now is fraught with danger.

Conservatives within the Liberal Party are wanting the likes of either Abbott or Dutton to take over the reigns, whilst this could be a dream come true, it would spell the end of their political careers. The Liberal Party is spiralling out of control in terms of polling, it doesn’t matter what they do, the electorate wants a change, and to be honest who can blame them.

The issue I see is that whoever takes over the Liberal Party will have maybe 18months to try and change their electoral woes. Given that our Senate is rather hostile due to the dynamics of the crossbench it will be hard for any leader to push their electoral agenda. The only way in which a new leader could survive is to call a double dissolution within the first couple of months of their newly appointed leadership, the issue with this is if re-elected, the Senate could be more hostile than it already is.

If the Liberal Party do decide to bite the bullet and oust Turnbull, in my opinion they should choose Julie Bishop (should she decide to put her hand up). There are a number of reasons why but the main reason is, as mentioned previously, whoever leads the Liberal Party will no doubt end up lose the next Federal Election. The biggest thorn for the conservatives are progressives and Bishop is one of those thorns. If she leads the party at the next election to a defeat, she is more than likely to leave Parliament. It has been tradition that if you are voted out as PM you gracefully leave politics. With Turnbull and Bishop gone, the conservatives can rebuild and in opposition if we see a conservative as leader, it will give Shorten a run for his money.

In essence, conservatives within the Liberal Party need to calm their farm, work with the left and choose an alternative ‘moderate’ leader such as Julie Bishop. Let her go down in flames like Turnbull and then make their move. Do not waste good talented politicians like Dutton on this term of Government.

australian politics, politics

Since when have Australians cared about Morality? Barnaby should stay!!

Who is else sick and tired of hearing about Barnaby Joyce? Every channel we turn to, we see and hear something about Barnaby and his new flame Vikki Campion. The only thing that we should be hearing about from the #barnabygate is whether or not he misused taxpayer funds to give her a job. Thats it really in a nutshell.

We see on all corners of the political spectrum that Barnaby committed poor moral judgment. Well sorry since when have Australians cared about morality? For heavens sake, Australians voted in their masses to support same sex marriage and the left spent millions of dollars to convince Australians that #loveislove. In the case of Barnaby Joyce he found new love with Vikki, regardless of morality – #loveislove right?

‘

There is a push within the National Party for Mr Joyce to resign. Given that the National Party is a pseudo conservative party (conservative when they want to be) I get that he probably should respect their wishes but only if the grassroot membership want it. As a lay person, I do not believe he should resign on his poor morality judgement, at the end of the day what he does behind closed doors is non of our business and clearly Joyce recognised this hence why he didn’t want the public to know about his love affair. Barnaby should be judged purely on his performance and whether or not he has misused public funds.

In saying all of that, if this #barnabygate is affecting his ability to perform as Deputy Prime Minister, given that next week he will be the Acting Prime Minister maybe he should strongly consider stepping down as Deputy PM and PM Malcolm Turnbull with the approval of the National Party appoint Julie Bishop as Acting Prime Minister given that she is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. I say that because if the Nationals appoint a new leader before then, will they have enough experience to be the Acting Prime Minister? At the end of the day this is a decision Barnaby needs to make.

What are your thoughts?

australian politics, current affairs, politics

Australia Day and their ABC Triple J Hottest 100! #auspol #australiaday

The Looney Left Brigade from their ABC or known as LLBABC (please don’t get confused with LGBTIQDDAP) have decided to change historical customs by changing the Hottest 100 from the 26th Jan to the 27th Jan in protest of the myth known as ‘Invasion Day’.

‘Invasion Day’ as they put it was the day in which Australia was able to blossom from the chains of prehistoric nothingness to what we have become today, a thriving civilisation. Now before SJW’s get on the band wagon and accuse me of being racist or some other made up term I do want to point out that Aboriginal Culture is unique, fascinating and ought to be preserved (also be taught in schools), the point I am making is that unfortunately it wasn’t progressive unlike European Settlement. Sadly we do live in a dog eat dog world whether you like it or not and if it wasn’t for the British, it could have been the Japs or the Frogs.

The LLBABC dismisses these claims and in actual fact they stated;

“It’s fair to say there’s been increasing debate around 26 January and there are a lot of perspectives on what it means to different Australians. As the public broadcaster representing all Australians, triple j and the ABC doesn’t take a view in the discussions.

However, in recent years the Hottest 100 has become a symbol in the debate about Australia Day. The Hottest 100 wasn’t created as an Australia Day celebration. It was created to celebrate your favourite songs of the past year. It should be an event that everyone can enjoy together – for both the musicians whose songs make it in and for everyone listening in Australia and around the world. This is really important to us.

Whether you’re listening in Busselton, Bundy, Alice or Aspen. From Coober Pedy to Caz’s pool, tuning in from a backyard BBQ or streaming from overseas, in the city or on the farm; everyone is invited to join the party.”

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/news/musicnews/triple-j-hottest-100-is-moving-to-a-new-date-and-heres-why/9197254

Given that response I probably should ought to apologies, right?

Rubbish!

The vast majority of Triple J listeners generally lean to the left. Of course if you are going to give them a vote on whether or not to change the date of the Hottest 100 they will almost certainly vote yes because its the noble thing to do. Strangely though the majority of people voted to change the date to the following day. Now according to my calendar, the 26th Jan 2018 falls on a Friday therefore the 27th Jan falls on a Saturday. (Funny that!)

The question I want to ask is, would they have changed the date to the next day if it was mid week whereby they would have to go to work (Yes believe it or not some lefties do work for a living)? Or would they have changed the date to a weekend? Who knows. But it is somewhat of a coincidence that the LLBABC decide to change the date around the same time a handful of left leaning Councils voted to change the date of Australia Day.

Their ABC are making us out for fools. This was a co-ordinate attack on Australia Day and their claim that they are ‘impartial’ is bullshit.

One thing the left does not understand, if we are to have reconciliation between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal people we can’t just forget about our history. There is no denying that their were atrocities on both sides but learning from our history and embracing our history actually makes us better human beings. What the left are doing is creating a divide between an already broken down relationship between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal people by pushing this agenda to change the date. Yes some will feel isolated but the whole idea of Australia Day is for everyone to come together to celebrate this great nation and what THEY can offer to the Country.

I know what I will be doing on the 26th January 2018, I will be relaxing over a beer and celebrating the First Fleet and the social cohesion which we enjoy thanks to the British settlement. What will you be doing?

 

australian politics, health, politics

Social Justice Warriors target ‘OBESE’

Western Civilisation has a problem with overweight people. As a fat man myself I understand the risks involved in being fat such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. In Australia this is putting extra burden on our health system costing approximately $21billion in 2005[1], this figure can be assumed to have increased in 2017.  It is important for doctors to be able to tell their patients that they are overweight or for the mega fat – obese.

The social justice warriors within NSW Health have designed new guidelines to make it ‘offensive’ for doctors to tell their patients that they are overweight [2]. They want doctors to use friendly terms such as:

“Well above healthy weight”

They also do not want doctors to say “Skinny” or “malnourished” because these apparently stigmatise a condition and may significantly offend an individual.

The idea to tell a patient that they are obese is suppose to be a wake up call. As mentioned fat people are costing society, the taxpayer, billions of dollars in both direct and in direct health costs not to mention the emotional aspect it causes on family and friends if an individual develops health related complications due to them being fat.

Think about it, if a doctor told you;

“Sir/Madam you are Obese”

or

“Sir/Madam you are well above healthy weight”

Which one is more likely to be a wake up call?

Unfortunately people need strong words or some sort of negative event in their life to change their attitudes. Often people who have experienced a heart attack and have had either Stents put in or a By-pass, change their lifestyle because they have had an epiphany during their event.

This folly by NSW Health just demonstrates that our government departments have been taken over by social justice warriors. It has nothing to do about making life better, in fact this change will make fat people fatter, increase cost to our health system, and make it harder for doctors to actually treat patients. Shame on NSW Health, and shame on the NSW alleged conservative Government for allowing such nonsense to take place.

australian politics, politics

Emotional blackmail is rife amongst the Greens.

The Australian Greens have started a campaign to bring queer refugee’s into Australia. They have basically admitted that homosexuals are not safe in Muslim controlled countries. According to their website they have stated:

LGBTIQ asylum seekers under threat

Right now, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Dutton, gay asylum seekers held on Manus Island are facing a dangerous and terrifying choice. To return to their country of origin where they could face the death penalty, or stay in PNG and risk up to 14 years’ imprisonment for being gay.

There is no pride in detention – Australia is a place that openly accepts the LGBTI community. We have a proud history of being a safe haven for refugees fleeing extreme persecution. But this horrific offshore detention regime has tarnished our record.

The Greens call on the Turnbull Government and the Labor opposition to close the camps on Manus Island and Nauru, and bring every man, woman and child to Australia.

Your voice is one of hope and strength to those most vulnerable – there is no pride in detention.

As usual the Greens have used individual circumstances to try and score political points. Most Australians would welcome genuine refugee’s but what constitutes a genuine refugee? In some countries it is illegal to chew gum – Singapore. One would argue that by disallowing citizens to chew gum is a breach in human rights and if you do chew gum, you face extreme persecution such as 2 year imprisonment (I would imagine Prisons in Singapore aren’t as humane as ours)[1]

Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim controlled countries and often they do face dire circumstances such as the death penalty. Does this really constitute a genuine refugee? Australia only just passed legislation to allow same sex couples to Marry. America and the United Kingdom passed this law years ago – does that mean gay couples could have jumped on a boat to New York to seek refuge because the Australian law discriminates? Further to this, it wasn’t that long ago that it was illegal in Australia for people to be Homosexual – did we see a mass exodus of gays seeking refuge elsewhere? Of course not.

The Greens, as usual, are playing with peoples emotions on this matter. They are blackmailing Australians making you believe that we should have open borders if people are not happy with their country’s laws. Being gay shouldn’t give you an automatic right to be given refugee status and kudos to Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton and Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull for standing their ground on this.