Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population, therefore they should make up at least 50% of the seats on Company Boards, seats in the Parliaments & CEO positions in top ASX companies.
That's been the claim. It has some problems. So do some of the proposed solutions.
Firstly, 10% of the world's population is left handed. Therefore the workplace must represent this. Each board & every parliament must be 10% left handed and the rest right handed.
Secondly, 28% of the Australian population was born overseas, so for their unique qualities that they certanly bring, we need boards & parliaments to have 28% overseas born.
Thirdly, Indigenous Australians are roughly 18% of the population so Parliament & boards must have 18% Indigenous Australian. Surely?
Fourth, 63% of Australians are reported to be obese or overweight. We need that reflected in the boards & Parliaments. Health is a social issue so it makes sense to have stakeholders involved in the greatest health threat to the nation as captains of Industry & Legislation.
Fifth - 32% of the population live in rural or regional areas of Australian, therefore only 68% of all boards & parliaments should be city dwellers.
Sixth - I could go on forever with the angle of the silly thickened identity politics style assessment. This is part of the problem and the solution, so we must take the identity politics out of the equation and the answer.
Make it equal opportunity for all Australians, whether they're male, female, left or right handed Indigenous or not, born here or overseas, city or rural based, overweight smoker/non smoker, gay straight, atheist, devout faith follower...quit with the sub culture bracketry. Go with the facts, the requirements of the job and the best suited for the job. Is it so wrong to say "Sorry you weren't the best person for this job" or do you have to find a reason to carry your false offended back side? It is a sorry sad & pathetic clam to say " Its not me and my suitability its racist, ageist, sexist, elitist..."
You are not entitled to the job you have chosen. The job of your choice is not an option. If you fail to secure that job with that firm, guess what? That's life, go for another job and do what you can to make yourself the best person for the job. Compete for the job, not expect it to be allocated to you because of an accident of birth that designated your gender or some other divisive identity flag.
That's the problem part solved. Its not a matter of there's not enough of any particular identity, its a matter does the position have someone who is suitable, productive, effective irrespective of their clothes size, gender, sexual preference, hair colour, ethnic makeup, or any other minor & irrelevant grouping. The job criteria is about the job you have to suit it...not the other way around.
18% of the population is aged Zero to 15. Do we slide some of them onto boards? No we don't. So why use some other minor group splitting like age, gender, ethnicity or anything else over & beyond MERIT???
Here's the problems within some of the solutions.
Quotas.
Big problem. Why?
Quotas are a diabolical form of Social Engineering. Now I know with those that know (or perhaps don't realise) they have strong socialist/Marxist leanings, Social Engineering is terribly appealing because allowing the state to take control & engineer things in every day life seems like a short cut to equity. It just doesn't work well. When the state dictates a little, the state will want to dictate a lot. Quotas wont necessarily lead to a murderous communist regime but it doesn't help anyone and the possibility of it being amongst a suite of social engineering initiatives is pretty worrying. More worry when some genuinely good people with left leaning inclinations follow the harder line leftists and the minor & very wrong becomes law.
There's another issue. The advent of the term "Quota Queens". A derogatory term for those ushered in by "positive bias" because they possess that item of identity that the engineers decide needs favouring over & above others to reach a balanced goal. Now in this case some people were quite accurately quota queens, not really worthy of the role, but a person of a particular gender, race, religion etc was needed for the numbers. Some cop the term unfairly, some were legitimately qualified for the job & hopefully were actually employed solely on that basis and not because of the quota AND their identity group.
I can point to a mining company, a big well known mining company in WA's North West. It has a positive bias employment programme. It installed a number of women in middle management & supervisor roles. One specific one covering contractor project management despite a couple of them never having ever spent a day on the tools. A person I know managed a contract job where a car park was built. 18 months later another was required to be built on an adjacent space. These were not 3 bays, these were LARGE sealed parking lots. All was going swimmingly until the lady employed under their gender quota rolled up. She saw the completed 2nd car park area and said the whole lot would have to be re-sealed. No not one, both. She said the contractor had fouled up as the freshly laid asphalt was not the same colour as the other car park. It was explained to her that the colours would even out over time because ones fresh & one's 18 months old.
She ignored this and the company instead of paying for one new car parking lot actually paid for one & then for 2 new layers on top.
The morale there is improving as the supervisor gains experience and she's had to listen to advice from experienced workers. One of the men told me "She'll be ok in time, but its cost some big bucks in mistakes til she gets time & runs on the board. She'll be fine, but she shoulda have been on the tools for a few years to learn up". He went onto say a bloke would have been sacked or promoted sideways out of the way.
So there's problems ahead for unqualified women who leap frog into positions because they're female and there's problems for properly qualified, experienced women who get the job purely on merit. Both can be fairly or unfairly labelled quota queens and we keep the discrimination alive, well and still festering.
The right solution is simple. Set the job role out regardless of gender, race, religion or any other identity parameter. Allow anyone to apply and judge them solely on their ability, qualifications and suitability for the role. Set up penalties for those who deliberately discriminate. Allow merit, irrespective of identity parameters to rule the waves.
It is interesting, gender balance seems to only be aimed at very high paying white colour jobs. MPs, Senators, Company Directors, CEOs, higher executives, management layers. I haven't seen any initiatives in play to increase the number of women in brick laying, truck driving, shearing, roof tiling, drilling operators, diesel mechanics, plumbers, dozer operators, policing. Do they need to be 50:50 or do they have an exceptional case method?
I notice there's no shaken voice outcries for more men in nursing, child care, health or teaching. I know if I get sick there's not a 10% chance the nurse is left handed, 28% chance they're born overseas, not a 18% chance they're indigenous nor 63% they're overweight nor 50% chance they're male. I don't look at the gender of the doctor, sister, nurse or other health worker. I just look for good people doing their job well.
Did you know?
In 2011 there were 257,200 nurses, 90% of them are women. Is that fair, are we lacking a specific skill set men might bring? Why has the Identity Politics/Social Engineer's barge polling in this field of employment gone missing?
Are women better at it? Now if that question were aimed at a male dominated high paying white collar field there'd be a scary outcry of bigotry & intolerance, boys club, glass ceilings yada yada.
So what do we do with Nursing.
Well we can...
a) Socially engineer nursing so a workplace has to have 50% men.
b) We can force workplaces to reach the 50% target within a few years
c) We can accept that perhaps 90% of the people who apply happen to be women & this is reflected in the actual number employed and just go with that
d) We can ascertain if anyone (of either gender) has been employed unfairly, without proper training, experience or qualifications and either get them up to speed or get them out.
e) Accept that 50:50 is nice but if it means deterring women from applying because there's a quota in place & a large number of men will be accepted, some ahead of good women possibly some of those men not good enough but get the job because of the mere accident of gender at birth...
No. The solution is simple. Merit. Equal opportunity and Merit.
Going straight to equal outcomes (quotas, social engineering) actually reduces fairness, ignores merit and squashes equal opportunity.
Child birth - Oh man does this argument get messy. I point to Julie Bishop, Michaelia Cash, Julia Gillard. They sure did rise to the top, no quotas, just merit. None of them had kids. Its their choice I don't care but fact is child birth is going to set a career back. It does mean time out of the workforce.
Now the debate is whether women are unfairly disadvantaged career wise by having a child or whether men who do not give birth should be on the same footing career wise as a person who takes 12 months off work for child birth once or several times.
Pretty clear in brick laying I'd guess. Time off work due to these things does reduce productivity to the company over time. The debate will rage despite that.
One thing is for sure...
Equal Opportunity for all is the fairest way and it is based on merit, not identity.
Equal Outcomes goes straight to the desired outcome without any fairness, merit or equality & is counter productive.
The Socialists favour the latter and many good, well meaning people who lean to the left will get swept up in that Socialist distortion.
Friday, 16 March 2018
Tuesday, 13 March 2018
Anti Rural WA Sentiment is Growing
Most people had plans which included the rally at Parliament House yesterday over the Moora Debacle but its finally becoming apparent many had their Plan B ready if the rally produced no fair outcome or indeed did.
Rural people tend to react quickly to issues in the work place, they generally are a committee of one and it then becomes frustrating for them when they join a club or organisation and change isn't swift.
Country people traditionally have been fixers and do so with a good deal of velocity. Probably why many country people get frustrated by politics & political machinations...the wheels of government move slowly. Far too slowly for many of us. In fact even joining a Political Party turns out to be terribly frustrating for many country people. Solutions are obvious but positive change tends to be deathly slow if not totally elusive.
Being a member of a political party isn't altogether different to joining any other community group and people should view it as a Community Group engaging in Community Service. Yes there are ideological differences, there's splits in dearly held world views but that's the case in any rural community.
Point is when the going gets tough the tough get going and the tough now need to consider doing the contrarian move towards positive results.
Joining a WA Political Party.
Progress is slow, sometimes glacier like. There tends to be a lot of people with different jobs & focuses and the actual politicians are flat out trying to attempt triage and find the most important issues to heap change & pressure on whilst keeping pressure on the 2nd tier or peripheral issues.
Its not easy. You can see the solution to a big problem and so may they. Getting change is slow & difficult because the TV Show Hollowmen, Utopia, Yes Minister & Yes Prime Minister soon appear documentaries once you enter the tent door. Sad but true.
Thing is, if you join a party you may not become the rock star face of the party. You may just be (like me) one small tooth in a very large machine. Machines need every tooth. Teeth give feedback, help process, help hold one small part of the organisation and lighten the load.
So Moora Rally was not a failure. It just didn't get an immediate decision reversal.
What's your next move?
People have their plan B ready to go and it may not be spectacular sky show, it maybe simple small cog in the machine thing. The more cogs we in Regional & Rural WA the easier fair change will be.
It takes people to know fast change doesn't always happen. Sometimes its slow, glacier like. You have to go in with the long game plan and when things improve really fast you have to extra grateful the gift of velocity arrives unannounced & unexpected. Speedy fixes are the exception to the rule, but if you're not in the game, change against you is far more likely.
My advice is simple. Join a political party. Expect tons of effort with mixed results and those wins & losses will be very slow. But if you're not involved the change will still happen, still be slow but more likely be harshly against what we living in the country need or want.
So consider picking out a political party & joining. Even if you do nothing, your membership fee does help. If you do get further involved know there are different worldviews within a party. There are still wins & losses and sometimes we end up with a position that seems counter productive to some of the members. That's life. After 50 years of watching I joined a political party. I'm a small tooth on a small cog in a machine that's bigger than me. It is a machine and it needs small teeth and small cogs.
If you want change, consider the bold idea of joining a political party and influencing change...even when its glacier slow.
Rural people tend to react quickly to issues in the work place, they generally are a committee of one and it then becomes frustrating for them when they join a club or organisation and change isn't swift.
Country people traditionally have been fixers and do so with a good deal of velocity. Probably why many country people get frustrated by politics & political machinations...the wheels of government move slowly. Far too slowly for many of us. In fact even joining a Political Party turns out to be terribly frustrating for many country people. Solutions are obvious but positive change tends to be deathly slow if not totally elusive.
Being a member of a political party isn't altogether different to joining any other community group and people should view it as a Community Group engaging in Community Service. Yes there are ideological differences, there's splits in dearly held world views but that's the case in any rural community.
Point is when the going gets tough the tough get going and the tough now need to consider doing the contrarian move towards positive results.
Joining a WA Political Party.
Progress is slow, sometimes glacier like. There tends to be a lot of people with different jobs & focuses and the actual politicians are flat out trying to attempt triage and find the most important issues to heap change & pressure on whilst keeping pressure on the 2nd tier or peripheral issues.
Its not easy. You can see the solution to a big problem and so may they. Getting change is slow & difficult because the TV Show Hollowmen, Utopia, Yes Minister & Yes Prime Minister soon appear documentaries once you enter the tent door. Sad but true.
Thing is, if you join a party you may not become the rock star face of the party. You may just be (like me) one small tooth in a very large machine. Machines need every tooth. Teeth give feedback, help process, help hold one small part of the organisation and lighten the load.
So Moora Rally was not a failure. It just didn't get an immediate decision reversal.
What's your next move?
People have their plan B ready to go and it may not be spectacular sky show, it maybe simple small cog in the machine thing. The more cogs we in Regional & Rural WA the easier fair change will be.
It takes people to know fast change doesn't always happen. Sometimes its slow, glacier like. You have to go in with the long game plan and when things improve really fast you have to extra grateful the gift of velocity arrives unannounced & unexpected. Speedy fixes are the exception to the rule, but if you're not in the game, change against you is far more likely.
My advice is simple. Join a political party. Expect tons of effort with mixed results and those wins & losses will be very slow. But if you're not involved the change will still happen, still be slow but more likely be harshly against what we living in the country need or want.
So consider picking out a political party & joining. Even if you do nothing, your membership fee does help. If you do get further involved know there are different worldviews within a party. There are still wins & losses and sometimes we end up with a position that seems counter productive to some of the members. That's life. After 50 years of watching I joined a political party. I'm a small tooth on a small cog in a machine that's bigger than me. It is a machine and it needs small teeth and small cogs.
If you want change, consider the bold idea of joining a political party and influencing change...even when its glacier slow.
Monday, 5 March 2018
A PerthLabor Minister & her inept Gender Bias View
Yes, I'm a bit stunned...and here's why. Simone McGurk MLA is State Member for Fremantle as well as Minister for Child Protection, the Prevention of Family & Domestic Violence, Women's Interests & Community Services in WA.
Sh also dabbles in the odd paper vote-grab/editorial/opinion piece but rest assured although she represents Fremantle (and you' hope the whole of WA as a minister), although she's responsible for Child Protection, Community Services and a few other things its on female related stuff she'll prattle on about. Yes women certainly need the fair play of equal opportunity and not have any extra hurdles put in their path because they're women. But the equality of outcome is a Socialist Construct that needs tobe feared and Simone McGurk may have to be monitored to she how socialist (i.e. unfair) she is. The Socialist pathway of Equal Outcomes seeks to forget opportunity & removal of unfair hurdles, it wants to go straight to equal results, where the gender balance in a workplace is 50% women & 50% men.
Not 100% equal opportunity to secure the outcome you then have to deserve. Indeed there are not 50% women applicants for all jobs so how can you expect 50% women employed unless that is the percentage of women amongst the best people for the job.
Simone writes an article which employs a number of intellectually corrupt devices to build her premise of pushing more women into particular fields. One of them is using Leukaemia Survivor, 7 year old Madeleine who said women can do anything. Well that's quite wrong. Men can't do anything, nor can women. Some men & women can do things that others can't. Madeleine wants to grow up to be a Scientist. Her only barrier to reaching that career goal will not be her confidence or goal setting, but whether she passes the appropriate exams when she's looking for tertiary admission and to complete university. There's no gender barrier here. Its a heart string attached straw man thing...
Its also quite noticeable Ms McGurk never talks about gender equality in other particularly male dominated fields. Nothing about shoring up gender equality in brick laying, truck driving, plumbing or any other trade based field or labouring. SHE ONLY FOCUSES ON HIGH PAID WHITE COLLAR OCCPATIONS, ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE TO MANUAL LABOUR AT ALL.
Yes executive roles, CEOs in ASX firms are cited, numbers in Parliament...but nothing about too many women & not enough men in nursing or on check out tills, or too many men in ditches, in heavy equipment, welding or fitting a roof to house or brick paving...zero.
Why, because not many women apply for these jobs, if they do they'd soon have to be as profitable to keep on as the average labourer. There is no gender refusal scheme happening. There's few women because firstly there's very few applying.
I know lady sparkies, mechanics, shearers, truckies and some labourers out in the sun & the heat on the tools. They didn't get the job because they were female. They didn't get the job because the firm needed females. They got the jobs because despite how few women ever apply, they were qualified and more than able of being good at their job...like any successful male who picked up a job in the same company or the same field.
|
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
I'm not sure why the gender bias is heralded as some thing that has to be fixed. Best person for the job irrespective of their gender is what I thought it should be all about. Their merit, not their gender.
Equal Outcomes, the Socialist answer means, just get 50% women in there as quick as possible, whatever it takes. That's quotarising the workplace and merit suffers.
I think we have to push to applicants and employers that it has to be 100% EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, best merit gets the job, not what will lead to a predetermined "balance"
Oddly many Social Justice Warrior type Socialists are hell bent on transgender people being regarded as the gender they choose and we all have to accept it.
Well if we follow that equally stupid premise we just need half the members of parliament to declare they "self-identify" as female (whether they are or not) and we'll have proper gender balance.
Simone has a long way to go before she's a half decent MP...and its not because of her gender. The Perth Socialist Party (WALabor) must have picked her because she was all about spruiking equal outcomes and NOT equal opportunity & merit.
Such is the Socialist was.
If all Socialists understood Socialism, there'd be no Socialism nor any bizarre & intellectually bankrupt "equality" screamers.
Sh also dabbles in the odd paper vote-grab/editorial/opinion piece but rest assured although she represents Fremantle (and you' hope the whole of WA as a minister), although she's responsible for Child Protection, Community Services and a few other things its on female related stuff she'll prattle on about. Yes women certainly need the fair play of equal opportunity and not have any extra hurdles put in their path because they're women. But the equality of outcome is a Socialist Construct that needs tobe feared and Simone McGurk may have to be monitored to she how socialist (i.e. unfair) she is. The Socialist pathway of Equal Outcomes seeks to forget opportunity & removal of unfair hurdles, it wants to go straight to equal results, where the gender balance in a workplace is 50% women & 50% men.
Not 100% equal opportunity to secure the outcome you then have to deserve. Indeed there are not 50% women applicants for all jobs so how can you expect 50% women employed unless that is the percentage of women amongst the best people for the job.
Simone writes an article which employs a number of intellectually corrupt devices to build her premise of pushing more women into particular fields. One of them is using Leukaemia Survivor, 7 year old Madeleine who said women can do anything. Well that's quite wrong. Men can't do anything, nor can women. Some men & women can do things that others can't. Madeleine wants to grow up to be a Scientist. Her only barrier to reaching that career goal will not be her confidence or goal setting, but whether she passes the appropriate exams when she's looking for tertiary admission and to complete university. There's no gender barrier here. Its a heart string attached straw man thing...
Its also quite noticeable Ms McGurk never talks about gender equality in other particularly male dominated fields. Nothing about shoring up gender equality in brick laying, truck driving, plumbing or any other trade based field or labouring. SHE ONLY FOCUSES ON HIGH PAID WHITE COLLAR OCCPATIONS, ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE TO MANUAL LABOUR AT ALL.
Yes executive roles, CEOs in ASX firms are cited, numbers in Parliament...but nothing about too many women & not enough men in nursing or on check out tills, or too many men in ditches, in heavy equipment, welding or fitting a roof to house or brick paving...zero.
Why, because not many women apply for these jobs, if they do they'd soon have to be as profitable to keep on as the average labourer. There is no gender refusal scheme happening. There's few women because firstly there's very few applying.
I know lady sparkies, mechanics, shearers, truckies and some labourers out in the sun & the heat on the tools. They didn't get the job because they were female. They didn't get the job because the firm needed females. They got the jobs because despite how few women ever apply, they were qualified and more than able of being good at their job...like any successful male who picked up a job in the same company or the same field.
|
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
I'm not sure why the gender bias is heralded as some thing that has to be fixed. Best person for the job irrespective of their gender is what I thought it should be all about. Their merit, not their gender.
Equal Outcomes, the Socialist answer means, just get 50% women in there as quick as possible, whatever it takes. That's quotarising the workplace and merit suffers.
I think we have to push to applicants and employers that it has to be 100% EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, best merit gets the job, not what will lead to a predetermined "balance"
Oddly many Social Justice Warrior type Socialists are hell bent on transgender people being regarded as the gender they choose and we all have to accept it.
Well if we follow that equally stupid premise we just need half the members of parliament to declare they "self-identify" as female (whether they are or not) and we'll have proper gender balance.
Simone has a long way to go before she's a half decent MP...and its not because of her gender. The Perth Socialist Party (WALabor) must have picked her because she was all about spruiking equal outcomes and NOT equal opportunity & merit.
Such is the Socialist was.
If all Socialists understood Socialism, there'd be no Socialism nor any bizarre & intellectually bankrupt "equality" screamers.
Saturday, 24 February 2018
Latest Barnaby Debacle
Up front, I've never met Barnaby Joyce, got no personal axe to grind with him. None at all.
Got a few views of when he probably should have stepped aside in this whole unfunny circus act we've all seen play out.
Up front, I've never met Catherine Marriott either, got no personal axe to grind there. in fact have no personal base bias either way on either Catherine nor Barnaby, but obviously I'm familiar with Barnaby & like a few bush folk in WA certainly know of Catherine.
I have gleaned a few things from the press & social media. To me at least it seems she lodged a complaint with the Nationals. Now I hate making assumptions but I can only assume it was with the Federal Nats Exec.
Media reports mention it was to remain confidential. It wasn't to be a public hanging & drag through the mud. A non public complaint lodged, Nats Fed Exec will probably have a policy & procedure for this (or should and will). One news report says it was only lodged this week and that the date of the actual harassment was several years ago.
Time it takes to report is irrelevant. We don't set time limits on any complaints otherwise sex offenders in cold cases would get off Scott free. What we do know is Catherine Marriott is well known & widely known of. She's a rural community builder. She has a pretty solid hard earned reputation and good standing in the community.
We also know she lodged the complaint with the proviso it was private. She was not looking to hit the news herself, indeed she's been far from being on a talk circuit. One written statement, nothing else. Not efforts to defame nor grab fame. Private complaint is/was to be investigated by the Nats Exec. There's absolutely no evidence she had any other axe to grind with the ex-Deputy Prime Minister. None. That doesn't prove anything good or bad about Barnaby, it proves there's no malicious or nefarious intent on her part.
Someone leaked the existence of the complaint. It would seem it can only come from a small number of places.
1) The Nationals Federal Exec
2) The Cabinet or a Cabinet minister
3) Barnaby Joyce
4) Catherine Marriott
I'll take the last one off the list, because the agreement was private. I have no reason to believe she'd lie & breach it. Doesn't make sense.
Barnaby, might have leaked it but as possible as that may be, it'd be the dumbest strategy we'd see for some time were it true. Probably equally unlikely
That leaves the Nats Fed Exec or Cabinet (Liberal or National MP). Could be either but the possibilities would take pages to jot down and we don't know all the people involved, what motivations might be.
We do know there's no advantage whatsoever for Catherine Marriott to leak it & indeed whoever leaked it has done both Catherine & Barnaby a huge disservice.
The complaint should have been dealt with in private and a resolution handed down privately.
Catherine is a bit like the Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of separation thing...I don't know her but I know plenty of folk who do & she doesn't appear to be on anyone's shit list nor has she been identified as some northern Lex Luther corporate psychopath. Her reputation is to be envied, its not small & by all accounts she's earned everything. Yes she was a winner of the WA Rural Woman of the Year Award.
People need to keep calm heads and let whatever the process is in play to run its course. Don't publicly speculate unless its to speculate who leaked the private complaint & why.
One thing is also for sure, the public perception on what is and isn't acceptable for a Deputy PM, a Cabinet member, a party leader, a Member of Parliament is going to probably have new limits soon. Think the pub test will be a bit stricter. Not a bad thing at all.
I don't know what was in the complaint. I won't comment on how correct it is because due process (corrupted as it is by a leak) must go ahead.
And Catherine Marriott has 100% nothing to answer for.
I hope she continues as a community builder as she did before. If her allegations prove correct then there is absolutely no wrong committed by her at all. None. Zip zero, nada.
Because some disgracefully have piled blame on her, then I'll back her with the #Solidarity4Catherine hashtag. I make no judgment on a complaint I haven't read & encourage others to push the "let the process run its course" approach.
We'll see where we are in a few weeks or months time.
Got a few views of when he probably should have stepped aside in this whole unfunny circus act we've all seen play out.
Up front, I've never met Catherine Marriott either, got no personal axe to grind there. in fact have no personal base bias either way on either Catherine nor Barnaby, but obviously I'm familiar with Barnaby & like a few bush folk in WA certainly know of Catherine.
I have gleaned a few things from the press & social media. To me at least it seems she lodged a complaint with the Nationals. Now I hate making assumptions but I can only assume it was with the Federal Nats Exec.
Media reports mention it was to remain confidential. It wasn't to be a public hanging & drag through the mud. A non public complaint lodged, Nats Fed Exec will probably have a policy & procedure for this (or should and will). One news report says it was only lodged this week and that the date of the actual harassment was several years ago.
Time it takes to report is irrelevant. We don't set time limits on any complaints otherwise sex offenders in cold cases would get off Scott free. What we do know is Catherine Marriott is well known & widely known of. She's a rural community builder. She has a pretty solid hard earned reputation and good standing in the community.
We also know she lodged the complaint with the proviso it was private. She was not looking to hit the news herself, indeed she's been far from being on a talk circuit. One written statement, nothing else. Not efforts to defame nor grab fame. Private complaint is/was to be investigated by the Nats Exec. There's absolutely no evidence she had any other axe to grind with the ex-Deputy Prime Minister. None. That doesn't prove anything good or bad about Barnaby, it proves there's no malicious or nefarious intent on her part.
Someone leaked the existence of the complaint. It would seem it can only come from a small number of places.
1) The Nationals Federal Exec
2) The Cabinet or a Cabinet minister
3) Barnaby Joyce
4) Catherine Marriott
I'll take the last one off the list, because the agreement was private. I have no reason to believe she'd lie & breach it. Doesn't make sense.
Barnaby, might have leaked it but as possible as that may be, it'd be the dumbest strategy we'd see for some time were it true. Probably equally unlikely
That leaves the Nats Fed Exec or Cabinet (Liberal or National MP). Could be either but the possibilities would take pages to jot down and we don't know all the people involved, what motivations might be.
We do know there's no advantage whatsoever for Catherine Marriott to leak it & indeed whoever leaked it has done both Catherine & Barnaby a huge disservice.
The complaint should have been dealt with in private and a resolution handed down privately.
Catherine is a bit like the Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of separation thing...I don't know her but I know plenty of folk who do & she doesn't appear to be on anyone's shit list nor has she been identified as some northern Lex Luther corporate psychopath. Her reputation is to be envied, its not small & by all accounts she's earned everything. Yes she was a winner of the WA Rural Woman of the Year Award.
People need to keep calm heads and let whatever the process is in play to run its course. Don't publicly speculate unless its to speculate who leaked the private complaint & why.
One thing is also for sure, the public perception on what is and isn't acceptable for a Deputy PM, a Cabinet member, a party leader, a Member of Parliament is going to probably have new limits soon. Think the pub test will be a bit stricter. Not a bad thing at all.
I don't know what was in the complaint. I won't comment on how correct it is because due process (corrupted as it is by a leak) must go ahead.
And Catherine Marriott has 100% nothing to answer for.
I hope she continues as a community builder as she did before. If her allegations prove correct then there is absolutely no wrong committed by her at all. None. Zip zero, nada.
Because some disgracefully have piled blame on her, then I'll back her with the #Solidarity4Catherine hashtag. I make no judgment on a complaint I haven't read & encourage others to push the "let the process run its course" approach.
We'll see where we are in a few weeks or months time.
Wednesday, 21 February 2018
What's a Reasonable Person's Test?
When we elected representatives and give them authority to act on our behalf, it should never be "Free Reign", it should always be "Full Rein"
For example if we elect some directors to a board of a company we own or part own, they have as a part of their role a number of rights & responsibilities.
"Free rein" is probably interchangeable with "Free Reign", it has no accountability, no layers of transparency nor any need for compliance with an accepted set of policies & procedures. Only fools do that, at their own peril.
"Full Rein" is yes, go hard, think wide & outside the box. Make bold & courageous decisions by all means, but there are limitations. It must all be in the best interest of the company & its share holders. There also must be a process of review, to ensure even the most daring decisions were not reckless or fool hardy.
Remember you need some risk, without risk there can be no gains.
Full Rein allows full extension of the powers the directors or board have whilst keep their fiduciary duty intact.
Now trouble starts when shareholders misunderstand the brief they've handed their directors or committee members. The only saving grace, the only sensible mechanism to apply is the "Reasonable Person's Test" (RPT). This is recognised under the Corporations Act & by the Judiciary when corporate court cases happen.
Its not whether the decision did damage to the entity or not, that may be established & indisputable.
What the RPT does is apply a very simple test, asking simple questions. Were the actions or decisions they made the kind of actions or decisions a reasonable person would make in the same situation?
A decision or action that turns out to be wrong and/or very harmful to the company may have been the right decision to have made at the time. Having been a shareholder in this position I had to let go of the noose and concede that the wrong decision the board made was one most people would have made in the same situation, considering all the information the board had at the time.
Revenge & retribution is off the menu. There is only one outcome. Best people, doing the best they can for the company. If a board announces a radical plan or position on something, just cool your heels & give some room. Directors & higher decision makers have more information than us shareholders, they have more people in their ears, they are looking at more pressures & pulls that we cannot know about at the time. We have to cool our heels, allow some room to move and just watch a little. Yes make contact for assurances, but there maybe confidential information they cannot share until later. Later, when we apply a full Reasonable Person's Test if we have to that is. If they have Full Rein, let them have full rein and make the bold decisions they may need to make. If it goes pear shaped there's plenty of time for "the 3rd umpire to review the video"
If all else fails you'll have an AGM, the member's meeting to hold people to account. Let the delegated authority do their thing until they are clearly breaching the set protocol & boundaries or legal restrictions.
Otherwise, cool the heels, allow Full Rein and let the bold decisions unfold.
If you remove ALL RISK you very much remove all possible gains.
For example if we elect some directors to a board of a company we own or part own, they have as a part of their role a number of rights & responsibilities.
"Free rein" is probably interchangeable with "Free Reign", it has no accountability, no layers of transparency nor any need for compliance with an accepted set of policies & procedures. Only fools do that, at their own peril.
"Full Rein" is yes, go hard, think wide & outside the box. Make bold & courageous decisions by all means, but there are limitations. It must all be in the best interest of the company & its share holders. There also must be a process of review, to ensure even the most daring decisions were not reckless or fool hardy.
Remember you need some risk, without risk there can be no gains.
Full Rein allows full extension of the powers the directors or board have whilst keep their fiduciary duty intact.
Now trouble starts when shareholders misunderstand the brief they've handed their directors or committee members. The only saving grace, the only sensible mechanism to apply is the "Reasonable Person's Test" (RPT). This is recognised under the Corporations Act & by the Judiciary when corporate court cases happen.
Its not whether the decision did damage to the entity or not, that may be established & indisputable.
What the RPT does is apply a very simple test, asking simple questions. Were the actions or decisions they made the kind of actions or decisions a reasonable person would make in the same situation?
A decision or action that turns out to be wrong and/or very harmful to the company may have been the right decision to have made at the time. Having been a shareholder in this position I had to let go of the noose and concede that the wrong decision the board made was one most people would have made in the same situation, considering all the information the board had at the time.
Revenge & retribution is off the menu. There is only one outcome. Best people, doing the best they can for the company. If a board announces a radical plan or position on something, just cool your heels & give some room. Directors & higher decision makers have more information than us shareholders, they have more people in their ears, they are looking at more pressures & pulls that we cannot know about at the time. We have to cool our heels, allow some room to move and just watch a little. Yes make contact for assurances, but there maybe confidential information they cannot share until later. Later, when we apply a full Reasonable Person's Test if we have to that is. If they have Full Rein, let them have full rein and make the bold decisions they may need to make. If it goes pear shaped there's plenty of time for "the 3rd umpire to review the video"
If all else fails you'll have an AGM, the member's meeting to hold people to account. Let the delegated authority do their thing until they are clearly breaching the set protocol & boundaries or legal restrictions.
Otherwise, cool the heels, allow Full Rein and let the bold decisions unfold.
If you remove ALL RISK you very much remove all possible gains.
Tuesday, 6 February 2018
Recreational Hunting on Public Lands in WA
Rick Mazza has reignited a plan for recreational shooters to have legal access to public lands for the purpose of hunting. As you'd expect the RSPCA WA is completely opposed to it but has a little trouble finding enough reasons and borrows some unrelated issues to bolster their position.
When this first came up back some yers ago the Barnett Govn was considering allowing it after a Parliamentary Committee suggested it. A decision was expected by March in 2015 and when it came it was a big no.
Lynne Bradshaw, RSPCA WA President was pretty vocal but in all the yak several unrelated issues popped up.
1) Illegal "hunters" & "hobby hunters acting illegally"
2) Pigs lower teeth being smashed out to create larger tusks in feral pigs
3) Hunting is an "unspeakable cruelty"
Firstly several things here, the RSPCA is anti hunting of any sort. To them no hunting is morally ok nor humane enough. They want all hunting banned. That's the real motivation behind their rhetoric.
But answer some of their positions...
1) There are hunters and their are poachers. There are not "illegal hunters" or "hobby hunters acting illegally".
Law abiding people who are hunting animals completely within the law are "Hunters"
Those breaking laws whilst hunting, trespassing on public or private lands and all pig dumping etc, they are poachers...not hunters.
There is no penalty for those (legal) recreational hunters, but there are for those poachers. Trespassing for one and those "pig dumping" or breeding pigs to release into State Forests to later go hunt, $50,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison.
More on criminal penalties later...
2) Lower pig teeth smashing, if it even happens is abhorrent but frankly has nothing to do with legal, law abiding recreational hunters. If they were teeth smashing or pig dumping then they need to be prosecuted to the full extent allowable by law AND have their firearms licence abolished. The idea of recreational hunters is as a part of feral pest control. Whilst the RSPCA yell down its own rabbit burrow, the pigs are being dumped by poachers, the teeth are being smashed by poachers (if it happens at all) and the killing of the pigs is being done by poachers. Whilst recreational hunters could make a good dent in the feral numbers, whilst they're excluded the numbers grow as pig dumping poachers seed the forests & only fluctuate as poacher numbers rise and fall.
3) Hunting is "unspeakable cruelty" ? Really? Why?
Because an animal dies at the hands of another?
So what do we do with hunting, ban it completely?
Well if so they RSPCA has a huge unpinned moral hand grenade in its own lap.
Is all predation to be banned? Snake eating the frog, the eagle eating the small roo or wallaby?
Do we ban all predation or only in humans because humans are a higher order?
If it morally wrong, then they will have to cite the moral code with which they make the judgement.
Christian, Islam, Judaism and every other world religion that has a moral code...would find predators hunting to be AOK, even humans hunting animals.
If you decide for yourself you don't like it, that's fine, that's a choice. But your view that you hold to be higher morally than someone else's is going to need backing on why that it.
In regard to hunting on Public Lands, I would assume :-
This to be a regulated & licenced activity, not a free for all.
I'd expect it to be a part of an integrated land management plan that involves hunting, trapping and baiting...not just hunting. Cats, dogs, foxes & pigs need eradication but you cannot do it just by hunting as there's many that turn into shy ferals and are incredibly difficult to even spot let alone shoot. There's some areas that are inaccessible to vehicles and even humans on foot, aerial 1080 baiting has to happen
If its to be a success, the Government need to apply far more hefty fines & penalties to "poachers" who hunt without permission or licence. If its $50,000 & 5 years, double it & apply a Firearms Licence Ban for Life. For a second offence, double it again. 3rd conviction double it again.
Message gets through clearly very quickly.
Trespass laws on farming properties...yes these need to be tightened and elevated. Many farmers adjoining State Forest have fences cut & gates open. One I speak with regularly in the Talbot area west of York says he'd actually be ok with poachers if they shut the gates behind them but several times a year he has to repair cut fences where poachers leave the State Forest and trespass onto the farmland.
Criminal conviction for farm trespass has to elevate and adopt the same double per offence. Convictions via field cameras has to become the norm.
Firearms hunting is never going to be a control measure on its own, but its the cheapest. You get people willing to pay a licence, willing to burn their own vehicle fuel and their own time to go hunting.
The other 2 facets being baiting and trapping, well there the relevant departments are going to have to seriously ramp activity and the Government is going to have to fund them.
With the state forest areas of Walpole being reported to have between 3000-5000 pigs decimating the peat swamps, scrub & river habitats the clock is ticking. Add to this a friend who works in the department said he'd be very surprised if the actual numbers at Walpole "were that low, its pretty bad"
Not sure of the RSPCA's view on habitat destruction, the levelling of native flora and fauna by just pigs & cats but it would be more relevant than some of the unconnected angles they've been using.
Am I happy about hunters entering land to shoot?
If its regulated as it is for burning off with signs every where yes its sure a heck of a lot safer than having poachers in the state forest with firearms and not knowing they're even there. Yes hunters would be safer to the public.
Right now we have no proper integrated feral action plan...and we need one fast.
When this first came up back some yers ago the Barnett Govn was considering allowing it after a Parliamentary Committee suggested it. A decision was expected by March in 2015 and when it came it was a big no.
Lynne Bradshaw, RSPCA WA President was pretty vocal but in all the yak several unrelated issues popped up.
1) Illegal "hunters" & "hobby hunters acting illegally"
2) Pigs lower teeth being smashed out to create larger tusks in feral pigs
3) Hunting is an "unspeakable cruelty"
Firstly several things here, the RSPCA is anti hunting of any sort. To them no hunting is morally ok nor humane enough. They want all hunting banned. That's the real motivation behind their rhetoric.
But answer some of their positions...
1) There are hunters and their are poachers. There are not "illegal hunters" or "hobby hunters acting illegally".
Law abiding people who are hunting animals completely within the law are "Hunters"
Those breaking laws whilst hunting, trespassing on public or private lands and all pig dumping etc, they are poachers...not hunters.
There is no penalty for those (legal) recreational hunters, but there are for those poachers. Trespassing for one and those "pig dumping" or breeding pigs to release into State Forests to later go hunt, $50,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison.
More on criminal penalties later...
2) Lower pig teeth smashing, if it even happens is abhorrent but frankly has nothing to do with legal, law abiding recreational hunters. If they were teeth smashing or pig dumping then they need to be prosecuted to the full extent allowable by law AND have their firearms licence abolished. The idea of recreational hunters is as a part of feral pest control. Whilst the RSPCA yell down its own rabbit burrow, the pigs are being dumped by poachers, the teeth are being smashed by poachers (if it happens at all) and the killing of the pigs is being done by poachers. Whilst recreational hunters could make a good dent in the feral numbers, whilst they're excluded the numbers grow as pig dumping poachers seed the forests & only fluctuate as poacher numbers rise and fall.
3) Hunting is "unspeakable cruelty" ? Really? Why?
Because an animal dies at the hands of another?
So what do we do with hunting, ban it completely?
Well if so they RSPCA has a huge unpinned moral hand grenade in its own lap.
Is all predation to be banned? Snake eating the frog, the eagle eating the small roo or wallaby?
Do we ban all predation or only in humans because humans are a higher order?
If it morally wrong, then they will have to cite the moral code with which they make the judgement.
Christian, Islam, Judaism and every other world religion that has a moral code...would find predators hunting to be AOK, even humans hunting animals.
If you decide for yourself you don't like it, that's fine, that's a choice. But your view that you hold to be higher morally than someone else's is going to need backing on why that it.
In regard to hunting on Public Lands, I would assume :-
This to be a regulated & licenced activity, not a free for all.
I'd expect it to be a part of an integrated land management plan that involves hunting, trapping and baiting...not just hunting. Cats, dogs, foxes & pigs need eradication but you cannot do it just by hunting as there's many that turn into shy ferals and are incredibly difficult to even spot let alone shoot. There's some areas that are inaccessible to vehicles and even humans on foot, aerial 1080 baiting has to happen
If its to be a success, the Government need to apply far more hefty fines & penalties to "poachers" who hunt without permission or licence. If its $50,000 & 5 years, double it & apply a Firearms Licence Ban for Life. For a second offence, double it again. 3rd conviction double it again.
Message gets through clearly very quickly.
Trespass laws on farming properties...yes these need to be tightened and elevated. Many farmers adjoining State Forest have fences cut & gates open. One I speak with regularly in the Talbot area west of York says he'd actually be ok with poachers if they shut the gates behind them but several times a year he has to repair cut fences where poachers leave the State Forest and trespass onto the farmland.
Criminal conviction for farm trespass has to elevate and adopt the same double per offence. Convictions via field cameras has to become the norm.
Firearms hunting is never going to be a control measure on its own, but its the cheapest. You get people willing to pay a licence, willing to burn their own vehicle fuel and their own time to go hunting.
The other 2 facets being baiting and trapping, well there the relevant departments are going to have to seriously ramp activity and the Government is going to have to fund them.
With the state forest areas of Walpole being reported to have between 3000-5000 pigs decimating the peat swamps, scrub & river habitats the clock is ticking. Add to this a friend who works in the department said he'd be very surprised if the actual numbers at Walpole "were that low, its pretty bad"
Not sure of the RSPCA's view on habitat destruction, the levelling of native flora and fauna by just pigs & cats but it would be more relevant than some of the unconnected angles they've been using.
Am I happy about hunters entering land to shoot?
If its regulated as it is for burning off with signs every where yes its sure a heck of a lot safer than having poachers in the state forest with firearms and not knowing they're even there. Yes hunters would be safer to the public.
Right now we have no proper integrated feral action plan...and we need one fast.
Thursday, 1 February 2018
Grid Girls - The Political Left, The Political Right & Feminism
Grid Girls at Formula One Events. Not on my radar. Not my sport, don't watch it. Even as a motorsport follower of sorts, F1 never really interested me. But now F1 has announced Grid Girls are to be abolished to fit in with current day standards.
Odd.
Grid Girls = Bad
Sex Workers = Valid Career Choice
That's how its stacking. It's a little bit weird in the logic department on a number of levels.
The current day feminism says women must not have that job.
Grid girls, can't say I know many but its not actually a jet setting life of glamorous full time work.
Its a fast short term well paid part time job.
One thing is for sure, the action has taken away the freedom to make the free decision to apply for work in one scene. Their choice now reduced.
As the Daily Wire pointedly remarked
"Hey, in the pursuit of True Feminist Equality, some women are just going to have to lose the careers they love. Or something."
Kinda unsure where this new era of Feminism is going, but its not entirely empowering to women.
I'm more learning towards the old view from conservatives in that Equal Opportunity is the only way forward.
The Left is more Equal Outcomes.
Difference in these approaches is the conservatives are saying all should have the same equal opportunities in this unfair world. Work hard and get somewhere. Maybe you won't be rich as Bill Gates no matter what you do, but work hard and find your place in the world.
The Left seems a little more intent on breaking progress, splitting what people own and delivering folk straight to the outcomes. This has risen in prominence as more of the world has become 1st world and more of the world has become lazy. When people complain about foreigners taking their jobs, they're usually the jobs no locals want to do. The foreigners want to work, recognise that you get ahead through hard work. Sure enough, foreigners do well and lazy locals feel contempt for them.
If someone wants to stand around in the hot sun on asphalt holding a pose or a sign or just smiling whilst their back aches, their feet are sore or maybe even suffering from head aches & period pain...for a good bit of pay, well bad luck. That extra bit of income is gone.
The straight to equal outcome leftist approach also means we have to have 50:50 Men/Women ration on high ranking company boards, government cabinets & senior executive ranks whether there is enough women or not. Straight to equal outcome.
Equal opportunity means good people rise to the top in their chosen field irrespective of their gender.
Oddly meanwhile the Quota Approach only applies to high ranking, high profile, high paying white collar careers. The new Twisted Left & the new Twisted Feminism isn't pushing for 50:50 rates in the world of truck driving, sheep carting, shearing, slaughterhouse work, plumbers, sparkies or farm labourers. Only the big bucks, only the things that might result in a press conference.
I know lady truck drivers, stock workers, shearers, sparkies and labourers. All the ones I know got where they are by hard work. None are actually there on quotas. None are their because the boss wanted a "pretty little slip of a thing" on the workplace. They rolled up their sleeves and worked.
Feminism of old knocked down the barriers for these younger women and allowed them the Equality of Opportunity many ladies in earlier days were flatly denied.
Somehow feminism dropped the ball whilst many women just got on with the job of getting along, getting ahead by working hard.
In the board & cabinet scene, its leftists pushing for equality of outcomes which is not the same thing.
It will damage things for some women as claims of Quota Queens will get trotted out. The unfairness there will be hard workers will get unfairly & wrongly tarnished as queue jumpers.
Meanwhile, the Left & the New Feminism has flatly told some women where they CANNOT work and what they CANNOT wear. The State has spoken.
Oddly prostitution is fine, but grid girls and cheer leaders are sex based exploitation.
We have some way to go yet I think & Political Correctness is not correct nor going away for sometime yet
Odd.
Grid Girls = Bad
Sex Workers = Valid Career Choice
That's how its stacking. It's a little bit weird in the logic department on a number of levels.
The current day feminism says women must not have that job.
Grid girls, can't say I know many but its not actually a jet setting life of glamorous full time work.
Its a fast short term well paid part time job.
One thing is for sure, the action has taken away the freedom to make the free decision to apply for work in one scene. Their choice now reduced.
As the Daily Wire pointedly remarked
"Hey, in the pursuit of True Feminist Equality, some women are just going to have to lose the careers they love. Or something."
Kinda unsure where this new era of Feminism is going, but its not entirely empowering to women.
I'm more learning towards the old view from conservatives in that Equal Opportunity is the only way forward.
The Left is more Equal Outcomes.
Difference in these approaches is the conservatives are saying all should have the same equal opportunities in this unfair world. Work hard and get somewhere. Maybe you won't be rich as Bill Gates no matter what you do, but work hard and find your place in the world.
The Left seems a little more intent on breaking progress, splitting what people own and delivering folk straight to the outcomes. This has risen in prominence as more of the world has become 1st world and more of the world has become lazy. When people complain about foreigners taking their jobs, they're usually the jobs no locals want to do. The foreigners want to work, recognise that you get ahead through hard work. Sure enough, foreigners do well and lazy locals feel contempt for them.
If someone wants to stand around in the hot sun on asphalt holding a pose or a sign or just smiling whilst their back aches, their feet are sore or maybe even suffering from head aches & period pain...for a good bit of pay, well bad luck. That extra bit of income is gone.
The straight to equal outcome leftist approach also means we have to have 50:50 Men/Women ration on high ranking company boards, government cabinets & senior executive ranks whether there is enough women or not. Straight to equal outcome.
Equal opportunity means good people rise to the top in their chosen field irrespective of their gender.
Oddly meanwhile the Quota Approach only applies to high ranking, high profile, high paying white collar careers. The new Twisted Left & the new Twisted Feminism isn't pushing for 50:50 rates in the world of truck driving, sheep carting, shearing, slaughterhouse work, plumbers, sparkies or farm labourers. Only the big bucks, only the things that might result in a press conference.
I know lady truck drivers, stock workers, shearers, sparkies and labourers. All the ones I know got where they are by hard work. None are actually there on quotas. None are their because the boss wanted a "pretty little slip of a thing" on the workplace. They rolled up their sleeves and worked.
Feminism of old knocked down the barriers for these younger women and allowed them the Equality of Opportunity many ladies in earlier days were flatly denied.
Somehow feminism dropped the ball whilst many women just got on with the job of getting along, getting ahead by working hard.
In the board & cabinet scene, its leftists pushing for equality of outcomes which is not the same thing.
It will damage things for some women as claims of Quota Queens will get trotted out. The unfairness there will be hard workers will get unfairly & wrongly tarnished as queue jumpers.
Meanwhile, the Left & the New Feminism has flatly told some women where they CANNOT work and what they CANNOT wear. The State has spoken.
Oddly prostitution is fine, but grid girls and cheer leaders are sex based exploitation.
We have some way to go yet I think & Political Correctness is not correct nor going away for sometime yet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)