Well its done & dusted. There's no more tear filled comments, no more crackly voices heaping accolades on one another. No more applause & emotional groans, now its time for a more practical look at what was. Glory basking time is over.
So its passed as I think everyone thought it would, given not only the Government numbers but the general feel of many of those in both Chambers of WA Parliament. It didn't have unanimous support but I think every knew it would eventually pass regardless. It was obvious, it was expected & I don't think anyone, even its biggest critics thought otherwise.
That's why I think...
1) There was no filibustering at all. It was a surprise to me it got passed before Christmas, I always expected it would be on the table until next February. Not the case. Both sides of both chambers did extra hours to get over the ground. But it was not anything other than the Upper House doing its job & doing it properly.
IT IS THE HOUSE OF REVIEW.
Remember for a moment, the Government declared it was a good bill when it passed the Legislative Assembly and that it needed no amendment. Well no & had that happened an awful lot of the legal detail would have been decided in the implementation phase. That is behind a busy shroud away from the Parliament by bureaucrats in departments headed up by WALabor Ministers. Too much would have been jerked away from full scrutiny and any issues that arose would have to be raised by members in the Parliament...where the Government under scrutiny had the numbers. Say whatever you like about VAD, say what ever you like about Nick Goiran but fact is, we need full scrutiny at a forensic level to allow Democracy to shine. Did it work 100%? No...rarely does. But it wasn't the Premier's quick rubber stamp.
Worse still the Upper House passed 55 amendments, 23 from Labor, which really flies as a great egg into the Lower House Labor MP's faces and the Preimers that showed how badly wrong they were either by fault or decision. I think decision, because I think Labor is very much of the mind that more that done at the departmental level & less via the Parliament the better...for Labor
2) Then there's Alyssa Hayden MLA (Liberal) who tried valiantly in the Lower House to exercise the arm of democracy in the Lower House. She even commented on how she was sledged that her comments were stupid & silly. Some of those trains of thought were not ignored by the Upper House, not thought as silly & stupid and were woven into the amendments. I've said before its no coincidence that whilst the National Party doesn't interfere in factions, groups or any other part of other parties they did in great numbers man the booths during the by-election for Alyssa's seat supporting her & handing out How-To-Vote cards. Nationals ran no candidate but saw her election was vital for a fairer democratic outcome for the wider state. Still stands tall as a sensible move on the Nationals part.
3) There there's Adele Farina MLA (Labor) who is pro VAD but voted against the bill because she wasn't fully convinced it had full harm reduction woven in...worse still for so called "fans of democracy on the left", she was pressured to vote with the government even though it was a conscience vote & to her credit whether we agree with her vote or not, she used her conscience vote as its designed, not how her party's over reaching crowd decided. Not overly surprised, the left has "over reach" deeply sewn into its DNA.
4) As mentioned before the twitter exchange between Labor MPs Sue Ellery MLC & Jessica Stojkowski MPs where Jessica describe the slow pace as "truly an affront to democracy" - In short "NO". In fact it was voted down early to refer the bill to a legislative committee where far deeper scrutiny & legal advise could be used to get a more water tight & safe Bill sorted and THEN present it to the Upper House, freeing up the Upper House to go on with other business that's been waiting in line for sometime. So there really was no choice, Nick Goiran and others either rolled over and permitted a shrouded ministerial mess or he (and others) stood up and locked in as many improvements and safeguards against loop hole abuse as possible.
Jessica probably need to brush up on the many facets of Democracy and also the rights & responsibilities of being a MP. Failing to exercise those rights IS a failure of responsibility and I applaud the Upper House for serving Democracy and applaud some of those without the numbers in the Lower House for trying.
5) Sad fact is in this whinge fest grotesquely using the word democracy in a hideously twisted form is we still don't see any apology for the bullying of members by other MPs, we don't see the Premier and others concede they should never have pushed for a rubber stamp, no amendment bill nor anyone say actually democracy won out. It may not be the result everyone wanted, but democracy won out. Democracy would have suffered a severe disservice had the Premier & the Labor Government got its preferred pathway and now he's crowing like a braggart that "We did it".
No democracy did it & had the Labor Government done it would have been passed after a few hours sitting and would be put together behind a minister's door. This is one of his stranger back flips and he's had a lot.
6) Other odious part is one of the Labor critics who sledged the Upper House doing its job properly sat in the Lower House and although there was in excess of 150 hours of debate on the Bill, she offered less than 12 minutes on the floor & on the final day, she barely entered the Lower House at all. In fact most of the people who filed in & helped nearly fill the chamber all came in during the last 5 Amendments...and sat silent. They were not there to comment or amend, they were there because Peter Watson MLA, the Speaker of the House had allowed the Media to attend the House to record the significant passing of a landmark bill. I have no problem with the press being there, it seems reasonable & correct. Just a pity that some people only showed up on the last day to catch the camera action. I am surprised they didn't call for a division to get their name recorded.
The Premier gave his speech, no one apologised to Alyssa Hayden, to Adele Farina, to Nick Goiran and to everyone else who exercised their duties to democracy.
Also is the poor explanation to the public. There are not 100s of safeguards. There are eligibility criteria and THEN there's safeguard. Most are eligibility criteria. Most people who have had elderly friends or family in distress in their final days won't be comforted when they learn that many of their dying loved ones wouldn't have been eligible under this legislation.
Most of the public eager for this are operating under the misunderstanding that it's now law & will be up & running soon. No.
The implementation phase is expected to take 18 months but the length of time that takes is very much up to the minister, the Premier & cabinet.
It will be operational most like just prior to the next State election. (Just let that sink in)
Wednesday, 11 December 2019
Thursday, 5 December 2019
Voluntary Assisted Dying Passes the Upper House and now...
VAD, not all it seems...
24 September 2019 The WALabor Government's leader, the WA Premier said — "This is good legislation. It is very well drafted and carefully considered. The government has devoted a huge amount of resources to this bill. It does not require amendment".Now his pressure inferred was, no amendments, rubber stamp it in the Upper House & send it back so we can rubber stamp it with our numbers in the Lower House and rush it through without any alteration at all.
Roger Cook MLA, the WALBor Health Minister went from a respectful middle ground approach BEFORE the Premier's comments to going off the deep end a bit & wanting a solid quick analysis to get the job done quick smart, he said - “The fact they have sought the call, moved so many motions and asked so many often repetitive questions really just shows they’ve got contempt for the public”
“There’s no reason they cannot do a solid piece of analysis and scrutiny of the Bill without unduly delaying it … now is the time they get on with it and finish the job.”
Some how amendments weren't needed yet 55 amendments were made & lets break them down and ponder on them...
25 came from Nick Goiran MLA (Lib)
18 came from the Government (ALP)
6 came from Martin Aldridge MLA (Nats)
4 came from Adele Farina (ALP)
1 came from Martin Pritchard (ALP)
1 came from Alison Xamon (Greens)
So the WA Labor Premier has quite a bit of egg on his face.
a) Of the 55 Amendments that were apparently not required according to the Premier, 23 came from his own Government (Labor Party).
b) Adele Farina MLA (ALP) was in support of Voluntary Assisted Dying voted against the bill because in her words "When I put that question to myself, I came to the answer that I just cannot do it. I know that a lot of people will be very disappointed by that, but I cannot put people in harm’s way. In the full knowledge that my vote will make no difference to the bill passing, I have decided to err on the side of protection of the vulnerable and those who will not get the promised peaceful and pain-free death and to vote against the bill at the third reading."
c) There's a number of concerns for the Government to address, how much in the implementation phase will be sorted by bureaucrats and not have any input by the parliament? Definitely some & we're talking about legislation that seeks to make legal the supply of poison to a person so they may take their own life.
d) There's concerns the amount of data collected is insufficient for the process to be constantly improving. During debate we heard of several people in other jurisdictions that either did not die, or did not die well or peacefully. One taking 88 hours to finally die. Its why the Netherlands overseeing body collects and interprets data to ensure that the taken life is one done so humanely, quietly and as pain free as possible.
e) There are the concerns that a medical practitioner or doctor may not be able to be a conscientious objector to the practice, he/she will have no choice.
f) A specialist is not required to end you life, why? Because there'd be an added cost of making a specialist available to those in rural & regional WA, a cost the Government who wanted this bill did not want to pay for. I'm at a loss as to why a properly qualified specialist could not be flown to where ever needed in WA, because the best estimates are its unlikely that even as many as 50 people will take up the VAD option and of those who do, a proportion will pull out. So we're not talking 50 patients a year in regional WA. It might be very few.
Now it goes to the Lower House. Now we'll see more stupid comments about denying or delaying WA people an option. Which is odd as the Bill will pass now & as for delaying, best estimates for the VAD system going live (no pun intended) will be 12-18 months time. Add to that many people are going to be very disappointed because the VAD is not what they think, eligibility is very very small.
Now had this gone to a legislative committee as Rick Mazza & others hoped for, the Upper House would have been freed up, and the work would have been done with some of the many glitches they identified corrected.
Its not perfect, its got some serious concerns within it. Will they be corrected we don't know, I suspect the anticipated political capital the WALabor Premier hopes to harvest is of greater importance & any & all glitches go behind a departmental shroud to allow the Premier to crow more freely.
Now consider the Twitter exchange below between Labor's Leader of the Upper House Sue Ellery MLC & Labor Lower House MP Jessica Stojkovski MLA and ask why the hell is it that the Legislative Council doing its job as a House of Review, with the Government lodging 18 amendments itself is viewed as "truly an affront to our democracy" ???
Prior to entering Parliament at the last election she worked as a town planner...which serves an important function in society without having any knowledge about democracy at all I guess. Such is the life of a Socialist MP perhaps.
24 September 2019 The WALabor Government's leader, the WA Premier said — "This is good legislation. It is very well drafted and carefully considered. The government has devoted a huge amount of resources to this bill. It does not require amendment".Now his pressure inferred was, no amendments, rubber stamp it in the Upper House & send it back so we can rubber stamp it with our numbers in the Lower House and rush it through without any alteration at all.
Roger Cook MLA, the WALBor Health Minister went from a respectful middle ground approach BEFORE the Premier's comments to going off the deep end a bit & wanting a solid quick analysis to get the job done quick smart, he said - “The fact they have sought the call, moved so many motions and asked so many often repetitive questions really just shows they’ve got contempt for the public”
“There’s no reason they cannot do a solid piece of analysis and scrutiny of the Bill without unduly delaying it … now is the time they get on with it and finish the job.”
Some how amendments weren't needed yet 55 amendments were made & lets break them down and ponder on them...
25 came from Nick Goiran MLA (Lib)
18 came from the Government (ALP)
6 came from Martin Aldridge MLA (Nats)
4 came from Adele Farina (ALP)
1 came from Martin Pritchard (ALP)
1 came from Alison Xamon (Greens)
So the WA Labor Premier has quite a bit of egg on his face.
a) Of the 55 Amendments that were apparently not required according to the Premier, 23 came from his own Government (Labor Party).
b) Adele Farina MLA (ALP) was in support of Voluntary Assisted Dying voted against the bill because in her words "When I put that question to myself, I came to the answer that I just cannot do it. I know that a lot of people will be very disappointed by that, but I cannot put people in harm’s way. In the full knowledge that my vote will make no difference to the bill passing, I have decided to err on the side of protection of the vulnerable and those who will not get the promised peaceful and pain-free death and to vote against the bill at the third reading."
c) There's a number of concerns for the Government to address, how much in the implementation phase will be sorted by bureaucrats and not have any input by the parliament? Definitely some & we're talking about legislation that seeks to make legal the supply of poison to a person so they may take their own life.
d) There's concerns the amount of data collected is insufficient for the process to be constantly improving. During debate we heard of several people in other jurisdictions that either did not die, or did not die well or peacefully. One taking 88 hours to finally die. Its why the Netherlands overseeing body collects and interprets data to ensure that the taken life is one done so humanely, quietly and as pain free as possible.
e) There are the concerns that a medical practitioner or doctor may not be able to be a conscientious objector to the practice, he/she will have no choice.
f) A specialist is not required to end you life, why? Because there'd be an added cost of making a specialist available to those in rural & regional WA, a cost the Government who wanted this bill did not want to pay for. I'm at a loss as to why a properly qualified specialist could not be flown to where ever needed in WA, because the best estimates are its unlikely that even as many as 50 people will take up the VAD option and of those who do, a proportion will pull out. So we're not talking 50 patients a year in regional WA. It might be very few.
Now it goes to the Lower House. Now we'll see more stupid comments about denying or delaying WA people an option. Which is odd as the Bill will pass now & as for delaying, best estimates for the VAD system going live (no pun intended) will be 12-18 months time. Add to that many people are going to be very disappointed because the VAD is not what they think, eligibility is very very small.
Now had this gone to a legislative committee as Rick Mazza & others hoped for, the Upper House would have been freed up, and the work would have been done with some of the many glitches they identified corrected.
Its not perfect, its got some serious concerns within it. Will they be corrected we don't know, I suspect the anticipated political capital the WALabor Premier hopes to harvest is of greater importance & any & all glitches go behind a departmental shroud to allow the Premier to crow more freely.
Now consider the Twitter exchange below between Labor's Leader of the Upper House Sue Ellery MLC & Labor Lower House MP Jessica Stojkovski MLA and ask why the hell is it that the Legislative Council doing its job as a House of Review, with the Government lodging 18 amendments itself is viewed as "truly an affront to our democracy" ???
Prior to entering Parliament at the last election she worked as a town planner...which serves an important function in society without having any knowledge about democracy at all I guess. Such is the life of a Socialist MP perhaps.
No the legislation has some bad glitches, but democracy won, rubber stamps didn't.
Jessica, please read up on democracy, because I don't think it means what you think it means...
Should also add, there's 2 Australian states (nearly) 6 US states and 6 other countries where VAD type laws have been passed and are working (but not entirely problem free). This was important milestone legislation, it should have always taken as long as it takes...not met some arbitrary deadline that suits the Premiers press release timelines. It would have been a disaster had the original bill been passed without amendment because here's the kicker, all the missing safeguards, all the required changes would have to be done by departmental bureaucrats not the Parliament...or not done at all & we wouldn't know until a serious incident hits the press.
Overseeing those bureaucrats would be ministers. The Law would have a parliamentary framework but the actual facets of law would have been dictated by a political party, the WA Labor Party. They would have got it installed to suit a political timeline & the details would be sorted out later. That's still going to happen unfortunately, but less so.
But note the potential political mess that was avoided. Even though this Bill has some serious glitches, so bad it caused a Labor MP in favour of VAD to vote against the Bill there's another greater pair of issues.
More importantly, had the Premier got his way, had the original Bill been passed without amendment then most of the acts of actual law making would have been done by bureaucrats in Government Departments overseen by WALabor Ministers INSTEAD OF HAVING ANY RIGOUROUS PARLIAMENTRY SCRUTINY.
WATCH THIS SPACE, THIS IS A VERY CONCERNING EXAMPLE OF THE GRADUAL SIDE STEPPING OF THE PARLIAMENT WHEN LAW MAKING. ONCE THIS DOOR IS OPENED, IT WILL DESCEND INTO A SPIRALLING HELL AND THE IMMENSE DAMAGE IS INCALCULABLE.
LABOR WANTS TO MAKE LAWS VIA THE DEPARTMENTS UNDER THEIR CONTROL AWAY FROM THE PARLIAMENT AND THE HOUSE OF REVIEW.
Overseeing those bureaucrats would be ministers. The Law would have a parliamentary framework but the actual facets of law would have been dictated by a political party, the WA Labor Party. They would have got it installed to suit a political timeline & the details would be sorted out later. That's still going to happen unfortunately, but less so.
But note the potential political mess that was avoided. Even though this Bill has some serious glitches, so bad it caused a Labor MP in favour of VAD to vote against the Bill there's another greater pair of issues.
Labor's conscience vote isn't mush more than a faux conscience voted evidenced by the pressure Adele Farina MLC has copped.
WATCH THIS SPACE, THIS IS A VERY CONCERNING EXAMPLE OF THE GRADUAL SIDE STEPPING OF THE PARLIAMENT WHEN LAW MAKING. ONCE THIS DOOR IS OPENED, IT WILL DESCEND INTO A SPIRALLING HELL AND THE IMMENSE DAMAGE IS INCALCULABLE.
LABOR WANTS TO MAKE LAWS VIA THE DEPARTMENTS UNDER THEIR CONTROL AWAY FROM THE PARLIAMENT AND THE HOUSE OF REVIEW.
Thursday, 21 November 2019
Stolen Guns - What to do...
Not that hard but seems to be if you're the WA Government. I often wonder do they hope for more incidents so they can slowly phase out all legal firearms ownership or are they just out to lunch like so many other issues they've either ignored or botched when they did finally attend to them?
Barry's Firearms has been broken into twice, once that allegedly included deprivation of liberty & assault. It was also stated that the security at that Gun Shop exceeded the required Government standards.
Well in the early hours of this morning Claremont Firearms in Yangebup was broken into. No word on what was stolen and the shop is closed today as they help police with their investigation.
Is there a solution? Yes there possibly is but it requires some brains & fortitude so legal firearms owners & lawful Gun Shops aren't adversely impacted. Yes its easy.
1) Introduce a permanent "Smart Amnesty" - One where un-licenced firearms are handed into gun dealers. Those handing them in can remain anonymous if they so choose. They can then be sorted. Those that are un-registerable can then be handed into Police for destruction. Those of serviceable order can be then sold to approved firearms owners by the normal application process, whether they be Cat A, B, C, H or even a Collector's Licence.
2) Because gun shops don't buy the firearms that are handed in, they get cost recovery in any sale. The incentive to hand firearms in...simple.
Change the penalty range for theft, possession, possession with intent to sell or supply of firearms to attract a 15 year jail sentence (Minimum) with each firearm being a separate offence with a separate penalty. If you steal or possess a stolen or illegal firearm 15 years. If its 15 firearms then 150 years, you're going to jail for the duration of your natural born life.
This then increases the safety of securely stored firearms in private homes or gun shops without even altering the already compliant storage they already have.
Example - Kim's grandfather came home from WW2 with a captured German Luger 9mm. Its not licenced, its been in the family since the war. Kim has several options, do nothing and risk a hefty jail term, surrender it to a gun shop for sale or destruction via the WA Police (at the Gun Shops discretion & profit margin) or Kim can surrender it pending an application with either normal Cat H licence or a Collectors Licence. If Kim meets the criteria and has an approved application then Kim gets to own the pistol 100% legally. If Kim fails the application process the Gun Shop can on sell it to a collector or approved purchaser or it can be handed into WA Police for destruction.
Net result, we lessen the gun black market, we lessen the unknown illegal stock pile, we destroy unsafe and/or unregisterable firearms & we convert those usable, collectable firearms to legally owned, fully registered firearms.
The state government is not forking out big dollars for illegal firearms in a buy back and gun shops get cost recovery whilst lessening the likelihood of theft of firearms or possession of stolen/illegal firearms.
There's then no further unfair and detrimental impact on those law abiding firearm owners who are actually doing the right thing & we get guns off the streets & target criminals
Its sensible, its smart, its effective which is probably why the WA Labor Government won't do it.
Dear Mr McGowan & Minister Roberts...it really is this simple. Please, get onto it
Barry's Firearms has been broken into twice, once that allegedly included deprivation of liberty & assault. It was also stated that the security at that Gun Shop exceeded the required Government standards.
Well in the early hours of this morning Claremont Firearms in Yangebup was broken into. No word on what was stolen and the shop is closed today as they help police with their investigation.
Is there a solution? Yes there possibly is but it requires some brains & fortitude so legal firearms owners & lawful Gun Shops aren't adversely impacted. Yes its easy.
1) Introduce a permanent "Smart Amnesty" - One where un-licenced firearms are handed into gun dealers. Those handing them in can remain anonymous if they so choose. They can then be sorted. Those that are un-registerable can then be handed into Police for destruction. Those of serviceable order can be then sold to approved firearms owners by the normal application process, whether they be Cat A, B, C, H or even a Collector's Licence.
2) Because gun shops don't buy the firearms that are handed in, they get cost recovery in any sale. The incentive to hand firearms in...simple.
Change the penalty range for theft, possession, possession with intent to sell or supply of firearms to attract a 15 year jail sentence (Minimum) with each firearm being a separate offence with a separate penalty. If you steal or possess a stolen or illegal firearm 15 years. If its 15 firearms then 150 years, you're going to jail for the duration of your natural born life.
This then increases the safety of securely stored firearms in private homes or gun shops without even altering the already compliant storage they already have.
Example - Kim's grandfather came home from WW2 with a captured German Luger 9mm. Its not licenced, its been in the family since the war. Kim has several options, do nothing and risk a hefty jail term, surrender it to a gun shop for sale or destruction via the WA Police (at the Gun Shops discretion & profit margin) or Kim can surrender it pending an application with either normal Cat H licence or a Collectors Licence. If Kim meets the criteria and has an approved application then Kim gets to own the pistol 100% legally. If Kim fails the application process the Gun Shop can on sell it to a collector or approved purchaser or it can be handed into WA Police for destruction.
Net result, we lessen the gun black market, we lessen the unknown illegal stock pile, we destroy unsafe and/or unregisterable firearms & we convert those usable, collectable firearms to legally owned, fully registered firearms.
The state government is not forking out big dollars for illegal firearms in a buy back and gun shops get cost recovery whilst lessening the likelihood of theft of firearms or possession of stolen/illegal firearms.
There's then no further unfair and detrimental impact on those law abiding firearm owners who are actually doing the right thing & we get guns off the streets & target criminals
Its sensible, its smart, its effective which is probably why the WA Labor Government won't do it.
Dear Mr McGowan & Minister Roberts...it really is this simple. Please, get onto it
Friday, 18 October 2019
Gender Diversity on Boards & in the Workplace
Wow what a cluster fluff of opinion & little data but lots of aims & targets.
Are Boards & Workplaces better off with better or
more even diversity?
What's better off (what improves) and what exactly do you mean by diversity?
Under law you can't discriminate on someone's
attributes. Their gender, race, religion, political view, sexual orientation,
marital status. And for good reason, its unfair to.
Having said that, some workplaces are gender dominated by men or by women. That's life.
Yes the majority of truck drivers or anything in the transport industry are men by a margin of roughly 4 to 1. In that industry, performance is key and whilst men dominate in numbers, the percentage or good vs bad operators is probably the same for both genders. It makes little discernable difference.
Healthcare & social services, roughly identical
ratio but its women who are in the majority. Again the percentage of good vs not
good is probably the same so again little or no discernable difference.
More men that women choose transport, more women than men choose health. Its a choice.
Studies have shown that men are more likely to choose overtime & working away whilst women are more likely to be drawn to flexible hours, less likely to work away from home, family & friends. These are neither weaknesses or strengths, they're just the way it goes and people can decide what they do.
So is it proven that an equal number of men & women
on a board leads to greater benefits to the board & the company?
Well what studies there are, its pretty inconclusive. What is known at this point is the most effective & successful boards have the most effective & successful directors, CEOs, processes & support staff.
The most effective & successful boards usually
have Director Performance reviews to assess the directors & to identify
required skills that are missing or areas a particular director needs to build
on.
Because effective & successful boards have Director Education Programmes tailored to the whole board & the individual directors. To build their skillset & ramp board performance.
The most effective & successful boards also assess
their CEO and the running of the board meeting, the meeting papers and have
well fitting policies & procedures as well as good governance. A board's
job is to bring strategic thinking, the management is to install it by using
their strategic planning.
The most effective & successful boards also have
good strategy formulation and monitoring systems.
So far none of these things are gender specific or gender slanted.
The most effective & successful boards probably know that perception is a thing and right now gender diversity is a real big thing. They also know they need to work hard to get the best directors of the female crop. There aren't as many female directors as male. In fact the rough estimate is there are 2 male directors to every female directors.
So if the competency is the roughly the same in percentage for each gender then the pool of really good female directors is roughly half what the really good male directors is. Its just a percentage based on the scale of the numbers so if you're an effective & successful board you know having some gender diversity is a good look & if you get the best female directors you're no worse off, possibly depending on skill sets better off...and your shareholders perceive the gender balance to be great.
So if a board is all male or all female it probably
makes very little difference to director skills.
But the best boards will get the best female directors.
The rights and responsibilities of a director are the
same whether you're male or female.
You legal duties, your fiduciary duty all the same whether you're male or female.
If you're a nurse, a plumber, a director, a pilot, a teacher, a CEO your performance is down to you, not your gender.
Should we be setting targets for gender diversity in transport, education, labouring, health, parliament, senior management or boards?
Some strong views out there but for me, its a no. We should provide equal opportunity and allow people to sink or swim on their own performance. We should tell people they can pursue any career they want but if they don't meet the required standards in that field then its probably not the job for them & they should look at other work, other careers. Not everyone can be a miner or a MP or a shearer or receptionist. Gender is not really a big deal, personal performance is.
In broad terms these are some established & widely accepted board aspects, none of which are entirely gender specific when it comes to effectiveness & success...
The Board of Directors is a control governance mechanism, aimed to monitor managerial activities so as to mitigate agency costs (Jensen, 1993), and to set the strategic objectives which should orientate the course of the company (Hillman and Dalziel, 2003). The Board's supervisory tasks include: monitoring the CEO, and the implementation of the firms long term strategy, firing and hiring the CEO and assessing and rewarding the CEO/top managers of the firm (Hillman and Dalziel, 2003).
So if you want more women on your board (or in parliament) go for it. Get the very best women you can, because you should get the best people you can, just know you may have a smaller pool of outstanding directors in the female camp purely because of scale. If you don't care about gender & just want the very best director you can find, going solely by skills and experience, go for it. Either way you'll be ok. But if you go by a quota, well someone's getting the job because of their gender and someone is missing out because of their gender and skillset aside, you put gender first.
What Society has to determine is, what is gender
because to some there's 200+ genders to some there's an infinite number of
genders and to many of us there's just male, female and in 1.7% of the
population intersex.
Now if you chase gender diversity how do you manage
with 200+ or infinite number of genders?
How do you manage with male, female, transmale,
transfemale or those who have physical attributes of one gender but "identify"
wholly as the other traditional gender? Now if we're talking the workplace of
Professional Sport, do we abolish all gender sports and have all sports of
mixed genders or do we have male & female sports or do we allow someone who
was a man for 25 years, now a transwoman or gender reassigned woman compete in
women's football, cage fighting, weight lifting?
Thursday, 17 October 2019
Feminism Today...I had to ask some questions
So where is feminism today? Its a bit of a mine field for some. No harm in asking, nothing helpful in not knowing
Everyone can have a view, but apparently some think if you're a man you cannot have an opinion on it and other people say a man can have an opinion on it.
Some are of the view a man can be a feminist & some say they cannot.
Then the minefield gets flooded with petrol because some men claim to be "male feminists" and some women claim they actually don't support feminism.
So it gets tricky but sometimes its easier with some than with others. Sooooo…I asked 2 ladies I've come to know online. Both I've never met in person. Both are straight shooters, or as they old saying goes "Good old fashioned no sh!t sheilas"
One is a younger than me person of a conservative political leaning. One is an older than me person and is of a very left political leaning. I figure there's bound to be truth somewhere in between them.
So I asked the following,
"How accurate do you think this is...the Feminist Movement has been seen in 3 waves...
1) Enemy of unfairness then...
2) Enemy of men...then to now where’s beginning to be
3) Enemy of men & women but a Chardonnay Socialist’s joyful playground. "
The younger conservative said "Basically. Great Summary"
The older Left leaner said "Sadly bang f**kin on. Turned into a no win tribal sh*t show, in fact itll probably get worse from here on in for everyone"
Well that threw me for 6, I thought, well I dunno what I thought they'd say. Guess I was expecting 2 very passionate, very clear to them views from their respectively different political viewpoints & I'd see points I never considered. I was expecting long deep answers.
Both cut to the chase, knew exactly what they thought long before I put the question to them
I didn't know if there is or was 3 waves or 20 or 1, I just gave a personal view to prompt them to sit up, think & share. I wasn't expecting commonality between them & certainly wasn't thinking they'd think similar to me.
Yes I did ask the older Left Leaner what she thought I meant by Chardonnay Socialist and pleasantly surprised me. She said...
"Chardonnay Socialists are a thing alright, but we just call them dogs. I've seen you post about them a lot and got to tell you they're not from the left or the right. They're from their own pirate ship making whatever noises they need to so they can fill up for free. They're not crusty old school right wads in nor True Believers or any of the good people in between. They only love themselves, they're dogs."
She went onto say that not all so called feminists were Chardonnay Socialists but old school feminism is really only needed in Asia, the Middle East and a few other places. She added "But it'll get you ****ing killed quick smart in those places and no one bats an eye"
The next question I was going to ask was to do with Misogyny & Misandry but don't think there's any point. My view is they're actually the same thing.
Misogyny = Sh!t people doing Sh!t things to other people who really don't deserve it.
Misandry = Sh!t people doing Sh!t things to other people who really don't deserve it.
I'm thinking they might just agree with that too.
I'm good with that.
Everyone can have a view, but apparently some think if you're a man you cannot have an opinion on it and other people say a man can have an opinion on it.
Some are of the view a man can be a feminist & some say they cannot.
Then the minefield gets flooded with petrol because some men claim to be "male feminists" and some women claim they actually don't support feminism.
So it gets tricky but sometimes its easier with some than with others. Sooooo…I asked 2 ladies I've come to know online. Both I've never met in person. Both are straight shooters, or as they old saying goes "Good old fashioned no sh!t sheilas"
One is a younger than me person of a conservative political leaning. One is an older than me person and is of a very left political leaning. I figure there's bound to be truth somewhere in between them.
So I asked the following,
"How accurate do you think this is...the Feminist Movement has been seen in 3 waves...
1) Enemy of unfairness then...
2) Enemy of men...then to now where’s beginning to be
3) Enemy of men & women but a Chardonnay Socialist’s joyful playground. "
The younger conservative said "Basically. Great Summary"
The older Left leaner said "Sadly bang f**kin on. Turned into a no win tribal sh*t show, in fact itll probably get worse from here on in for everyone"
Well that threw me for 6, I thought, well I dunno what I thought they'd say. Guess I was expecting 2 very passionate, very clear to them views from their respectively different political viewpoints & I'd see points I never considered. I was expecting long deep answers.
Both cut to the chase, knew exactly what they thought long before I put the question to them
I didn't know if there is or was 3 waves or 20 or 1, I just gave a personal view to prompt them to sit up, think & share. I wasn't expecting commonality between them & certainly wasn't thinking they'd think similar to me.
Yes I did ask the older Left Leaner what she thought I meant by Chardonnay Socialist and pleasantly surprised me. She said...
"Chardonnay Socialists are a thing alright, but we just call them dogs. I've seen you post about them a lot and got to tell you they're not from the left or the right. They're from their own pirate ship making whatever noises they need to so they can fill up for free. They're not crusty old school right wads in nor True Believers or any of the good people in between. They only love themselves, they're dogs."
She went onto say that not all so called feminists were Chardonnay Socialists but old school feminism is really only needed in Asia, the Middle East and a few other places. She added "But it'll get you ****ing killed quick smart in those places and no one bats an eye"
The next question I was going to ask was to do with Misogyny & Misandry but don't think there's any point. My view is they're actually the same thing.
Misogyny = Sh!t people doing Sh!t things to other people who really don't deserve it.
Misandry = Sh!t people doing Sh!t things to other people who really don't deserve it.
I'm thinking they might just agree with that too.
There probably was a reason for 2 separate gender specific terms once, maybe there still is but to me they're both unacceptable because they're both Sh!t people doing Sh!t things to other people who really don't deserve it.
Kind off killed of any chances of this being a long blog entry. Maybe I should just stay calm & remember its pretty cool that I found myself in full agreeance with 2 politically polar opposite ladies on feminism...and maybe all three of us are right, maybe all three of us are wrong. Seems like I was the only one caught out surprised. I thought I knew, they knew it.
Kind off killed of any chances of this being a long blog entry. Maybe I should just stay calm & remember its pretty cool that I found myself in full agreeance with 2 politically polar opposite ladies on feminism...and maybe all three of us are right, maybe all three of us are wrong. Seems like I was the only one caught out surprised. I thought I knew, they knew it.
I'm good with that.
(I might chuck the link of this to the 2 ladies & ask if they want to add a comment below or if they want to remain nameless I can copy/paste just below instead of the comment section)
Tuesday, 1 October 2019
Does your board need female directors & how many?
Yes, odd question that will immediately set up for sandbags either way for some but it is a pertinent question. Do women think & therefore decide differently on matter than men?
Well there's quite a few studies that we can cite & people often do except often the studies chosen can be chosen upon the conclusions & not the methodology. Its a tricky path.
But does a board do better with a female influence and if some is good, is more better.
Yes.
And No.
In the case of a board, directors are confined to act within boundaries, these boundaries are oblivious to a person's gender. A board is skill based or should be. You'd hope you can have at the higher levels, higher levels of required skills in certain fields. Legal, financial, strategic are just some of the angles directors have to confront...in the best interests of the shareholders otherwise known as their "Fiduciary Duty".
The emphasis is deliberate yet shouldn't be required but...it is.
The perpetuity of the company and the best interests of the shareholders or members is key but sometimes forgotten. This aspect is in the Corporations Act.
All very no gender centric.
But do women & men think differently and if so how much is nature & how much is nurture?
Yes and we don't know definitively. We know the effect of nature is not zero, the effect of nurture or culture or upbringing or any other social influence is not zero. We know not all men think exactly the same, we know all women don't think exactly the same and we know corporate psychopaths can be male or female. We know altruistic people can be male or female and we know embezzlers can be of either gender too.
So are there advantages of having women on boards? Yes, most likely. Having a genuine spread of individuals with life skills, board skills is paramount though and if you don't have women (or men) on your board right now don't stress unless you think it's "just a bad look", If your board is operating well, if your business is operating well, if you're meeting your targets, your compliance requirements and you're enjoying growth, get on with things.
It is possible to have a successful board that is all male, all female or a slanted or even dead equal mix. It is a historical fact, that most company directors in the last 50 years have predominantly been men & its a current fact that this is changing. Nowadays women are applying for jobs they may not have historically done in large numbers once. This is not a bad thing.
What is a bad thing is if a board should think it needs a "coupla gals on board" to meet a pub test. What is a bad thing is if a board, or a company at its AGM should think that 50:50 gender balance on the board is a desirable outcome.
What should be the aim is the perpetuity of the organisation & the benefit and best interests of the shareholders...the owners. The Corporations Act does not view things as a Gender playing field and I don't think responsible boards or shareholders should either. If they find a good director, with a good business background, a good board history and in possession of particular skills in an area the board is possibly deficient in that are identified as required...consider grabbing that director irrespective of their gender.
Fact is less women apply for board positions today, yes more now than ever before but it is predominantly a male domain. There's a number of reasons for this, a number of non discriminatory reasons and a number of biased reasons why. Know the difference, then fix the fault. There are less women studying their MBA yet more women studying that than probably ever before. As a result I'd expect to see less female CEOs & less female CFOs...and less of them going onto to a life away from management & a career in boards. That is just one variable and its not sexist, its part of the entire equation.
Are women equal to men? Under law yes. In fact 2 people with the same skills, with the same experience in the same job must be paid the same. irrespective of their race, religion, gender anything else. But some get paid more because they've been in the job longer, some work longer, some get extra skills & advance their positions. But it is illegal to benefit someone or penalise someone purely on the basis of their gender.
Women probably do in a very general sense think differently than men, they may be wired differently than men but I don't think its an earth shattering day night differences, its possibly far more nuanced and it's largely rendered immaterial under the Corporations Act.
So seek out good directors and ignore their gender. It will be, by & large, irrelevant. Treat men & women equally by ignoring their gender & focusing on the skills, knowledge and experience they have, what deficiencies you board is trying to fix and press on.
It is odd we now have a point where if a person identifies as something they are that something. A sort of bizarre subjective truth. A man identifying as a women is accepted by many as being a woman. The change appears to be a mix of surgery, prescription chemicals and mind set. That used to be man is now a woman. So does that "new" woman think like a woman now?
Do the genders actually have differences we should celebrate or is it just mind set & surgery that separates men & women? Can't really have it both ways.
I think there are areas where gender is irrelevant and certain workplaces like the board room is clearly one of them. Other workplaces still need segregation. The extreme example, elite level rugby league or AFL. Or weight lifting or other Olympic competitions.
I believe there will always be more men in the field of interstate trucking, brick laying, plumbing and general labouring jobs. There will always be more women in nursing and teaching. These things are not negatives, they are "just are".
I do think it odd that we must have gender balance in boards & the parliaments, 50:50 as soon as possible but while this aim is applied to high paying, high profile white collar jobs the same gender balance is not applied to bricklaying. Will you new house have better walls if 50% of the bricklayers during construction were male and 50% were female? At some point we will have to ignore the gender balance & just get on with the job and focus solely on the equal opportunity being presented and then the performance being the telling judgement point.
When I get on board a jet plane I don't care if the pilot is male or female, I just care & trust they can take off, fly & land without incident. Their gender will play no role in their ability and if it does, then that's not a gender issue, its a performance issue.
I worry that good well meaning people will over look a vital point. By having a quota or worse still and inferred need to get people into a job due to their gender they overlook the fact that someone is missing out on a job due to their gender.
MBAs are a respected degree, but a MBA really only gets you your first job. Its the performance of your first job that will get you your second job. Your MBA is a required milestone, its not a guarantee of a long successful career. You need an MBA to have the OPPORTUNITY to apply & hopefully get a job, it should never be a seen as a God given right to a guaranteed outcome.
Life does not have equal outcomes, but we should all have equal opportunities.
Well there's quite a few studies that we can cite & people often do except often the studies chosen can be chosen upon the conclusions & not the methodology. Its a tricky path.
But does a board do better with a female influence and if some is good, is more better.
Yes.
And No.
In the case of a board, directors are confined to act within boundaries, these boundaries are oblivious to a person's gender. A board is skill based or should be. You'd hope you can have at the higher levels, higher levels of required skills in certain fields. Legal, financial, strategic are just some of the angles directors have to confront...in the best interests of the shareholders otherwise known as their "Fiduciary Duty".
The emphasis is deliberate yet shouldn't be required but...it is.
The perpetuity of the company and the best interests of the shareholders or members is key but sometimes forgotten. This aspect is in the Corporations Act.
All very no gender centric.
But do women & men think differently and if so how much is nature & how much is nurture?
Yes and we don't know definitively. We know the effect of nature is not zero, the effect of nurture or culture or upbringing or any other social influence is not zero. We know not all men think exactly the same, we know all women don't think exactly the same and we know corporate psychopaths can be male or female. We know altruistic people can be male or female and we know embezzlers can be of either gender too.
So are there advantages of having women on boards? Yes, most likely. Having a genuine spread of individuals with life skills, board skills is paramount though and if you don't have women (or men) on your board right now don't stress unless you think it's "just a bad look", If your board is operating well, if your business is operating well, if you're meeting your targets, your compliance requirements and you're enjoying growth, get on with things.
It is possible to have a successful board that is all male, all female or a slanted or even dead equal mix. It is a historical fact, that most company directors in the last 50 years have predominantly been men & its a current fact that this is changing. Nowadays women are applying for jobs they may not have historically done in large numbers once. This is not a bad thing.
What is a bad thing is if a board should think it needs a "coupla gals on board" to meet a pub test. What is a bad thing is if a board, or a company at its AGM should think that 50:50 gender balance on the board is a desirable outcome.
What should be the aim is the perpetuity of the organisation & the benefit and best interests of the shareholders...the owners. The Corporations Act does not view things as a Gender playing field and I don't think responsible boards or shareholders should either. If they find a good director, with a good business background, a good board history and in possession of particular skills in an area the board is possibly deficient in that are identified as required...consider grabbing that director irrespective of their gender.
Fact is less women apply for board positions today, yes more now than ever before but it is predominantly a male domain. There's a number of reasons for this, a number of non discriminatory reasons and a number of biased reasons why. Know the difference, then fix the fault. There are less women studying their MBA yet more women studying that than probably ever before. As a result I'd expect to see less female CEOs & less female CFOs...and less of them going onto to a life away from management & a career in boards. That is just one variable and its not sexist, its part of the entire equation.
Are women equal to men? Under law yes. In fact 2 people with the same skills, with the same experience in the same job must be paid the same. irrespective of their race, religion, gender anything else. But some get paid more because they've been in the job longer, some work longer, some get extra skills & advance their positions. But it is illegal to benefit someone or penalise someone purely on the basis of their gender.
Women probably do in a very general sense think differently than men, they may be wired differently than men but I don't think its an earth shattering day night differences, its possibly far more nuanced and it's largely rendered immaterial under the Corporations Act.
So seek out good directors and ignore their gender. It will be, by & large, irrelevant. Treat men & women equally by ignoring their gender & focusing on the skills, knowledge and experience they have, what deficiencies you board is trying to fix and press on.
It is odd we now have a point where if a person identifies as something they are that something. A sort of bizarre subjective truth. A man identifying as a women is accepted by many as being a woman. The change appears to be a mix of surgery, prescription chemicals and mind set. That used to be man is now a woman. So does that "new" woman think like a woman now?
Do the genders actually have differences we should celebrate or is it just mind set & surgery that separates men & women? Can't really have it both ways.
I think there are areas where gender is irrelevant and certain workplaces like the board room is clearly one of them. Other workplaces still need segregation. The extreme example, elite level rugby league or AFL. Or weight lifting or other Olympic competitions.
I believe there will always be more men in the field of interstate trucking, brick laying, plumbing and general labouring jobs. There will always be more women in nursing and teaching. These things are not negatives, they are "just are".
I do think it odd that we must have gender balance in boards & the parliaments, 50:50 as soon as possible but while this aim is applied to high paying, high profile white collar jobs the same gender balance is not applied to bricklaying. Will you new house have better walls if 50% of the bricklayers during construction were male and 50% were female? At some point we will have to ignore the gender balance & just get on with the job and focus solely on the equal opportunity being presented and then the performance being the telling judgement point.
When I get on board a jet plane I don't care if the pilot is male or female, I just care & trust they can take off, fly & land without incident. Their gender will play no role in their ability and if it does, then that's not a gender issue, its a performance issue.
I worry that good well meaning people will over look a vital point. By having a quota or worse still and inferred need to get people into a job due to their gender they overlook the fact that someone is missing out on a job due to their gender.
MBAs are a respected degree, but a MBA really only gets you your first job. Its the performance of your first job that will get you your second job. Your MBA is a required milestone, its not a guarantee of a long successful career. You need an MBA to have the OPPORTUNITY to apply & hopefully get a job, it should never be a seen as a God given right to a guaranteed outcome.
Life does not have equal outcomes, but we should all have equal opportunities.
In citing some studies of men vs women thinking we risk creating or adding to existing neurosexism.
No Board Needs That. It Needs People Appropriate Skills Performing Well.
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.htmlFriday, 6 September 2019
You choose, you pay, not "you choose & I pay"
If you want to use drugs I'd tell you don't. Its a bad, appallingly bad choice. Using meth/ice, cocaine, heroin, cannabis etc is not a wise choice. Sniffing petrol, glues or acetone products are not wise choices. Despite what anyone tells you they are the worst of bad choices, however good or bad your life is, taking these and any of a much longer list of drugs is going to make your life worse, inextricably worse. Many will eventually will end your life in the worst possible, most undignified manner. Some will turn to crime, theft and/or prostitution to raise funds for their addiction. Others will become dealers and peddle death & misery to others to pay for their addiction.
If you use drugs, go for it. I'll tell you not to, I'll try to talk you into getting smart & clean but if you're determined to stay on drugs I cannot physically force you against your will to get off drugs. If you can take drugs & be of no burden to your loved ones, your family & friends or a cost to the economy, the society, the law & order/health budget then its your choice.
It is undemocratic and ethically unfair for me to pay for your addiction as a tax payer. If you turn to crime or become unproductive as an employer or worse choose to stay on unemployment benefits to keep your addiction going you're unfairly forcing me to be one of your enablers. I do not want to be partly responsible for you staying on drugs. Yes, if there's a good chance rehab will get you clean then as a tax payer I'm willing to pay for that. I am not liable to help you stay on drugs.
Have you seen this person? Here's a parallel. Extreme body modifications. Your choice.
Image:
Maria Jose Cristerna, known as 'Vampire Woman', holds the Guinness World Record for being the woman with more changes in her body in America (JOHAN ORDONEZ/AFP/GettyImages)
Now I don't know this person pictured or anything about them but bluntly, what they've done to themselves is their business, their choice. I don't have to be a fan of it, I can be reviled by but its their choice & I won't enforce my thoughts or will upon them.
Similarly I would expect such people to pay for their own life choices. If they can get a job or not be a burden on society that's great, but if they've made themselves unemployable then a full pension to subsidise their "life choice" their cultural creation then its not my responsibility to foot the bill they create. If I go to a pub, have 2 beers and steak sandwich I pay for it. I don't do a runner & make the pub subsidise my nourishment, I don't forward the bill to the government. I pay for my own choices and ensure it doesn't affect others.
If you take drugs, illegal/illicit drugs its a reasonable expectation of a wise society to help you make wiser life decisions & assist you get off drugs. But if you steal, or break any law to fund your addiction you have to go to jail.
Decriminalising drugs won't pay for your drugs so the ill effects on society remain.
Its probably time to build a special drug jail. One that specialises in rehab whilst incarcerated. Where detox & remapping an addicts life with both medical & mental health experts is part of the daily regiment. Where you stay until you're clean and recalibrated or you've served your time for you crimes, whichever comes first. And yes, physical activities like sport, exercise & physical work are a must. Religious instruction to be available to those who choose it.
If you re-offend you should come back for double whatever your sentence is to increase your chances of getting your life in order.
As a member of society I'm happy to be part of the solution and pay for it. The benefits are there for the individual and society as a whole. It is not fair that we as a society pay & suffer for the addiction of others.
If you use drugs, go for it. I'll tell you not to, I'll try to talk you into getting smart & clean but if you're determined to stay on drugs I cannot physically force you against your will to get off drugs. If you can take drugs & be of no burden to your loved ones, your family & friends or a cost to the economy, the society, the law & order/health budget then its your choice.
It is undemocratic and ethically unfair for me to pay for your addiction as a tax payer. If you turn to crime or become unproductive as an employer or worse choose to stay on unemployment benefits to keep your addiction going you're unfairly forcing me to be one of your enablers. I do not want to be partly responsible for you staying on drugs. Yes, if there's a good chance rehab will get you clean then as a tax payer I'm willing to pay for that. I am not liable to help you stay on drugs.
Have you seen this person? Here's a parallel. Extreme body modifications. Your choice.
Now I don't know this person pictured or anything about them but bluntly, what they've done to themselves is their business, their choice. I don't have to be a fan of it, I can be reviled by but its their choice & I won't enforce my thoughts or will upon them.
Similarly I would expect such people to pay for their own life choices. If they can get a job or not be a burden on society that's great, but if they've made themselves unemployable then a full pension to subsidise their "life choice" their cultural creation then its not my responsibility to foot the bill they create. If I go to a pub, have 2 beers and steak sandwich I pay for it. I don't do a runner & make the pub subsidise my nourishment, I don't forward the bill to the government. I pay for my own choices and ensure it doesn't affect others.
If you take drugs, illegal/illicit drugs its a reasonable expectation of a wise society to help you make wiser life decisions & assist you get off drugs. But if you steal, or break any law to fund your addiction you have to go to jail.
Decriminalising drugs won't pay for your drugs so the ill effects on society remain.
Its probably time to build a special drug jail. One that specialises in rehab whilst incarcerated. Where detox & remapping an addicts life with both medical & mental health experts is part of the daily regiment. Where you stay until you're clean and recalibrated or you've served your time for you crimes, whichever comes first. And yes, physical activities like sport, exercise & physical work are a must. Religious instruction to be available to those who choose it.
If you re-offend you should come back for double whatever your sentence is to increase your chances of getting your life in order.
As a member of society I'm happy to be part of the solution and pay for it. The benefits are there for the individual and society as a whole. It is not fair that we as a society pay & suffer for the addiction of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)