So, we saw reported in the news that a kangaroo was subjected to some vile abject cruelty. The report on the radio said it may have been hit by a car, then subjected to some extremely cruel treatment.
The report stated the kangaroo had been disembowelled and partially skinned.
I'd like to think this sadly was due to a collision with the car, but the RSPCA inspector seemed to be sure some or all of it was due to acts
The RSPCA is hoping that whoever was responsible will have told someone, bragged or sent photos around via social media. Hopefully someone will view the sickness and report the people responsible.
Here's the RSPCA article.
https://www.rspcawa.asn.au/news/2017-06-28-information-sought-following-another-violent-act-of-animal-cruelty-in-wa
My hope separate from this is that RSPCA realises that the kangaroo numbers are at an all time high and to properly prevent cruel death by nature that culling numbers down to sustainable numbers is needed as soon as possible.
In the station country you can see numbers soar during a good season or two and if drought follows, there's massive deaths as they're totally unsustainable. Emus have at times hit bubbles and then burst.
In the south west of WA, there's very little professional roo shooters operating with the meat market on hold for several years now. As a result, and due to the large amount of crops, pastures, dams, troughs and no predators numbers have soared.
I support the RSPCA on a number of things. I oppose them on some. Then there's some like culling kangaroos I'd urge them to push. If not, they need to explain what they're likely to do when the bubble of unsustainable numbers finally bursts.
Thursday, 29 June 2017
Friday, 16 June 2017
The New National Gun Amnesty of 2017
Michael Keenan announced that starting July 1st there will be a three month national firearms amnesty where unregistered and unwanted firearms could be handed in “no questions asked”.
Here's the thing though Michael Keenan failed to mention one significant point. This is no different to the already permanent amnesties in many states that exist already.
Is it useful & good? Yes, if you have an unlicensed firearm, think about handing it in. You can do that before, during or after the official National Amnesty. If you live in the eastern states you can take it to a police station and it will be destroyed or you can take it to a gun dealer where it can become a licenced firearm...licenced to you or someone else if you want to sell it.
Now the media fell for the lop sided sell, or perhaps they're to blame for it but the claim stated is this is the first amnesty since 1996.
1996 was different it was a buy back amnesty. It took an awful lot of registered & unregistered firearms and destroyed them. Are we safer? Well the mass shootings decreased, the gun violence decreased but what we're not often aware of is those crimes were falling BEFORE the Port Arthur Tragedy. They continued to fall at the same rate after the buy back was implemented. Many unwanted and non working firearms were handed in for a cash return. Not such a bad thing & nor is this amnesty.
Its just that if you have a 1915 .303 rifle in the back of the closet or wrapped up in the shed you can hand it in now without being charged and fined $200,000.
Now be sure if you are planning to hand in a firearm and/or ammunition, RING THE POLICE AND MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. Not just to secure a time, but so they know its coming and all is legit. Paperwork, yep there maybe some but its easy so don't fret. If you want the firearm disposed of properly its easy. That's going to be the case before, during and after the amnesty.
Now the only issue I have with the Amnesty is it's potentially being sold or inferred as an anti-crime or anti-terrorism action, its not even close. They're pointing to "grand dad's old .22" well really, that's not going to be the criminal or terrorist's weapon of choice.
The real problem is the matter of firearms coming through our porous borders. The recent "Post Office Glocks" was a perfect example of 100s of firearms being smuggled in by less than sophisticated means. Now its great they caught the culprits, the trouble is all the firearms that already made it through and that are amongst us on the streets.
Not Granpa's old .22
The Port Arthur shooting details are now well known. He had several firearms, one wasn't fired but facts remain, the shooter was a deranged psychopath who's prison health worker (a professor no less) said Bryant has difficulty discerning reality from fantasy. He had no gun licence, no driver's licence but the access to reasonably large amounts of money and just went and bought what he wanted.
It was a serious mental health issue that caused one of Australia's worst murder sprees.
$500 million dollars was sunk into buying back guns, no extra money went into filling the cracks that serious mentally ill people fall.
Lindt Café, well that inquiry is just tragic fact after tragic fact. If the legal system were tighter it might have been averted but thing is, another person with violent extremism in his mind went & secured an illegal firearm. He had no gun licence.
The shooter who murdered police worker Victor Cheng, again radicalised by terrorist ideology had no gun licence. The origin of the firearm is that its thought to have been legitimately sold in the USA, then disappears & somehow ends up on the streets in Paramatta.
In these 3 high profile tragedies, licenced shooters are not the problem. People with access to illegal firearms is the problem. In all 3 cases "Granpa's old .22" is irrelevant and unconnected.
The difficulty we face is there are illegal gun smugglers and illegal gunsmiths operating in Australia. Illegal gunsmiths making all sorts of firearms. A cache of shed made mm machine pistols with full auto have been seized more than once. Forget 3D guns, crims will go for real ones.
The 260,000 illegal firearms in Australia that Michael Keenan quoted comes from a senate report that goes onto say its impossible to know how many illegal guns there are.
The reaction to the 1996 tragedy was big and was largely ill directed however it did roll out some net safety benefits for the community. Gun safes are now normal, higher security is deemed responsible whereas in the old day firearms were often stored behind a door or in a cupboard.
Troubling is if we're to reach a point that's closer to a solution we need to look at the wider facts.
I often hear we don't want to get like America, we don't want to go down the path of the USA.
Watch this...you'll see how facts are funny things and as a result we're not tracking properly on problem solving yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz8po5E_Kfg
Here's the thing though Michael Keenan failed to mention one significant point. This is no different to the already permanent amnesties in many states that exist already.
Is it useful & good? Yes, if you have an unlicensed firearm, think about handing it in. You can do that before, during or after the official National Amnesty. If you live in the eastern states you can take it to a police station and it will be destroyed or you can take it to a gun dealer where it can become a licenced firearm...licenced to you or someone else if you want to sell it.
Now the media fell for the lop sided sell, or perhaps they're to blame for it but the claim stated is this is the first amnesty since 1996.
1996 was different it was a buy back amnesty. It took an awful lot of registered & unregistered firearms and destroyed them. Are we safer? Well the mass shootings decreased, the gun violence decreased but what we're not often aware of is those crimes were falling BEFORE the Port Arthur Tragedy. They continued to fall at the same rate after the buy back was implemented. Many unwanted and non working firearms were handed in for a cash return. Not such a bad thing & nor is this amnesty.
Its just that if you have a 1915 .303 rifle in the back of the closet or wrapped up in the shed you can hand it in now without being charged and fined $200,000.
Now be sure if you are planning to hand in a firearm and/or ammunition, RING THE POLICE AND MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. Not just to secure a time, but so they know its coming and all is legit. Paperwork, yep there maybe some but its easy so don't fret. If you want the firearm disposed of properly its easy. That's going to be the case before, during and after the amnesty.
Now the only issue I have with the Amnesty is it's potentially being sold or inferred as an anti-crime or anti-terrorism action, its not even close. They're pointing to "grand dad's old .22" well really, that's not going to be the criminal or terrorist's weapon of choice.
The real problem is the matter of firearms coming through our porous borders. The recent "Post Office Glocks" was a perfect example of 100s of firearms being smuggled in by less than sophisticated means. Now its great they caught the culprits, the trouble is all the firearms that already made it through and that are amongst us on the streets.
Not Granpa's old .22
The Port Arthur shooting details are now well known. He had several firearms, one wasn't fired but facts remain, the shooter was a deranged psychopath who's prison health worker (a professor no less) said Bryant has difficulty discerning reality from fantasy. He had no gun licence, no driver's licence but the access to reasonably large amounts of money and just went and bought what he wanted.
It was a serious mental health issue that caused one of Australia's worst murder sprees.
$500 million dollars was sunk into buying back guns, no extra money went into filling the cracks that serious mentally ill people fall.
Lindt Café, well that inquiry is just tragic fact after tragic fact. If the legal system were tighter it might have been averted but thing is, another person with violent extremism in his mind went & secured an illegal firearm. He had no gun licence.
The shooter who murdered police worker Victor Cheng, again radicalised by terrorist ideology had no gun licence. The origin of the firearm is that its thought to have been legitimately sold in the USA, then disappears & somehow ends up on the streets in Paramatta.
In these 3 high profile tragedies, licenced shooters are not the problem. People with access to illegal firearms is the problem. In all 3 cases "Granpa's old .22" is irrelevant and unconnected.
The difficulty we face is there are illegal gun smugglers and illegal gunsmiths operating in Australia. Illegal gunsmiths making all sorts of firearms. A cache of shed made mm machine pistols with full auto have been seized more than once. Forget 3D guns, crims will go for real ones.
The 260,000 illegal firearms in Australia that Michael Keenan quoted comes from a senate report that goes onto say its impossible to know how many illegal guns there are.
The reaction to the 1996 tragedy was big and was largely ill directed however it did roll out some net safety benefits for the community. Gun safes are now normal, higher security is deemed responsible whereas in the old day firearms were often stored behind a door or in a cupboard.
Troubling is if we're to reach a point that's closer to a solution we need to look at the wider facts.
I often hear we don't want to get like America, we don't want to go down the path of the USA.
Watch this...you'll see how facts are funny things and as a result we're not tracking properly on problem solving yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz8po5E_Kfg
Tuesday, 13 June 2017
Gender Equality - On Boards, Executive Levels - What the?
Its been discussed amongst members of the Australian Institute of Company Directors for quite a few years, a lot of inequity issues have. Good directors from the Not for Profit sector (male and female) find it hard, many impossible to break into the For Profit boards if they're had a good history, a long history with NFPs.
For some, its the longer they're NFP directors the more likely they'll stay there. Is that a problem? No.
Unless you aspire to be on a public company and the door really is shut. Irrespective of gender the way through is sometimes the old boys network, or the old school tie thing and sometimes the numbers of female directors to choose from is low so they'll grab a lady with good NFP experience and open the door to get their gender balance improved. Not often people have an easy transition from NFP to FP so we're exploring experiences of people in low numbers.
So is it true that boards with good gender equality are more profitable or work better? The point is argued & to be honest it may or may not be the whole picture, or rather it maybe true but there's a little more to it.
Generally good board culture is imperative and a board with good board culture may seek to determine if gender diversity is an ideal to pursue & what a good gender balance looks like. Boards with very good board culture are usually more likely to have a proper Director Evaluation Programme, a Board Assessment Process (yes they're 2 different things) and a Director Education Programme. They will usually assess board meetings for efficiency, participation, process and compliance & there'll be a Chairman Evaluation as well.
Sounds weighty and prone to becoming bogged down. No. They're generally very short but thorough processes that point to skills lacking and where governance needs a leg up or training needs to be set out.
And there's the problem, boards with GOOD processes that lead to a continual path of improvement ALWAYS do better...and most of them generally consider gender diversity to be an important part of "Board Culture"
Stop, now breath deeply and focus.
Board Culture. Its a part of an adopted Board Culture, not an accepted part of board efficiency. The AICD Courses all point to Gender Equity being a noble, sensible and fair thing to slide into any board's culture. I totally agree.
But when you assess a board, the criteria does not come down to x number of females is required for the best performance of the company or the board. That is just patently wrong. I sat on a board which had a positive culture and they walked the talk by ensuring that one sub committee it ran had an even number of committee members with 50% of them being women.
Ironically the committee did ok but it was hamstrung. We had more top quality women than men to choose from. Going 50:50 was set but it meant we had a gentleman on the committee who was far less skilled and experienced than one of the women who had to miss out due to the prescribed quota number. When the gentleman in question resigned because he wasn't coping we changed our charter for that committee and ended up with a higher number of women than men and the committee went forward. Now don't interpret that as being women are better than men. That's not the case, the majority of the best candidates just so happened to be women. A subsequent committee had one less woman than the men and it preformed equally well. We were able to pick the best candidates and we didn't let gender be a barrier NOR and an advantage to anyone. Merit & performance were the key.
This is the cautionary example of why installing quotas can actually lead to gender based criteria that then stifles a committee. Heaven help you if you get that problem at the board level.
Will the school tie/boys club thing continue? Yes. People will refer other directors they know & trust or have worked well with on other boards. There are clear advantages & disadvantages of doing that, the primary motivation should ALWAYS be your fiduciary duty. Is it in the company's best interest? If so, then whether they're male or female, known unknown or a long time pal is irrelevant.
It comes back to merit. Gender imbalance will continue for sometime. Every AICD course I've been to was male dominant, some not by much, some by a lot. Course enrolments for MBAs have only in the last decade got above 40% for women.
Should we push for more women in the field? I think no. I think we should encourage more women who are interested and make their pathways same as men's. That way if I'm part of a board looking to replace a resigned director we have a bigger field to choose from and therefore are better placed to find a better director the AGM is more likely to re-elect.
Do women possess certain skills men don't in the board room? Possibly but its not science and it sure isn't reflected in AICD training that your average board needs x number of women to be across a particular skill set because men haven't got it.
Should boards be 50:50 men & women? They can, I think it doesn't matter, they need to be 100% compliant with the Corporations Act, they need to make good strategy and function well in the best interests of the company...whether they're all men or all women or some sort of split really is irrelevant.
Breaking into the boards of listed companies is not easy for the new & aspiring director. People (male or female) will tend to use what they can to get the door open a sliver, call a friend, get a tap on the shoulder, speak with an ex school mate. It happens. For now though its quite possible that whilst there's a push for more female directors & there's less to choose from that some will take on more than they can adequately devote time to. One prominent WA based director had this problem of popularity and at one point was a full time director sitting on 7 boards and 3 of them she chaired.
It didn't take long for her to heed the advice that she needed to cut her directorships and chair roles to a point where all boards got a fair share of her time & got good value for money. No one should be on 7 boards and chairing 3 of them. Too thin over too much. It wasn't her gender that caused that mistake, it was ambition over taking her ability.
That's not gender specific, that's a human thing.
So don't chase a set number of women for a board. If you elect less than adequate directors (male or female) it will show, it will reflect in the board's performance.
Same for CEOs. There are brilliant men & women CEOs to choose from, choose the one best suited to your company. Don't grab a token male or female thinking they will therefore by virtue of their gender provide a performance based skill set you're lacking.
A culture of equality is admirable, but its shouldn't be silly or at the cost of performance.
I worry in some cases less than adequate female directors have been acquired and because they may not have been the best director (irrespective of their gender) that other female directors get labelled quota queens and less than worthy.
Director evaluation is paramount. It should be used to improve director skills experience and performance and then hopefully we'll look solely at merit not a required gender ratio.
Remember at present there just aren't the same number of female CEO or female board applicants so that'll probably reflect in the company numbers for quite some time.
I note the comments that there is not many other fields where gender balance has become such a paramount social issue. The 50:50 aspiration has not been applied to nursing, truck driving, plumbing, dress making, mid-wifery, plant operators, shearers or welders. Can women do these jobs? Yes they can and they do and many are highly skilled at what they do.
Do we push for 50:50 participation though?
No seems like only in parliament and on boards.
I've worked on committees & sat on boards with women and men. I've worked with male & female CEOs, CFOs etc some quite younger than me. Age & gender never really came into it.
I don't think it should pushed & pursued to the detriment of the company but if a woman wants to become a great CEO/Director/whatever she should be encouraged and supported.
For some, its the longer they're NFP directors the more likely they'll stay there. Is that a problem? No.
Unless you aspire to be on a public company and the door really is shut. Irrespective of gender the way through is sometimes the old boys network, or the old school tie thing and sometimes the numbers of female directors to choose from is low so they'll grab a lady with good NFP experience and open the door to get their gender balance improved. Not often people have an easy transition from NFP to FP so we're exploring experiences of people in low numbers.
So is it true that boards with good gender equality are more profitable or work better? The point is argued & to be honest it may or may not be the whole picture, or rather it maybe true but there's a little more to it.
Generally good board culture is imperative and a board with good board culture may seek to determine if gender diversity is an ideal to pursue & what a good gender balance looks like. Boards with very good board culture are usually more likely to have a proper Director Evaluation Programme, a Board Assessment Process (yes they're 2 different things) and a Director Education Programme. They will usually assess board meetings for efficiency, participation, process and compliance & there'll be a Chairman Evaluation as well.
Sounds weighty and prone to becoming bogged down. No. They're generally very short but thorough processes that point to skills lacking and where governance needs a leg up or training needs to be set out.
And there's the problem, boards with GOOD processes that lead to a continual path of improvement ALWAYS do better...and most of them generally consider gender diversity to be an important part of "Board Culture"
Stop, now breath deeply and focus.
Board Culture. Its a part of an adopted Board Culture, not an accepted part of board efficiency. The AICD Courses all point to Gender Equity being a noble, sensible and fair thing to slide into any board's culture. I totally agree.
But when you assess a board, the criteria does not come down to x number of females is required for the best performance of the company or the board. That is just patently wrong. I sat on a board which had a positive culture and they walked the talk by ensuring that one sub committee it ran had an even number of committee members with 50% of them being women.
Ironically the committee did ok but it was hamstrung. We had more top quality women than men to choose from. Going 50:50 was set but it meant we had a gentleman on the committee who was far less skilled and experienced than one of the women who had to miss out due to the prescribed quota number. When the gentleman in question resigned because he wasn't coping we changed our charter for that committee and ended up with a higher number of women than men and the committee went forward. Now don't interpret that as being women are better than men. That's not the case, the majority of the best candidates just so happened to be women. A subsequent committee had one less woman than the men and it preformed equally well. We were able to pick the best candidates and we didn't let gender be a barrier NOR and an advantage to anyone. Merit & performance were the key.
This is the cautionary example of why installing quotas can actually lead to gender based criteria that then stifles a committee. Heaven help you if you get that problem at the board level.
Will the school tie/boys club thing continue? Yes. People will refer other directors they know & trust or have worked well with on other boards. There are clear advantages & disadvantages of doing that, the primary motivation should ALWAYS be your fiduciary duty. Is it in the company's best interest? If so, then whether they're male or female, known unknown or a long time pal is irrelevant.
It comes back to merit. Gender imbalance will continue for sometime. Every AICD course I've been to was male dominant, some not by much, some by a lot. Course enrolments for MBAs have only in the last decade got above 40% for women.
Should we push for more women in the field? I think no. I think we should encourage more women who are interested and make their pathways same as men's. That way if I'm part of a board looking to replace a resigned director we have a bigger field to choose from and therefore are better placed to find a better director the AGM is more likely to re-elect.
Do women possess certain skills men don't in the board room? Possibly but its not science and it sure isn't reflected in AICD training that your average board needs x number of women to be across a particular skill set because men haven't got it.
Should boards be 50:50 men & women? They can, I think it doesn't matter, they need to be 100% compliant with the Corporations Act, they need to make good strategy and function well in the best interests of the company...whether they're all men or all women or some sort of split really is irrelevant.
Breaking into the boards of listed companies is not easy for the new & aspiring director. People (male or female) will tend to use what they can to get the door open a sliver, call a friend, get a tap on the shoulder, speak with an ex school mate. It happens. For now though its quite possible that whilst there's a push for more female directors & there's less to choose from that some will take on more than they can adequately devote time to. One prominent WA based director had this problem of popularity and at one point was a full time director sitting on 7 boards and 3 of them she chaired.
It didn't take long for her to heed the advice that she needed to cut her directorships and chair roles to a point where all boards got a fair share of her time & got good value for money. No one should be on 7 boards and chairing 3 of them. Too thin over too much. It wasn't her gender that caused that mistake, it was ambition over taking her ability.
That's not gender specific, that's a human thing.
So don't chase a set number of women for a board. If you elect less than adequate directors (male or female) it will show, it will reflect in the board's performance.
Same for CEOs. There are brilliant men & women CEOs to choose from, choose the one best suited to your company. Don't grab a token male or female thinking they will therefore by virtue of their gender provide a performance based skill set you're lacking.
A culture of equality is admirable, but its shouldn't be silly or at the cost of performance.
I worry in some cases less than adequate female directors have been acquired and because they may not have been the best director (irrespective of their gender) that other female directors get labelled quota queens and less than worthy.
Director evaluation is paramount. It should be used to improve director skills experience and performance and then hopefully we'll look solely at merit not a required gender ratio.
Remember at present there just aren't the same number of female CEO or female board applicants so that'll probably reflect in the company numbers for quite some time.
I note the comments that there is not many other fields where gender balance has become such a paramount social issue. The 50:50 aspiration has not been applied to nursing, truck driving, plumbing, dress making, mid-wifery, plant operators, shearers or welders. Can women do these jobs? Yes they can and they do and many are highly skilled at what they do.
Do we push for 50:50 participation though?
No seems like only in parliament and on boards.
I've worked on committees & sat on boards with women and men. I've worked with male & female CEOs, CFOs etc some quite younger than me. Age & gender never really came into it.
I don't think it should pushed & pursued to the detriment of the company but if a woman wants to become a great CEO/Director/whatever she should be encouraged and supported.
Saturday, 3 June 2017
Margret Court, SSM & The Internet Frenzy
Been a big frenzy online for over a week now. Lots doing the rounds and for Australians the biggest things have been politics but others popped up. Margaret Court on SSM, Schapelle Corby and how poor old Nat Fyfe & Josh Kennedy are travelling all copped mentions but Court & SSM really one or stood out for the vitriol factor.
Ex Champion tennis great Margaret Court publicly declared and commented on SSM, not just once but followed up about it being a sin against God and should be opposed. Then things went mad.
The internet outrage went full steam and anyone having a similar view to the former champion was, like she was, labelled intolerant and/or a bigot.
It probably got all the attention it did due to the previous cream pie incident with QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce. Without that it may have been a lesser ripple.
Interesting the angles people use to promote their position. Wrongly citing the Bible to muzzle Court was common, especially the bit about women keeping quiet in church. The bit they really needed was the section of Scripture that outlines the qualifications of the office of pastor. That bit about it needing to be a married man with children, sober of good standing etc. That would disqualify Mrs Court straight away. There is the odd irony and contradiction of some possibly atheist people using the wrong parts of the Bible they don't believe in the try & quieten a "pastor" yet whilst they use that Scripture they dismiss all others that condemns SSM & homosexuality. There is a fact that remains - There is no passage anywhere in Scripture that says its ok & not a sin. So oddly the non believer will condemn Mrs Court for her clear contradiction of her chosen faith yet ignore her stance on SSM being 100% in alignment with Scripture. Scripture the atheist doesn't believe in.
Then is came along from a noted theologian...who carefully read the Bible wrong and journos and news services plugged into the opinion piece not checking to see if this "theologian" applied proper in context exegesis.
Check here to read the article Paul Murray cited
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-02/margaret-court-marriage-bible-isnt-meant-to-be-read-so-literally/8583412
Interesting that Internet Frenzy said often that Mrs Court should follow the Bible as it states women should be quiet in church. Interesting that the article of Robyn Whitaker doesn't mention that, her being a woman and all.
Robyn's opening line reads "Margaret Court is wrong to claim marriage is "a union between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible",as she did in her open letter to Qantas, or that a "biblical view" of marriage is between one man and one woman, as she did on Channel Ten's The Project last week."
Robyn's opening line and the wheels fall off. She focuses on marriage, goes to ancient & superseded practice of polygamy mention different languages but still avoids the key foundation Biblical point that Margaret Court made. The Bible states homosexuality is a sin, not just a sin but an abomination before God. There is no passage in Scripture anywhere that shows that edict from God has been changed, modified or done away with. If indeed that were the case, or if mankind were able to do that to suit his culture or his times then God will have to go back & apologise to everyone in Sodom & Gomorrah.
So Robyn fails in the first sentence but being a clever academic I'm sure she'll have a well worded, well crafted retort. Fact remains, in the Christian faith SSM cannot be supported.
Now should Mrs Court be a pastor in a church giving sermons? No.
1Timothy 3 The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher,
Sorry Margaret, you shouldn't be preaching, but as far as Scripture goes you are properly in alignment with the Bible goes on SSM & homosexuality.
Robyn Whitaker is teaching on Bible scripture as an academic. She's teaching people in opinion pieces on her view on Margaret Court & SSM and how she feels its aligns with Scripture.
She might do well to read 1Timothy2 from start to finish and see what the Bible says about women teaching the Bible and God's Word. Well so too could Mrs Court.
They're both off track and well away from the go to manual, the Bible. Interesting though as Robyn Whitaker will be held aloft by some journos as the go to expert now.
Robyn Whitaker's article went onto say
"In the New Testament, Jesus said nothing about homosexual relationships or marriage, except that people should not divorce.
This teaching is widely ignored by many Christian denominations today."
That's because He didn't replace God's view on homosexuality. It was an abomination & still is. This odd twisting of the New Testament is not uncommon, especially by those straying from proper in context exegesis and wanting to implement a new brand of Christian faith that contradicts the Scriptures.
Here another wheel falls of Whitaker's wagon...
"When Paul writes "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), he presents an ideology profoundly disruptive of patriarchal family structures, gender roles and hierarchy."
Wrong Robyn, you're twisting Scripture again. That passage is about how there is no divisions left when you accept Christ and become a Christian, you are in equal status before God, your role does not change and its not a tearing down of the role of marriage to allow SSM.
Robyn, you're beginning to look like a highly educated Scripture Twister. Might need to go check out Pirate Christian Radio.
Robyn says this means a break down & break away from traditional marriage because as she thinks "Jesus' own mother, who is an example of faith in the church's tradition, appears to have left her husband and other children at home to follow her itinerant son."No evidence of her ever leaving her husband in the Scriptures. No evidence of her abandoning other children either. This assertion opens a possible claim that Christ must have been all ok with a women ditching her marriage & children. Utter silliness, very dangerous deception
Robyn continues...
Not all opinions are of equal weight. While Margaret Court remains one of the most phenomenal sportswomen in Australian history, this does not qualify her as a spokesperson for Christianity on marriage equality.
Nor does being a self-appointed leader of a church she created.
Well Robyn you're correct, not all opinions are of equal weight but if you're making a comment on the Bible, opinions are left out completely otherwise moral relativism lets you make up whatever feels good and you're ignoring completely what the Bible says & meant.
Proper in context exegesis...
Sporting prowess does not qualify a person to anything. The real authority on Christianity is the Bible, not a tennis champion nor an academic failing proper in context exegesis. The church Mrs Court created is kinda Christian looking, but if it has female pastors, its a false church. Its not that hard, its just based on Scripture. Her "church" may be right on any number of doctrine matters, including SSM & homosexuality but its still a false church.
Keep going Robyn...
Indeed, if Ms Court applied the literalism with which she reads Genesis to the whole of the Bible, she'd find herself in hot water, since 1 Timothy 2:12 explicitly forbids women teaching or having any authority over men.Are you teaching men on Biblical matters Robyn? Mrs Court fails the Biblical qualifications for pastor, but that's not connected to her stance on other matters. She can be wrong on one key thing by teaching men and being a pastor, but that's no basis for saying she's therefore wrong on everything.
Just saying...another correlation/causation rabbit hole for the easily fooled.
This kind of culturally bound ideology is precisely why biblical scholars and mainstream Christian churches do not adhere to a literal interpretation of this ancient and diverse text.Mainstream? Don't be concerned about fringe vs mainstream...numbers don't make it proper exegesis. There is no sensible scholar or pastor who takes Bible text as requiring to be 100% literal in interpretation. There's hundreds of different literary devices in use in the Bible. Some are factual historical accounts, some are parable, some are metaphors, some are shadows, types some meanings are hidden in the meaning of the names. Some need to be taken as literal, some don't and cannot.
Qu - Do you take the Bible literally?
Ans- No I take it seriously and try to read it as it was intended.
To criticise and expect a higher level of discourse from a public figure is not bullying nor persecution.
To be fair, Robyn's discourse is an opinion, possibly fuelled by what she thinks and/or feels. It certainly isn't based on proper in context exegesis. By her interpretation Marriage was over when Paul preached to the Galatians and we could all morph the construct into whatever made man happiest. That's what she's suggested.
There is nothing inherently Christian about the so-called traditional arrangement of the nuclear family.Man & one wife? Might need to stop the academic studies and lecture rounds & pop off to a good Bible study. Your Christianity has stray from the Scriptures. I'm only assuming you're Christian.
You can find that model in the Bible if you look for it, but it is not the dominant view. Nor does the Bible condemn what we understand to be loving, mutual LGBTQI relationships today.Well it does actually. You need to study up. If God is OK with LGBTQI relationships He will have to go back & apologise to all the people of Sodom & Gomorrah.
Odd really straight marriage is not inherently Christian but there's nothing in the Bible saying SSM isn't. Hmmm...making the narrative fit the mindset requires omissions and twisting.
Then Robyn goes closer to her core beliefs...hint it isn't Bible based.
Concepts of family and marriage have evolved and changed throughout human history, including within the church.People & cultures do evolve...but the Bible says God's Word doesn't. Some covenants have replaced others but there wasn't an abomination list that gets slowly edited as humans & so called churches evolve. There's a reason Paul wrote 7 letters to 7 churches. He'll have to apologise to those that strayed from God's Word...or perhaps they lived in a different time and the evolution wasn't really off the mark then(?)
Modern Christian families can be made up of gay couples, straight couples, single people in community, childless adults, foster parents, step-parents, grandparents and biological parents.Correct...except for the Gay Couples bit. Robyn needs a chapter and verse that specifically outlines that homosexuality is no longer an abomination. Now this is the key bit...abomination. Not a law, not a bit of sin, not part of a covenant, not a cultural thing, not a regional tradition...to God it's an abomination. If Robyn can find the things that are an "abomination" to God, then put them in a list, then cite passages of Scripture where any of them are now all ok with God...well that'd be a Good start.
Robyn's views are not unique, but they do certainly contradict the Bible.
It is their faith that makes them Christian, not their family structure nor sexuality.Well no the Bible is very clear on what makes you a Christian and very clear what your faith should be. To be Christian you have to repent AND turn from your sins, accept Christ as your Lord & Saviour. Paul has to write to the Corinthians and others to remind them that acting as a Christian every day is difficult but you need to step up and get with the programme. You can't really accept Christ and stay in an adulterous relationship or other sinful ways. Many atheists themselves would be quick and right to say that's just plain hypocritical.
Many Christians are not represented by the views we've recently heard from Margaret Court, nor those espoused by the so-called Australian Christian Lobby.Well Scripture proves Scripture so unless a person or group adheres to proper in context exegesis then they can form whatever views they like, mine is if you're going to be Christian, follow the Bible in a proper way.
In fact, quite the opposite. Christian values of love, justice and inclusion found throughout the Bible are why so many Christians support marriage equality.That may be so, that maybe why those people support SSM, but how does that square with the fact there is no Bible Scripture ANYWHERE that says the marriage is on for 2 consenting people of the same gender?
How do those "Christians" reconcile that abominations weren't a part of covenants, they were abominations. The shellfish one often comes up. easy for me I don't like Shellfish so I don't eat it but its still because that only ever applied to practising Jews and I'm a "gentile". Hard for anyone to be a practising Jew either...there is no Temple.
Robyn had a view, an opinion and a stance. Its not based on Scripture and she had to twist it to sorta make it work.
Mrs Court has a stance that's based on Biblical Scripture but she shouldn't be a pastor.
If you're a Sola Scriptura Christian then Court is right on SSM & Robyn isn't. Court shouldn't be a pastor and neither Court or Whitaker should be teaching on Scripture.
Robyn Whitaker's take is one of the very small "l" liberal persuasion where academics apply deep learning to the Scriptures, but miss much of the teaching or leave it quite open to selective interpretation. Many journos anr/or hard nose anti Christians will lock onto Robyn Whitaker's opinion as they support SSM but more importantly she's used as a Bible authority AND she's saying Court is wrong and SSM is very ok.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Ex Champion tennis great Margaret Court publicly declared and commented on SSM, not just once but followed up about it being a sin against God and should be opposed. Then things went mad.
The internet outrage went full steam and anyone having a similar view to the former champion was, like she was, labelled intolerant and/or a bigot.
It probably got all the attention it did due to the previous cream pie incident with QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce. Without that it may have been a lesser ripple.
Interesting the angles people use to promote their position. Wrongly citing the Bible to muzzle Court was common, especially the bit about women keeping quiet in church. The bit they really needed was the section of Scripture that outlines the qualifications of the office of pastor. That bit about it needing to be a married man with children, sober of good standing etc. That would disqualify Mrs Court straight away. There is the odd irony and contradiction of some possibly atheist people using the wrong parts of the Bible they don't believe in the try & quieten a "pastor" yet whilst they use that Scripture they dismiss all others that condemns SSM & homosexuality. There is a fact that remains - There is no passage anywhere in Scripture that says its ok & not a sin. So oddly the non believer will condemn Mrs Court for her clear contradiction of her chosen faith yet ignore her stance on SSM being 100% in alignment with Scripture. Scripture the atheist doesn't believe in.
Then is came along from a noted theologian...who carefully read the Bible wrong and journos and news services plugged into the opinion piece not checking to see if this "theologian" applied proper in context exegesis.
Check here to read the article Paul Murray cited
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-02/margaret-court-marriage-bible-isnt-meant-to-be-read-so-literally/8583412
Interesting that Internet Frenzy said often that Mrs Court should follow the Bible as it states women should be quiet in church. Interesting that the article of Robyn Whitaker doesn't mention that, her being a woman and all.
Robyn's opening line reads "Margaret Court is wrong to claim marriage is "a union between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible",as she did in her open letter to Qantas, or that a "biblical view" of marriage is between one man and one woman, as she did on Channel Ten's The Project last week."
Robyn's opening line and the wheels fall off. She focuses on marriage, goes to ancient & superseded practice of polygamy mention different languages but still avoids the key foundation Biblical point that Margaret Court made. The Bible states homosexuality is a sin, not just a sin but an abomination before God. There is no passage in Scripture anywhere that shows that edict from God has been changed, modified or done away with. If indeed that were the case, or if mankind were able to do that to suit his culture or his times then God will have to go back & apologise to everyone in Sodom & Gomorrah.
So Robyn fails in the first sentence but being a clever academic I'm sure she'll have a well worded, well crafted retort. Fact remains, in the Christian faith SSM cannot be supported.
Now should Mrs Court be a pastor in a church giving sermons? No.
1Timothy 3 The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher,
Sorry Margaret, you shouldn't be preaching, but as far as Scripture goes you are properly in alignment with the Bible goes on SSM & homosexuality.
Robyn Whitaker is teaching on Bible scripture as an academic. She's teaching people in opinion pieces on her view on Margaret Court & SSM and how she feels its aligns with Scripture.
She might do well to read 1Timothy2 from start to finish and see what the Bible says about women teaching the Bible and God's Word. Well so too could Mrs Court.
They're both off track and well away from the go to manual, the Bible. Interesting though as Robyn Whitaker will be held aloft by some journos as the go to expert now.
Robyn Whitaker's article went onto say
"In the New Testament, Jesus said nothing about homosexual relationships or marriage, except that people should not divorce.
This teaching is widely ignored by many Christian denominations today."
That's because He didn't replace God's view on homosexuality. It was an abomination & still is. This odd twisting of the New Testament is not uncommon, especially by those straying from proper in context exegesis and wanting to implement a new brand of Christian faith that contradicts the Scriptures.
Here another wheel falls of Whitaker's wagon...
"When Paul writes "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), he presents an ideology profoundly disruptive of patriarchal family structures, gender roles and hierarchy."
Wrong Robyn, you're twisting Scripture again. That passage is about how there is no divisions left when you accept Christ and become a Christian, you are in equal status before God, your role does not change and its not a tearing down of the role of marriage to allow SSM.
Robyn, you're beginning to look like a highly educated Scripture Twister. Might need to go check out Pirate Christian Radio.
Robyn says this means a break down & break away from traditional marriage because as she thinks "Jesus' own mother, who is an example of faith in the church's tradition, appears to have left her husband and other children at home to follow her itinerant son."No evidence of her ever leaving her husband in the Scriptures. No evidence of her abandoning other children either. This assertion opens a possible claim that Christ must have been all ok with a women ditching her marriage & children. Utter silliness, very dangerous deception
Robyn continues...
Not all opinions are of equal weight. While Margaret Court remains one of the most phenomenal sportswomen in Australian history, this does not qualify her as a spokesperson for Christianity on marriage equality.
Nor does being a self-appointed leader of a church she created.
Well Robyn you're correct, not all opinions are of equal weight but if you're making a comment on the Bible, opinions are left out completely otherwise moral relativism lets you make up whatever feels good and you're ignoring completely what the Bible says & meant.
Proper in context exegesis...
Sporting prowess does not qualify a person to anything. The real authority on Christianity is the Bible, not a tennis champion nor an academic failing proper in context exegesis. The church Mrs Court created is kinda Christian looking, but if it has female pastors, its a false church. Its not that hard, its just based on Scripture. Her "church" may be right on any number of doctrine matters, including SSM & homosexuality but its still a false church.
Keep going Robyn...
Indeed, if Ms Court applied the literalism with which she reads Genesis to the whole of the Bible, she'd find herself in hot water, since 1 Timothy 2:12 explicitly forbids women teaching or having any authority over men.Are you teaching men on Biblical matters Robyn? Mrs Court fails the Biblical qualifications for pastor, but that's not connected to her stance on other matters. She can be wrong on one key thing by teaching men and being a pastor, but that's no basis for saying she's therefore wrong on everything.
Just saying...another correlation/causation rabbit hole for the easily fooled.
This kind of culturally bound ideology is precisely why biblical scholars and mainstream Christian churches do not adhere to a literal interpretation of this ancient and diverse text.Mainstream? Don't be concerned about fringe vs mainstream...numbers don't make it proper exegesis. There is no sensible scholar or pastor who takes Bible text as requiring to be 100% literal in interpretation. There's hundreds of different literary devices in use in the Bible. Some are factual historical accounts, some are parable, some are metaphors, some are shadows, types some meanings are hidden in the meaning of the names. Some need to be taken as literal, some don't and cannot.
Qu - Do you take the Bible literally?
Ans- No I take it seriously and try to read it as it was intended.
To criticise and expect a higher level of discourse from a public figure is not bullying nor persecution.
To be fair, Robyn's discourse is an opinion, possibly fuelled by what she thinks and/or feels. It certainly isn't based on proper in context exegesis. By her interpretation Marriage was over when Paul preached to the Galatians and we could all morph the construct into whatever made man happiest. That's what she's suggested.
There is nothing inherently Christian about the so-called traditional arrangement of the nuclear family.Man & one wife? Might need to stop the academic studies and lecture rounds & pop off to a good Bible study. Your Christianity has stray from the Scriptures. I'm only assuming you're Christian.
You can find that model in the Bible if you look for it, but it is not the dominant view. Nor does the Bible condemn what we understand to be loving, mutual LGBTQI relationships today.Well it does actually. You need to study up. If God is OK with LGBTQI relationships He will have to go back & apologise to all the people of Sodom & Gomorrah.
Odd really straight marriage is not inherently Christian but there's nothing in the Bible saying SSM isn't. Hmmm...making the narrative fit the mindset requires omissions and twisting.
Then Robyn goes closer to her core beliefs...hint it isn't Bible based.
Concepts of family and marriage have evolved and changed throughout human history, including within the church.People & cultures do evolve...but the Bible says God's Word doesn't. Some covenants have replaced others but there wasn't an abomination list that gets slowly edited as humans & so called churches evolve. There's a reason Paul wrote 7 letters to 7 churches. He'll have to apologise to those that strayed from God's Word...or perhaps they lived in a different time and the evolution wasn't really off the mark then(?)
Modern Christian families can be made up of gay couples, straight couples, single people in community, childless adults, foster parents, step-parents, grandparents and biological parents.Correct...except for the Gay Couples bit. Robyn needs a chapter and verse that specifically outlines that homosexuality is no longer an abomination. Now this is the key bit...abomination. Not a law, not a bit of sin, not part of a covenant, not a cultural thing, not a regional tradition...to God it's an abomination. If Robyn can find the things that are an "abomination" to God, then put them in a list, then cite passages of Scripture where any of them are now all ok with God...well that'd be a Good start.
Robyn's views are not unique, but they do certainly contradict the Bible.
It is their faith that makes them Christian, not their family structure nor sexuality.Well no the Bible is very clear on what makes you a Christian and very clear what your faith should be. To be Christian you have to repent AND turn from your sins, accept Christ as your Lord & Saviour. Paul has to write to the Corinthians and others to remind them that acting as a Christian every day is difficult but you need to step up and get with the programme. You can't really accept Christ and stay in an adulterous relationship or other sinful ways. Many atheists themselves would be quick and right to say that's just plain hypocritical.
Many Christians are not represented by the views we've recently heard from Margaret Court, nor those espoused by the so-called Australian Christian Lobby.Well Scripture proves Scripture so unless a person or group adheres to proper in context exegesis then they can form whatever views they like, mine is if you're going to be Christian, follow the Bible in a proper way.
In fact, quite the opposite. Christian values of love, justice and inclusion found throughout the Bible are why so many Christians support marriage equality.That may be so, that maybe why those people support SSM, but how does that square with the fact there is no Bible Scripture ANYWHERE that says the marriage is on for 2 consenting people of the same gender?
How do those "Christians" reconcile that abominations weren't a part of covenants, they were abominations. The shellfish one often comes up. easy for me I don't like Shellfish so I don't eat it but its still because that only ever applied to practising Jews and I'm a "gentile". Hard for anyone to be a practising Jew either...there is no Temple.
Robyn had a view, an opinion and a stance. Its not based on Scripture and she had to twist it to sorta make it work.
Mrs Court has a stance that's based on Biblical Scripture but she shouldn't be a pastor.
If you're a Sola Scriptura Christian then Court is right on SSM & Robyn isn't. Court shouldn't be a pastor and neither Court or Whitaker should be teaching on Scripture.
Robyn Whitaker's take is one of the very small "l" liberal persuasion where academics apply deep learning to the Scriptures, but miss much of the teaching or leave it quite open to selective interpretation. Many journos anr/or hard nose anti Christians will lock onto Robyn Whitaker's opinion as they support SSM but more importantly she's used as a Bible authority AND she's saying Court is wrong and SSM is very ok.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Friday, 12 May 2017
WA's Speaker of the House is from Albany so...
So, what does it mean? Quite a bit and not a lot.
Peter Watson MLA is the (Labor) Member for Albany and was first elected to the WA Parliament in 2001. He's had a good run, is well regarded as a representative and a couple of times defeated some real quality opponents in recent state elections.
Its not anti age sentiment that causes me to say this, its just facts. Peter has been in Parliament 16 years & this year he turns 70. It is plain and fair to say, the majority of his political career has passed and it's likely this will be his last term in office.
Labor was swept to power in the big red tsunami and Peter found himself a member of parliament and a member of the government. He was also elected as Speaker of the House.
This saw him, in a jovial way, man handled to the Speaker's chair at the opening of parliament. Its a very old tradition that comes from the House of Commons in the UK. The Speaker of the House was the person who relayed the opinions and views of the House of Commons to the King. There were occasions were the King took exception to the House's views and the Speaker was executed. So the man handling to the seat is a tradition that's continued to this day.
So what does it mean for Albany's residents? Not much in one respect, if you're having trouble with whatever issue that requires you to contact the local MP, that goes on as before. The MP can still going into bat for you on matters as per before. He still represents the electorate.
However there's a list of things the Speaker can & cannot do unlike a normal MP.
And that leads us to today's dilemma. We now have a legislative representative for Albany who can't form legislation, can't vote for it, can't vote against it, can't cross the floor in the best interests of the electorate, has no say on the electorate's behalf on the floor of parliament, cannot ask questions, cannot call anyone to account...all they can do is administer a supposedly impartial umpiring set of decisions on the MPs who can be a part of the system.
You phone or power gets cut off accidently and getting it resolved is not gong smoothly, yes your local member may be able to help. But if a raft of legislation needs support or opposition...he is not your man. It is very easy to say "The government is very aware that as a MP & Speaker I'll still talk to and fight hard for my electorate"
It's as common as someone retiring for any reason at all saying "Stepping down to spend more time with the family".
Classic hollowism that can not be adequately verified nor disproved, good go-to-tactical-replies, straight our of Sir Humphrey Applebee's handbook.
Wash up - Albany has a representative, possibly in his last term of office who is speaker of the house with no legislative vote, no legislative voice, no formal place in the formation of government business and cannot publicly speak on matters of government business.
He's an umpire. Will he be good for Albany?
Possibly as good as he's ever been as he isn't burdened with government business, nor a cabinet seat...where he would have been able to be more closely involved with government decision making.
He may or may not fight for Albany with his government colleagues...there is absolutely no way of knowing at all. If he thinks we should believe that he can influence cabinet to make decisions in the best interests of the State AND Albany whilst he's the lower house umpire...well I should offer to sell him a bridge.
This is the game, he is an umpire which puts him well outside forming, supporting, opposing or amending legislation.
Bit like putting your money into footy tipping at work but you can't actually pick any teams.
Peter Watson MLA is the (Labor) Member for Albany and was first elected to the WA Parliament in 2001. He's had a good run, is well regarded as a representative and a couple of times defeated some real quality opponents in recent state elections.
Its not anti age sentiment that causes me to say this, its just facts. Peter has been in Parliament 16 years & this year he turns 70. It is plain and fair to say, the majority of his political career has passed and it's likely this will be his last term in office.
Labor was swept to power in the big red tsunami and Peter found himself a member of parliament and a member of the government. He was also elected as Speaker of the House.
This saw him, in a jovial way, man handled to the Speaker's chair at the opening of parliament. Its a very old tradition that comes from the House of Commons in the UK. The Speaker of the House was the person who relayed the opinions and views of the House of Commons to the King. There were occasions were the King took exception to the House's views and the Speaker was executed. So the man handling to the seat is a tradition that's continued to this day.
So what does it mean for Albany's residents? Not much in one respect, if you're having trouble with whatever issue that requires you to contact the local MP, that goes on as before. The MP can still going into bat for you on matters as per before. He still represents the electorate.
However there's a list of things the Speaker can & cannot do unlike a normal MP.
- The Speaker does not have any formal role in the formation of government business. He or she may claim they'll still "stand up and fight for..." their electorate, that the government MPs know they'll be pushing for their electorate long & hard, but they're outside the process. They're not in cabinet, they have no pull and basically have as a member of government as much clout as a brand new back bencher.
- The Speaker cannot speak for or against any bill in parliament. In fact they're not allowed to speak out publicly on government business, they're an umpire. So they're constrained only to speaking in private to government members.
- The Speaker cannot put a bill forward in Parliament nor be a part of formulating a bill.
- The Speaker cannot vote for or against a bill, in fact the only time & place they can vote is if there's a tie. This is unlikely to happen during this next term of Parliament as Labor has such a great majority.
- The Speaker can't vote therefore cannot cross the floor. In Labor's case they can't cross the floor unless they're granted permission to do so, called a conscience vote. Seems to suggest the rest of the time, a Labor MP cannot follow their conscience, they do as the party instructs them. If the cross the floor against party wishes they will be expelled from the party. How's that representing the electorate first going for you?
- The Speaker can only speak on matters of compliance & behaviour in Parliament. They're the impartial umpire. It is a position of some prestige, but you are relieved of a great deal of Parliamentary responsibility when you become the umpire.
You phone or power gets cut off accidently and getting it resolved is not gong smoothly, yes your local member may be able to help. But if a raft of legislation needs support or opposition...he is not your man. It is very easy to say "The government is very aware that as a MP & Speaker I'll still talk to and fight hard for my electorate"
It's as common as someone retiring for any reason at all saying "Stepping down to spend more time with the family".
Classic hollowism that can not be adequately verified nor disproved, good go-to-tactical-replies, straight our of Sir Humphrey Applebee's handbook.
Wash up - Albany has a representative, possibly in his last term of office who is speaker of the house with no legislative vote, no legislative voice, no formal place in the formation of government business and cannot publicly speak on matters of government business.
He's an umpire. Will he be good for Albany?
Possibly as good as he's ever been as he isn't burdened with government business, nor a cabinet seat...where he would have been able to be more closely involved with government decision making.
He may or may not fight for Albany with his government colleagues...there is absolutely no way of knowing at all. If he thinks we should believe that he can influence cabinet to make decisions in the best interests of the State AND Albany whilst he's the lower house umpire...well I should offer to sell him a bridge.
This is the game, he is an umpire which puts him well outside forming, supporting, opposing or amending legislation.
Bit like putting your money into footy tipping at work but you can't actually pick any teams.
Wednesday, 10 May 2017
The Simplified Version of Corporate Governance
Its actually not that difficult in theory when its distilled down, but in practice you may find the difficult part is getting everyone in your organisation, club, NFP or company to realise how basic the fundamentals are and the advantages of sticking to the rules.
Good Corporate Governance is... The systems & process you have in place to ensure what's supposed to get done, does get done...by the right people at the right time, in a timely manner.
THAT'S IT - In basic overview, in general terms...that's as difficult as it gets and it equally applies to Wesfarmers board meetings as it does to Borden & Districts Knitting Club (Inc.).
And across the whole gamete of organisations, size & type, these things apply universally. Director's rights, roles & responsibilities. Whether its a lowly 8 member incorporated entity or the #1 listed company on the ASX...the directors have the same deal to keep.
THAT'S IT - In basic overview, in general terms...that's as difficult as it gets and it equally applies to Wesfarmers board meetings as it does to Borden & Districts Knitting Club (Inc.).
And across the whole gamete of organisations, size & type, these things apply universally. Director's rights, roles & responsibilities. Whether its a lowly 8 member incorporated entity or the #1 listed company on the ASX...the directors have the same deal to keep.
As a director you are responsible for the Corporate Governance, the financial compliance, the legal compliance, the risk, the audit...all simply well known stuff. You can of course elect sub committees if your constitution allows to more closely manage items or issues but you cannot vote or delegate away legal liability. Added to that, be aware other non board members can be declared "de facto directors" if their involvement in the decision making processes of the board is of such a level that it ticks those boxes.
So who does it all apply to? Well legal entities of a type.
There are only two broad types of legal entities in Australia. An individual person or a company.
That's it, but fleshing it out there's a little more to it.
If you own something in the company of others, its technically a "company". A publicly listed company, a club, a not for profit, a political party, a partnership...they're all companies. As a legal entity, you have rights & responsibilities. As a director or a person in the governing layer of an entity you have the right to be heard, the right to ask questions and the right to access relevant information.
FAILING TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS IS A FAILING TO FULFIL YOUR RESPONSIBILITES.
There are only two broad types of legal entities in Australia. An individual person or a company.
That's it, but fleshing it out there's a little more to it.
If you own something in the company of others, its technically a "company". A publicly listed company, a club, a not for profit, a political party, a partnership...they're all companies. As a legal entity, you have rights & responsibilities. As a director or a person in the governing layer of an entity you have the right to be heard, the right to ask questions and the right to access relevant information.
FAILING TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS IS A FAILING TO FULFIL YOUR RESPONSIBILITES.
Yes, rights & responsibilities cannot be separated and its a concept that used to be present in every layer of society but nowadays some only want the rights. (Another whinge for another day)
Thing is its very common for organisations & groups to drift away from their constitution in an effort to be quicker or more efficient. In short...don't. If the process is not working or beginning to fail, change the process and the constitution, don't breach it.
Know your job & stick to it. Are you a director or management? Know the difference and keep them separate. The governance line between the two can vary between different companies, no one size fits all, but set the parameters and do not breach them.
Also remember, if management is not appearing to provide the information you need, there's a breach. If you're a director, you have to instruct management on the information you need otherwise you're both in breach.
Not-For-Profit organisations and clubs are regulated by the legislation (state legislation) of the state its registered in. Its the Incorporation Act. If a NFP operates in several states its generally required to apply to ASIC for registration as a recognised entity and then has to comply with the federal Corporations Act. As directors of any entity, you should comply with the rules of the Corporations Act. Do not dismiss the federal Corporations Act because your entity is a state based NFP. The principle's that it applies under director's rights & responsibilities aren't extinguished because the company is incorporated.
In either case, management do what management does and the governing body or layer (directors/board) has the helicopter view governing, watching compliance and directing strategy.
Boards cover Strategic Thinking
Management takes care of Strategic Planning.
Boards cover Strategic Thinking
Management takes care of Strategic Planning.
Boards set the direction & management creates the planning to get the organisation there. They report progress to the board who's monitoring then forms the foundation of compliance.
Boards can usually create sub-committees to work out of session and quite often they're not limited to the board's directors. Often they can include people of expertise from outside the board or the company. In these cases, they're advisory type boards who'll compile a list of recommendations and their reasoning to the board for the board to make decisions. If the sub committee tries to influence the board's final choices, or tries to step around the board they can be deemed to be in breach of their governance or to be de facto directors.
Boards can usually create sub-committees to work out of session and quite often they're not limited to the board's directors. Often they can include people of expertise from outside the board or the company. In these cases, they're advisory type boards who'll compile a list of recommendations and their reasoning to the board for the board to make decisions. If the sub committee tries to influence the board's final choices, or tries to step around the board they can be deemed to be in breach of their governance or to be de facto directors.
If sub committees are authorised to make decisions or initiate actions on the board's behalf, the sub committee should be very keen to get exacting instructions from the board to prevent over stepping their boundaries. In all cases, a Sub Committee would be very wise to exercise due diligence at all times. If they commit a course of action on the board's behalf they will require the board's ratification otherwise they will have been deemed to have over stepped the governance line and be 100% liable for their decision. The board ratifying their decision releases a good part of their legal liability by showing they acted in good faith...as a "reasonable person" would.
This reasonable person test is at the core of any management or directors sense of governance.
If you look at your diary & the company's minutes as being the "letters to a judge you haven't met yet" then you'll be keen to keep good governance.
Remember, what ever your entity's structure is under its constitution, know who the board of directors are especially if that term is not used. A management committee might be the directors, in some groups its the office bearers.
All however have to act in the best interests of the organisation and it's "owners/members" and all have to commit to their governance restrictions to prevent over reach.
This reasonable person test is at the core of any management or directors sense of governance.
If you look at your diary & the company's minutes as being the "letters to a judge you haven't met yet" then you'll be keen to keep good governance.
Remember, what ever your entity's structure is under its constitution, know who the board of directors are especially if that term is not used. A management committee might be the directors, in some groups its the office bearers.
All however have to act in the best interests of the organisation and it's "owners/members" and all have to commit to their governance restrictions to prevent over reach.
An organisation that has tight fitting rules, that are universally & properly understood isn't restricted, its properly protected. Therein is a layer of protection for all officers & directors as well as all members. Cutting corners in the interests of expediency is a recipe for disaster. Again keep the rules or if they're not working, change them properly in accordance with set procedure.
These are broad concepts and governances lines can vary from entity to entity depending on the size of management but in short...know your limits, stick to them and whilst its advisable to help those that need help, remember not to micro-manage an area that's not your domain.
If in doubt, or you're new to whatever role you've just taken on, ask about the Governance Audit your entity should have annually. It keeps everyone on track and compliant. Refer also to whatever training regime the entity should have for new directors, office bearers or management. Thrown into a deep end with no proper training means you could inherit bad governance habits and might contribute to them evolving into something even worse with time.
Remember you as a director have the right to ask questions, the right to be heard and the right to request information. Failing to exercise those rights is a failure in your responsibilities and anyone preventing you from exercising them is breaking the law.
The annual Governance Audit is your friend and protector. It keeps all in check, all involved doing their job properly and protects everyone...every stakeholder & the organisation. If you're unsure, ask. If everyone else is unsure ask for everyone to get independent training & get back on track.
Other smart things to remember.
- Not making a decision, IS A DECISION, and you are liable for EVERY decision.
- There's a few safe harbours for directors, but only if there's full governance compliance and they've done enough to satisfy their fiduciary duties and the reasonable person test first.
- DO NOT leave any area, be it finances or governance up to your reliable go-to-guy or girl. All must understand to be compliant, because all on the board/committee are liable.
- If you don't understand, seek information because saying you didn't understand it is not a legal defence.
- If you're a director you're required to test things. Do not blindly accept things from management, the chair or anyone else.
- Ensure your constitution is valid and relevant to your organisation. They're a living document but they will require a review from time to time, even if nothing changes. All constitutions should have written on them the last review date and the next.
- Ask for training, expect and welcome assessments because these can show where specific training is needed to turn you into an even better chair, director or member of management. Its natural that people see these as threats but its not accurate. They're the opportunity to improve, grab the opportunity.
- The most important working relationship for a board is that of the Chair and the CEO. They're the meeting point that allows constant contact between both sides of the governance line. If they work really well together and they understand their rights, roles & responsibilities the board, the management and the entity will have a increased chance of excelling expectations and meeting full compliance.
- Board assessments are vital, so too assessing the chair's performance, so too assessing meeting procedure and performance as well as the CEO.
Sunday, 30 April 2017
When a Member of Parliament Eating Seafood is Wrong, Morally Wrong
Early April 2017 & Sean Nicholls reports in the rural press about the embarrassing gaff of an Animal Justice Party MP who did the unthinkable. He ate sea food. Here's a link to Sean's article
http://www.theland.com.au/story/4590675/animal-justice-party-mp-mark-pearson-admits-i-strayed-for-that-morsel/?cs=4951
There's a couple of interesting angles to this. Firstly, he ate some seafood & his own party lay members think he's then lost "credibility". So who led the outrage? The Sydney Vegan Club Facebook page followers. Yes its always funny watching the swarm of savagery of internet indignation light up the screen like a forest fire.
Where noble causes are created out of nothing and villains are named and burnt on the digital stake from the safety of warm inner city spare rooms. How it get funny is the whole Animal Rights thing is such a moral vanguard of utter moral perfection yet the person who pitched the MP in for ordering oysters & salmon has a rocky moral high ground themselves.
Look how wholly indignant they were... "I follow his page and support his posts and the AJP completely. It was really upsetting to find out how much of a traitor he is to these poor fish."
The critic supports the AJP completely, pops a vein over the MPs heinous moral crime and believes the MP to be a traitor to the poor fish...yet he/she works in a seafood restaurant!!!
Its this type of false moral bellowing that needs addressing, where the keyboard becomes the platform for moral judgement but we're deprived of the source of the moral code or law they're using. Yes we all whinge, where it unravels is not just when we become hypocrites, but when the moral standard we use to condemn someone is of our own subjective invention. Its then just a nasty personal opinion at best.
It opens up the Animal Justice Party to a good flood light of proper inspection.
What is so wrong with eating seafood?
What's funnier is the MP even thinks it was only a morsel & he wouldn't do it again. Why not?
Your money, buy whatever food you like, there is no issue.
Why is eating seafood so wrong?
Animal Justice Party is not about justice, its about morally bellowing and pushing the extremist Vegan agenda. Why don't they change the name to the Vegan Justice Party?
http://www.theland.com.au/story/4590675/animal-justice-party-mp-mark-pearson-admits-i-strayed-for-that-morsel/?cs=4951
There's a couple of interesting angles to this. Firstly, he ate some seafood & his own party lay members think he's then lost "credibility". So who led the outrage? The Sydney Vegan Club Facebook page followers. Yes its always funny watching the swarm of savagery of internet indignation light up the screen like a forest fire.
Where noble causes are created out of nothing and villains are named and burnt on the digital stake from the safety of warm inner city spare rooms. How it get funny is the whole Animal Rights thing is such a moral vanguard of utter moral perfection yet the person who pitched the MP in for ordering oysters & salmon has a rocky moral high ground themselves.
Look how wholly indignant they were... "I follow his page and support his posts and the AJP completely. It was really upsetting to find out how much of a traitor he is to these poor fish."
The critic supports the AJP completely, pops a vein over the MPs heinous moral crime and believes the MP to be a traitor to the poor fish...yet he/she works in a seafood restaurant!!!
Its this type of false moral bellowing that needs addressing, where the keyboard becomes the platform for moral judgement but we're deprived of the source of the moral code or law they're using. Yes we all whinge, where it unravels is not just when we become hypocrites, but when the moral standard we use to condemn someone is of our own subjective invention. Its then just a nasty personal opinion at best.
It opens up the Animal Justice Party to a good flood light of proper inspection.
What is so wrong with eating seafood?
What's funnier is the MP even thinks it was only a morsel & he wouldn't do it again. Why not?
Your money, buy whatever food you like, there is no issue.
Why is eating seafood so wrong?
Animal Justice Party is not about justice, its about morally bellowing and pushing the extremist Vegan agenda. Why don't they change the name to the Vegan Justice Party?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)