Mere Formality

Now women can ‘formally’ request part time work from their employer under an addition to law by the Gillard govt.  Not sure what was holding women back from doing this prior to the amendment.  The employer can still say no, which is their prerogative.

The Greens want “more teeth” to such a proposal.  “More teeth” would mean forcing employers to allow part time employment upon application.  Even though this may not suit their business and may increase operating cost.  This would result in less people employed, part time and full time.

Forcing businesses to do anything they don’t wish to do is very risky.  The Greens need to back off for their desire for more teeth and think through the ramifications for their emotion driven actions.

Businesses left to make their own decisions will best able to make arrangement for women trying to juggle family with work.  Businesses want to hold on to good staff, so they don’t need to be told by government how best to handle them.

A Vibe

In politics it seems if someone is against a certain method then it’s assumed that they are also against the desired outcome.

Example 1

I am all for technological advancement.  BUT I am against the government’s wasteful and negligent spending on the NBN.  They bypassed a cost benefit analysis and were reluctant to deal with the private sector.

Example 2

I am all for increased funding of schools.  BUT I’m against it being regarded as a silver bullet.  Funding is part of the solution while other areas like increasing teacher quality and principal autonomy are ignored largely due to union pressure.

Example 3

I am all for a humanitarian program for asylum seekers.  BUT I’m against a criminal making thousands of dollars off each passenger to board leaky vessels and overwhelm our immigration system.  It slows down the process for genuinely persecuted people seeking asylum.

Free To Speak

“In Defence of Freedom of Speech”

edited by Chris Berg

This is a book created by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).  It was sent to every Federal Member of Parliament and Senator.  It was also distributed to the general public at the same time.

Its intention was to illuminate various attacks on the liberties of individuals that were being perpetrated primarily by the Labor govt.

You can be sure that it was read by some of its intended target as then Greens leader, Bob Brown, referred to it during an address to the National Press Club.  His snide remarks about the book had no essence of truth in them.  But that didn’t matter to him.  Nor did the IPA mind that he misrepresented their work.  It just went to show how set in their anti liberty ways the Greens really are.

It is one thing to have someone disagree with you.  It is a completely different thing to take measures to stop them from saying it, even though it might be true.  The vast majority of criticism for the current government has been absolutely justified, but they don’t like their faults being pointed out so they try and stop people from criticising.

The book describes a history of freedom of speech from ancient Greece to modern times in Australia.  It describes why the various acts were performed and their consequences.  It’s surprising to see how much has been done in the name of liberty and also protectionism. 

Over the course of history there were no groups that shone brightly as bearers of the liberty torch.  In all eras there fluctuations in freedom and protectionism.  Even Christian groups, who I thought would be bastions of freedom of speech, had fallen for the protectionist ideology at times.  When liberties were taken away it was usually due to the institution of totalitarian regimes.

What this book has shown me is that freedoms are important and not to be messed with by any government entity.  It’s a slippery slope when governments think they can mess with liberties.  It stems mainly from the intellectually elitist ideology that you are too stupid to make educated decisions for yourself if given certain liberties.  This ideology is both demeaning and insulting.  I’m glad we have institution such as the IPA that took on the cause of freedom of speech with such vigour.

Not Buying It

We’re told a lot that there is a great divide in health due to a person’s low socioeconomic status (SES).  That is that someone’s low income and education affects their ability to make positive health choices.

This is rubbish and I’m not buying it.  Low SES people can’t avoid the same campaigns as the rest of us.  They are everywhere.  Most low SES people have televisions and watch the ads, they see the billboards, and they see the warning posters that pubs and clubs by law have to display.

Low SES people know that smoking is bad for their lungs.  They see the warnings on every packet they purchase.  But they smoke willingly and expect the health system to fix any health concern.

Low SES people know that fatty foods are bad for their heart.  But they eat it willingly then expect modern pharmaceuticals to keep their heart pumping forever.  Were told that fresh food is expensive, yet I saw broccoli for 99c and a 1kg bag of carrots for $1.49.  Plus there’s an Aldi supermarket everywhere that could help you create dinner for four people for less than $10, probably with leftovers.  That is, if you could be bothered.

You can’t even say that basic dental care isn’t accessible.  Toothbrush and toothpaste available anywhere for less than $3 and would last for a month.

The problem isn’t really education or low SES.  The problem is our lazy culture.  People cry poor yet can spend upwards $20 per week on cigarettes and $40 per week on beer.  There are some major priority issues.

They know better, they just don’t want to.

Our Turn

Further to my post on charities crying poor. 

I received a letter from a charity I support regarding their government grant being cut.  The shortfall in their budget meant that 1 in 4 children could not be assisted by their programs.  This of course is a shame.  But neither individuals, nor organisations, nor corporations ought to become dependent on government handouts.  Their government assistance was called a grant, but it may as well have been called welfare.

It points to the sad truth that our generosity has declined as our government dependence has increased.  This situation was portrayed as a travesty of compassion.  Instead it could be the best thing to happen to the charity.  There will be a financial shortfall, but if their service is considered necessary then the community will step up and contribute greater than the government ever would. 

The financial hole for charities isn’t for the government to fill.  It’s a reality check to us as a community.  It’s our turn to step up.