Now, I don't want anyone to think that this blog is going to be politics-centric; it just so happens that that's what's going on right now, and it does take my fancy...in a very layman's way.
Anyway, I had a quick chat with a friend of mine today, and he said "you didn't vote enough times in the marginal seats!"
Of course, he was joking - I've never voted more than once in an election...but it does raise questions about our existing system and the prevelance of multiple votes.
I don't have the figures on how often multiple voting occurs, but one could assume that it happens and happens often, which begs the question in a modern society such as ours, why is our voting system so archaic that multiple voting able to occur?
Anway, my solution to this is simple...why doesn't the AEC send every enrolled voter a disposable barcode that must be swiped at the polling booth? No card, no vote.
The barcode would be linked back to the voters enrolment number (or name, whatever they use to record us), and once swiped it's rendered useless, which means the individual can not vote again in a different booth. I want royalties please (seriously!).
To keep our polling anonymous, we could still use the paper polling and then wait 10 or so days for the results to be announced....or better yet, lets computerise it and get the results that same night.
How simple and easy would that be?
Use your brains, fella's....it's not rocket science! Then again, I guess you'd need to find another way to stay in a job if shock! horror! we modernised our system!
Alternatively, we could always dip our finger in a pot of ink as they do in other parts of the world!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Food Labelling...
I was doing my weekly shop at my regular supermarket on the weekend.
I needed garlic so headed over to the "fresh" produce to grab a bulb or two. There were two types on display.
The first were loose bulbs; the ones with a purple tinge to them. I recognised them to be the variety that are normally imported from Mexico. I've bought this variety before; it's a great product with an awesome flavour and aroma. I double checked the signage for the loose bulbs, and yes, it was indeed a product of Mexico.
But on this day I really wanted Australian garlic. I much prefer to choose Australian produce any day of the week over anything else. Mind you, I've purchased produce that's been imported, but I am quite selective over which country's produce I'll buy.
Anyway...the other choice was a pre-packaged variety. You know the ones, as white as snow and perfectly formed, usually slightly smaller bulbs, and about 5 or 6 bulbs to a pack.
I usually don't buy the white as snow garlic; firstly, it's bleached or sprayed or treated in some way to get that white look. Someone just decided one day that garlic should be completely white otherwise it won't be appealing! And secondly, it just doesn't have the same punchiness that proper garlic has, and that I love.
But, I checked the sign and it said product of Australia. Oh good! I picked it up and was about to throw it in the trolley when I noticed the company name on the tag; which was a distinctly non-Australian sounding company name. So I proceeded to inspect the tag quite closely.
I couldn't find anywhere any reference to the country of origin of this garlic until I pulled the tag at the point where it's stitched to the bag, and in the tiniest, most obsure writing, it says "Product of China".
Don't you just love the way these companies try their hardest to make this information almost impossible to find??? Bastards!
GRRRR!
I double checked the sign again to make sure that I was reading the signage correctly. I checked the other signs around the area to make sure there weren't any other garlic signs that I was missing. Nope. I was definately reading the correct sign.
Hmmm...what to do?
I looked around to see if there were any staff members floating around, but nope. So, I put the garlic back and continued my shopping.
I eventually came across a staff member and politely pointed out the error they'd made in labelling the garlic, and this woman just looked at me with this blank look on her face as if to say "are you serious?". I swear, her look was priceless!
Yes, luv, I am serious!
"You know", I said, "there are serious consequences for misleading labels on food produce. I suggest you go to a manager right now and get it rectified".
And off she went.
I overheard her chatting with her superior, whom I'm sure really doesn't have any authority anyway, and he said "oh really...it normally is a product of Australia".
So, they don't even bloody double check these things before they put the produce on display. And it makes me wonder what else has been mislabelled as a product of Australia when it really isn't.
The scary thing is, we wouldn't have the foggiest idea either way!
I think from now on I'll go to the markets instead. I just don't trust any of these large supermarkets any more - and it wasn't even Coles or Woolworths (both of which I refuse to shop at unless there is absolutely no avoiding it).
I needed garlic so headed over to the "fresh" produce to grab a bulb or two. There were two types on display.
The first were loose bulbs; the ones with a purple tinge to them. I recognised them to be the variety that are normally imported from Mexico. I've bought this variety before; it's a great product with an awesome flavour and aroma. I double checked the signage for the loose bulbs, and yes, it was indeed a product of Mexico.
But on this day I really wanted Australian garlic. I much prefer to choose Australian produce any day of the week over anything else. Mind you, I've purchased produce that's been imported, but I am quite selective over which country's produce I'll buy.
Anyway...the other choice was a pre-packaged variety. You know the ones, as white as snow and perfectly formed, usually slightly smaller bulbs, and about 5 or 6 bulbs to a pack.
I usually don't buy the white as snow garlic; firstly, it's bleached or sprayed or treated in some way to get that white look. Someone just decided one day that garlic should be completely white otherwise it won't be appealing! And secondly, it just doesn't have the same punchiness that proper garlic has, and that I love.
But, I checked the sign and it said product of Australia. Oh good! I picked it up and was about to throw it in the trolley when I noticed the company name on the tag; which was a distinctly non-Australian sounding company name. So I proceeded to inspect the tag quite closely.
I couldn't find anywhere any reference to the country of origin of this garlic until I pulled the tag at the point where it's stitched to the bag, and in the tiniest, most obsure writing, it says "Product of China".
Don't you just love the way these companies try their hardest to make this information almost impossible to find??? Bastards!
GRRRR!
I double checked the sign again to make sure that I was reading the signage correctly. I checked the other signs around the area to make sure there weren't any other garlic signs that I was missing. Nope. I was definately reading the correct sign.
Hmmm...what to do?
I looked around to see if there were any staff members floating around, but nope. So, I put the garlic back and continued my shopping.
I eventually came across a staff member and politely pointed out the error they'd made in labelling the garlic, and this woman just looked at me with this blank look on her face as if to say "are you serious?". I swear, her look was priceless!
Yes, luv, I am serious!
"You know", I said, "there are serious consequences for misleading labels on food produce. I suggest you go to a manager right now and get it rectified".
And off she went.
I overheard her chatting with her superior, whom I'm sure really doesn't have any authority anyway, and he said "oh really...it normally is a product of Australia".
So, they don't even bloody double check these things before they put the produce on display. And it makes me wonder what else has been mislabelled as a product of Australia when it really isn't.
The scary thing is, we wouldn't have the foggiest idea either way!
I think from now on I'll go to the markets instead. I just don't trust any of these large supermarkets any more - and it wasn't even Coles or Woolworths (both of which I refuse to shop at unless there is absolutely no avoiding it).
Monday, August 30, 2010
The GG dilema...
So, there's been some talk recently about the Govenor General, Mrs Quentin Bryce, having to make the decision as to who will be our next Prime Minister.
For those that aren't aware, Mrs Bryce is the mother-in-law of one Mr Bill Shorten; one of the so called "faceless power brokers" of the ALP. He also apparently harbours aspirations of being PM and is considered to be next in line if the ALP decide that Gillard ought to be dropped.
So, what should the GG do? Does the GG have a conflict of interest?
She has sought advice from the High Court, who said they couldn't advise her as there may be forthcoming High Court challenges and giving her advice would be a conflict of interest.
She then sought advice from the Solicitor General who has claimed that there is no conflict of interest.
Let's face it - there may not be a conflict of interest, but there is certainly a PERCEIVED conflict of interest, and that is just as conflicting as an actual conflict of interest. Isn't there an old saying that perception in 9/10ths reality? I can't remember where I heard that from, but it's not too far wrong (happy to claim it if I just made it up!).
The GG has the responsibility of deciding who the next PM of this nation will be. Now, if she goes with the ALP, and they at some point throw out Gillard as they did Rudd, and Shorten then assumes the PM role, some could argue (and most likely will argue) that it was planned all along, and that the GG should have stepped aside during this critical time in our nation's political arena.
What about this scenario: GG swears in an ALP Government, Gillard gets tossed out (and lets face it - she deserves to be tossed given that she took Labor to this miserable election result), Shorten replaces her as PM, the independants withdraw their support of an ALP led minority Government and the GG then has to sack the Government, with her Son In Law as the Prime Minister.
Is that not a conflict of interest, or at least a perceived conflict of interest?
I think it is.
The GG should, at the very least, temporarily assign her role to someone else during this time and then during the course of the next six months, resign as GG and move on.
To me, it doesn't matter that the Solicitor General gave her advice that there is no conflict of interest, and it doesn't matter that her request for advice and that subsequent advice were made public for the sake of transparency; the mere perception of a conflict of interest should be enough of a reason for her to shake a leg and remove herself from that role.
For those that aren't aware, Mrs Bryce is the mother-in-law of one Mr Bill Shorten; one of the so called "faceless power brokers" of the ALP. He also apparently harbours aspirations of being PM and is considered to be next in line if the ALP decide that Gillard ought to be dropped.
So, what should the GG do? Does the GG have a conflict of interest?
She has sought advice from the High Court, who said they couldn't advise her as there may be forthcoming High Court challenges and giving her advice would be a conflict of interest.
She then sought advice from the Solicitor General who has claimed that there is no conflict of interest.
Let's face it - there may not be a conflict of interest, but there is certainly a PERCEIVED conflict of interest, and that is just as conflicting as an actual conflict of interest. Isn't there an old saying that perception in 9/10ths reality? I can't remember where I heard that from, but it's not too far wrong (happy to claim it if I just made it up!).
The GG has the responsibility of deciding who the next PM of this nation will be. Now, if she goes with the ALP, and they at some point throw out Gillard as they did Rudd, and Shorten then assumes the PM role, some could argue (and most likely will argue) that it was planned all along, and that the GG should have stepped aside during this critical time in our nation's political arena.
What about this scenario: GG swears in an ALP Government, Gillard gets tossed out (and lets face it - she deserves to be tossed given that she took Labor to this miserable election result), Shorten replaces her as PM, the independants withdraw their support of an ALP led minority Government and the GG then has to sack the Government, with her Son In Law as the Prime Minister.
Is that not a conflict of interest, or at least a perceived conflict of interest?
I think it is.
The GG should, at the very least, temporarily assign her role to someone else during this time and then during the course of the next six months, resign as GG and move on.
To me, it doesn't matter that the Solicitor General gave her advice that there is no conflict of interest, and it doesn't matter that her request for advice and that subsequent advice were made public for the sake of transparency; the mere perception of a conflict of interest should be enough of a reason for her to shake a leg and remove herself from that role.
Friday, August 27, 2010
The 2010 Federal Election...
So, we're still playing the waiting game; we're some 6 days after polling day and a Government still hasn't been formed.
I've got to hand it to the Lib/Nat Coalition; they've done a mighty fine job in reducing Labor's majority in the House of Reps (was it a 15 seat majority?) down to nothing! I guess the electorate isn't that silly afterall....or are they?
After the ineptitude of the ALP Government over the last 2 and a bit years, I find it incredible that they've managed to win as many seats as they have - albeit with the benefit of Green preferences.
Obviously some people still believe the ALP garb that they'll spend OUR money better than the Libs; afterall, that was the Gillard line, wasn't it?
Let me take a quick re-cap on some of the wonderful decisions the ALP Government made during their dismal stint:
Let me recap on some of the other great decisions they've made:
Again, there are so many more wonderful decisions the ALP have made, but these ones really stand out in my mind, and I haven't even mentioned the boat people yet!
So, where was I?
Ah...so, why on earth did Labor still get as many seats as they did? Goodness only knows, because I can't figure it out.
Kudo's to the unions for trying to run the WorkChoices fight again, though. But that's the subject of a whole other post I think.
So now we're in this fantastic position of having a hung parliament with 3 independants holding the balance of power in the lower house. And, they're already trying to flex their muscle and extract their pound of flesh. I'll be watching intently as to how this plays out.
The big question now is: who will the independants support? All three are from largely conservative electorates. Do they risk facing electorate backlash if they support Labor (for a backlash is inevitable if they do support Labor), or do they support Labor because they have the benefit of incumbency and friendlier relations with the Greens who hold balance of power in the Senate come July next year?
No matter who the independants support, I don't expect the new Government to last the full 3 year term; eventually one of the independants will become pissed off enough that a new election will be forced.
It's definately interesting and uncertain times right now in the Federal political arena. One thing I am sure of, however, is that if Labor is returned to Government, our country is in big, big trouble!
Have a great day...
I've got to hand it to the Lib/Nat Coalition; they've done a mighty fine job in reducing Labor's majority in the House of Reps (was it a 15 seat majority?) down to nothing! I guess the electorate isn't that silly afterall....or are they?
After the ineptitude of the ALP Government over the last 2 and a bit years, I find it incredible that they've managed to win as many seats as they have - albeit with the benefit of Green preferences.
Obviously some people still believe the ALP garb that they'll spend OUR money better than the Libs; afterall, that was the Gillard line, wasn't it?
Let me take a quick re-cap on some of the wonderful decisions the ALP Government made during their dismal stint:
- Fuel watch...what a success that was!
- Grocery watch...wow - that sure helped keep grocery prices down...at a cost of how much? And how long was it live for?
- The alcho-pops tax...that sure did wonders in reducing binge drinking and discouraging the younger population from drinking.
- The Pink Batts saga...not only did it run so over budget that it's not funny, it's resulted in 4 deaths and the electrofication of some 200,000 homes, and let us not forget how many more $millions in inspection and rectification works that now needs to be spent.
- The BER...this has to be my favourite! Billions of dollars wasted, and what have we got to show for it? Canteens, school halls and COLA's. Yes, alot of the school beneficiaries needed them, but at what cost? The only winners I could see out of this program were the big builders who were managing the regions. As each project filtered up the line from little builder to mid builder to big builder the cost of each project just went up and up, so much so that in some cases I heard of canteens costing up to $8,000 per square metre. WTF??? It shouldn't cost more than around $2,000...lets say $3,000 per square metre, just to be fair. Someone please tell me where the cost benefit of that is (except to line the pockets of the big builders acting as regional managers)? Why couldn't they direct their "stimulus" to other areas that would have had a more far-reaching ripple effect on the economy, such as the residential building sector? Afterall, when someone builds a house they engage a builder, who in turn engages myriad of subcontractors. Once the house is built, flow on effects are felt in the retail sector in terms of new furniture, new whitegoods, new window dressings etc etc. Surely this would have been a better avenue to direct their stimulus than schools? And what about small business? Small business is the life blood of our country. How about giving small business some incentive to expand, grow and employ people? Small business needs to feel secure. When small business feels secure, the employees feel secure, and we all know that when employees feel secure, they splash out and spend their money. That, my friends, is economic stimulus...when the people spend the money! It's the discretionary spending that makes the economy go round...
- $900 cheques to all and sundry - people who weren't even living in the country got this one. People who weren't even alive also got it! And what did people do with it? Hmmm....they bought stuff with it...doodads such as plasma televisions (which are made in China and goodness knows where else, so the money ended up there instead of in our economy), they paid down credit card debt with it (how that stimulates the economy I don't know)
Let me recap on some of the other great decisions they've made:
- Lets import apples from China! Yay. Lets face it, Australia produces more than enough apples to meet not only our local needs, but we also export them as well. Now, we're supposed to be accepting apples from China (all in the name of international free trade and good relations) whose farming and production methods, I'm sure, are suspect (remember the poison in Chinese baby formula??), yet, in return, China will ONLY ACCEPT apples from Australia that are produced in Tasmania. They will not accept apples that are produced on our mainland. Why? Because according to the Chinese, our Tasmanian apples are the best. I'm not critisising our Tasmanian apple producers (kudo's to them), but I am highlighting the hypocracy that is this trade agreement.
- Lets import beef from Mexico! Yay. Mad Cow's disease anyone? Thank goodness for Senator Bill Heffernon for stopping this one!
- How about banana's from Indonesia? Don't we already have enough of our own already?
- Mining tax - bloody hell. Talk about a total stuff up. Here we are, a country rich in resources. Without our resources we would have been on skid row during recent times. So, instead of encouraging our resources sector the ALP decides to tax it to oblivion. Apparently, if you tax something more, they will produce more, which will in turn result in even more tax collected. I don't quite understand that logic at all. How about more incentive to produce more, to encourage more investment?
- ETS - another favourite of mine! Yes, we need to look after this wonderful country of plenty, and this wonderful planet. But please! How on earth is the establishment of a Carbon Trading Scheme (read carbon tax) going to save the environment? Taxing the polluters of our economy will not stop them polluting. It's unfortunate that to produce our steel, coal, electricity and the myriad of flow-ons, pollution will be necessary. Taxing it to oblivion will not result in the lowering of pollution, because we'll still need all these things, won't we? So, the production and pollution will still continue.
Again, there are so many more wonderful decisions the ALP have made, but these ones really stand out in my mind, and I haven't even mentioned the boat people yet!
So, where was I?
Ah...so, why on earth did Labor still get as many seats as they did? Goodness only knows, because I can't figure it out.
Kudo's to the unions for trying to run the WorkChoices fight again, though. But that's the subject of a whole other post I think.
So now we're in this fantastic position of having a hung parliament with 3 independants holding the balance of power in the lower house. And, they're already trying to flex their muscle and extract their pound of flesh. I'll be watching intently as to how this plays out.
The big question now is: who will the independants support? All three are from largely conservative electorates. Do they risk facing electorate backlash if they support Labor (for a backlash is inevitable if they do support Labor), or do they support Labor because they have the benefit of incumbency and friendlier relations with the Greens who hold balance of power in the Senate come July next year?
No matter who the independants support, I don't expect the new Government to last the full 3 year term; eventually one of the independants will become pissed off enough that a new election will be forced.
It's definately interesting and uncertain times right now in the Federal political arena. One thing I am sure of, however, is that if Labor is returned to Government, our country is in big, big trouble!
Have a great day...
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Welcome...
Welcome to The Thinking Woman's Perspective!
The 2010 Federal Election was the catalyst that brought about this blog although in reality it is something I'd been toying with for some time.
In this blog you'll find general commentary and opinion on anything and everything that takes my fancy; from politics, business and the economy to food, wine, kids and life in general.
There is no topic that will be off limits, and whilst I acknowledge that there is a wide range of opinion on all matter of subjects, I'll be posting my opinion regardless of the majority view.
I encourage feedback and debate as long as it is respectful. If something I write triggers a response please just remember to play the ball, not the batter.
I hope you enjoy this blog.
The 2010 Federal Election was the catalyst that brought about this blog although in reality it is something I'd been toying with for some time.
In this blog you'll find general commentary and opinion on anything and everything that takes my fancy; from politics, business and the economy to food, wine, kids and life in general.
There is no topic that will be off limits, and whilst I acknowledge that there is a wide range of opinion on all matter of subjects, I'll be posting my opinion regardless of the majority view.
I encourage feedback and debate as long as it is respectful. If something I write triggers a response please just remember to play the ball, not the batter.
I hope you enjoy this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)