27 December, 2009

Beef industry protection needed

27th December 2009

I read with some concern the letter by Richard Charmen (SJ 24/12) of the NSW Farmers Assoc regarding the possible changes to food policy which would allow importation of beef from BSE infected countries.

I can well understand the relief, albeit limited, that comes from Senator Heffernan's call for an inquiry into the proposed changes.

Unfortunately for Australian primary producers, successive governments have for decades continue to erode the security of our farmers and the Coalition's record,in general, is less than glowing in regards to speaking up for farmers.

Who can forget Australian wheatgrowers bearing the loss of millions following Howard's altruistic move to wipe out Iraq's debt for wheat shipments, or Downer's reticence to speak out against Biosecurity Australia's plan to allow in NZ apples possibly carrying fireblight, not to mention stone fruit from Chile?

Furthermore, did any Party listen to concerns voiced by Australian pig farmers in regards to planned pork imports and possible changes to import regulations and their concerns about the introduction of Post Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome, or care about the millions lost to Queensland producers due to the importation of diseased fruit carrying Black Sigatoka and Moko diseases?

Indeed, the risk of such changes to the livelihood of our producers is great and the damage to our nation's reputation is unthinkable. However, Mr. Charmen should not be putting forward the question of compensation for producers should the government pursue this course of action, on behalf of his members he should be demanding that the government abandon the whole idea entirely.

16 December, 2009

Copenhagen hypocrisy

16th December 2009

It is interesting to note in the sideshow that is the Copenhagen conference that a relatively small nation like Australia has one of the largest delegations in Denmark.

PM Rudd, in his desperation to appear an important world figure has surrounded himself with such a large entourage that the international community should find it hard to ignore his hypocrisy.

Ever the jetsetter, Kev 747's hangers on have reportedly contributed the equivalent of over 1800 tonnes of greenhouse emmissions, the same amount produced by over 2000 Malawi citizens in a week.

Certainly there is a need to have delegates at an international conference, but surely the burden on the taxpayer and the embarrassing hypocrisy could have been avoided by a video conference link in this day and age?

07 December, 2009

Swiss Referendum Exposes Hypocrisy of Official Multiculturalism.

7th December 2009

Many readers have probably heard the results of Switzerland's recent referendum proposing the banning of future construction of minarets on mosques in the country.

The referendum proposal, pushed by the Swiss People's Party was passed through a vote of 57.5% in favour of the proposal over 42.5 against and supported by 22 out of 26 cantons (states).

As one could expect from internationalist media outlets, the campaign of vitriol and hysteria following the results was swift and relied upon the tried and proven emotional slogans and mealy mouthed platitudes (hell, if you repeat the same lie often enough it becomes truth in the minds of an unthinking populace).

Reports of small numbers of liberal Swiss protesting outside parliament with placards "This is not my Switzerland" and "Swiss passport for sale" and interviews with Moslem community representatives declaring it to be "a sad day for religious freedom" with claims "Muslims indeed will not feel safe anymore" are examples of the petulance displayed by the liberal left when things do not go their way.

When one considers the reality of the proposal, it really covers little more than the area of planning regulations. The four mosques currently in existence with minarets will remain. There is no restriction on the moslems in Swiss territory opening new mosques, no restriction on them educating their offspring in the ways of their culture or their faith. We will not see bulldozers ripping through mosques nor mass repatriation of moslems living in Switzerland.

Pretty tame really....

However, supporters of the global village never let the facts get in the way of a healthy dose of propaganda. Labelling Switzerland's reportedly largest party (Advertiser, 1st Dec 2009) "the far right" Swiss People's Party one can see the panic entering into the minds of these people. Across the world, people are awakening to the reality of globalisation and showing their reticence to accept the mindless, self destructive swill often served up for consumption by a media with little concern for the issues of national interest, freedom of speech or sovereignty.

Amnesty International has labeled the vote "a violation of freedom of religion" and declared the decision of the Swiss people in their own territory would "probably be overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights".

So much for democracy and national sovereignty in the eyes of narrow minded globalists.

The issue of the European Court should be a lesson to those of us whose nations have not yet been absorbed into "regional bodies". The European Court and Euro Parliament in Brussels has interfered with the internal affairs of European nations, violating their sovereignty since it's inception. Considering PM Rudd has made his desire for an Asia Pacific Union quite plain for all to see, the developments in Europe and the destruction of freedom should be a lesson to all of us.

It is interesting to note how interested Moslems become in the idea of religious freedom when Europe tries to curb their naturally expansionist instincts. Omar Al-Rawi of the Islamic Denomination of Austria declared the vote as indicating "the Swiss have failed to give a clear signal for diversity, freedom of religion and human rights" while Mohammed Sharfiq of Britain's Ramadhan Foundation youth organisation lamented that "It's a sad day for freedom of religion" and "A constitutional amendment that's targeted towards one religious community is discriminatory and abhorrent".

No doubt Sharfiq will soon be campaigning to have the exclusion zone around Mecca denying entry into the region by non moslems removed. Likewise, he will also be condemning the burning of churches in moslem nations, fighting for the rights of non moslems to worship and educate freely in moslem nations? Of course, he will obviously leave the relative comfort and safety of Britain to lead this campaign at the coal face in Saudi Arabia.......

Sharfiq has conveniently overlooked the Islamic protests in his host nation. Protests showing participants holding placards calling for those who defy Islam to be beheaded and declaring that Europe's "9/11 is on the way".

Taner Hatipoglu of the Federation of Islamic Organisations has expressed concern that the construction and planning decision will make moslems feel "no longer safe".

Indeed, I always make sure I have armed security when my council refuses permission to build another shed on my property-dark days indeed.....

Perhaps if these representatives really wish to know what it is to lack feelings of security, they should talk to the many victims of pack rape by moslem youths around Europe, the women raped by African immigrants, the families who have had to move from their streets due to intimidation by the very people to whom their governments gave sanctuary and freedom.

28 November, 2009

Climate change - an open, honest and reasoned debate is needed

28th November 2009

In response to George Poulos' letter lamenting the availability of a machine to which one can "hook up" members of the pseudo conservative Coalition to suitably indoctrinate reticent MPs as to the "reality" of man made climate change-has Mr. Poulos stopped to consider these MPs might just be doing their job?

The whole issue of climate change does appear to be fact. The climate is changing, as it always has.However, these "dissident" MPs are merely reflecting the concerns of a large number of their constituents (I hear it's called democracy)on the issue.

Given the one sided debate on climate change, the total disregard of the opinion of many in the scientific community who question the degree to which man's activity has actually contributed to the change in climate, it is little wonder many have become more than cautious over any scheme which appears to be little more than a blatant tax grab.

What we don't need is a mythical machine to indoctrinate people-what we do need is an open, honest and reasoned debate on the issue covering all the facts.

Only by this method can we hope to come to a unified and effective response to the challenges that await us in future.

02 November, 2009

Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers

2nd November 2009

The refusal of Sri Lankan "asylum seekers" to leave an Australian vessel in Indonesia, coupled with their request to be granted asylum in countries such as New Zealand or Canada should Australia refuse is irrefutable proof these people are nothing more than economic "refugees" shopping for a better place to live and not fleeing persecution.

If this were so, then they would be thankful for the relative security offered by Indonesian authorities in Indonesian territory.

For the Australian government to waste tens of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayer funds to continue this ridiculous farce is nothing short of unforgivable.

29 July, 2009

The Prime Minister's anti-protectionism

29th July 2009

The recent tirade directed by PM Rudd against his union followers should leave little doubt as to his allegiances.

Concerned with the security of Australian jobs, unions recently put forward the suggestion that governments show preference for local producers when purchasing for their departments-only to be met with derision from our globalism obsessed PM.

In his condemnation of the idea that Australian governments should use Australian taxes to support the industries that employ the Australians who pay the taxes, Rudd ridiculously asserted that such an idea would bring about the collapse of the world economy and blamed such behaviour for creating the Great Depression.

Conjuring the "Protectionist Bogeyman", Rudd would have us believe that those supporting the idea of buying locally, supporting Australian primary producers, manufacturing workers and transport workers would also build a wall around the continent and refuse any imports whatsoever-a ridiculous suggestion.

It is an irrefutable fact that this country cannot produce everything and must import some goods, as is the case with every nation on earth, however, the implementation of a sensible and moderate system of tariffs along with a campaign to raise awareness of and support for a Buy Australian campaign has nothing to do with "isolationism".

Governments should be leading the way in supporting our producers. This can be done by purchasing locally where ever possible for government supplies, buying directly from Australian farmers and manufacturers when supplying foreign aid in preference to millions in taxes handed directly to often inhumane and brutal regimes and also educating the general population of the benefits of buying locally.

It is time for Rudd to be honest with his constituents and not engage in economic scaremongering, confusing moderate "protectionism" with isolationism.

11 July, 2009

Protectionism - Globalism Advocates "Go on the Offensive"?

11th July 2009

Some readers might have had the misfortune to read a column by one David Penberthy of the Adelaide Advertiser on June 19th, in which Dave gently tried to educate all his "Prole" readers of the reality of modern day economics.

Beginning his opinion piece, which fortunately for those of us refusing to fall into step with the plan of the elite to sell out our nation's future for a pittance went on for the best part of an entire page, Dave made a half hearted attempt to portray an understanding of our concerns for Australian jobs. Claiming to have grown up in Adelaide's "very own Detroit" and recognising the importance major manufacturing plants had on the extended economy of the whole city, Dave made a valiant attempt to portray himself as "one of us", the only difference being his vast knowledge and firm grip on reality, while the dumb masses foolishly cling to the sentiments of the past.

One must admire the ability of Dave to go from understanding the deep anxiety felt by the apparently uneducated masses, to an all out assault on those who "foolishly" try to turn back the clock-all in the space of 5 paragraphs.

Dripping with contempt, Dave made his disdain for anyone trying to save what is left of Australian manufacturing quite obvious. Like all those desperate to identify with the "wannabe intelligentsia", Dave knows too well the kudos that comes from denigrating his own nation and it's people. After this little effort, Penberthy is sure to get many more invites to luncheon with the chardonnay set in the leafy suburbs, far from his embarrassing roots in Adelaide's "mini Detroit".

Penberthy began by applauding the apparently bipartisan position held by the nest of vipers in our Federal Parliament regarding the value of "free trade", before turning his vitriol upon the state governments of both NSW and Victoria, labeling them "pre Whitlamite drongos" for having the audacity to actually introduce a system of sourcing supplies from Australian manufacturers before buying from foreigners-a move Penberthy describes as "idiotic populism".

Australian taxes taken by Australian governments and used to buy products made by the Australians who pay the taxes. One can imagine Penberthy foaming at the mouth, banging away at his keyboard in a fit of rage at the cracks appearing in the quest for his beloved global village.....

Apparently, according to Penberthy, the actions of these two governments are not only idiotic populism but have also "trashed Australia's reputation" and have "pandered to prejudice".

Poor Dave, perhaps it is a recognition of the reality of today's economic climate? Perhaps these governments have realised that if local industry and business goes to the wall, retrenching Australian workers, then there will be no one around to pay the myriad of government fees, charges, levies and taxes which ensure the machinery of government bureaucracy continues to operate year after year? If we lose our local producers and our workforce is thrown on the scrap heap, KRudd's $60billion annual deficit will begin to look like child's play as governments seek ever increasing foreign loans to keep the apparatus of government operating. Remember Whitlam Dave?

Penberthy also failed to mention the fact that a large number of emergency services personnel developed skin disorders and respiratory problems following the issue of Chinese made uniforms-but don't let the truth get in the way of a good dressing down Dave....

Like a good internationalist, Dave began quaking in his designer boots at the thought of Australia being "dragged before the World Trade Organisation" for "this illegal act". Former governments ensnared our nation in this agreement, knowing full well the result of their actions. If governments really did give a damn for the national interest, as they keep reassuring us at any possible opportunity, then they would revoke this and any other piece of internationalist rubbish and start governing for the good of Australians as an independent, sovereign nation-not some worthless regional vassal state inhabited by mindless economic units supplying raw materials for the Asian Tiger economies.

Jumping on the bandwagon of the "educated elite" concerned about a possible rise in "protectionism" (damn those working class people wanting to work for a living), Penberthy turns his venom upon the general public. He claims that the general public have such an irrational view over the issue that "you could hold two days worth of psychological seminars around them".

Head cases, the lot of you.

Penberthy gave us the benefit of his worldly experience by informing us that "vegemite is a mysterious salty paste coming in jars", Arnotts do nothing more than "mix flour, eggs, sugar together and package them in a variety of guises" and "akubras are dead rabbits turned into a hat shape". One can see light bulbs suddenly burning brightly over the heads of the unenlightened thanks to Dave's words of wisdom there.

Not content to give us time to digest such in depth arguments, the article went on to show just where the author's priorities lie. Apparently, Australian icons should not hold the same place in our nation's psyche as "the 1983 Americas Cup team or Don Bradman's Invincibles".

Too right Dave, a bunch of blokes floating in a boat off Fremantle whopping Yankee butt and another bunch of blokes embarrassing the "Poms" at their own game is nothing like Australians creating their own businesses from nothing, employing Australians to make the products (often the best in the world) and supporting a myriad of other Australian businesses in the process.

Indeed, the fleeting glory of a sportsman and the momentary warm, fuzzy glow one feels as one sees that sportsman waving the nation's flag (dreaming of all the sponsorship deals coming his way) is nothing like the security felt as an Australian employee clocks off from his job and takes his pay home to his family, or that felt by an Australian farmer knowing his property is safe as he receives a fair price for his produce-unless the Woolies/Coles cartel chooses to import cheap and substandard produce from overseas.

Focusing on China and an imminent "Free Trade" Agreement, Penberthy once again takes a soothing tone reassuring us that we really only have a $480million trade deficit with "our Chinese friends" once you crunch the figures. Let's just ignore the fact these figures are prior to any FTA being signed with our so called "friends". Let's also ignore the inconvenient truth that China also has eyes on our mining sector as well as our farms, although, admittedly that will depend upon our nation liberalising any restrictions on both investment and the importation of labour-according to our Chinese friend, Xie Guoli, a senior Chinese Trade Official. Never mind Dave, I'm sure our bipartisan Federal parliamentary "representatives" can rectify that pesky little issue.

Furthermore, Penberthy and his ilk continue to ignore FTAs are not restricted to a single nation such as China, no, our governments are happy to sign anything shoved under their collective noses, including an FTA with Thailand, with Indonesia (let's just forget their little party trick of suddenly adding tariffs on Australian primary produce so they have something to offer at the table in return for open access to the Australian market), with the US (we're sure Penberthy wouldn't need reminding that Australian lamb exports to the US actually increased considerably under the "protectionist" Clinton administration with their penchant for tariffs)-so the list goes on. Any two bit dictatorship with ready access to cheap, even slave, labour will be lining up for a piece of the Australian market.

Penberthy would also have a convenient memory lapse regarding the signing of the US/ Canadian FTA. The Canadians were sold the same line given to us, the dangling carrot of lucrative exports, massive markets, increased standard of living, but the reality was a net loss of over 200 000 Canadian jobs. Nevertheless, internationalist journo hacks like Penberthy would probably just sneer at the ridiculous "impassioned affection" the Canadians hold for their jobs and suggest psychological evaluation.

It is probably a little unfair to focus on Dave's attack on so called protectionism, which in reality is akin to being slapped with a wilting lettuce leaf, after all, his column was just another in a long line of vocal attacks coming from such notable identities as PM KRudd, and former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, who despite resigning from politics and costing taxpayers a bucket load of money for a by-election in Mayo, cannot seem to keep his nose out of it.

Collectively, these people use misinformation and outright lies about the protectionist position. They would have the Australian people believe "protectionism" is all about building an insular country, cut off economically from the rest of the world, spurning interaction and trade with our neighbours.

Isn't it strange that such people never take the time to actually "interact" with the advocates of domestic protection in order to ascertain exactly what the position is that we support? No, it is much easier to fill newspaper columns with half truths and twisted claims, omitting facts and continue to herd Australians like unthinking wildebeest into the global corral.

Protectionism merely recognises the reality there is no such thing as a level playing field. The introduction of moderate and sensible tariffs to protect local manufacturers and farmers in fact alleviates this discrepancy and helps local producers to compete on their home ground against goods produced by cheap or slave labour, by companies not bound by environmental protection legislation and other such criteria we in the West often take for granted.

The much maligned protectionists are not interested in building a wall around our respective nations. Australian protectionists call for a number of measures to ensure Australian consumers are better informed to make a choice of "economic nationalism" over "economic rationalism".

Such measures can include more transparent labeling of products to inform consumers of country of origin, foreign ownership and the percentage of foreign produce used in the production of a good.

Protectionists also aim for a government which will increase R&D support to encourage value adding of Australian raw produce, rather than viewing our nation as a supplier of cheap raw material, shipping it off to some tin pot dictatorship to be made into shoddy products using slave and child labour and sold back to us at an exorbitant profit.

Advocates of the global village continue to launch themselves into a mindless panic at the mere thought of a return to industry protection. In a fashion reminiscent of the torment experienced by those who saw a "Red under every bed", they seek to attack at any opportunity any possibility of an open discussion regarding support or preference for Australian producers. What do they fear? How do they think trade was conducted prior to their obsession with a borderless world?

Let's face reality, if one party possesses a commodity desired by another, then the transaction will take place at a price agreeable to both-regardless of the presence of a moderate tariff.

Despite the hysterical claims by the likes of Downer and Rudd and the pseudo intellectual sneering by the likes of Penberthy, the Protectionist "bogeyman" will not return the world to the dark ages nor will they build a giant wall around the continent.

All we are demanding is a fair go for our nation's farmers, manufacturers and Australian workers. If you oppose that, then you are living in the wrong country.

07 July, 2009

Climate change and immigration

7th July 2009

In the never ending debate regarding climate change, along with the attempts to smear Senator Fielding's character for having the audacity to hold a different opinion, it strikes me as strange both sides have ignored one very important issue.

A number of aid agencies have now predicted that by 2015, there will be over 250 million people "on the move" due to the effects of climate change.

If this is the case, considering Australia can barely support the 21million people we have living here due to minimal arable land and our current water crisis, exactly what is our government planning to do when a large percentage of this 250million come knocking on our door?

Given the indisputable fact that a continent such as ours is already overpopulated, will both sides of the debate face the harsh reality that the only option when faced with such a massive movement of the world's population is to considerably increase defence spending, tighten border control and restrict immigration?

Perhaps this is the "inconvenient truth" and it is much easier to ignore this issue while denigrating the intelligence of the other side?

26 June, 2009

Remember the negative side of globalization

26th June 2009

I read with interest the letter by former Nationals candidate Peter McFarlane regarding the discussion about the negative side of globalization.

Disregarding an apparently slight degree of paranoia that a plague of former One Nation candidates appear to be on the horizon, Mr. McFarlane appears to willfully ignore the points made in the letters written by both Mr. Aldridge and myself.

The issue is not one of building a so called “protectionist wall” around our nation and cutting off any degree of two way trade. The issue is the fact that our nation’s leaders appear content to pursue a mythical level playing field in which we are supposed to compete against other nations’ economies which operate with a vast amount of cheap and often slave labour, yet still maintain a system of tariffs to protect their own economies. Foolishly, the advocates of liberalization think that the rest of the world will come to the party if only Australia continues to lead the way by example.

Mr. McFarlane claims that liberalization has given Australia it’s high standard of living. Perhaps he would care to explain how a person’s standard of living is improved as the factory gates are closed behind him, or the income from his farm is undercut by cheap imports?

If “protectionism through tariffs” is so detrimental to international trade, perhaps Mr.McFarlane would care to explain why Australian lamb exports to the US rose during the years of the Clinton Administration, a government quite content to defend their local producers through a system of sensible tariffs?

Those of us who seek a return through government policy to a system of limited protectionism do so out of concern for the livelihoods of those few local producers who remain. The policies are not dissimilar to those advocated by current and former Nationals MPs, Barnaby Joyce and Bob Katter.

For Australians to practice economic nationalism in the face of the failed and disastrous policy of so called economic rationalism by merely supporting, to the best of their ability, our local producers and industries should not be met with disdain and derision by those who have nothing to lose.

If Mr. McFarlane does not wish to support his fellow Australians, perhaps he is living in the wrong country.

16 June, 2009

Buy Australian to support Australian businesses and workers

16th June 2009

I would like to commend Mr. Aldridge for his comments regarding the threats to Australian businesses and workers.

The on going campaign to liberalise trade and create a borderless world in which the world's population is reduced to nothing more than voracious consumers without any sense of community has been going on for decades, notably since the signing of the Lima Declaration.

Successive governments have endangered Australian jobs, both manufacturing and primary industry, in their reckless pursuit of the mythical level playing field-a situation in which the only beneficiaries are those in a position to exploit cheap labour, move capital around the world or exploit the misfortunes of their neighbour as family farms are driven to the wall.

As a former manufacturing employee, we were assured so long as we "worked smarter", increased workforce flexibility and surrendered conditions, our company would go on to become a world player.

They certainly became a world player-one by one each department was shifted to China, the company grounds became a holding bay for imported goods and the company took no time in removing the Australian flag from their logo.

It may please Mr.Aldridge to know that Australians are waking up to the concerns he has expressed. Now employed in retail, I find many customers seeking out Australian, especially locally, produced goods. They are aware the survival of local businesses and farmers is in their hands.

Governments can help by instituting greater transparency of labelling to inform customers of country of origin and the percentage of foreign ownership.

Customers can also help by supporting independent supermarkets which often promote Australian produce, or by purchasing from the farmgate or at markets, thereby ensuring farmers get a fair price.

02 June, 2009

Labor's Concern For Australian Food & Fibre Producers Goes Bush

2nd June 2009

I condemned the Rudd Labor Government for diverting Australian taxpayer’s funds from Australian needs to use the money to shore up African support in the United Nations for a seat on the organisation’s Security Council.

At a time when many of our primary producers are struggling to stay on their farms when faced by drought and increased imports , not to mention the estimated $60 Billion annual deficit provided by Mr.Swan, it is nothing short of obscene for Mr.Rudd to be playing politics with our taxes.

The role played by our nation’s primary producers in the area of export revenue and the provision of jobs in regional Australia is invaluable. Australian taxation must be used to provide for the critical needs of our country-health, education, pensions for the elderly and infrastructure.

For the Labor government to slash $60 million from the agriculture Budget while boosting foreign aid to 4 African nations to the tune of $464 million is economic lunacy in today’s financial climate. When one considers the timing of this increase when added to our Governor General’s recent 3 week, 10 African nation tour, Australians have every reason to suspect the motives of this government.

It is no secret the government desires a return to a seat on the UN Security Council, but while Rudd plays international politics our nation’s debt continues to climb, our pensioners and farmers continue to struggle and the Murray continues to die.

29 May, 2009

International politics at rural expense

29th May 2009

Few could doubt that PM Rudd is now showing his true colours, along with Labor's traditional urban-centric contempt for regional Australians.

At a time of continued drought, the threat of cheap imports and reduced quarantine standards,coupled with an annual budget deficit of $60 billion, Mr.Rudd no longer makes any pretence of giving a damn about the needs of rural communities.

Labor has made no secret of it's desire to see Australia return to a seat (albeit temporarily) on the United Nations Security Council. For an internationalist organisation like Labor, it's a veritable "holy grail" to be seen playing with the big boys on the international stage.

With sleight of hand, Messrs Rudd and Swan have managed to rip $60 million out of the agricultural budget while at the same time boosting so called "foreign aid" to four African nations to the tune of $464 million, in what many media outlets have claimed is an attempt to shore up the support of African nations in the UN for an Australian return to the Security Council.

One can only suspect the motives and allegiances of this government. While Rudd continues to play international politics with Australian taxes, regional services continue to be neglected, health and education sectors struggle, pensioners continue to scrape by and the Murray continues to die.

28 May, 2009

Government for all Australians

28th May 2009

Ray Hamann (Adv 25/5) has declared that many of us forget that governments are not elected to carry out the wishes of the so called minority.

On the surface this may be true, however, I have a clear recollection of the election night festivities during which a jubilant Rudd declared that his would be a “government for ALL Australians”.

Strangely enough, this government is no different to any other Labor government - pandering to a smug group of social engineering elite and once again ignoring the needs and wishes of their traditional core constituency.

10 May, 2009

Foreign aid

10th May 2009

The Rudd government has just finished splashing taxpayers' money about to stimulate the economy-with negligible effect.

Recently, Wayne Swan admitted we could be looking at a $60 Billion per year deficit for at least 6 years, a debt which will probably be inherited by our children and only repaid by selling off the last few assets our country possesses.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has just announced a further $10 million aid on top of $23.5 million sent to Sri Lanka alone for use by UN agencies.

One question, if we are running on a $60 Billion annual deficit, from where does this extra $33.5 Billion come and should we be throwing money around when we have rising unemployment, companies collapsing, a struggling health sector, dwindling water supplies and reportedly sub standard education and child care?

16 March, 2009

Immigration cuts

16th March 2009

Given the current economic situation the recent news by the government to cut immigration by 18 000 is welcome news even though it is only a small step in the right direction.

However, of concern is the category in which the cuts are to take place- skilled immigration. During times of economic downturn in which local employees lose their jobs, it stands to reason that many may have to look for work for which they are over qualified in order to pay mortgages and feed families.

Therefore, we have more people seeking the blue collar jobs and part time positions, the very positions which often attract new arrivals such as those settled under "humanitarian" programs.

Surely, if the government is interested in employment and the national interest, they should be allowing in the skilled immigrants who have finances behind them and skills to contribute to the economy and instead cut the intake in the "humanitarian" category who often have few skills, little English and more often than not require support from the Australian taxpayer?

14 January, 2009

Bill of Rights a potential tool of oppression

14th January 2009

The implementation of a Bill of Rights is no guarantor of human rights in this country-it is in fact a tool that can be used to further erode the freedoms so many Australians take for granted today.

We support the right of Australians to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

The Australian Constitution should be enough to guarantee these rights, if not, then careful changes must be proposed and put to the Australian people in the form of a referendum.

A Bill of Rights has been enacted by various countries, many of which have had the most brutal and oppressive dictatorships known to man, a perfect example being the Soviet Union-how did a Bill of Rights or a UN Charter defend those persecuted by the government or tortured by the KGB? If anything, such a Bill here could be used to stifle freedom of speech and religious expression.

A Bill enacted in Australia could be used to seriously curtail criticism of beliefs or behaviour one finds abhorrent in defence of “human rights”. Where would that leave those wanting to voice their concern about practices such as polygamy, sodomy, female circumcision and abortion?

Furthermore, a Bill could be used to deny the right of an employer to employ the most suitable candidate for a position-as in the case of religious based schools wanting teachers to support the Christian ethos of their institution.

Such a move, intent on transferring power from Parliament to unaccountable judiciary is fraught with dangers to the freedoms given to us by previous generations, not least those who gave their lives upon the battlefield- it must be rejected outright.