We all know the answer to this question to be a resounding No.
The past has shown there to be some potilically powerful female figures along with inept and incompitent male figures. This leads to the asking of the question of why the media is starting to focus on this in recent times?
In the week that has seen our Monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, celebrating the diamond jubilee of her accession to the throne, Bob Brown has come out saying that ‘attacks’ on the Prime Minister are sexist, along with an article alleging the same thing of Bob Katter because there are a low number of females in his candidate list.
Apart from the obvious fact that they are unfounded, Bob Brown’s comments could have been made for a number of reasons. Firstly, he is trying to sway the opinion of those voters who are easily influence into supporting the Prime Minister, as he knows that should the ALP’s minority government be toppled, either in the coming weeks or at the next election, he will be relegated to the role of noisy leader of a minor party.
Another reason could be that he is suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome. Now that his Carbon Tax has passed through parliament and is set to have it’s impact on the country in a few months time, there really isn’t left for him to bleat about. Things are quiet on the Sea Shepherd and Whaling front, with no major skirmishes being reported for a few weeks now. So he needed to find something else to get his name back into the papers.
Keep in mind, this comment was made at his first press conference for 2012, and it does appear to be the only thing from that press conference that actually made it into the newspapers. Therefore, I do feel that it is a case of relevance deprivation syndrome more than anything else.
One of the funny things about getting older is that you tend to notice things that would have been overlooked a few years earlier. It’s either that, or I am becoming increasingly more cynical as the days, months, years go by. And lately, more things have been catching my attention.
First there is the whole climate change and carbon levy/ETS debate. Yes, the climate is changing, that is a given. Though whether it has more to do with the carbon that we emit as opposed to the spread of the concrete jungles is up for debate.
Really, how will imposing this levy on businesses, who will in turn pass it onto us get them to change what they do or even us, when 9 out of 10 Australian households will be stay the same or be better off with the associated compensation package? Another thing I would like explained to me is, if this is a levy on 500 of this countries biggest polluters, and why was it reduced to 500 from the original 1,000? Was it because that would have had too much of an impact on the economy? Why do I have to pay for it and why will the CPI rise by an estimate 0.07%? Doesn’t that mean that it is a levy that is imposed on the consumer?
If the government is ready and willing to bring about all these changes in a vain attempt to halt the damage to our environment, why are they using the same methods to fix the health of this country? How about a 10-15% “junk food tax”? The money raised would go towards a subsidy for fresh fruit and vegetables. With additional funding coming from alcohol and tobacco revenue.
This past weekend had to have been one of the most exciting ones for Australian television in a long time. On Sunday 10 July 2011 beginning at 12:00 EST the Australian Prime Minister, the Honorable Julia Gillard began her hard sell campaign for the Carbon Tax that the Australian tax payer will be burdened with from 01 July 2012.
And, I do use the term exciting very very loosely, only because the mind numbing hours of sport and fishing shows were replaced with mind numbing hours of political double-speak.
Monday was the first day of her national roadshow to ‘sell’ the carbon tax to the Australian people. Really, this is a huge waste of money, because according to her, what she presented on Sunday will be the package that begins on 01 July 2012.
This statement alone should be enough to scare the pants off the Australian people. Usually when a draft bill is presented to the Australian Parliament, it begins in the House of Representatives where it is debated and voted on. Now we know that thanks to the support of a few independents the Labor Party has a majority vote there, so it will pretty much be rubber stamped because there is no way she will allow any member to vote against party lines. The bill will then head to the upper house or the Senate, as I mentioned in my podcast, a bunch of watermelons have control here. So for the Prime Minister to say that what she was launching on Sunday will be what begins on 01 July 2012 must mean that she is going to usurp Australia’s democratic process and this means that whatever debate or joint committees are formed will literally be a Clayton’s committee/debate. This also means that a deal has been done with the Watermelons before the bill has been presented to parliament.