Where are our real values?
Peter Matters writes: Re. “Muir offers a compromise in corporate transparency showdown” (yesterday). Even if Turnbull himself ordered his company removed from the secrecy register, big money — whether acknowledged or not — makes a mockery of democracy. Unless big money’s managements will catch on quickly that they owe first responsibility not to their shareholders but to us, the community, greed rather than vision and responsibility will rule their decisions to the fatal detriment of this very small globe and most of life on it. To consistently damage Mother Earth as well cause infinite damage to all life — research has recently discovered the first traces of toxins in mothers’ milk, due entirely to the toxic air we breathe and the toxic food we eat — and will cause the planet to turn into a half dead-garbage dump before the turn of the century.
Big money managements are simply stupid. To satisfy shareholders’ greed, they keep on inflicting irreparable damage to their own customers. We must conclude that our present way of life based on out of control, decadent, profligate consumerism is a dead-end street. If we want to survive, we must find the values within us and abandon our current practice of going by the values we buy at the shopping centre.
Let Gough rest in peace
Ken Lambert writes: Re. “Rundle: proving the CIA-backed conspiracy that brought down Whitlam” (yesterday). The horse is dead Guy … cactus, kaput, terminally flogged.
All I can say is thank God Kerr was there protecting us from the rabid Labor supporters of the Soviet Union and Mao’s China who were running useful idiots like Cairns, presided over by buffoons like Gough.
Kerr’s crime was putting Gough’s chaotic circus to an election.
Ken,
The only benefit of Ker’s dismissal of the Whitlam government is that never again will an elected government withl the confidence of the House of Representatives be subject to dismissal by a hostile Senate.
Governments might opt to go to an early election if they feel the Senate is obstructive, but it’s a decision they make voluntarily.
Governments controlling both Houses of Parliament appears to be a thing of the past, and they need to be able to negotiate to get their legislation passed, something Abbott wasn’t able to do.
Unlike our so called ally who were running the useful drunkenly addled idiot..
Wayne, before you criticise Ken [who admittedly had factual errors in his Comment] please try to understand that Governments have been, continue to be, and SHOULD be open to dismissal if they try to continue governing without Supply. Whitlam decided to bluff, and his bluff was called.
Had the ALP Powerbrokers heeded advice they were given in 1974, Whitlam’s Government would have survived. They ignored it and paid the price of their own folly.
Norman,
You’re factually inaccurate (as usual). The Senate no longer has the power to deny supply, and as a result can’t force a government which has the numbers in the House of Representatives by rejecting finance bills (actually in the case of 1975, refusing to consider the legislation – supply hadn’t been rejected. The government still had money to run government for another 4 weeks).
Now if the government hadn’t been able to get the supply bills through the House of Representatives, then you might have a point. Although by that stage, it would have lost confidence of the parliament and Kerr would have been obliged to ask Fraser if he was able to form a government.
Supply hadn’t run out. There’s no constitutional requirement to have Supply passed by an arbitrary date in advance, whether 4 weeks or 2 minutes.
Norman,
And anyway. I’m curious as to the factual errors you reckon are present in Ken Lambert’s comment. I’m interested in getting a definite statement from you in place of your usual waffle.