Milk wars: pointing the finger at Coles and Woolworths
MINISTERS OF STATE AMENDMENT BILL The question is: did Senator Heffernan check the documents? defending the privilege of the parliament— and in so doing, incidentally, his friend Senator Heffernan—not . Nevertheless, I want to express my admiration—as a citizen who has only met Mr Justice Kirby in . MSN News - Get the latest breaking headlines, views and opinions from Australia and around the world on the stories that matter. What do you see as your mission or priorities now? a week to achieve the results you wanted. Where did this . Jensen is a friend. He is a great . demand is. Q In , Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan used parliamentary.
I always figured he was British or something. I'm going to read Heffernan's maiden speech now. I like reading these things This speech was done on 10 December I think at this point I lived in Los Angeles. It was probably a few weeks before I became a film school drop-out. Heffernan says, The Liberal Party, without fuss or fanfare, and certainly without quotas or tokens, has led the way to deliver more women to parliament.
Justice left hanging in the breeze
Yeah, let's just hope none of them were barren. We wouldn't want any girls who don't understand what life is about. I'm getting some childhood information here now. He had six siblings.
He has been deprived of living in a small family. Therefore he doesn't know what life is about. He should never be a leader. He and his wife have four children. I do like what he says here, although I'm not sure he means it in the way I'd want him to mean it. It is an environment where we have learnt from the ancient skills of our indigenous people and from the recent lessons of land care that man is merely the custodian of the land and that planet survival demands a certain order of our water, land, plants and animals--an order which when respected will provide for man.
On the surface, I really can't fault him on what he has said here. It sounds rather lovely. What's that order word mean here?
- The Sydney Morning Herald
- Some of my favorite posts (from my blog)
- The Conversation
Is it like a food chain thing? He COULD be saying that the world will be okay as long as we remember that humans are superior and more important than the other little creatures. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. He says, I am mindful that the cost to family life of political commitment is both high and well documented. I would not be here without the help of my Sydney foster family, Bill and Trish McPhee, the support of my family and my hardworking wife, Margaret, and my children, Kate, Will, Ted and Harriet--all of whom have had to make considerable sacrifices.
I wonder how many female politicians have this support from their spouses and children. Some of them might, and that's great. But if they don't, how do they manage such a career? I have to say. I like this quote too.
Many times I have observed the capacity of all Australians to pull together during times of war and national disaster. Is it too much to ask of the beneficiaries, of such capacity, to pull together in times of peace for social justice and a fair go for every Australian How does such an asshole come up with this stuff?
It IS rather lovely. Here's more insight into his view of women: Rural women often have to contend with droving, drafting and old harvest trucks, yet find the time to do the books, do the washing and ironing, cook the meals, oversee the homework, school excursions and weekend sport, water the garden and look like a lady of leisure for church on Sunday.
Our rural women deserve a medal for holding together the spirit of family farming. So, he IS respectful of women And there's nothing wrong with being this type of woman. I think they deserve a lot of respect. I personally admire them. But it's not the only valid life choice.
I'm sorry, Heffernan tells Gillard
Maybe the guy IS fairly eco-conscious. He says, Population growth is wearing down Mother Earth and swallowing up our farming land and agricultural water resources. Twenty-five per cent of the world's agricultural land is degraded and 25 per cent of the world's wild fisheries are overfished. If the world does not wake up, in years there will be no tropical rainforest. It's funny about the population growth though because earlier in the speech he pretty much boasted about coming from a large family.
He also seems fairly supportive of Indigenous Australians. He says, My tribute also extends to my bush companions, our indigenous people, who live in rural and remote Australia. I share their love of the land and their concern for the loss of their timeless culture. They, like myself, sleep many nights under the stars, understand the value of a campfire and can read Mother Nature, her seasons and warning signals.
They, sadly, often live in a mire of low self-esteem, shunned by the passage of time and technology. I can't find fault in anything he has said here. He talks about the underdeveloped north. He believes Australia should tap into all the resources there. So, you use up the resources in one place and move onto a new place. It might come down to us having to do stuff like that. But can it be done in a way that's not overly destructive? If Northern Australia is mined and all that, what would be sacrificed?
What would be gained? Would it all balance out? And is it one of those things where there'd be quick fixes that would lead to bigger problems in the future? Here's his speech about the gene stuff. Oh, he's NOT against gene therapy. I blundered that one. I think I'm actually in agreement with him here. He doesn't believe genes should be patented.
He says, To realize the full promise of this research, raw fundamental data on the human genome, including the human DNA sequence and its variations, should be made freely available to scientists everywhere. Unencumbered access to this information will promote discoveries that will reduce the burden of disease, improve health around the world, and enhance the quality of life for all humankind. I'm starting to have mixed feelings about this guy. He's becoming less of an asshole to me.
Well, maybe I should say I still feel like he' an asshole. But he's an asshole with some pretty decent ideas.
You know who he reminds me of Or maybe Ben on Lost! They're awful in some ways, but not so awful in other ways. It seems he might be involved in this gene stuff for personal reasons. He and his sister are against a certain company, Genetic Technologies Ltd, having sole control of gene testing for certain types of breast cancer. That sister and their other sister both had breast cancer. The genes run higher in Jewish people, and we've had breast cancer in the family. They're really expensive though.
I think it's sad that medical tests cost so much. Does it really entail that much time and resources? Or are people making huge profits from it?
I'll admit that the price isn't the only thing stopping me from taking the tests. I guess it's the fear of getting a positive result. What would I do then? The information isn't definite. And I could end up with a negative test. But I can't be relieved about that because I still could get cancer. And if I don't get cancer, I could get hit by a truck. Targeting particular products within their retail line is a really clear strategy based upon focussing on items that will have the strongest salience in the minds of the consumer, rather than lowering prices across the board.
Is this also a move to limit the power of suppliers? There are two strategies that are being played out simultaneously. One is the external competition from the emerging Costco and Aldi. The other one is in-house brands, which the big two grocery retailers have been focusing on for about five years.
The reason they have been pushing these is because they can negotiate much higher margins when dealing with suppliers and producers and extract higher profits, as opposed to national brands. Even within the in-house brands the two retailers have really been pushing segmentation. What has been the response from suppliers? I can imagine suppliers are feeling the pressure to sell below the cost of actually making the goods just so they can survive, as they have to rely on the supermarket chains for their market share.
The people who are doing it are in many ways naive and nice people. The carbon tax is a similar thing. I would argue that the conditions for the 15 per cent target have already been met, so Australia should be thinking about moving to that target. Australia has an emissions reduction commitment that is part of a global effort to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. If our goal is to meet our commitment, we may as well do it in a manner which is likely to be least-cost.
There is a near consensus among economists that the least-cost means of achieving an emissions reduction target is via putting a price on carbon. With a price on carbon in place, the private sector will choose to invest and produce in ways that are likely to involve fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money to be made by being more carbon-efficient. With a strong and rising carbon price, our economy can keep on growing, while our emissions growth is reined in, and eventually reversed. The purpose of carbon pricing is to see a relatively gradual change to a low-emissions economy.
The most important changes will likely come about primarily via supply-side energy source switching e. It is important to recognise the strong opposition to the move to price carbon in Australia. Much of the current discontent is likely to dissipate subsequent to what will probably be an innocuous start to the scheme in July Building a stronger and more resilient consensus that climate change risks are worth managing, and that carbon pricing is the way to do it, is important for ensuring the ongoing stability of the scheme.
Governments have to raise revenue somehow. Next financial year, almost 40 per cent of the carbon permit revenue will be used to reduce income tax. Hopefully a larger share of the revenue from the carbon price will be used to reduce existing taxes in the future.
Taxes identified by the Henry Review as being highly inefficient should ideally be the first to go, although this would require collaboration with the states.
No-one likes paying tax, but given the increasingly conclusive evidence of climate change risks, pricing carbon seems to be pretty sensible. It will finally create an emissions trading scheme for Australia, making low carbon investments more attractive relative to fossil fuel alternatives and business as usual. The policy package also offers significant complementary measures to help boost business uptake of energy efficiency and carbon farming.
Bill Heffernan - Wikipedia
We will be closely monitoring progress. Evening rush hour traffic comes to a standstill on a hazy and polluted day in Beijing, China. Fossil fuel use is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions. With South Korea planning to follow suit, momentum towards carbon emission reductions in the Asia Pacific is starting to build.
Professor John Cole, Director of the Australian Centre for Sustainable Business and Development, University of Southern Queensland The challenge for Australians now is to believe we can make a difference in the action we take, demonstrate that the direction we have set is worthy of adoption by other countries, and to be resolute, relentless and persuasive in making the case for global action on climate change.
To that end we will be more credible because of the legislation passed in the Senate today.