Double Dipper Dan


Social Justice Warrior and Victorian Premier Dan Andrews is in hot water after 21 of his Labor MPs have been embroiled in a “Rorts for Votes” scheme investigated by the Ombudsman which breached parliamentary guidelines. It found Labor misused almost $388,000 during the 2014 election campaign. Labor spent $1,000,000 of taxpayers dime over two years trying to stop the Ombudsman investigating them. While the money has reportedly been repayed, Andrews & Co are pleading honest mistakes with regards to probably the most basic and well understood laws of election campaigning. Were someone to rob a bank, invest the proceeds to make a big return then return the original funds, would the justice system turn a blind eye? Andrews would seem to think that there should be no consequences.

Dan Andrews is the first to point the finger at everyone else for morals and ethics. How quick he is to virtue signal on social media at his amazing feats for the state of Victoria which put the rest of the country to shame. To belt neighboring states inferior unemployment rates when his government has been creating New Deal type tax spending programmes to fund new jobs.

Here is a list of just five of the shocking lapses in ethics and morals his government can lay claim to:

1) Andrews handed over $500mn in taxpayer funds to contractors for the backflip on the East-West link. He said during the election campaign he would honour those contracts but said after becoming Premier that “Be very clear about this: there will be no compensation paid.” Then still burnt the funds.

2) He told Victorians that the closure of the Hazelwood coal fired power station would hit electricity bills by 85c/week for the sake of the environment. This turned out to be an average of $278/year because of the over reliance on wholesale electricity markets. Despite all of his hair brained renewables schemes, to make up for the shortfall of closing Hazelwood 100MW of dirty diesel generators were secured to offset any shortfalls in baseload. He also spoke of how many green jobs would be created. Facts show that green job creation has been on a long term downtrend

3) Was instrumental in forcing rural fire-fighting volunteers (those who do it from the heart) against their will to come under the control of the fireman’s union who helped him get elected.

4)  To indoctrinate diversity the Vic Police practiced segregation in police recruiting seminars as the blueprint to reach nirvana in terms of the type of open mindedness and multi-cultural society we should strive for. If they truly wanted to teach the virtues of diversity why don’t they just have a come one come all seminar which didn’t base it on gender, religious or sexual orientation. Victoria has more cops per capita than any other state yet home invasions, carjackings and other crime rates are soaring.

5) The Andrews’s government wants to allow girls as young as 11 to get access to the contraceptive pill without consent from the parents. Most parents worry about their kids. What they eat and what they put in their bodies. Some kids may only want it to reduce pain during their menstrual cycle but to have a government provide a service which deliberately allows kids to bypass parental approval is downright wrong.

While Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has hardly helped his cause by having dinner with a member of the underworld in August 2017 in what was dubbed ‘Mobster-Lobster-gate’ this should hopefully wake up socialist Victoria to the crooked nature of the incumbents.

Qantas – do you think this might work better?


Qantas is training it’s staff not to use words like “honey”, “darling” or ”husband & wife” to avoid offending minorities onboard. Here’s a better idea Qantas. Instead of blanket removing words from the new speak dictionary why not improve your service to a level where customers at or before check-in can elect to let you know what they’re happy with being called? That way everyone can praise the airline for “attention to detail”, an accolade that is generally not bestowed on Qantas. If CM is called darling or honey I won’t be offended.

Qantas would probably find 99% of passengers couldn’t care less. Presumably all 63 genders will need to be cited ahead of the safety briefing. What about if a 7yo child feels offended that the parent/adult/guardian puts on their oxygen mask first is inappropriately ignoring that he/she/xie identifies as a 19yo? Maybe Qantas should install 63 toilets onboard to really make sure all levels are catered for? Or prayer rooms for all faiths? PC nonsense going too far.

Zip It or be Zapped


It seems that everywhere we turn these days someone else is raising a flag to suggest “we need to move with the times.”  What are “the times?” Whose times are we required to move for? Mine? Yours? Theirs? A chat on social media the other day raised the conversation of an HR director saying that he would not sign off on a hire who didn’t agree with his subjective view over a trivial subject. He argued that it was for the best interests of diversity and inclusion not to hire someone who wasn’t offended by said subject. CM retorted “so if I don’t agree with your thinking on a topic which is completely unrelated to the job task that I might be hypothetically the most qualified for, you’ll sink it on that alone…sounds like a totalitarian power trip.” This confirmed the ‘unconscious bias, conscious bias‘ piece on HR last week.’ 2+2=5. HR departments are becoming all powerful autocrats.

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry! The conversation went further to suggest that I simply must accept change on the grounds of diversity. That word is chucked around as loosely as a Casanova saying “I love you” to his multiple conquests. It simply seeks to force compliance. Surely all things work better when there is mutual buy-in rather than threatening to burn people at the stake. Why is my subjectivity any more or less valuable than someone else’s?

The idea of forcing conformity is dangerous ground. As long as one’s views don’t openly impact others why should it matter? Why should HR apparatchiks use bullying behaviour which goes against the grain of every appropriate workplace behaviour training seminar staff are required to take? Well it is only “some” behaviour. So much for equality in the workplace.

Just like the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. Anyone with a rainbow screen saver could proudly display it in the office without attracting a whimper because they were ‘on message’. Anyone that didn’t believe it and had a “Vote NO” as a computer screen background would have been summoned before HR for hate speech and reprimanded or worse, sacked. Is that freedom of opinion? Is that diversity? Or inclusion? Accept or face the consequences is hardly a way to encourage it. Diversity and inclusion only creates division and exclusion because only some people are allowed to voice free speech.  When the government funded Diversity Council tells Australian workers that the use of the word ‘guys’ is offensive then just how far are we willing to trade everyday freedoms and cultural norms? If one is triggered by the use of the word ‘guys’ or a preferred pronoun then they need a shrink not an HR department to help them.

The sad reality is that diversity should be won on the grounds of the argument rather than legislation. Just like the F1 race queen ban from this year. It doesn’t much matter to CM personally on what the F1 wants to do. Go on the MotoGP website and there is a “Paddock GirlssectionTo suddenly reverse a decision it so actively promotes would be utter hypocrisy. While the need to halt the objectification of women argument is bandied about, the women who do it are clearly happy to be objectified for a price. Instead of viewers being told to “get with the times” shouldn’t they be hammering the message to the umbrella girls to tell them they’re letting down their own side? Could it be they can exploit their beauty for some decent coin because they don’t share offense over the issue? Their looks are a virtue in their eyes. Are they wrong to use it their advantage? Would a Harvard MBA graduate apply to McDonalds for a cash register role so as to check his or her privelege to those that weren’t so lucky to study there?

Whether one likes it or not why not let sponsors decide how they want to spend their ad dollars and let consumers bury them if they find the use of advertising across a cleavage as “not with the times”? Why state control? Casey Stoner ended up marrying his pit girl and has a wonderful family now. If 10% of teams decided to keep pit girls but got 75% of the TV coverage before the start of the race could you blame them? Advertising is literally all about ‘exposure’. Or would race control demand the camera operators avoid them?

Further to that, perhaps F1 should ban the popular cockpit radio transmissions of drivers like Kimi Raikkonen who drop the F-bomb every other lap. Or is profanity now ‘in with the times’?

Should the forthcoming Tokyo Motor Show ban the use of scantily clad women standing next to cars? Last year Porsche, VW and Audi had several slick cut male models parading their products. Ladies were lining up to take selfies with these foreign himbos. If not for objectification, then what? Girls could be heard saying “cho kakkoi” (so handsome). As a male was I feeling insulted and triggered? No. I figured it was time to sign up for the gym, visit Hugo Boss for a sharp suit and book an appointment at a $300 hair stylist after I got back in shape. If I had made a song and dance about feeling uncomfortable at handsome men being treated like slabs of meat would I be granted the same rights to being offended? Not for a second.

Should pretty women be banned from starring in adverts?  Cosmetics companies have products that are pitched pretty much solely toward women but no one bats an eyelid when Giselle pouts a lipstick. Luxury goods stores also cater predominantly to women. No shortage of flesh showing off shoes, handbags or miniskirts. Why no outrage? Should Subaru be raked over coals for targeting same sex couples in its adverts? No. If it feels that is a market it wishes to tap then it should feel free to push for it. If I was offended then I could simply refuse to buy an Impreza WRX. I shouldn’t have a right to tell Subaru who it can and can’t sell to. That’s accepting diversity. Not enforcing my view of the world on others with respect to Subaru. Choice.

Put simply why should the subjective opinions of people (within reason) be such that we must comfort the wowsers at all times? Yarra Council is telling it’s 1,000 staff it mustn’t use the word “Australia Day” to refer to Janury 26, a Day celebrated since 1815! Aussie nurses and midwives are being told to check their white privelege and admit their colonial roots should a patient demand so. Shouldn’t the safe delivery of children be the only priority than have a “code of conduct” to force behaviours that have probably never if ever been an issue in decades? Bad bedside manner for healthcarers is one thing less likely to do with race, gender or sexual orientation than individual attitudes.

Still the message is zip it or be zapped. Next time you’re being told it is for diversity start running for the hills. Your subjective opinion is as equal as anyone elses provided you don’t disagree with the Marxist’s definition of ‘with the times




It is no surprise that The Guardian has published a review like this. It is yet another reason why it still begs for donations at the end of every article. Instead of thinking the content might be the problem the paper still thinks it’s readers “just haven’t come around yet”.  It’s consistent with leftist thinking.

Buckmaster writes,

Designed to appeal to US audiences first and foremost, and subsequently exploiting Australia’s inferiority complex, Crocodile Dundee confirmed false preconceptions Americans had (and perhaps still have) about Australia and Australians. These movies constructed a conservative fantasy, where white hetero males do all the hard work and are justly rewarded, and where everybody else, including “the sheilas”, “the Aborigines” and “the gays”, understand their place in the pecking order – which is somewhere below people like Dundee.”

Doesn’t the $700mn that the Crocodile Dundee franchise earned speak volumes of is popularity? Was it a surprise to see Tourism Australia make Paul Hogan (Crocodile Dundee) it’s pin up boy to tell Yanks he’ll “put another shrimp on the barbie”? The Guardian should take note.  Is it that many people see beyond all of these stereotypes because of the comedy within it? Why would people pay to watch a comedy film if it must walk on egg shells over every potential grievance? Maybe it would please Buckmaster if signs lit up telling audiences when they should applaud and boo? That way we could be indoctrinated inside the theatre. Perhaps filmmakers should pool all revenues at the box office and divide them evenly so those that didn’t do very well get equal pay?

Will The Guardian protest in ways that force the film content approval boards to edit out any “insensitive comments” against minorities? Jerry Seinfeld used to make fun of our differences all the time. One episode saw Jerry asking a mailman who happened to be of Chinese origin whether he knew where a Chinese restaurant was. “Do you think because I’m Chinese that I know where the Chinese restaurant is?” “No I thought you’d know because you’re a mailman” Two perspectives hidden in the comedy. If Jerry Seinfeld wasn’t funny he wouldn’t have been paid millions per episode. The viewers spoke and the network listened.

The problem with the left is that they can’t laugh at themselves let alone life. Most good humour is achieved by making fun of people. Ricky Gervais made a whole comedy series ‘The Office’ which poked fun of the horrible boss most of us had encountered while tackling all the issues around race, gender, sexual orientation, office romances, hierarchies and the politics inside the workplace. It was so funny because the viewer could laugh at the truth behind the storyline as they could rattle off names of their own colleagues who were just like the characters.

But no, humour must be surgically removed by the state. Rules must be put in place to protect people that aren’t necessarily asking for it.  Were Aborigines outraged after the first Crocodile Dundee? No. Should they and other minorities that supposedly had their feelings hurt retroactively seek compensation from Paul Hogan? Should he be dragged in front of the Australian Human Rights Commission?

What Buckmaster overlooks is the hypocrisy of Hollywood. As the #METOO scandal broke, celebrities might have worn black but so short of material were most of the dress makers one would be hard pressed to see it as a legitimate protest against sexual harassment. That’s ok though as their acceptance speeches spoke of gender pay gaps and all the other champagne socialist causes. That’s the difference. Because they support the leftist causes that’s alright even though half of those in the room are perfect examples of ignoring causes until it affects them. Surprise surprise to see the ratings of Hollywood award ceremonies  plummet. Ringing any bells Mr Buckmaster?

So to  Buckmaster’s  hope that the next Croc Dundee film removes the very things that made the franchise such a hit. Why not just let the box office tell the story of what people are prepared to pay for? People can make up their own minds on what they’re offended by. They don’t need the state to control language and thought. Look at all the howls of protest from the left about Tommy Robinson being a hateful racist bigot. Then look to why he has two #1 best selling books on Amazon? Could it be more people actually agree with him but keep quiet to avoid endless tirades from the left? Then they wonder why Trump won. In a sense the president is a Crocodile Dundee. He portrays himself as a silverback who grabs crotches and throws caution to the wind at political correctness.


What next?


The Queensland Government has decided to remove ‘gender’ from licenses going forward after ‘pressure’ from the LGBTI community.  In what can only be described as a politically correct own goal by the Dept of Transport & Main Roads, surely the best way to pander to all of those minorities would have been to offer the choice of the 63 genders that are available. Imagine the amount of tax dollars we can waste on new sensitivity training for police to make sure that the can ‘protect and serve’ feelings. Or maybe that is the aim to create more state jobs?

What is a poor highway patrol officer (usually operating alone) who pulls over a driver over for speeding on the highway to do? What if he thinks the driver is over the limit when questioning him/her/zie? The bearded driver who looks male can pull out the genderless card and accuse the officer of using the wrong pronoun and request that an LGBT police officer administer any breath test procedure. In fact the driver might just claim an injustice has been served.

So will highway patrols be forced to carry a male, female and LGBT officer on pursuits with a fourth ‘independent observer’ from the Australian Human Rights Commission to ensure that feelings of drivers aren’t hurt?

We keep on being told diversity is our strength. Indeed it would be true were it not for repeated state indoctrination. We only need to look at how celebrating diversity works in places like California where one can be jailed for simply using the wrong pronoun. Welcome to the slippery slope.

‘Hiring outside the box’ – why ‘diversity of thought’ trumps ‘diversity’


How many times have I heard over my career senior management talk incessantly about the need for new blood yet when it comes to doing anything about it with regards to new hires 99.9% of the time the safe cookie cutter is favoured over the left field choice. It is ever more so the truth in the post GFC world. Managers seem afraid to take calculated risks because the left-field candidate may jeopardize their own positions if he/she fails. Perhaps we really should judge businesses and their long term ability to succeed by the willingness to hire outside the box.

As an example managers in finance often fall foul of hiring exclusively within the industry. The level of inferiority complex can be so overwhelming that they fawn at the idea a Goldman Sachs employee will work for them for some ridiculous sum. Invariably they forget that Goldman hires duds too and usually those that get cast off are in that bucket. If you are properly good, there is no incentive to leave Goldman as the salaries, opportunities and product capabilities are too wonderful vs peers.

Yet many financial firms set upon trying to change the firm into a wannabe Goldman Sachs. They forget that their clients can already deal with Goldman directly should they feel the urge. Why on earth would they choose to deal with a wannabe copy? Surely each firm has a unique selling property that is of value to clients. Why not invest and promote that rather than overlook the talent within. Who honestly values flattery? Besides, there are so many cautionary tales with hiring ex-bulge bracket employees who are so used to being spoon fed every possible product line that they struggle immensely when they are required to actually put elbow grease into the job. It is uncanny.

Some firms occasionally hire from outside the industry with huge success. Instead of financial analysts pontificating about a stock, someone who has worked within the industry has a far better feel for cycles, internal decision processes and strategy that formulates under different points in the cycle. Clients glean that value. They couldn’t care less about the stock target or valuation metrics because that ultimately is the investor’s job. Besides the history of brokers behind the curve is etched in stone. Unique context and perspective trumps commoditization every time.

Some financial (and other) professionals have such checkered histories that one wonders how on earth they get rehired. If companies viewed their hiring decisions as akin to selecting a heart surgeon for a life threatening operation, many of these people would never make the cut (no pun intended) given the body count from previous poor execution. Yet many firms continue to put quacks in their ‘surgeries’ with expected disastrous results. Generally hiring managers run interference on these bad choices to cover their own mistakes.

Many HR surveys (including Harvard) show that bad hires end up costing way more than the salary when the cost of onboarding is included. Not only do companies potentially have to foot the cost of a headhunter (25-30% of salary is a standard fee) , what follows is poorer output, the potential for incumbent employees to become disgruntled at the new hire’s lack of ability and most worryingly an increase in dissatisfied customers. If they land a toxic employee that can damage team productivity to such an extent the best performers will seek challenges elsewhere.

So in a world that is getting harder and harder to succeed in, on what basis does conventional thinking bring anything to the table but more of the same? What does hiring a competitor do other than bring similar tactics? In fact, the more telling question is if they were knocking the lights out their success would permeate within their current employer. Unseating happy employees requires dynamite way over and above what they can probably afford.

What hirers often forget is the extent to which internal human capital plays a part. How awful does one’s human capital creation have to be to consider jumping ship regularly? So the idea of hiring a team or individual that is desperate to flee their current employer before their failures eventually catch up with them and get them fired or demoted, has the hiring management really checked and confirmed their performances at their old shop? If they have achieved so little at the old company what on earth makes hiring managers think they can miraculously turn around at the new company? It is a serious question and I have seen it rife across a raft of industries not just finance.

That is where the left field choice comes into its own when hiring. A person genuinely looking for career change may well be doing it because they’ve tired of several decades of the same industry. They’ll likely come full of fresh ideas, out of the box solutions and lessons from a completely different background with the passion of a new graduate. For as different as many industries may seem from the outside, the connectivity with great customer experiences is ubiquitous.

Usually it is the small stuff that actually matters, not 50 page PowerPoints with data points which actually completely miss what really matters. It is almost ironic to think employees have to prove their worth by making simple things complicated.

Many companies fail to adapt because the stupid questions don’t get asked by the incumbent staff for fear of ridicule. Yet someone eager to learn may ask the most basic of questions and ask “does it work?” One company I consult had a new boss join from HQ and he questioned why staff had meetings on such trivial matters? One staff member said “we’ve been doing it this way for 15 years!” When the boss said “does it work?” all replied ‘not really“. Yet they offered little in the way of proposals to change what was broken.

In a sense I see many businesses that operate in status quo mode where change if ever happens on a trivial or traumatic basis not through consistent due diligence and proactive leadership.

Think of it like asking an elderly person “if you had one more day to live what would you do?” “Well I’d play golf, take my wife to an expensive dinner and drive a Ferrari” If you asked him “why don’t you do it now?” the response would likely be “well I’m not dead yet!”

Look at the successful businesses around the world today and invariably the corporate culture is likely to be open and flexible. Bosses are prepared to hire people more qualified than them because they want to learn. Show me a company where inferior staff are hired to protect a manager and I’ll show you a dud business.

I was fortunate enough to have lunch with an utterly inspirational CEO in the automotive field in Japan this week who has rebuilt a brand from nothing to a point where his dealers are almost biting his hand off for extra product! Why does this matter? Well pretty much all of his competitors have dealers who aren’t part of the  family! His competitors seem to treat dealers as outsiders where there is no relationship built on foundations of mutual trust. How can long term targets have any mutual meaning if the OEM forces its dealers to positions which do not take into account individual conditions. Here is a target – if you don’t meet it then we’ll keep shipping you more cars even if your business suffers!

Which then goes back to the most important ingredient in a tech savvy smartphone world. Analog relationships. Look at the latest recruitment sites which ask candidates to fill in fields where a computer will sift through algorithms to screen. These systems remove the most important skill in selecting good candidates – gut feel. A good recruiter can understand a client’s needs far better than a computer. Besides if a computer is searching for terms fixated on what you’ve done and not what you want to do it will screen you out every time. What a wasted opportunity!

Human nature is uncanny. Risk taking is inevitable but instead of most people becoming victims of change only a mere few will end up being agents of it and there will be no second guessing who dares wins! So instead of screening for the textbook definition of identity based diversity how about focus on diversity of thought!