louisetreloarpr:

carolineraffanpr:

Sunrise in Tokyo is a great PR move! Seeing a great TV personality Sumo Wrestling, trying eye balls…in Tokyo would definitely make me think twice about heading there for my next vacation.  Guess the proof is to see whether Tourism rates actually rise for Japan!

I watched that and thought it was hilarious! Not the type of thing that you would see on a lot of news programs! Grant Denyer is definately one of a kind. Many people would find that a little risque’ or controversial but then they probably aren’t the target audience for sunrise anyway. It was very fun and I did enjoy it and am pretty confident that it would of raised some interest in Japan for tourists.

Qantas Airways Ltd’s plans to move into Asia with a new superior brand may be postponed until 2013, as the carrier remains in talks with prospective partners in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, according to The Australian Financial Review.

According to The Australian Financial Review, while a decision on where the new airline will be established is expected before the end of the year, it may take an additional 12 months for the venture to receive all of the approvals necessary to begin operating.

I think Qantas needs to be careful to not push this situation too far. After the uproar that there has been from the loss of jobs and people’s fear of tainting an iconic Australian brand, they need to be careful that they don’t lose people’s faith in them further with ambiguous plans.

People are resistant to change as it is, they like to be reassured and so with the changes taking place at Qantas people have been opinionated, frantic and defensive from the beginning. One of the things that can help in a situation of huge change is to at least have some certainty of the new direction they are heading into.

However, this is not the case and as well as Investors not being too happy about this delay, an even bigger stakeholder is Qantas customers and the Australian public.
It would be a devastating shame if the country in which Qantas was established and is an icon of, boycotted the brand.

For more information on this, please visit: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Qantas-Asian-plans-could-be-delayed-report-pd20110912-LLSTN?OpenDocument&src=hp15

The Cancer Council is currently in a battle with Big Tobacco over plain packaging and has now aimed its sights on Kellogg’s Cartoon Characters.

Cancer Council NSW has joined powers with the Obesity Policy Coalition and The Parents’ Jury aiming to ban promotional characters such as the Coco Pops monkey and the Paddle Pop lion, according to an article in yesterday’s The Sunday Telegraph.

The Cancer Council’s argument being that Kellogg’s cartoon characters are irresponsible, encouraging children to consume the fatty, sugary cereals.

In their defense Kellogg’s have said:

“Our products that the Cancer Council has chosen to focus on are marketed as treat products. Cereals that parents can choose to provide to kids on fun or special occasions such as school holidays and birthdays.”

This is so pathetic, the fact that it has come down to blaming cartoon characters for Australia’s medical problems and obesity.

What about the parents? Do they have that little say and control over their own children that they cannot educate them on moderation and nutrition?

It is actually an embarrassment to Australian society that such an effort is made to pick on a brand which has more healthy, wholesome cereals than it does indulgent ones rather than exercise that effort by educating children in nutrition.

In primary school there a lots of different classes, Math’s, English, Geography, History, Sport, H.S.I.E and slight additions or variations depending on the state and school.

WHERE IS THE FOOD AND NUTRITION CLASS?

I have been outraged for a long time at this. What is the overall biggest contributor to one’s health that occurs all day every day?????? EATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why then is it so hard to make food and nutrition classes’ compulsory right from preschool that educates children continually about nutrition and moderation.

If programs are put in place to educate children from the beginning about a healthy varied diet then companies such as the cancer council won’t need to pick on brands like Kellogg’s.

Another thing, this isn’t anything new! Kellogg’s have had cartoon characters for years and years. Why now is the cancer council deciding to pick on them?

For the full article please visit: http://mumbrella.com.au/cancer-council-takes-aim-at-cartoon-characters-to-promote-sugary-food-kelloggs-fights-back-57316#more-57316

Assylum Seekers - http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/swan-says-government-will-pursue-malaysia-policy/story-e6frea8c-1226132008133

The current issue with the Malaysian situation is that if Asylum-Seekers are processed onshore, it could lead to boatloads of approximately 600 people arriving every month.

This is an assumption/anticipation made which has led Australian senior officials to believe that such a mass amount of people overflowing detention centers will lead to civil unrest likened to that of the London riots, threatening Australian society and attitudes towards other cultures.

Why can’t a more appropriate solution be made? Why is it that the Malaysia Solution has the Australian Government upside down? How can a government be so ineffective at meeting the needs of underprivileged people that are fleeing their country in fear, whilst ensuring that Australia does not become victim to civil unrest and riots?

Surely there is a more effective solution to helping Asylum Seekers without causing devastation to the Australian Nation. There seems to be excuses at every turn with this situation. It would be great if someone would just take charge and do something responsible.

Maybe if Australian politicians were more empathetic with understanding the Asylum Seekers and what can be done in their best interests they would be able to administer an effective outcome, without there being any devastating effects for them or Australia as a society!

So much for the Australian Federal Government working in the “best interests” of refugees! They are meant to be acting in a Moral and Mature way and sorry but I don’t see it!

The Australian Government appears to be forsaking any responsibilities to act in the refugee minors interests, with the arrival of at least 14 unaccompanied minors since the signing of the Malaysian option. These minors are under the Australian Government’s guardianship and yet they are sending these minors to the fear and unknowns of Malaysian refugee camps.

This controversial decision has been taken to the High Court of Australia to decide if it falls within Australian law.

Below in the video, Lawyer David Manne Talks to the Media after the High court extended an injunction against the government deporting 16 asylum seekers to Malaysia - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJp0YLaYIFE

The hearing by the High court and the consequential decision made by them is set for Monday 22^nd August.

Regardless of the outcome, it has definitely made me question the Australian Government’s morale fibre. How could they send minors to a country that they are afraid of and are in fear of being mistreated, as explained in the video with David Manne (above).

The Prime Minister has specified that neither the young, sick or old are exempt from the Malaysian option, is this meant to show lack of discrimination or just carelessness on their behalf??

The Governments aim has been to deter people smugglers from bringing the refugees to Australia, particularly minors, as it is claimed that the unaccompanied minors will flood the boats. However, that argument lacks strength considering unaccompanied minors make up a mere 5% of total boat arrivals. I think it is a very poor way to base such an extreme deterrence strategy.

The Australian Government has achieved contradicting themselves entirely, arguing that they do not want any more unaccompanied minors being in a situation of danger by being on leaky boats. Yet the government who is ‘meant’ to be acting in the role of Guardian and in their best interests are prepared to put the minors in further danger by sending them to the unknowns of Malaysian refugee camps.

I think the worst part is the inequality between the protection that is given to all children in Australian under state law and then the contrast between that and how the unaccompanied minors have been neglected. If any child in Australia under state law was treated the same way child protection authorities would be banging down the door in an instant!!!

Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJp0YLaYIFE

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12480