The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21823681-601,00.html
Union fury over Labor backdown

* Steve Lewis and Brad Norington
* May 31, 2007

LABOR has angered some of the nation's biggest unions by pledging to retain John Howard's construction industry watchdog until 2010 if it wins this year's federal election.
Another case of trying to be all things to all people.
(snip)
But in a deliberate move to win back business trust yesterday, the Opposition promised to retain the Australian Business and Construction Commission for most of its first term - if it wins office. At Labor's national conference earlier this month, Labor pledged to scrap the ABCC without delay.
Policy on the run .. Don't you just hate that ?
(snip)
In potential further disappointment for unions, West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter yesterday signalled that Labor was on the verge of changing its industrial relations policy for high-income earners, such as miners on the Howard Government's individual Australian Workplace Agreements.
Despite Labor's pledge to abolish AWAs, Mr Carpenter predicted the party would find a way of keeping them for workers on six-figure salaries - but possibly with a different name.
More backflips ...
(snip)
The deputy Opposition Leader told the National Press Club in Canberra she wanted to remove "all" perceptions of bias in how people would be appointed to Fair Work Australia, which would replace the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as the nation's workplace umpire.
(snip)
Ms Gillard also yesterday promised that its proposed new industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, would not be stacked with union officials and a Labor government would consult the Opposition over appointments.
(snip)
Consult the Opposition over appointments ??? I am speechless with that suggestion. The wage earners of this nation need a bit of "bias" if they are to achieve fairness in the workplace. For heaven's sake, the ALP would get more support if they showed a bit more "bias" for the little people.
I see a chance for Labor to govern, just being squandered away by pandering to people who won't vote for you anyway.
With howards backflip on IR and Labours backflips, the libs and the labs seem to be one and the same. Hardly worth having an election
Am I the only one becoming disillusioned ?

Er, no. (Pssst ... refer back to a few of my recent posts & you'll find we are saying similar things.)

It's looking very Tweedledum & Tweedledee-ish.

From the ABC's World Today. "Labor distances itself from unions".:
.....

PETA DONALD: When Dean Mighell was made to resign from the Labor Party, the Federal Branch of the Party also promised to send back tens of thousands of dollars of political donations from his union, the Electrical Trades Union (ETU). The ETU is now offering $50,000 to the Greens. The Greens senate candidate in Victoria, Richard Di Natale, believes his party should take the money.

RICHARD DI NATALE: My view is that we should accept union donations, given that our aims are very similar going into this election.

PETA DONALD: What about the language and the tactics of Dean Mighell, that have been recorded at that union meeting in Melbourne last year? Do you think that that might be a reason not to accept the money?

RICHARD DI NATALE: I think the important thing to remember here is the principle that the ETU supports. And the principles are fairness of work, the right to strike, the right to collectively bargain, and they are entirely consistent with the Industrial Relations policy of the Greens. ....

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1939843.htm

Kevin and Julia seem to be kicking the union dog to be seen to be middle of the road, but I think they have been kicking the dog too hard and too long and for very little reason.
All this dog wants is as above :- fairness of work, the right to strike, the right to collectively bargain.
Is that too much to ask ?
Perhaps I need to go over to the Green Kennel. I sure will be taking a hard look at it.

bungie

Yes, I think Kevin & Julia have gone right over the top with Dean Mighell. It's one thing to listen sympathetically to the concerns of business, but quite another to go overboard in giving them what (Labor thinks) they want at the expense of traditional Labor values. A fair go for all. Hell, business already has the the Liberals to do their bidding for them (which they have done very energetically at the expense of workers!) & now Labor, too?

I find Kevin & Julia's grovelling to the business sector as embarrassing & as cringe making as I find the Australian government's constant appeasement of Jarkata. (This latest episode in Sydney was quite unbelievable. But that's another story.)

I don't buy this view by the defenders of Rudd that he needed to expell Mighell (& all the rest of the sell-outs!) to win over business in order to gain government. And then do the real ALP stuff after gaining power. I believe what we're hearing from the ALP leadership now is what we'll get if they become the government .... & that is extremely disappointing.

These certainly are weird times in Oz politics. Today I read an article about Dean Mighell & his expulsion from ALP by former (Liberal) leader of the opposition in Victoria. And found myself agreeing with quite a bit (though not all) of it! How odd! Check this out:

.....Has Mighell done anything illegal? Or morally harmful? How could you otherwise understand or defend the reaction and behaviour of the leadership of the Labor Party?

I have listened to the defences of Mighell's treatment by three of Labor's smart, senior, real-world operators: Julia Gillard, Bill Shorten and Nicola Roxon. Give me a break! The sum total was that Mighell went over the top (Gillard); that John Howard could use anti-union rhetoric leading up to the election (Shorten); and that Labor are serious about winning the election (Roxon).

No one has actually answered the simple question: What did he do wrong? That three of Labor's stars could prostitute their intelligence in the cause of such specious argument does their credibility considerable damage.

But you can't altogether blame Gillard, Shorten or Roxon. They were doing what loyal foot soldiers do - defending the leader's position even when he's absurdly wrong.

The Mighell overreaction calls Rudd's decision-making and judgement into serious question. At least Mighell had the loyalty to fall on his sword. Imagine the rank-and-file blood if he had said "Stuff you!" (or something more forceful, as is his wont). What does it all say about Rudd? To me it says that he wants the Lodge so much that he will do whatever it takes. In this case it has meant crucifying a long-term ally for the greater cause.

And what does it mean for the Labor Party? Talk to the Labor faithful at any barbecue and they fearlessly ooze democracy, fairness and the Australian Way. What will they make of this? .........

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/but-kev-what-did-the-union-boss-do/2007/06/02/1180205579679.html

msolga wrote
Yes, I think Kevin & Julia have gone right over the top with Dean Mighell. It's one thing to listen sympathetically to the concerns of business, but quite another to go overboard in giving them what (Labor thinks) they want at the expense of traditional Labor values. A fair go for all. Hell, business already has the the Liberals to do their bidding for them (which they have done very energetically at the expense of workers!) & now Labor, too?

I find Kevin & Julia's grovelling to the business sector as embarrassing & as cringe making as I find the Australian government's constant appeasement of Jarkata. (This latest episode in Sydney was quite unbelievable. But that's another story.)

I don't buy this view by the defenders of Rudd that he needed to expell Mighell (& all the rest of the sell-outs!) to win over business in order to gain government. And then do the real ALP stuff after gaining power. I believe what we're hearing from the ALP leadership now is what we'll get if they become the government .... & that is extremely disappointing.

As I have said before, I admire howard for standing up for the people whom he represents... the captains of industry, business and farming groups etc. But it is (as you put it) embarrassing to see labor leaders grovelling to these same people. We know which side of the fence Dean Mighell sits on. Just wish Kevin and Julia would get off the fence and decide which side they want to be on. I won't be voting for "fence sitters"
Every day, labor's chances keep increasing....... of LOSING this election. And I agree msolga, it's about time we told some of our near neighbors to pull their heads in and mind their own business ...

It's one thing to feel "insulted" on a diplomatic visit to Australia. But accountability for the cold blooded murder of five Australian journalists (with no one taking responsibility since 1975! Shame, Gough! ) seems to me to be a far more serious matter. Why are our politicians & consular representatives grovelling? They should be outraged & demanding accountability.
This latest episode could be considered high farce if it wasn't so downright depressing. What is so frightening about Indonesia?

He's got a PLAN! We'll find out exactly what after the election, though! :

Well, the PM's standing has actually improved a smidgeon in the polls just recently! Fancy that! And yesterday he appealed to Australians to trust him as the best man to continue leading the nation into the future. But, for some reason that appeal wasn't gone over too well with the letter writers in my daily paper today. :wink: :

This time you're asking too much

JOHN Howard has trotted out the tired old "Who do you trust?" question again. On what the Government knew about weapons of mass destruction or AWB's bribes to Saddam? On invading Iraq? On when we'll get out? On what makes us more secure? Children overboard? Deporting Australian residents? Water cannon, electric fences and dogs? Aboriginal life expectancy? Adequate state funding? Emission controls? IR laws? The Murray-Darling Basin? On when he intends to hand over the job? On what "initiatives" he isn't telling us about if he wins another term? On Australia's interests before his own ambitions? On easing the $2 billion flood of government advertising? On respecting the right to dissent? On dental treatment? On obesity? On nuclear waste and nuclear power? On the politicisation of the public service? On protecting whistleblowers?

Give us a break, old fella.
Garry Bickley, Elizabeth Downs, SA

Howard should put all his cards on the tableRobert Humphreys, Coburg

We've got it backwards

I KNOW I can trust John Howard, among other things, to do the following: mislead the electorate about climate change, continue the pauperisation of the public education system, expand middle-class welfare, substitute the doctrine of plausible deniability for ministerial accountability in all things, make housing more unaffordable to first home buyers, expand further the trade deficit and in all things foreign policy to servilely fawn on the USA.

I, for one, will be seriously disappointed if he does not maintain this impressive record of achievement. His legacy will be built on this adage: "Let's just categorically move on, and go forward by first looking backwards."
Henrie Ellis, Wy Yung

Liberal with truth

THE federal election approaches, the Liberal Party is the underdog. Before joining the sympathy tide, I take myself back to that inner shock, felt some years ago, when I realised these same Liberal politicians were twisting and fabricating to deflect blame and shift the moral ground.

Why "shock"? Because I had not seen this in Australian politics before: this blatant calling of black, white. I felt disbelief that politicians could be allowed to be dishonest. This was the Liberal Party at the height of popularity, and it continued to shift the bar of honesty in public life not higher but sideways (the waterfront dispute, AWB, Iraq, Tampa) until the integrity of Australian politics became a sham.

I want truth in public life, and agree with Julian Burnside that our society should make it illegal for politicians to lie.
Linda Zibell, Mount Helen

A wake-up call

I HAD a dream last night. John Howard, a mid-19th century political leader in the deep South of America, was making a pre-election speech. "My policy on the abolition of slavery is responsible, measured and practical, unlike that of Abraham Lincoln. Slavery may have been framed as a human rights issue but it is really overwhelmingly an economic issue. To propose targets for its abolition without a precise knowledge of the costs involved is putting the cart before the horse, and would do enormous damage. I will take no action which could damage our economic interests."
I woke up before the election result was announced.
Robin Webb, North Balwyn

http://www.theage.com.au/letters/index.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Union boss in IR furore
June 5, 2007 - 1:06PM/the AGE


Standing her ground ... ACTU president Sharan Burrow.
Photo: James Davies

ACTU president Sharan Burrow today stood her ground in the escalating furore over her bid to have Australia included on an international list of the world's 25 worst labour regimes.

Senior government ministers including Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey and Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile rounded on Ms Burrow, accusing her of trying to blacken Australia's reputation abroad.

Ms Burrow fired back, saying the Government had already put Australia's reputation on the line internationally.

She denied claims that her lobbying had resulted in Australia displacing Colombia - where more than 70 unionists were assassinated last year - from the same ILO list.

"Joe Hockey says we should only pick on developing nations, but the law does not work like that," Ms Burrow said.

"You don't say, 'Deal with him as he's a murderer - I'm just a thief.' International law is not a matter of degree.

"The truth is Joe Hockey is trying to avoid the fact that Australia's laws don't measure up. If the Government was serious about workplace rights, it would tear up the workplace laws."

The list of 25 alleged international labour rights offenders - including the Australian Government - will be considered at the ILO's headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, on Thursday.

Ms Burrow said this was the third consecutive year that the Howard Government's workplace laws were up for consideration for the list.

"The world already knows Australia's industrial relations legislation sits way outside international law," she said.

"None of the tests in terms of genuine freedoms and the right to collectively bargain are met. ... <cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/union-boss-in-ir-furore/2007/06/05/1180809483116.html

Crikey!
This is not a federal issue, but it's pretty amazing!
Threatening NSW Catholic parliamentarians (of with-holding communion) if they vote the "wrong" way on stem cell research!
First the Mufti & now this! What is it with these guys? :

Last Update: Wednesday, June 6, 2007. 11:00am (AEST)

Cardinal Pell says the proposed laws would legalise the creation of human-animal hybrids. [File photo] (Reuters)

Pell, politicians in stem cell stoush
By Simon Lauder and staff reporters

Top New South Wales MPs are planning to defy Sydney Archbishop George Pell, who has threatened to deny communion to Catholic politicians who vote for an expansion of stem cell research.

NSW Premier Morris Iemma knows therapeutic cloning is an idea that stirs passionate debate about morals, which is why he is allowing a conscience vote on a Bill that would allow somatic cell nuclear transfer.

What Mr Iemma, who is also a Catholic, may not have known is that his place in the Church may be threatened by how he votes on the Bill. Cardinal Pell set him straight yesterday.

"It is a serious moral matter and Catholic politicians who vote for this legislation must realise that their voting has consequences for their place in the life of the Church," he said.

The Archbishop describes the proposed laws, which would bring New South Wales into line with changes already made at a Commonwealth level, as grotesque. He says they would legalise the creation of human-animal hybrids.

"It is a perverse new direction in human experimentation," Cardinal Pell said. "I don't think that any Catholic politician, any Christian politician, any pro-life politician who has properly informed his or her conscience should vote for these changes."

For Catholic politicians who may be wondering how their position in the Church will change if they support the Bill, Cardinal Pell is not being specific. He is not suggesting politicians will be excommunicated but is leaving open the option of denying communion. ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1943664.htm

Hahahaha good one !

It is true isn't it ? A picture is worth a thousand words.

Yep, absolutely true!

Very funny!

More about the "shame" Sharan Burrow has brought on Australia by lobying the International Labour Organisation about the farness of the Liberals' IR laws. It turns out that the ACTU is not the only Australian group lobbying the ILO! :wink: A decision will be made tonight (Oz time.):

World can see our IR shame
June 7, 2007/the AGE

The Government feigns outrage when a global body to which we signed up holds us to account, writes Colin Fenwick.

JOE Hockey, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, says he is unhappy with ACTU president Sharan Burrow. He is also very unhappy with the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Geneva-based UN agency that promotes decent labour standards for workers around the world.

Hockey is unhappy because Burrow lobbied to have Australia's laws publicly examined by the ILO standards committee, which includes representatives of governments, employers and workers from around the world. He knows because this is the third year in a row that Australia has been called before the standards committee, and the fifth time since 1998.

He has accused Burrow of lobbying hard for the Australian case to be considered. But he has said nothing about how the Government lobbied to have it overlooked. Australia has a representative in Geneva whose sole responsibility is liaison with the ILO. At least the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry owned up to the fact that it too lobbied against the case being heard. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/our-ir-shame-exposed/2007/06/06/1181089148070.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Archbishop George Pell has gotten far more than he bargained for when he attempted to influence Catholic MPs in the NSW parliament stem cell debate!:

Minister says Pell as bad as that 'boofhead Hilaly'
Alexandra Smith and Linda Morris
June 7, 2007/SMH

THE Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, could be compared to "that serial boofhead Sheik al Hilaly", the NSW cabinet minister Nathan Rees has said in an explosive speech in Parliament.

Mr Rees, a Catholic, accused him of "emotional blackmail" for warning that Catholic MPs faced "consequences" in their religious lives if they supported a bill that would expand stem cell research.

"The hypocrisy is world-class. No government would seek to influence church teachings when providing taxpayer funds for refurbishment of St Mary's Cathedral, or taxpayer funds for the education of Catholic school children, or taxpayer funds to subsidise rates exemptions for churches," Mr Rees, the minister for water utilities and emergency services, said yesterday.

MPs continued to debate the bill in the lower house last night. They will take part in a conscience vote. Mr Rees's unprecedented attack came as many within the church criticised Cardinal Pell for his "inappropriate" comments. They said he should not threaten MPs or try to influence their views.

The group Australian Reforming Catholics said Cardinal Pell had limited jurisdiction over Catholics in Australia and it could not be assumed he was an influential figure for all Catholics. "Some Catholics assume he is the head of the Catholic church in Australia, but he isn't. He wouldn't even speak for all Catholics in his archdiocese, let alone all Catholic MPs in the NSW Parliament," the group's spokesman, John Buggy, said. "He has gone beyond his jurisdiction … Any action he takes can only be within his jurisdiction of the Sydney archdiocese, which does not even include all of Sydney." ...<cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/06/06/1181089151633.html

The catholic church have long been known for telling parishioners how to vote.

Interesting to note the association some politicians have with Hillsong.

Sure they have, dadpad, but it's rather unusual to threaten withholding communion from Catholic parliamentarians if they vote the "wrong" way!

Yes, the Hillsong connection. Interesting, that!

It surprises, how some the most of the most conspicuously "religious" parliamentarians are often the meanest. (Not naming particular names!) I would have expected them to be the most compassionate, but apparently it doesn't necessarily work that way! Doesn't make sense to me at all ....