The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Yes you did, hinge! But are you saying you think he's totally kaput already? According to Michelle G (the AGE) he has to establish himself a year before the next election or else he's had it as potential leader. (Not that I think Michelle is god, nor worry a great deal about whether he'll make it or not! ) Apparently that's what all this nonsense about the states & the GST has been all about. Hey, I thought it was just another diversion from the Lib's economic management chickens coming home to roost!

So, you're predicting a Labor win are you? And who will be the leader of the opposition then, do tell, oh oracle?

Come to think of it: who will be the PM, hmm?

Absolutely agree, goodfielder! Mind you, I've seen a few crook ones! I was very disappointed with my own union (teachers) in Victoria a while back, for example, when it affiliated with the ALP & became a mere extension of the ALP! Of course you expect unions to be more aligned with the ALP than the conservatives, but it leaves very little bargaining room when they succumb to pressure not to embarrass ALP governments. I like to have a clear distinction between politicians & the workers!

A good point msolga. My own union has never been affiliated with any political party, not will it. That gives it the ability to bargain with its employer (the state government). It's different for unions that have majority cover in the private sector but for public sector unions outright political affiliation is disastrous.

Oh, I noticed that when it happened, gf! :wink:
The trouble was, the union leadership felt more responsibility to the (Labor) government than to their own members! Grrrrrrrrr:evil:

Yes, looking for a sinecure in the Parliament no doubt. I'm not cynical about this because it happens too often to be a figment of my imagination. In my own union a previous secretary used his position to get a seat in the state Parliament - for the Libs. So it happens on both sides of the chamber.

Yes, all too common, I agree ....
But it made for a very strange period in the union. I think we spent more time fighting the leadership than confronting the government on some very pressing issues at the time.

For those of you who don't live in Oz, here's what the union movement here will be up against, come mid-year, when the government has a majority in both houses of parliament. This is an ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) press release:

Govt IR Plan To Destroy 100 Years Of Fairness: ACTU Announces National Campaign
16 March 2005

The ACTU Executive has endorsed a national campaign to protect and promote the interests of Australian working families against the Federal Government's plans to radically change Australia's workplace laws.

Speaking at the conclusion of a two day meeting of the ACTU Executive in Melbourne ACTU President Sharan Burrow said:

"For more than 100 years Australia has had a system of workplace laws that has kept our workplaces decent, safe and fair. It has made sure that working families are not left behind. This is the system the Federal Government now wants to get rid of.

"The Federal Government's plans are about taking Australia down the path to an American style system where minimum wages are just $5.15 an hour."

ACTU Executive has authorised the ACTU and State Trades and Labour Councils to coordinate a national campaign in opposition to the Federal Government's plans to:

Change the way the minimum wages in Australia are determined to make it harder for award wage workers to get decent pay increases.

Abolish higher award rates of pay for more skilled workers taking Australia down the path towards a US style system with a single minimum wage of just $5.15 and hour.

Reduce the guaranteed minimum conditions available to all Australian workers through our unique system of awards.

Reduce the role of the independent Industrial Relations Commission in settling disputes and setting fair and balanced minimum standards in the workplace.

Remove unfair dismissal protections for employees working in businesses that employ less than 20 people.

Force more Australian workers onto individual contracts.

Make it harder for employees to bargain collectively with their employer to get fair wages and conditions.

Make it harder for workers to access the protection and support of unions in their workplace.

Increase the opportunities for employers to sue or fine workers who take industrial action.

These changes, if enacted, will impact harshly upon millions of Australians, forcing down living standards and diminishing job security and workplace safety. They will destroy the balance in Australia's workplaces and put unfair powers in the hands of employers.


The ACTU has been authorised to establish a national campaign committee and campaign fund to coordinate campaign activity to inform the public about the Government's proposed changes and to build public support for:


A fair and decent safety net comprising a skills-based classification structure of minimum wages, comprehensive employment conditions, and protection against unfair treatment.

An independent tribunal and fair procedures for the resolution of disputes, the evaluation of changes to the safety net, and oversight of the bargaining system.

The right for all working Australians to organize in a union, to collectively bargain, and take industrial action to protect and advance their interests at work.

The ACTU campaign will emphasise providing information in workplaces and to the public to ensure as many working Australians as possible are aware of the Government's plans.

"The Federal Government is intent on destroying a system that has delivered safety, fairness, decent standards and balance in Australian workplaces. Unions have always been about ensuring fairness and balance in the workplace and that is what this campaign is about."

Just on the point of the Unions kowtowing to the ALP - well the ALP was founded by the unions so it's understandable that there are greater links/understanding with ALP.

I hate to get all Marxian, but isn't politics supposed to be a battleground between the interests of the of the less wealthy majority and the wealthy and powerful minority? While the libs do appear to be aligned with the big end of town it's not really clear who the ALP are there for.

Also, with our bulbous middle class and the general acceptance of the 'if business is booming, then everyone is better off' orthodoxy the real battleground in todays politics is social justice (and the sustainability of our society). In that framework the ALP is slightly differentiated from the Libs but have a track record of turning their backs on their principles (HECS for example).

It seems to me that the two poles of power are Lib/Lab/Nat/Misc conservatives at one end and the Greens/Dems (just)/Misc lefties/socialists at the other.

And if you accept that premise and look at the make up of parly. Well, we're screwed.

Good points hinge but what worries me - well what occurs to me really - is that there are now (a) the wealthy and privileged (b) the almost wealthy and privileged and (c) the aspirant wealthy and privileged and (d) the lumpenproletariat (just adding my own Marxian touch).

The Libs are interested in (a) and (b) and make out they're interested in (c) and couldn't give a rat's about (d)

Labor accepts (a) will never vote for them in a fit, hopes that some of (b) will vote for them and are madly trying to persuade (c) to vote for them. Labor reckons that (d) are dead certs and not worth worrying about.

The Dems and the Greens hate (a), (b) and aren't that keen on (c) and like to think they're supporting of (d) but in reality they're not that keen on them.

In the end, it's a mess, we're all screwed.

I've always been a unionist first, political party supporter (always left, generally the ALP) second. Now I find myself believing that NEITHER genuinely represent the interests of the very people they purport to represent ..... The workers & the sorely under-privileged. I know we are living through some tough, ruthless times, but really there are no positive, effective advocates for workers & the severely disadvantaged that I can see. None that seem to be capable of bringing about change. I've gone through my bitter & twisted phase & have come to the conclusion that this is an extremely ugly time that has to be gotten through as best one can .... With as few personal concessions to these weak & pragmatic forces as possible. Of course, they're nothing near as sinister as what John Howard & the Liberals represent, but they offer very little hope for a better society, either.

Paradoxically though I think the ACTU does a great job. I worked for our union for a few years (as elected secretary) and went over to the ACTU a few times and for one of the conferences (a greate experience). The people there are dedicated and getting a salary less than they would expect to get in the private sector. Sure some of them get a safe seat in Parliament (particularly the Presidents) but people like Bill Kelty and Greg Combet and their staff are dedicated people whom I shall always have the greatest respect for. However that doesn't apply to some union officers who could teach old Machiavelli a few tricks.

Like I said unionism is a great idea, that can be warped by people.

I worked in a factory. The laziest, most dishonest, slug in the place was the the delegate for my union. Eventually management promoted him to a level where he could no longer be a member of the union. Three months later he was sacked. What goes around....

I'm sure what you're saying is correct & sincere, gf. But these are mighty ruthless forces that they're up against.

My (above) reflection is largely about unions/political parties at my own state level, gf. (mind you, federal Labor has hardly been an inspiration!) Local politics is like looking at the system & how it works under a microscope, I think. I was a passionate "rank & filer" very close to the centre of the union action for quite a while.

Good grief! Not a good experience, hinge!

My second experience of unionism was a love match ( ), an absolute inspiration! It was by far the smallest teacher union in Victoria at the time AND was run on democratic principles by elightened leaders. We fought evil , we argued like crazy with each other & surprisingly enough, achieved some excellent outcomes for the students we taught. I loved being a part of it! It was like being a member a big, idealistic family. I put in hours & hours of voluntary time for the good of the union & public education. I was a true believer!
Unfortunately my union was swallowed up by mergers, deals & rationalization. Things are very different now. <sigh>

Hiya Olga

Strangely enough my union delegate experience did not sour me on unions. I remember we used to vote on a wage claim, the union would suggest a percentage rise and some benefits each year, but one time the economy was crap, the Western Suburbs of Sydney had unemployment over 30% and we actually voted not ask for anything. Boy were they pissed!

Another time, down the snow, I forfeited a season lift ticket refund on principle because a fellow worker was sacked without due course. Unionism at it's best is just support for the underdog. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oy oy oy.

Sorry.

No need to be sorry.

My experience of unionism "at it's best" was when the goals were a little more idealistic. Not that long ago public sector education unions here in Victoria were staunch advocates of state schools & the ideals they stood (I use the past tense) for ... You know: "free, secular & compulsory". Now THAT stance was one worth supporting! Now it's more about wages (not that pay is irrelevant - though personally, I'd prefer the emphasis to be on decent teaching & learning conditions.) I won't go into the impact on schools as a result of endless rationalizations & education "reforms" & down-sizing, or else I'll go on & on bore you stupid. Let's just say that there are now what I'd consider "residual" schools in some of the most under-privileged areas of Melbourne. Entrenched poverty & lack of opportunity. It is hard to believe that the Labor government has simply continued the policies that Kennett & the Liberals put into place. But anyway, it's all just been accepted. These are the things that that we, as unionists should be collectively standing up & opposing. But were not.

I see Olga, my roots were more working class - my union was the Federated Ironworkers Association. And we were just westies.

But unions did do some spectacular stuff - the green bans for example. They were a counterbalance to established power. I have a sense that much of what they fought for was not actually of concern to the rank and file - in fact the R&F are as likely to vote One Nation as ALP - but the R&F simply don't exist in the numbers they used to, and consequently the unions don't have the power they once had.

When I was growing up it seemed like every week there was a petrol strike, a rail strike, a pilot strike, a wharf strike.

That doesn't happen any more - strikes either don't happen or don't make the news (except for the occasional teacher's strike - which doesn't really hurt anyone economically). Why is that?

I think the Accord (remember that?) had a lot to do with the shift in attitude. And the union amalgamations, downsizing, the rise of the Right .... Just a lot more insecurityabout holding onto jobs. Just very different attitudes for a variety of reasons. Personally I see stopping work as a last resort, when all else fails over.

Hey, I consider myself a bit of a "westie", too, ya know! Most of my teaching has been in these schools (by choice). I hate seeing what's happening to them now.

Last Update: Thursday, April 7, 2005. 7:57pm (AEST)
Indigenous leader warns against dramatic land rights changes
By Toni Hassan for The World Today

A member of the Prime Minister's National Indigenous Council is cautioning against sweeping changes to Australia's land rights legislation.

Prime Minister John Howard yesterday indicated a debate about private ownership is necessary to address the issue.

The council's Warren Mundine says the primary battle by Indigenous people to get land through lands rights and native title law has been won, and it is only natural that energy is now being turned towards Aboriginal Australians owing their own homes and businesses.

He says it is a plank in the fight against welfare dependency.

But Mr Mundine says only slight changes need to be made to enable private land ownership.

"Under most of the acts now that are happening around Australia on Aboriginal land, there is opportunities to do that within the New South Wales legislation and the Northern Territory land rights legislation and under the Native Title Act," he said.

"For Indigenous land use agreements you have an opportunity to have leasehold arrangements similar to what, you know, Canberra's built on - the 99-year lease or the 50-year lease or something where people can have private ownership."

The Northern Territory Chief Minister, Clare Martin, says her Government is exploring leasing arrangements.

"What we're talking about is potentially changes that we... have already talked about with the land councils and have flagged to the Federal Government, which would allow more effective leasing," she said.

"Not a change of ownership of Aboriginal land, absolutely not."

Mr Mundine says he is trying to encourage a "salt and pepper approach" in communities.

"Of communal and private ownership for enterprise development and for asset building, as well as having government there which provides the infrastructure such as schools, medical centres, etc," he said.

Clarity sought

Mr Mundine is appealing for Mr Howard to clarify his rethink on land rights.

"I think he needs to be a bit more clear about what he intends to do and what he's up to," he said.

"I think at the same time we need to have Aboriginal people being part of the consultation process at all stages."

Labor's Kim Carr says the debate about Indigenous home ownership is a distraction.

"It's aimed at trying to encourage people to accept the compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land," he said.

"Very few people will be able to rush into the land market.

"There is no asset increases in prices through housing in remote communities.

"This is a proposal which goes to taking Aboriginal land for other economic purposes by people other than Aboriginals."

No split

Mr Mundine, who is the incoming ALP president, rejects any idea that there is a split in his party on the issue.

"You only have to look at Clare Martin," he said.

"Clare Martin is the chief minister of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Government is a Labor government, they're very strongly behind the idea of economic development.

"But the underlying title still remains within the hands of Aboriginal people, it's above that title that we're talking about where we have a leasehold approach where people... the land remains within Aboriginal hands, but at the same time we can encourage economic development and home ownership on land."

~