goodfielder wrote:Yep, I was so stunned I didn't even kick up a stink. Then later I was appointed to the board of the UTLC (my union had a position on there by virtue of numbers) but that was less factionalised thankfully. You know somewhere between the "business unionism" of the AFL-CIO and the heavy mix of factional politics and industrial representation in Australia there must be a good balance. We just haven't found it yet.
Well, we'd better find it quick-smart & also good old common purpose & resolve before July & the Lib's majority in both houses in Canberra! If the IR fight doesn't unite the factions then god help us all!
I'm a subscriber to the "it has to get worse before it can get better" newsletter. I also - in my idle moments - wonder if the lack of control by Howard over the Senate hasn't been a bad thing. The Senate has rejected his excesses and protected us. The electorate (including me) haven't felt what Johnny really wanted to do to us. Now it will be stark. I wonder if it's necessary for us to undergo some real pain before this fraud will be thrown out on his arse where he so richly belongs.
Real pain? It's on the cards, I think.
I subscribe to the theory that, as Howard gains more control after July, his own backbench could cause bigger headaches for him than the opposition. We often forget that there are some liberal Liberals in there & they've caused a few problems for him already. The reaction to some of the planned "initiatives" could be quite destabilizing for him.
But then .... hey, someone at some stage is going to cause a vacancy & a bi-election in the Senate .... and THAT's going to be a very interesting thing to watch!
Hey you guys thank for keeping me up-to-date. Goody, loved that Michael Costello piece, it perked me up too.
I only had one I on the beazley budget riposte and I thought he came across with a C+, but after reading the Costello piece I'm wondering if he has a problem getting an idea across or if news editors are actively 'censoring' him.
My latest outrageous John Howard moments are:
1. The 'Sorry' to Alvarez - there's a few hundred thousand indigenes who've had their lives torn apart who are still waiting for one of those. If there was still an ATSIC maybe they could send out a 'how to get a howard apology' card - Step 1 get deported....
2. The comment on the Corby case 'I won't interfere with the justice system of another country'. Excuse me? But you'll actively support an invasion of another country without UN approval? I'm starting to think this man has his brain vacuumed every night so he can't catch himself lying.
Olga glad you mentioned John Clarke and Brian Dawes. I love those guys.
Just a C+ for Peter's budget, hinge? :wink: But it was supposed to make everyone (in the Liberal Party & also anyone with the right sort of power & influence) love him! It didn't do the job for us. I wonder if it did it for them?
Well really, Vivian Alvarez DOES deserve an apology. But you're right. Howard was so mean spirited in response to the reconciliation movement a few years ago. It was terribly dispiriting, that Howard meanness. Yes, he should have said "sorry" to the aborigines & lots of other folk as well. Where does one start. It's such a long list!
Re Howard's comment :'I won't interfere with the justice system of another country'. I totally agree with what you're saying. But he just sent a letter to the court, anyway!
Just having a bob both ways .... The Lib's polling is telling them that a lot of Australians are pretty angry about the situation Corby is in. And Mick Keelty's (sp?) comments the other day caused outrage in the Oz community. So Howard jumps in, undermines him & scores a few points by being the good guy! He's NOT a team player, that man! As Peter Costello already knows ...
Did you read/hear Abbott's suggestions on how aboriginal health could be improved, hinge? Nah, I guess you didn't. You'd be commenting here if you had.
Yes, I love Dawe & Clarke, too. I just have to LOOK at John Clarke to laugh myself silly. What a pair!
I haven't paid much attention to Crikey! since it changed hands, but this article caught my eye today. We are going to get a reputation as the ugly, bullying Australians, I reckon, if we keep treating our neighbours like this:
Are Timor talks a Downer?
The Timor Gas talks appear over. Or are they? Timor observer HT Lee writes:
The weekend media faithfully reported the foreign minister's announcement on Friday that last week's Timor Sea talks in Sydney with East Timor had finished successfully. But Alexander Downer's proclamation might be premature
"There will probably be no further need for negotiations," Downer said in The Age. "The conclusion that the officials reached will be taken back to ministers in both East Timor and Australia and be given consideration."
Downer made his proclamation on the only Black Friday of the year - and this omen held. East Timor's Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri immediately challenged report of the "conclusion" of talks in the strongest possible terms: "It's an absolute lie," Alkatiri told the Portuguese news agency Lusa. "There is no accord and, if there is one, in the terms announced it would be totally against my orientations. And, thus, void."
Alkatiri insisted that Dili's stance on bilateral negotiations remained unaltered: "Let us negotiate at the table and not under the pressure of the media," he told Lusa. A familiar pattern is emerging, according to activists who've followed events. "It's not the first time Mr Downer and his posse have claimed that all is well and settled, only to discover that the East Timorese side still had issues to resolve," says Dan Nicholson from Melbourne's Timor Sea Justice Campaign.
Rob Wesley-Smith from Darwin's Timor Sea Justice Campaign is heartened by Alkatiri's response. He accuses some members of East Timor's negotiating team of wanting any agreement in the short term, even if it severely disadvantages East Timor in the long term. He names this camp as negotiators Jose Texeira, Peter Galbraith and, from the outside, the "Bob Hawke" of East Timor politics, Jose Ramos Horta.
"Were the negotiators aware that should East Timor accept the agreement East Timor would for the duration of the agreement be denied the rights to lay claims to any future oil and gas finds just outside the Joint Petroleum Development Area?" asks Wesley-Smith.
It's not the first time East Timor's negotiating team appeared to get on the wrong side of Alkatiri. According to sources in East Timor, Alkatiri might only consider putting the boundary negotiation on hold for a short time in return for a minimum share of at least 50% of the lucrative Sunrise gas field with an estimated reserve of 2.05 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Under the terms of the Timor Sea Treaty, East Timor is currently entitled to only a 18% share. Alkatiri also wanted the downstream benefits. This means piping the gas to East Timor, rather than to Darwin.
What the negotiating team was bringing home to Alkatiri was still the one-off additional payment of not more than US$3.5 billion from the revenue of Sunrise; compared with an agreed fixed percentage share. And as an added inducement, some vague promises of helping East Timor set up some infrastructure to manufacture gas for local consumption. In return, East Timor had to agree to put on hold boundary negotiations for between 50 and 99 years.
According to participants on the online East Timorese discussion group Forum-loriku, the deal on offer amounts to giving away East Timor's sovereignty in exchange for a few seashells. If Alkatiri accepts this deal he faces defeat at the next election. It looks like it's back to the drawing board.
Maybe we already have the reputation for being bullies? How depressing, particularly in the case of East Timor.
~
There is now an ex-service people's group dedicated to exposing the bullying behaviour of the Oz government on this one.
More power to their elbow.
SOMEONE remembers what we owe the East Timorese...
dlowan wrote:There is now an ex-service people's group dedicated to exposing the bullying behaviour of the Oz government on this one.
More power to their elbow.
SOMEONE remembers what we owe the East Timorese...
Well, more power to them! SOME folk have very short memories!
This afternoon I attended a local meeting to hear more about the proposed changes to IR legislation, come July. The speakers were Carmen Laurence, (sp?) Martin Kingham & a man from the union representing public service workers like those at Centrelink (whose name I've forgotten
but who spoke very well.) A very grim picture of what's ahead of us. I'm now feeling quite depressed, contemplating how our current federal government has stuffed up what used to be a very good, fair country.
Last Update: Thursday, May 26, 2005. 4:33pm (AEST)
Unions: Howard has delivered a kick in the guts for workers and their families. (ABC TV)
Sweeping changes to the laws governing Australian workplaces outlined by Prime Minister John Howard have been condemned by Labor and the union movement.
Under the changes, awards would be simplified, with long service leave, notice of termination, superannuation and jury duty no longer covered.
Businesses with up to 100 employees would be exempt from unfair dismissal laws.
There will be new arrangements for setting minimum wages, with the establishment of a new Fair Pay Commission.
That role would be taken away from the Industrial Relations Commission.
Mr Howard says the reforms are historic.
"These reforms are based on principles that balance freedom and fairness and that have underpinned the Liberal and National parties' historic contribution to changing the culture of workplace relations in this country," he said.
Speaking in the Parliament, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has condemned the package.
"Let's cut through all the spin and camouflage, the verbal camouflage of all these," he said.
"What does it mean? It means that families will be worse off that is what all of this means, what all this amounts to is collapsing the right of ordinary Australians to collectively bargain."
Opposition spokesman on industrial relations Stephen Smith says the Government's proposed changes are much more extreme than was anticipated and will undermine living standards of working families.
"This is imposing John Howard's unbridled political will and political power on individual employees, on the states and on institutions, like the independent umpire that Australians over the years have come to trust and respect," he said.
Unions condemn
ACTU secretary Greg Combet has described the Government's workplace restructuring as a kick in the guts for workers and their families.
"The industrial relations changes are biased and extremely unfair," he said.
"They will reduced the living standards of Australian working people over time, at a time when many people are just keeping their head above water.
Mr Combet says well established standards to ensure the people cannot be dismissed from jobs are gone.
"3.6 million Australian workers will have no remedy in the event that they are unfairly dismissed by their employer," he said.
Mr Combet says minimum wages will reduce over time.
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union also fears the changes will have a negative impact on families.
The national secretary of the union, Doug Cameron, says the Government reforms are stripping back rights that Australian workers have had for 100 years.
"I think John Howard is making a massive political mistake today," he said.
"I think today marks the end of the Howard Government.
"The Australian community will not accept these rights being stripped away.
"Security for working families is being trashed on the ideology of John Howard and I think you will see a massive backlash against the Government."
States oppose
New South Wales Premier Bob Carr says Mr Howard's proposed changes will draw more workers into a failed, conflict-ridden federal system.
"The attempt to expand that system and rope in more workers, especially when it comes to unfair dismissals, will mean more conflict, more drawn out legal actions and diminished working conditions," he said.
Western Australian Employment Protection Minister John Kobelke says under the changes 65 per cent of his state's workers will not be protected from unfair dismissal.
Mr Kobelke says the reforms will lead to unsafe workplaces.
"There is no evidence that the unfair dismissal law changes will actually create more jobs, but what it will do is stop people standing up against unsafe work practices and lead to more deaths and injuries in the workplace," he said.
"Who's going to stand up and point out that a piece of equipment is a safety hazard if they can be sacked and have no right of taking an unfair dismissal case."
The Queensland Government says there has been "no consultation with the states" on plans for a nationalised industrial relations regime.
Industrial Relations Minister Tom Barton says he will not be backing it.
"Queensland Government has made its position very consistently, that we are opposed to handing over our state industrial relations jurisdictions to the Commonwealth for the simple reason that we have an industrial relations system here in this state that works and works very well for Queensland business, as well as for Queensland employees."
Mr Howard says the Government will move towards a single national industrial system, with or without the support of the states.
"Australia needs a workplace system geared to the future, not to the past," he said.
'A kick in the guts' for Howard's battlers
May 26, 2005 - 1:50PM/the AGE
Prime Minister John Howard's push to axe unfair dismissal laws was a kick in the guts for the battlers who delivered him power, the union movement said today.
The prime minister told federal parliament today that current unfair dismissal laws had held back job growth in Australia.
He said businesses with up to 100 workers would be exempt from unfair dismissal laws and probation periods for new employees would also increase from three to six months.
ACTU secretary Greg Combet said the government could no longer claim to be a friend to struggling workers and their families.
"It's a kick in the guts for the battlers that put him in power," he told ABC radio.
"Any pretence that he and the government has to be a friend of the battlers I think has been dropped all together."
Mr Combet said about four millions workers would have no remedy for unfair dismissal if the government's bill passed in its current form.
He said suing employers for breach of contract in court was not an option for most workers because it was too costly and time consuming.
"It's a huge free kick for business and a massive kick in the guts for working people," Mr Combet said.
- AAP
