The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

I read the piece by the despicable Glen Milne (I think that's his name) in The Australia today (Monday 25/7) in which he gave Noel Crichton-Brown a belting. Now I would dearly like to give NCB a belting as well, but it has nothing to do with politics, but I was astounded at the way that Milne was running Howard's internal politica agenda for him. Milne is clearly politically partisan and welded onto JH's nether regions and was in the thick of Liberal party factiona politics with his article.

But it looks as if Howard could lose this one.

Please.

Just checked it out, gf. :

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16034305%5E7583,00.html

I see what you mean. Sounds like a war between (various right) factions at a Liberal branch meeting! Well, at least we know where Mr Milne stands. And Crichton-Browne can't be ALL bad if he can cause consternation! This might actually be interesting to watch ... just one more impediment to JH's grand IR vision!

Last Update: Tuesday, July 26, 2005. 5:47pm (AEST)


'Double standards' in Ruddock's terrorism law pitch

The Australian Council of Civil Liberties (ACCL) has accused the federal Attorney-General of double standards over what it calls his sudden embrace of United Nations principles.

Philip Ruddock, who is in New York, is to outline the case for stronger anti-terrorist laws in speech to the American-Australian Association tonight.

He will tell the association that the Federal Government has an obligation under Article Three of the UN human Rights Convention to protect human life and that may come at the expense of civil liberties.

Mr Ruddock will say protecting human life could involve introducing much stronger security measures.

ACCL president Terry O'Gorman says Mr Ruddock's stance is in stark contrast to his views on the UN when he was the immigration minister.

"He would rubbish and dismiss the UN's controversial but influential report in relation to Australia's detention centres when he was immigration minister," Mr O'Gorman said.

"Now, when he's Attorney-General, he's cherry-picking a particular strand of human rights law in order to try to neutralise the criticisms of civil libertarians and defence lawyers." ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1422854.htm

Ruddock is shameful and amoral. Talk about we had to destroy the village in order to save it......

... is utterlty insane & self-serving.
What a choice for Australia's Attorney-General!

Bye bye, Bob. What a surprise to see you're leaving .... & so suddenly!

A few interesting bit & pieces from A 7:30 Report on concerns about IR "reforms:

....SENATOR STEVE FIELDING, FAMILY FIRST PARTY: The Australian workers shouldn't have to bargain for meal breaks. They should be guaranteed meal breaks and, you know, look, these things are something that Australian families and workers really believe they should have and they've currently got them and why would we be taking them away? ....


-------


... KEVIN ANDREWS, EMPLOYMENT & WORKPLACE RELATIONS MINISTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make it absolutely clear that meal breaks and public holidays, which are a feature of the industrial relations system currently, will remain a feature of the industrial relations system.

HEATHER EWART: But exactly how meal breaks and paid public holidays will remain a feature is not exactly clear. They certainly won't be contained in the five minimum working conditions specified by the Government, and Treasurer Peter Costello threw a spanner in the works by suggesting it could be just a question of bargaining for them.

PETER COSTELLO, TREASURER: Meal breaks are bargained at the moment. That's my point. Meal breaks are bargained at the moment. ...


------


...RADIO PRESENTER, 3AW: What about public holidays?

PETER COSTELLO: In relation to public holidays, I think there actually is a lot of bargaining going on at the moment in relation to public holidays, but in relation to public holidays you get addition payment.

SENATOR STEVE FIELDING: Look, the issue here is do we really think that someone working at the checkout of Coles or Woolworths think they can bargain with their boss about paid holidays or meal breaks? I don't think so. .... etc.

<complete item from the 7:30) Report:
Politicians voice concerns over IR reforms:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1423983.htm

A most unequal contest
July 27, 2005/the AGE

Employees cannot negotiate with employers as equals. That's a Howard myth, writes Josh Bornstein.

The Howard Government's industrial relations reforms are an attempt to resuscitate a myth that was discredited more than a century ago: the myth of freedom of contract.

..... The notion of freedom of contract that Howard appeals to is rooted in laissez-faire philosophy of the 19th century. Such philosophy posited that individuals were free to decide what was best for them without outside intervention. It followed that a factory owner and a worker should be left to decide the terms of a contract of employment.

However, close scrutiny revealed the flaw in this theory: the parties' capacity to negotiate was determined by their bargaining power. Invariably, a factory owner had greater bargaining power than his workers...

..... The fundamental problem with these contracts is that they are pro-forma "agreements" created by the employer and unilaterally imposed on its employees.

.... The Howard agenda is not radical reform but a reactionary roll-back to an era when unions did not exist. It forces us to revisit the lessons of history. As English judge Lord Henley observed in 1762: "Necessitous men are not, truly speaking, free men, but, to answer a present exigency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon them."

by Josh Bornstein, a principal with law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman, managing its employment and industrial relations department, represents trade unions and employees.

<complete article>
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-most-unequal-contest/2005/07/26/1122143842745.html

Costello and Andrews are using weasel words and duplicitious statements. Heather Ewart was right on it - industrial relations requires specific, painfully specific, language that pins down every point lest either party pull a swiftie. Such wide open language from both politicians indicates exactly what they're up to. Josh Bornstein's piece is right on the money.

If there was ever a golden age where worker and owner of capital could bargain equally then I want to know about it. There was only one Robert Owen.

Howard's IR plans are unravelling the more ordinary people find out about them. The ACTU is doing well, I just hope it continues.

Australians should rent "Spotswood" from their local video shop and also "Matewan" if they can find it (the latter is particularly brilliant).

Labor challenges government's IR ads
July 28, 2005 - 12:59PM/the AGE

A legal bid by the trade union movement and the federal opposition to force the government's workplace relations commercials off the air will begin in the High Court on Friday.

Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Nicola Roxon said it would be argued the $20 million campaign promoting proposed labour reforms is illegal because the spending has not been approved by parliament.

"We are seeking the High Court to grant an injunction to stop the ads being run," she told reporters.

"Tomorrow there will be debate about whether an interim injunction will be granted.

"We are seeking a declaration that the money has been spent unlawfully."

The statement of claim, lodged in the High Court on Wednesday night, names ACTU secretary Greg Combet as first plaintiff and Ms Roxon as second.

The Commonwealth of Australia is named as first defendant, Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews as second and Finance Minister Nick Minchin as third.

The preliminary hearing of a case funded by the ACTU will be held before a single High Court judge in Sydney on Friday.... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Labor-challenges-governments-IR-ads/2005/07/28/1122143946239.html

Yes, I thought so, too. Spot on, Josh Bornstein! And you're right, the Libs have got to be pinned down to spell out precisely what's meant by these proposed changes. None of this wishy-washy "it's good for the nation, good for the economy, therefore good for you" stuff! The SMUGNESS of the likes of Howard, Costello & Andrews in selling their message in such a dishonest way really riles me!



<sigh> Never was/never will be. It's simply not the nature of capitalism. (I had to check out Robert Owen through a Google search. Interesting! )



I really hope you're right. I have my moments of real doubt about "ordinary people" & how the media can influence them. I honestly couldn't understand how the GST was so easily accepted. How could workers possibly vote for a party that discriminated against their welfare, in favour of the wealthy? How could they so easily accept Howard's scares about their mortgages & interest rates at the last election? There are so many other examples that come to mind. I sincerely hope the ACTU's message is filtering through, but I'm a wee bit apprehensive. Out of habit, most likely. :wink:



Tell me about Matewan. I don't know anything about it.

Bid to halt workplace ads fails
July 29, 2005 - 3:38PM/the AGE

The federal government is prepared to spend taxpayers money "feathering its own political nest" through an advertising campaign promoting its industrial relations reforms, federal Labor leader Kim Beazley says.

Mr Beazley was speaking after the federal opposition and the ACTU failed today to win a temporary High Court injunction to stop the $20 million advertising campaign.

They sought the injunction to stop broadcasts of the workplace relations advertisements, claiming the government did not have parliamentary approval to use public money on the advertisements.

But High Court judge, Justice Dyson Heydon, today refused the temporary injunction, on the grounds that the opposition and ACTU had not offered the federal government any damages for taking the ads off air.

However, Justice Heydon granted an expedition order so the full bench of the High Court could hear the case within weeks. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bid-to-halt-workplace-ads-fails/2005/07/29/1122144006775.html

Matewan. Set in West Virginia in the 1920s it tells the story of a major industrial battle, and I mean "battle" with real shooting, involving the United Mineworkers (I think it was, I always get US union names wrong) and a major employer who was screwing the workers.

It's a dramatised telling of an historical event. It gives a frightening picture of what it was like for organised labour in the US back in the 1920s and the ruthlessness of the bosses.

As a film I found it engrossing but of course I am highly partial to the message. If you can get it (probably find it as weekly rental for three dollars somewhere) it is really worth watching.

I can't even think of the actors but I have the feeling that James Earl Jones may have been in it.

If you can get it I would think you would - I won't say "enjoy" it - find it informative. I have to say my admiration for the early union organisers in the US knows no bounds.

Thanks for that, gf. Will definitely keep an eye out for it.
(Another story entirely, & let's not divert the OZ thread, but what the hell happened to that wonderful tradition of US unionism & worker solidarity? I'm mystified. From a long way away, mind!)

If I may msolga - I know this a drift (and I'm having difficulty concentrating because Roy and HG are yelling from the tv in the background!) - it's instructive to read the history of the AFL and the CIO (before they amalgamated) and look at the philosophies of Gompers and Lewis, the main protagonists. Then to see how the union movement in the US succumbed to business interests and lost its philosophical base.

It's about to explode again, right now, with major unions quitting the AFL-CIO and Sweeney being re-elected.

Bah, no time for them. Anyway back to Oz

the labour party will never win an election with beazley in charge &howard will always have the upper hand ,as long as he sux up gw coit

Want to elaborate a bit, dragonfire52?
Hello & welcome!

Labor: the lost party
July 30, 2005/the AGE



Kim Beazley appears doomed, so the faltering ALP is wondering about Bob Carr.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/shaun-carney/labor-the-lost-party/2005/07/29/1122144016208.html

Howard's three-ring circus act
July 31, 2005/Sunday AGE


Image: Davidson

John Howard has three big issues to manage between now and Christmas. One is the debate over the Government's tough industrial relations package (not going well); the second is bedding down a deal to pass legislation for Telstra's full sale (maybe looking a little better); the other is his delicate relationship with Peter Costello (getting really tricky).... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/michelle-grattan/howards-threering-circus-act/2005/07/30/1122144054165.html