The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

dadpad

(please excuse me if this is not quite coherent - I'm absolutely stunned that our government has gotten us involved in yet another "terror front". I feel like weeping, actually. )

I understand the problems of rural Victoria. (Not nearly as familiar with the rest of Oz, though, though I know there are enormous unemployment problems in "the bush") I grew up in a small country town & the remaining members of my family still live there. I've seen the sort of things you describe: banks closing, rail services being cut back, hospital closure (the hospital, incidentally, was financed largely by SEC workers' financial contributions then closed as part of Kennett's rationalizations) ,etc, etc, etc ... Things are pretty grim for my sister's children, employment-wise. There's a scarily high suicide rate for young men. I'm sure you're familiar with these things, dadpad.

But I do want to say I've also seen some pretty desperate city problems of a similar vein, too. The endless bank closures, huge unemployment rates of migrant workers as a result of the closures of the clothing, footwear, whitegoods & other factories in the area I live in. I wonder what happened to all those workers that you used to see at the tram-stops at closing time? Most likely many of the migrant women (or their current equivalents) are now working sweatshop conditions in their own homes ... for a pittance. "Out-sourcing", it's called. But it's the young people, the ones who left school far too early that I really despair for. I come across young people I've taught, now in their 20s, who have never had real jobs. I guess soon many of them will get jobs of sorts. At cut rates under Howard's IR regime. This is going to create some very bitter people in our society. First, they're unemployed for years, then exploited through lousy pay & conditions.


(Sorry, I'm raving .... these things really, really bother me. )

Not raving - there are some things about which we should not be dispassionate.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16988676%255E1702,00.html

<sigh> :

How's this for half a day's work? Apparently those oh-so-happy workers in that grating IR advertisement were paid $6 thousand by the ad. agency for their services. You know, those ecstatic workers, just thrilled with their AWAs! Your taxes at work.

... oh, I forgot to mention: they're extras, not real workers. But you knew that already, didn't you? :wink:

Last Update: Friday, October 21, 2005. 6:00pm (AEST)

Govt retaliating over bill leak: Stanhope

Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says retaliatory action has been taken by the Federal Government over his decision last week to post the draft counter-terrorism bill on his website.

Mr Stanhope says he has received an email from Prime Minister John Howard advising of the ACT's exclusion from consultation over the next draft of the bill.

He says the remaining states and territories will receive copies of the amended bill, and a ban will be placed placed on the distribution of electronic versions.

Mr Stanhope says it is a direct breach of the inter-governmental agreement on counter-terrorism, and he says it is designed to muzzle community debate.

"A further draft of the anti-terrorism bill, a draft that was prepared in consultation with the ACT and my officials, was ready for distribution today," he said.

"It's now been distributed to all states and territories except the ACT and I understand the Prime Minister has instructed that the Australian Capital Territory is no longer to be considered part of the process for the making of these laws."

Mr Stanhope says the Prime Minister's response to last week's publication is "childish".

"I think because I've sought to involve the community in the debate, the Prime Minister is obviously aggravated to a degree that I didn't imagine that he would," he said.

"I believe he's now responded quite churlishly and I think quite childishly by directing the Commonwealth to exclude the ACT from any further consideration."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1487986.htm

Labor toes the terror line
October 22, 2005/the age

Fear of the electorate, as much as terrorism, is driving Beazley and the premiers, writes Shaun Carney.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/shaun-carney/labor-toes-the-terror-line/2005/10/21/1129775953598.html

Ah, just as many of us had suspected! So much for that "choice" argument of refusing the job (if you didn't like the employer's AWA terms) & then looking elsewhere for something better, as JH repeatedly argued! :

Last Update: Sunday, October 23, 2005. 12:27pm (AEST)

Unemployed warned: take job or lose benefits

Federal Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews has confirmed that unemployed people will lose their payments from Centrelink if they refuse to take a job under the new industrial relations (IR) policy.

Government advertising says items such as holiday pay and penalty rates will be protected by law, but the employee can choose to trade them away.

On ABC TV's Insiders program, host Barrie Cassidy asked the Minister whether an unemployed person had to accept a job, regardless of the conditions.

Mr Cassidy said: "He has no choice, if he doesn't take the job no matter what the conditions he loses his benefit."

Mr Andrews replied: "We don't make any excuse for this.

"We believe that the best form of welfare that person can have is to have job and remembering this that when a person gets a job it is the best way of getting another job."

Labor's Stephen Smith believes the Mr Andrews has revealed the truth about the industrial relations package.

"What the Minister has confirmed today is that people will be left effectively with no choice," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1488523.htm

Stating the bleeding obvious:

IR reforms will create 'working poor': ALP

... The Federal Opposition says a new class of working poor will be created in Australia under the Government's planned industrial relations (IR) changes.

... Labor's Stephen Smith says the Minister has revealed there will be no choice.

"What we will end up with is people being forced onto inferior wages, inferior conditions and the great risk is that we end up with a working poor just as you find in the United States," he said.

"What the Minister has confirmed today is that people will be left effectively with no choice."...

<complete article>
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1488612.htm

The government has spent $15 million at least (so far) to "inform the public" the proposed IR changes & we discover the nitty gritty details in the media.:

Andrews defends workplace changes:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/andrews-defends-workplace-changes/2005/10/23/1130005991381.html

Heard on a vox pop the other day - "oh yes, the unions and Labor have far too much power, far too much power, it's a good thing." Sounded like an elderly person and not from Toorak/Mosman/Burnside/Battery Point/Fanny Bay/Peppermint Grove either (anyone know the posh area in Brisbane?).

Okay that's it, I'm in formal despair.

Oh, don't be in formal despair, gf! That was just a prejudiced oldy in a serious time warp! This might have been true quite a time ago, but god knows, it hasn't been so recently! Union power? Come on! Someone hasn't been reading their newspaper for a bit! (& was probably a Liberal talk-back stooge, anyway! :wink: )

Besides <sigh> you know that no matter what any of us think of this bloody legislation it's likely to go through anyway, because of the senate majority. <sigh> I think you'd agree that most Australians have not been sucked in by the advertising blitz. All the polls suggest that this is the case. But will that stop JH? And apparently "the enquiry" is going to be a rush job next week! <sigh> So, I'm trying (really, really hard!) to be philosophical about the damage that's about to be done. It's going to be a boulder pushing situation, I'm afraid. (One of my favourite authors, Doris Lessing, once described the role of some folk as being "boulder pushers". That's always stuck in my mind, since I read it, years ago. The theory is that progress (or whatever you'd call it) is a slow process of pushing a boulder uphill. Just when it almost reaches the peak, evil forces knock it right back down again, almost to square one. It is then the task of the boulder pushers to start that long, laborious push of the load uphill again. I've always seen myself as one. <sigh> I hope there are lots of others, because we're going to need them!)

That's Sisyphus I think msolga, I think he was doomed to keep pushing the boulder up the hill and then go back and try again when it slipped down. Anyway I think it is, could be wrong about that and I'm too lazy to check

I'm hoping that this legislation is Howard's poll tax, the tax that saw Thatcher driven from office. Because this is A2K and I try assiduously not to use bad language on an online forum I shall refrain from going on about JH. Suffice to say I liked Menzies better.

With all due respect to our American friends - Howard's legislation will turn Australia into a sort of deep south - employment "at will", no justice in the workplace and of course, the destruction of unions. JH is pathological about these things. None of this, from memory, was canvassed at the last federal election. But then even if it had been it would have been categorised as a "core promise" which means that he can lie about it and would have.

Well all I can say is that it may hasten an ALP government.

Could be, gf. I don't know. But it was a position that Doris L indentified with & wrote about. (Heaven's, this woman tied to be an independent writer while a member of the Communist Party in England in the 1950s! Needless to say, she ended up leaving the Party!)

Nope, he didn't canvas "the plan" prior to the election. But given the huge majority the Libs gained, plus control of both houses of parliament, decided it would be a great idea, after! An opportunity not to be sneezed at!l

Ehm ... can I just barge in with a question NOT about Australian politics?

Its just, I wondered what happened with the elections in your neighbour country, New Zealand. There's no thread on it and what I know is too flimsy (and interest probably too scarce) to start one.

I know that it was a really tight race; that Labour eeked out a narrow victory, but lacked the votes to govern on its own; and that they were going to talk with the Maori party.

Thats the last I heard, but now I heard something about the leader of the New Zealand First party being the assigned Foreign Minister? Wasn't New Zealand First expected to align itself with the right-wing opposition instead? What kind of party is it, anyway? How did the whole coalition talks wrangle turn out?

There's some bad news for Howard, but far worse news for Labour's Kim Beazley, in this poll, btw.

There's been a coalition formed, Nimh.

"October 26, 2005
New Zealanders Review Future of Government


(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in New Zealand believe their new administration could remain in place for three years, according to a poll by Colmar Brunton released by One News. 52 per cent of respondents think the government can last for the entire term, while 44 per cent disagree.

Prime minister and Labour party leader Helen Clark has acted as New Zealand’s prime minister since December 1999. The country’s voters renewed the House of Representatives on Sept. 17. Official results gave Labour 41.1 per cent of the vote and 50 legislators, with the opposition National party a close second with 39.1 per cent and 48 lawmakers in the 121-seat legislative branch.

United Future and New Zealand First agreed to support an administration encompassing Labour and the Progressives in confidence and supply votes for the next three years. On Oct. 19, the new government was installed. Clark retained her position as prime minister, in a cabinet featuring New Zealand First leader Winston Peters as foreign minister, Phil Goff as defence minister, Rick Barker as interior minister, and United Future leader Peter Dunne as revenue minister. Michael Cullen retained the finance portfolio.

Clark explained the rationale for the agreement, saying, "Our country’s been quite polarized and divided by this election, and people are looking for a government that can work with a wide range of parties and try and bring people together again."

The Greens—who had expressed their intention to work with Labour during the electoral campaign—were not a part of the final coalition agreement. Greens co-leader Rod Donald lamented the situation, saying, "Unfortunately, Labour succumbed to the threats from New Zealand First and United Future. We are disappointed by that, but we have known all along that that was going to be the likely outcome."

Collaboration between Labour and the Greens ceased before the 2002 ballot, after disagreements on the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO)."


http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/9565




Quite a full explanation here:

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1320&cid=9&sid=0



The Laobor PM, Helen Clark, has retained her position, but there are some strange bedfellows.