Wednesday 19 December 2007

The Australian desperate for a 'bad' Labor story?

Over two weeks ago Deputy-Prime Minister Julia Gillard appeared on Channel Ten's Meet the Press in a panel interview discussing the proposed implementation of changes to industrial relations legislation.
The show's transcript records this exchange between The Australian representative and Ms. Gillard.
"BRAD NORINGTON: Good morning, Ms Gillard. We've heard what Dr Nelson has just had to say about your proposed transition bill to abolish WorkChoices. When will we see your transition bill and what's in it?
JULIA GILLARD: I can very clearly tell you what's in it, Brad. The transition bill, the policy decisions associated with it will go to Cabinet before Christmas. We will have our transition bill for the opening of Parliament next year. And the transition bill is a very simple one - it will end the ability of employers to make Australian Workplace Agreements. Now the choice here for the Liberal Party and for the Leader of the Opposition is very clear - do they want to support Labor's bill and end forever the ability of Australians to have the safety net at work stripped away from them or do they stand for stripping away the safety net from Australians at work? It's a clear choice. Australian Workplace Agreements can strip the safety net away. We want to end that. Does the Leader of the Opposition support ordinary Australians at work being at risk of losing basic conditions?
BRAD NORINGTON: You've been very quite clear, specific - the bill is all about abolishing Australian Workplace Agreements. When will Labor reinstate unfair dismissal laws for all workers? JULIA GILLARD: For anybody who has read our policy plans - and they were comprehensively published many months before the election - people would know the transition bill was always going to be about ending workplace agreements. There of course will be a second substantial piece of legislation which will deliver on the rest of our promises, including that the promise to ensure there's a simple unfair dismissal system. I simply don't believe it's fair or balanced for a worker who has given good service for 5, 10, 15, 20 years to lose their work without reason and have no remedy. Once again, it's a question for the Leader of the Opposition - does he think that's fair, that after 20 years you could be sacked for no reason and have no remedy because that's what WorkChoices provides and that's what we want to get rid of?
BRAD NORINGTON: Will you overturn the Howard Government's unfair dismissal regime and give all workers the right to claim unfair sacking?
JULIA GILLARD: Well, we will do that in our substantive piece of legislation. We will get that in to the Parliament as soon as it can be done. Obviously we want to draft it in a consultative way, including an exposure draft, that will take a number of months. People should anticipate that in the first half of next year.
MARIA HAWTHORNE: You will try and get that through with a hostile Senate? We'd be saying to the National Party and the Liberal Party that the Australian people have spoken and they've asked for a fair and balanced industrial relations system. This wasn't a marginal part of the last election campaign, it was a key part. So we would ask for the will of the Australian people to be honoured and ask the Liberal Party and the National Party, do they stand by awards stripping AWAs, do they stand by good workers being sacked unfairly for no reason and having no remedy?
BRAD NORINGTON: Labor achieved a lot of support from people because of its promise to abolish the Howard Government's WorkChoices. What do you say to people who may have a long wait for the AWAs are abolished and based on what you have just told us, may have to wait many months before they have a right to claim unfair dismissal?
JULIA GILLARD: We've always been crystal clear with the Australian people about this. It's in our published policy and I said it consistently in the run-up to the election - we can't overnight undo all of the harm that the Howard government has done to working Australians through WorkChoices. We need to legislate for change. We want to legislate in a careful and measured way. We want to get the legislation right. The last thing we want to do with the substantial piece of legislation is do what the Howard government did with WorkChoices, which is draft it poorly and then amend it again and again and again. We want to get it right first time. We'll take the time necessary to do that. But from that piece of legislation on, WorkChoices will be over and there will be a fair and balanced system for people in this country. That's what they voted for and they voted for knowing it would take some time to build because we told them that before the election."
Meet the Press transcript for 2 December:
 
Now it seems The Australian editor is rather desperate for a 'bad' Rudd Government story and while ignoring the substance of the Meet the Press exchange, this bit of misdirection was all he could come up with after a good boo-ya about unions.
"JULIA Gillard's hopes of dealing quickly with industrial relations and moving on to the federal Government's promised education revolution are looking more optimistic than ever. Cabinet has ticked off on Labor's election promise to scrap Australian Workplace Agreements with a cumbersome but short-lived transitional plan. The more substantial changes being planned by Labor are now less certain and will have a longer gestation than anyone anticipated.----
"While quick action to outlaw new AWAs was expected, even though existing ones can continue until the next term of government, few had anticipated the potential Pandora's Box that Ms Gillard has opened up to deal with the balance of Labor's IR reforms. The first hint that not everything was set in stone came during an interview with Ms Gillard on the Ten Network's Meet The Press two weeks ago. Ms Gillard said that contrary to expectations, Labor's initial IR legislation would not include the reintroduction of unfair dismissal laws for small business. The unfair dismissal provisions would instead be dealt with in a second, comprehensive package of legislation that would involve a period of consultation and be ready some time next year."
 
Although the related story "Unions in IR threat" tried to turn the issue into a confrontation between the Rudd Government and the union movement over unfair dismissal laws allegedly not coming in until 2010, the truth managed to slip across the page.
According to ACTU President Sharon Burrows; "A major problem with Work Choices was the haste with which it was rushed through parliament," she said.
"Labor won't make this mistake. New IR laws need to be properly drafted and subject to reasonable consultation. The ACTU is not setting a time frame but do want to see the main components in place as soon as practicable."
The Australian article:

What the 2007 federal election is costing taxpayers in little extras

According to a media release yesterday the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has authorised the first payment to political parties and candidates for votes received at the 2007 federal election.

The total of the first payment is $46,536,277.23. Payments have been made to seven parties and 15 independent candidates.

Payment is made in two stages. The first stage is 95 per cent of the amount due based on the number of votes counted as at the 20th day after election day. The second is the remainder due once vote counting is finalised.

Payments are calculated using an indexed sum per first preference vote. At the 2007 federal election, each first preference vote was worth 210.027 cents.

In order to obtain election funding a candidate must obtain at least 4% of the first preference vote.

At the 2004 federal election, the AEC paid out $41,926,158.91 in total to ten Parties and 15 independent candidates. The funding rate for the 2004 federal election was 194.397 cents per vote.

Below is a breakdown of the first payment of election funding for the 2007 federal election

AMOUNT AS AT THE END OF COUNTING ON 14 DECEMBER 2007

Name Amount ($)

Parties
Australian Labor Party 20,922,325.51
Liberal Party of Australia 17,222,359.78
Australian Greens 4,148,615.11
National Party of Australia 3,076,663.58
Pauline's United Australia Party 202,440.72
Northern Territory Country Liberal Party 160 719.91
Family First Party 133 965.51


Independent candidates
Nick Xenophon (Senate, South Australia) 296,627.70
Tony Windsor (New England) 105,217.86
Bob Katter (Kennedy) 64,919.66
Gavin Priestley (Calare) 37,979.71
Tim Horan (Parkes) 34,114.90
Caroline Hutchinson (Fisher) 21,141.74
Gavan O'Connor (Corio) 21,010.05
Noel Brunning (Forrest) 19,800.93
Aaron Buman (Newcastle) 12,655.91
Ben Quin (Lyons) 12,155.10
Cate Molloy (Wide Bay) 11,125.55
Ray McGhee (Boothby) 8 759.18
Rob Bryant (Murray) 8,727.25
Tim Williams (Macquarie) 8,270.34
Jamie Harrison (Lyne) 6,636.23

Total 46,536,277.23

Senate seats for NSW declared today

At 1.30pm today the following candidates at the 2007 federal election will be declared elected as senators for New South Wales:
Mark Arbib (Labor)
Helen Coonan (Liberal)
Doug Cameron (Labor)
John Williams (Nationals)
Marise Payne (Liberal)
Ursula Stephens (Labor)
 
Party representation at this election was matched with both Labor and the Coalition having three senators each.
Go Whalers!
 

Tuesday 18 December 2007

Was the Coalition dishonest when in government?

At the declaration of the poll for the electorate of Page on Monday December 17 the unsuccessful National Party candidate Chris Gulaptis had this to say about the Coalition's loss:

"It's an opportunity for conservatives in opposition to make sure they represent us honestly."

Reading between the lines, one could easily arrive at the conclusion that Gulaptis thought that when the Coalition was in government its representation was something less than honest.

Quite honestly, that's rather easy to believe. Just look at the bundles of tripe the Howard government, and especially a number of its infamous ministers, served up for public consumption.


The Daily Examiner's report on the declaration of the poll is at:
http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3758647&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

ANZ Bank to use Equator Principles when looking to finance Gunn's contentious pulp mill in Tasmania

The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group will be using the Equator Principles to assess any financial involvement with Malcolm Turnbull's 'love child', the Bell Bay pulp mill in northern Tasmania.
Would-be pulp mill owner Gunn's has been a customer of the ANZ since 1995. Not nearly as long as some of the bank's Mum and Dad account holders or other corporate clients.
I'm sure that a good many investors, bank customers and potential customers will be watching this process with interest.
Any attempt to use these principles simply as a PR airbrush is likely to have the opposite result.
ANZ Current Issues page:
 
"For a number of years, banks working in the project finance sector had been seeking ways to develop a common and coherent set of environmental and social policies and guidelines that could be applied globally and across all industry sectors. In October 2002, a small number of banks convened in London, together with the World Bank Group's International Finance Corporation (IFC), to discuss these issues. The Banks present decided jointly to try and develop a banking industry framework for addressing environmental and social risks in project financing. This led to the drafting of the first set of Equator Principles by these banks which were then launched in Washington, DC on June 4 2003. These Principles were ultimately adopted by over forty financial institutions during a three year implementation period. A subsequent updating process took place in 2006 leading to a newly revised set of Equator Principles that were released in July 2006."
The Equator Principles:

Housing affordability on the NSW North Coast

It's good to see Lismore City Council adopting an innovative resolution to spend up to $2.5 million to guarantee the purchase of 50 homes for first home-buyers.
However, this move might help the few lucky families eventually involved but it does little to solve the home affordability issue which has crept out of the large metropolitan areas and is now making home ownership a distant dream for many in low-income areas on the NSW North Coast.

Lismore City Council has also recently approved a homeless shelter in the district.
With private rental costs steadily rising it is time for the Rudd Government to reassess the state of public housing across the nation and move, in partnership with the States, to rebuild these housing stocks to a level which reflects actual need on the ground.
Quixotic gestures make us feel good, but serious and widespread effort is required if Kevin Rudd is to live up to his election campaign rhetoric.
Of course it's early days yet and in rural and regional Australia many hope that 2008 will see a commitment to address public housing shortfalls.


The Northern Rivers Echo last Thursday:

http://www.echonews.com/index.php?page=View%20Article&article=19337&issue=306

Few noticed Andrew Bartlett's leaving as Senate forms a new face

In all the blather surrounding the Kyoto conference in Bali there has been little time to notice that the Australian Democrats federal leader and Queensland senator, Andrew Bartlett also lost his seat at the 24 November election and will no longer sit after 30 June 2008.
One of the saddest outcomes of this election has been the demise of the Democrats.
They will be sorely missed on Senate committees.
November 24 delivered us the same old two-horse race in the upper house, with minor parties and independents holding the balance of power.
A list of senators announced as elected so far (final AEC list should be out later today):
Nick Sherry (ALP)
Richard Colbeck (Lib)
Bob Brown (Greens)
Carol Brown (ALP)
David Bushby (Lib)
Catryna Bilyk (ALP)
Don Farrell (ALP)
Cory Bernardi (Lib)
Nick Xenophon (IND)
Penny Wong (ALP)
Simon Birmingham (Lib)
Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens)
Ian Douglas MacDonald (Lib)
John Joseph Hogg (ALP)
Sue Boyce (Lib)
Claire Moore (ALP)
Ron Boswell (Nationals)
Mark Furner (ALP)
Kate Lundy (ALP)
Gary Humphries (Lib)

Monday 17 December 2007

Howard acolytes scramble for a new place in the sun

"The next group of potential losers comes from those interest groups and lobbyists identified with the Howard government. Every lobbyist in the country is reflecting now on their contacts with the new Government and rethinking their strategies. But those most urgently reflecting are those who campaigned against Labor. Some are even attempting to rewrite the history of their role.

The potential losers include some in the business community. They got preferential treatment from the Howard government in various ways, including the industrial relations reforms, and are now nervous about their future. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry was recognised as the business lobby group closest to the former government. Not surprisingly its chief executive, Peter Hendy, has been under internal pressure since the election to justify his position.

The National Farmers' Federation has also been retreating from its pre-election advocacy. Some of its campaign advertising, though not all, was pro-government and anti-Labor. This was a calculated risk. Since the election, the federation has tried to deny that this was the case."
The Canberra Times last Thursday:
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/opinion/opinion/losers-scramble-for-a-place-in-rudds-new-queue/1104275.html

Of course all these lobbyists and special interest groups will retain access to the Federal Government. However it would be nice to see these rabid little neo-cons fall to the back of the queue for a while at least. A smidgen of poetic justice wouldn't go astray right now.

Sore loser or clumsy archivist?

This is what came on the screen when I tried to click on to www.chrisgulaptis.com.au to see if unsuccessful Nationals candidate for Page Chris Gulaptis had released a concession speech after 24 November.
Reverse lookup command gone wrong? Or perhaps second thoughts about leaving those campaign bon mots out there for all to see?
Surely not a deliberate attempt to bar North Coast residents from the website.

You are not authorized to view this page

The Web server you are attempting to reach has a list of IP addresses that are not allowed to access the Web site, and the IP address of your browsing computer is on this list.

Please try the following:

  • Contact the Web site administrator if you believe you should be able to view this directory or page.

HTTP Error 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address of the client has been rejected.
Internet Information Services (IIS)


Big Brother 2007

In the Northern Territory certain Australian citizens can have personal control of money from their own old age pensions taken away, because of how they are thought to be behaving or because of how they just might behave in the future.
Queensland is about to do the same thing to some other citizens.
Other types of welfare payment are also subject to this snatch and grab.
Just how long do you think it will be until every Australian pensioner has to behave as Big Brother orders or lose control of their money? 
I'm betting less than three years, if the Rudd Government continues to be led through the nose by a public service so politicised during the Howard years that it is still actively running a right-wing agenda in advice given to government.
 
Struth, it's so crook that one portfolio within the Deputy-Prime Minister's brief, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, employs some public servants openly lamenting Howard and Hockey's demise. While loudly criticising everything about the new minister from her IQ to her speaking voice, laying bets on when she shall lose this portfolio and vowing to make sure that everything will be steadily moving forward according to their own agenda.
Word in your ear, boys - when you go home for the hols don't discuss the matter in public if you want to keep your little revolt quiet. Oops! Think you've already opened your mouth.

Wasn't it nice to see Bali delegates finally lose patience with America

Well I'm sure that wasn't something the United States was expecting.
Its delegate to the Kyoto conference in Bali loudly booed from the meeting floor, and then tiny Papua New Guinea rising to tell US representatives that if America was not prepared to lead on climate change solutions it should get out of the way.
Of course by then the US had all but wrecked the efforts of over 190 nations to create meaningful greenhouse gas emissions targets for the world to work towards over the next few years.
Maybe by 2009 Kyoto countries will have found the spine to kick the US right out the conference door if it remains as intransigent.
One can almost hear that famous American sphere of influence beginning to shrink, and the more effects of global warming begin to bite, the quicker that influence will disappear.