What Murdoch University doesn't mention about one of its Senate members

This is what Murdoch University in West Australia states about Antonino Mario 'Tony' Iannello who has been an external member of its Senate since at least 2006:

Click on image to enlarge

What it does not say is that he has been a director of ERM Power Limited since July 2010 and is currently a shareholder in that company through what appears to be a family superannuation scheme.

ERM Power is the largest shareholder in Metgasco Limited, a coal seam gas exploration and mining company currently holding tenements on the NSW North Coast and operating without a social license from local communities.

ERM appears to have markedly increased its shares in Metgasco as part of a strategy to increase its slice of  the Australian east coast electricity supply market and with a view to taking advantage of conventional and coal seam gas production opportunities in New South Wales.

Given the widespread opposition to coal seam gas exploration and mining, it is no wonder Murdoch University does not have that association up on its web pages. Particularly as Tony Iannello is currently chair of the university's Resources Committee which has investment capability as part of its duties:

 a. Oversee the development of the University’s key strategy of building ‘wealth’ to support the University’s long term educational goals. 
b. Oversee the investment of all monies of the University (including monies held in trust). 
c. Exercise oversight of the finances of all University trusts and foundations. 

One has to wonder if Murdoch University itself is quietly investing in the coal seam gas industry, given the background of the committee chair.

One also has to wonder why Mr. Iannello, living in his plush WA suburban MacMansion with its pool and tennis court, would consider associating himself with a mining sector which has the potential to threaten water security, local economies, lifestyle and amenity in the far away Northern Rivers region of New South Wales.

Perhaps he considers ERM Power's directors fees too good to refuse?

Yes siree! Tony Abbott just doesn't get women

“TONY Abbott's expensive paid parental leave scheme is "all about" encouraging women of "calibre" to have children, the Opposition Leader said today.” {News.com.au 7^th May 2013}

Maude up the Street is hoping mad over Teh Rabbit’s latest bon mot. She thinks that the idea that women who stay at home to raise their children or working women who earn $1,200 a week (before tax) or less have no calibre shows him up as a budding eugenicist. Maude wonders if his father’s family - hailing from England as it does – were fans of British Eugenics Society before they bailed out of that country in the early days of World War Two.

This is a Liberal Party official political advertisement in an election year

http://youtu.be/_3HtNCv3xvM

Not one policy statement or position in this advertisement. Not one promise or undertaking of any sort. Just 1.01 minutes of juvenile attack.

Australian voters deserve a lot better than this from the Federal Liberal Party in 2013.

I'm not the only person thinking this way if The Age report of 6 May is accurate:

A source familiar with the Liberal Party campaign described the advertisement as “stupid, unstatesmanlike and inappropriate”.

“All they have to do [to win the election] is turn up and for Abbott to look like a statesman,” the source said. “Now he's looking like a 14-year-old”.

The Northern Star contracts a case of the jimmy britts

The Northern Star is taken down in more ways than one...

The Northern Star  4 May 2013

Urban Dictionary:

1.	jimmy britts
	Australian version of British rhyming slang 'tom tits' for diarrhea/the shits.

* Hat tip to Clarrie Rivers for pointing out the rhyming slang

A brief look at The Coalition's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws

 

Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on introducing the Coalition’s new industrial relations policy talked of no worker being worse off and the proposed legislation needing to pass the pub test.

 

As both these phrases were rather notorious on the NSW North Coast during the Howard Government era, I decided to take a look at this policy document which sets out (among other things) an intention to further limited a union’s right of entry into a workplace, reinstate the Australian Building and Construction Commission and alter the Better Off Overall Test.

 

This is what I found on a first reading of The Coalition's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws:

 

On Page 5 there is a justification to change right of entry for union representatives:

According to the footnotes this workplace receiving up to 200 visits is the Foster Wheeler Worley Parsons (Pluto) Joint Venture located 190km north-west of Karratha in Western Australia, where the occupying employer of record Woodside Burrup Pty Ltd (WBPL) would only allow one signed in and staff  accompanied CFMEU representative to see one individual contractor’s employees per visit.

Which means that he was required to make multiple visits due to the scale of this mining venture, where the onshore plant and associated infrastructure alone cover about 80ha and the combined construction and operation workforce was estimated to be between 4,000-6,000 workers over the life of the project up to that point in time.

 

Page 6 contains a justification for reforming the Australian Building and Construction Commission:

Again the footnotes do not fully support these assertions, as productivity was above predicted levels before the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) was formed and it is noted that the alleged over $6 billion per year is arrived at in part by KPMG Econtech assigning a monetary value to personal leisure time when not at work.

 

By Page 13 of the document the Coalition is stating that between 2014 and 2016 it will review the Fair Australia laws:

Of course there was a prior post-implementation review of these laws between 2011-2012 and the Coalition obviously finds no fault with that particular review as it allegedly intends to rely on some of that its recommendations. Which begs the question as to why there is need for another review if Abbott wins government.

Then on Page 36 the Coalition is supporting a new proposition regarding workplace laws allegedly drawn from that same post-implementation review:

The Fair Work Australia Better Off Overall Test apparently specifies that the employee must actually be “better off overall”. That wages and conditions being offered by the employer in any new individual flexibility arrangement or enterprise agreement are not merely equivalent with the relevant modern award.

 

In Australia, non-monetary benefits broadly cover conditions of work such as guaranteed minimum hours, reasonable working hours, location of employment, flexible working arrangements etc.  

 

During the period Work Choices legislation was in effect, the Fairness Test only partially protected and/or compensated for the loss of such benefits and that under Work Choices there was the removal of any requirement to offset employee losses with benefits. It also meant that being provided with such things as access to a works car park could be assigned a nominal monetary value and used as compensation for loss of award condition/s and overtime worked would not always result in an increase in wage received but could be a payment-in-kind such as leftover food.

 

There is no mention in the fact that the 2011-12 review of work place laws, on which the Coalition policy document relies, clearly indicated that any arrangement to confer a non-monetary benefit on an employee in exchange for a monetary benefit was conditional on the value of the monetary benefit foregone is specified in writing and is relatively insignificant, and the value of the non-monetary benefit is proportionate.

 

However, what is clear is that under proposed changes to Labor's system of individual flexibility arrangements, workers would have a greater ability to trade off entitlements, including penalty rates and leave which was a key characteristic of Work Choices eagerly abused by employers.

Casino Beef Week tarnishes its own brand

How does a Northern Rivers festival which has been in existence for thirty-one years this month tarnish its brand?

By continuing to allow this sponsor for Casino Beef Week:

http://www.casinobeefweek.com.au/#/program/4574871516

Having Stuart George as President of Beef Week and chair of its promotions committee at the same time he is employed by coal seam gas exploration and mining company Metgasco as its Community Relations Manager is a distinctly odd look, given this company has been widely rejected by Northern Rivers residents and the farming community.

This rejection appears to include a majority of the good people of South Casino according to a report in the Richmond River Express Examiner on 1 May 2013:

The state of the Australian economy confuses the average voter?

It rather beggars belief that so many political commentators have been talking down the Australian economy for the last five years, when overall that same economy has been the envy of the developed world during that same period.

It seems that hardly a week has gone by when somewhere in the national media there hasn’t been a journalist reporting economic doom and gloom, aided and abetted by various Liberal and National Party politicians.

Yet in 2013 gross government debt stands at a comparatively modest $271 billion by international standards and net government debt is estimated at $145 billion to date in Australia as the world’s 12th  largest economy. The nation still has GDP growth, a budget deficit of around 1 per cent of GDP or less, an across the board AAA international credit rating, low inflation, low unemployment and is considered a safe haven for investors.

To say that this disconnect between negatively-coloured reporting and verifiable fact may have led to voter ambivalence is positing the obvious and it can possibly be seen in this survey.

Between Wednesday 1 May and Sunday 5 May 2013 an estimated 1,000+ survey respondents answered questions concerning the Australian economy and, their replies were published as part of the broader Essential Report on 6 May 2013.

These respondents were drawn from among the same 7,000-8,000 people who have been answering this regular Essential Services survey for years.

What is interesting about this latest report is the respondents answers to questions about government debt.

In one question 25% think that Australia’s national debt is higher than other developed countries and 48% think it is lower – 18% think it about the same.

In another 46% think the main reason for Australia’s national debt is that the Government are poor economic managers. 26% think it is due to the world economy and 17% blame the high Australian dollar.

However, in yet another question 39% think that government’s management of the Australian economy compared to how governments in other countries around the world have managed their economies has been good/very good and 32% think it has been poor/very poor.

While the conclusion arrived at in the final question was that 32% trust Wayne Swan more to handle Australia’s economy and 35% trust Joe Hockey more. With those on incomes under $1,000pw favour Wayne Swan 34%/31% while those earning over $1,000pw favour Joe Hockey 37%/32%.

So while the biggest percentage blocs in two questions realized that Australia’s national debt was lower than most other developed countries and considered that the Gillard Government's management of the economy was good to very good in comparison with the rest of the world - at the same time the biggest percentage bloc in another question decided that the federal government’s poor economic management was the root cause of the national debt.

Leading to the untried Opposition Shadow Joe Hockey being seen by three per cent more respondents as being better trusted when it came to handling the Australian economy than Treasurer Wayne Swan and, that 3% looking suspiciously like a group earning over $1,000 per week.

It would appear that five years of relentless negative comment in the media may have left many unable to reconcile political rhetoric with Treasury’s annual economic data and, choosing to believe the former rather than the latter much of the time.

* Graph from ABC News