Rudd. 7:30 Report.

pic via crikey

Ruddy's turn tonight.

I'm bummed I missed his press club address today. Oh well.

"The Rudd Government". Has a nice ring to it!

Hawke/Keating paid political price for risks they took. Resulted in forming platform for Australia's economic growth. Points out that under Fraser interest rates were high too, not just under Hawke/Keating. Kerry basically telling him to shut up - covered that last night with J-Ho! Doesn't want audience to fall asleep.

Keeping eye on inflationary pressures is key.

Do you agree the GST was right for Australia? "You can't unscramble the omelette" Huh? "But do you now accept it was right for Australia?" By undoing it, you would cause chaos - only reason for not touching GST. Need simpler ways to comply for business. "Do you believe the GST was bad policy?" Affects lower end of the income spectrum more.

Um. I'm a bit bored. La la la.

Housing! Are you comfortable in allowing the RB to slow the growth of the economy by increasing interest rates? "I accept the independence of the bank." "Very important we take a hard line approach to unnecessary expenditure." If RB says public spending is causing more inflation, would you reassess your spending promises? He's banging on about how they're going to spend less than Howard and save more than Howard. Snore.

"Stop the crazy spend-a-thon."

Points out that all the govt does is spend and bitch (about the ALP) as their campaign. Heh heh.

Oops. Sorry. Spaced out. Something about the ALP historically?

Kevvie loves his metaphors. WorkChoices "dicing" things. Omelettes, dicing. Was he hungry when he did this interview?

"You could drive a Mack truck through that safety net." (Workchoices.)

"Brissy." Go Brissy! Ahem. Sorry.

Blah. Banging on about the union backgrounds of the shadow cabinet. "I will govern in the national interest."

Ooooohhhhh - H R Nicholls Society. You went there! Woo hoo! (Costello was founder).

I love Kerry. He's so good at forcing pollies to get back on track and answering the question asked.

"Genesis of our IR system ... will have as it's core component..." something about wages. Sorry.

Nauru. How quickly would you move to shut down? No advice on that. Have appropriate offshore detention facility (Christmas Is). Why not use it instead? What? Why use it at all??????? You disappoint me, Mr Rudd. "Pacific solution is just wrong...best way is to use Christmas Island." Sigh.

I'm so voting Greens. Yeah, yeah. I know I was anyway. But this reminds me why.

Climate change - Can you continue to responsibly ignore nuclear power? No decent attempt to look into renewable energy. Solar technologies have gone offshore. Solar, wind, geothermal will be looked at. Nuclear? We have large range of alternatives. Responsibilities regarding the export of uranium - repeats that other countries don't have as many options available to them. Didn't really answer the question, but Kerry didn't follow up.

Presidential style? "I believe very much in taking advice...evidence based policy. What works?" So will take advice from cabinet and elsewhere.

And that is it. Hate to admit it, but I got really bored and kinda spaced out. Probably cause his voice remains so calm and he doesn't get rattled. Unlike other people who get all snarky!

Vaile's search for a scapegoat

Update: Mark Vaile has been nominated for the Dead Parrots Society Hall of Fame.

Mark Vaile has been the weakest link in the Coalition team this year. Doesn't seem to have recovered from the AWB scandal. This is despite giving up the Trade portfolio so that he could nurse the Nationals at home. Babysitting Barnaby Joyce seems to have been a full time job as we have seen this week with Joyce's support of Labor's proposed IR changes. Too busy to keep any sort of profile as Deputy Prime Minister. I bet a poll of electors would find they think Costello holds that job.

Anyway, he's worked out what the problem is, why they're losing the campaign:

Federal Nationals leader Mark Vaile says he would have liked the business community to have done more to support the Coalition's industrial relations laws during the election campaign. Business didn't back WorkChoices enough: Vaile (ABC News, 21 November 2007)

I'm sure Howard would have liked Mark Vaile to have done more all round. More of the blame game next week if the polls are to be believed.

Original Post at: Labor View from Broome

A vote for us is a vote for being fucked by your furniture!

JOHN HOWARD has sought to turn his most unpopular policy into a key pitch for re-election by promising Work Choices would become "part of the furniture" if the Coalition wins on Saturday.

SMH

As a public servant, I have been immune (thus far) from the changes to the IR laws. But that doesn't mean that I will be in the future. On the contrary, there are already moves to make WorkChoices applicable to the public service.

I have worked in the private sector before, so I know that as a public servant I have it pretty damn good. While I bemoan the fact that because of the nature of the PS you have quite a number of workers who are useless but it is too difficult to get rid of them with the current bureaucratic processes, I still hold onto my entitlements as if my life depended on it, because in some respects, it does.

I'm not afraid to admit that the thought of WorkChoices becoming "part of the furniture", scares the bejebus out of me.

But the Government has suppressed hundreds of pages of documents that could contradict its pledge not to take its industrial relations reforms further. The documents canvass options for another wave of reform, but Channel Seven has lost a battle to expose them under freedom-of-information laws. Labor's deputy leader, Julia Gillard, last night accused the Government of a pre-election cover-up on Work Choices. "The Australian people have a right to know what the Howard Government is hiding," she said.

Tonight on the 7:30 report, Howard claimed that WorkChoices as it is now doesn't need any "refinement". But really, this is the man who didn't even go to the last election declaring that they'd try to completely overhaul the IR system. When they won control of the senate, my heart sank - I knew there were three things that were inevitable: VSU, full sale of Telstra and the gutting of the IR system. I was right on all three.

There is no doubt in my mind that should the government get back in, they will try to remove ALL unfair dismissal laws. And that will just be the start of it.

They will make further changes to healthcare. Reducing state funding or taking over completely.

Likewise education. Education will come under federal control. While I agree there needs to be consistency between the states in terms of curriculum, changes will consist of more than that if Julie Bishop gets her way.

If the federal government can just walk in and make changes to the big three, and ignore the issues surrounding the environment, what is to stop them from choosing to overturn state laws they don't agree with? Sounds totalitarian doesn't it? Don't think it will happen? I am being alarmist? Maybe. But I sure as hell don't want to take the risk.

There are bigger stakes in this election than which party will give the bigger tax cut. Or what is going to happen to interest rates. Or what percentage of the Rudd government is made up of "union officials". The rights of every person in this country are at stake.

Straws. Clutching.

JOHN Howard has warned Australians they risk electing a Labor-Greens alliance that would impose a new national direction and conduct radical experiments with their values and institutions.

[....]

Mr Howard warned that a Labor victory would mean a Labor-Greens Senate majority and an era of social re-engineering, with policy changes on drugs, education, social issues and political correctness in conflict with his social conservatism.

GG

Ohhhhh. Not *gasp* policy changes! On drugs! Social issues! Political correctness (I'm not even sure what that is - maybe LGBT? Since when is that PC? I would have thought common sense.)

Unbelievable.

"There will be a return of political correctness. There will be a softening in relation to things like drugs. You will get a less socially conservative country at the very least.

A less socially conservative country would be good. The conservatism in this country gives me the shits. Not to mention that I believe it is code for racist, sexist, homophobic policies and laws which allow for people to indulge themselves in those kinds of behaviours and beliefs because they know it is acceptable at the highest level of government.

Asked about the future under the Coalition, Mr Howard said Peter Costello "will be elected unopposed" as his successor.

Yeah, "elected unopposed" by the Liberal Party. NOT the Australian people. Sure, you can say people who vote for Howard to continue as PM are giving the green light to Costello. But really, given Howard's previous behaviour, do people really believe that he would step down for Costello? I have no doubt that if he was returned, something dramatic (real or imagined or engineered) would occur and Howard would declare that it is in the best interests of the country for him to remain as leader.

By his own admission, Howard will be using this week to push forward a negative view of the ALP. Be prepared for the next three days to be nothing but bitching and moaning and the government on its knees begging the electorate to ignore WorkChoices, AWB, children overboard, an illegal war, the systematic eroding of the rights of pretty much everyone except business, VSU, and the regular bending over and taking every which way from the US.

Yeah John Howard. You hold the interests of the entire country at heart. Excuse me while I go and ROTFLMAO at this claim.

Book: Still Not Happy, John!

Yes, yes, here it is. The long awaited review. Sorry guys. Finished it over a week ago and have not been able to bring myself to do the review. Not because the book was bad (it wasn't), but because it meant that I'd have to delve back into the world of the coalition. Bleugh.

Just before the 2004 election, Margo released Not Happy John. A book that looked into the questionable things the Howard government had done since gaining power in 1996. The current book is an extension of the earlier one. After all, there has been 3 more years and this time they've had a Senate majority, and we all know how well that has turned out.

The only criticism I have of the book (may as well get it out of the way early), is that, it doesn't have as much new material as I was expecting. But, by the same token, it was good to be reminded yet again of the things that have gone on over the past 11 years. While I remember the fiasco that was GWB addressing parliament, I forgot about Costello trying to get media ownership laws changed (and the ultimate success in 2006).

There is a new introduction, and the chapters each have post-script with a 2007 update. Part 5 is entirely new.

Oh god, there are so many situations presented to you in the book of the government's duplicity, arrogance and abuse of power that I can't cover them all in detail. My only hope is to give you a brief overview of a few so that you can go searching for info on your own (or, better yet, grab the book and have a read for yourself). Strap yourselves in.

GWB's visit in 2003
Aside from the lunch that was held at The Lodge and the invite list Howard tried to stop being made public, we have the absolute travesty that was GWB addressing parliament and the manner in which it was controlled, the behaviour of our own politicians and the complete and utter disregard for propriety. Oh, and let's not forget the way that the Secret Service was allowed to take over the security in our house of parliament. This is the part of the book that pisses me off the most (and pretty much the entire book pisses me off). The general public were not allowed to enter PH while GWB was there. Protesters were not allowed outside (except at a distance). "Non-essential" PH staff were told to take the day off. Control of both security and the media was given to the Americans. Our own media were being told by foreigners what they could and could not do in our house of parliament! Finally, Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle were expelled from the House of Reps by the Speaker (it was a joint meeting) at the behest of Tony Abbott. This was a breach of House rules and was unconstitutional.


Hu Jintao addresses Parliament
The day after GWB addresses parliament Hu Jintao does so, even though there is an understanding that this honour would only ever be given to visiting American Presidents. Brown and Nettles were unable to attend due to the previous expulsion which held for 24 hours. Official guests of the Greens were banned from the gallery. They are Australian citizens who just happen to be of Tibetan and Chinese descent. Chinese Embassy staff are given permission to vet official guests. In addition, the Chinese embassy sent a letter to Fairfax (and presumably to NewsLtd) stating that they were not to publish an open letter or any advertisments that may be placed by anyone associated with the Tibetan independence movement or Falungong. Fairfax refused.

WMDs. War.
Do I really need to discuss this one? No, didn't think so. Except to say that Howard referred to anti-war protesters as a "mob".

Ill treatment of Kylie Russell
SAS Sergeant Andrew Russell was the first Australian casualty in Afghanistan. On 23 October 2003 GWB announced that he was going to lay a wreath in his honour at the War Memorial. Kylie Russell was not invited. The government didn't bother to contact her to tell her. Her MP, Graham Edwards, had to tell her of it. He found out when Bush addressed Parliament. It wasn't until a week later, at the behest of Edwards, did Howard bother to contact her. He sent a letter, but didn't send so much as a photo of the wreath laying. In 2004 the US government treated Kylie Russell better than her own did. The US Ambassador met her at a function in Perth that was honouring her husband. She later presented with photos of the Bush visit, personally signed to her. She was also invited to the US, was gifted with airfares and visited the White House, Pentagon and SAS base. John Howard has never made an effort to meet Kylie.

Tax deductions to NGOs
Costello has tried to revoke the tax concessions and deductibility of donations to NGOs who make an attempt to influence (change) existing policies and laws. If the tax status is changed for NGOs, then few people would donate money to them and they'd have to shut down. Thereby reducing the amount of criticism the government has to face. The purpose of NGOs is to influence government policy so to reduce the numbers to those who are in agreement with the government is to silence yet another avenue of the voice of the people.

***

Throughout the book you also have the complicit nature of the MSM. The fear they have of the current government. When the media is stifled to such a degree that those who aren't cheerleaders for the government are afraid of what ramifications there are of being honest with the public, then you have some serious problems. This has been highlighted by the recent report commissioned by the media.

The 2006 cross-media ownership changes don't help things. Australians are getting a more narrow view of what goes on not just in our country, but the world. We need more independent media to get the information out there.

I cannot recommend this book enough.

***

In addition to the above issues, we have to remember some other things that have occurred during the current government's reign:

• AWB (not just the oil-for-food scandal itself, but the hands-tying of the Cole Commission)

• WorkChoices

• Cornelia Rau

• Vivian Alvarez

• David Hicks

• Mamdouh Habib

• VSU

• Anti-Terrorism Act 2005

• Changing the electoral enrolment rules, ban on prisoners voting (later overturned by the High Court)

• Mohamed Haneef

• Detention of asylum seekers

These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Feel free to remind me of more in the comments and I will add them to the list.

UPDATE:

Thought of two more (and I can't believe I forgot them!):

• Marriage Act

• Refusal to give same-sex couples the same rights as hetero couples

Hockey schtick

Workers would be able to take double their annual leave at half pay and up to a year of unpaid parental leave under a re-elected Coalition government.


And grandparents will get leave rights for the first time.


Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey today talked up the government's workplace reforms as he released its workplace relations policy, aiming for full employment.


The launch came during a nationally-televised debate with his Labor opponent Julia Gillard.


"(It is) a policy that targets three per cent unemployment, a policy that locks in a stable workplace relations system to the next term of government so that business can get about employing more Australians."


Under the new policy, workers with the agreement of their employers will be able to take double their annual leave at half pay.


Parents will be able to take up to 52 weeks of unpaid parental leave.


The Age

I think I've got the government worked out now. See, what WorkChoices was really about was making workers grateful for the changes in legislation.

(Hockey) stick with me here.

Take away the awards that allow for unpaid parental leave or leave half-pay, then, when enough people have signed AWAs and just when it looks like you're up shit creek at election time, announce that you are going to allow them to have unpaid parental leave and leave half-pay!

That way, you look like you're giving them something, but you're actually just giving them back what they already had. And those people on the AWAs? Sorry, you'll have to wait until you next get together with your employer to negotiate your working conditions!

Employers don't lose out 'cause they've gotten what they want, the government doesn't lose out (and they hopefully win back the hearts and control of the minds of the people) because they've not really given anything away, and the people still lose out!

Brilliant. Just fucking brilliant. You gotta hand it to them - it's genius.

Save our Senate

The Save our Senate ad that GetUp have produced (and was discussed in the email from them) has been up on YouTube for a while now. Given that we may not really see it on TV, I thought I'd put it up here.



This actually ties in nicely with something I want to post about anyway.

I finished reading Still Not Happy John during the week. I'll post more on it later, but there is something that was in the book that I think people need to be aware of.

As you know, Howard currently has control of the Senate. The election gives you the power to change this. You can ensure that Howard loses control of the Senate. The Senate that voted in WorkChoices. The Senate that has slowly had its accountability eroded by the current government.

Canberra in particular, we're looking at you. Why? Well, let's let Margo explain:

...you have the ability to empower the Senate on your own. You'd have to do something amazing, but it can be done. The ACT elects two senators who, unlike senators representing the states, take their seats immediately, not on 1 July next year. Labor always gets one ACT senator; the Libs the other. But if 9,000 Liberal voters transfer their Senate vote to the Greens or Labor, Howard's Senate control is over.

Margo Kingston, Still Not Happy John, p 438

How many people are aware of that? Not too many, I'm willing to bet.

Something I found out about from TAMS about a month or so ago (and I'm still not sure why I didn't already know), the NSW seat of Eden-Monaro is considered to be the bellwether seat* of the election. For the past 30-odd years, whoever wins Eden-Monaro, generally wins the government. Interesting, huh?

What is also very interesting is that Labor is running Mike Kelly as the candidate in the seat. Mike Kelly is the Colonel who assisted in exposing the corruption that formed the AWB scandal.

Very interesting indeed.

UPDATE: Peter Martin writes about the possibility of the government losing the Senate seat.


*The Poll Bludger did a post about the seat back in June. I swear I found the post after I wrote that it was a bellwether seat (as it is also described by William). It is, after all, the perfect word to describe it.

Unfairly dismissed? Who cares!? Look at all these shiny new jobs!

J-Ho was on Insiders today.

He's very proud of the fact that they've removed unfair dismissal laws. 'Cause by doing so, it has allowed for the creation of all these shiny new jobs!

How can you find that a problem? God, you people are so ungrateful.


Sorry Big Ted. You're gonna have to take one for the team. I'd rather stick bamboo under my fingernails before voting for that prick.

National Farmers Federation hates Australian workers

Gam and I just saw this pro-WorkChoices ad by the National Farmers Federation on SBS.

The gist? Australia workers should bend over and take it up the arse from the Howard government because Australian farmers need 'flexibility'. The whole of the population should be subjected to AWAs that strip away their rights at work because farmers want to use AWAs.

And if you disagree, you must hate farmers. Think of the farmers!

Wankers.

Could Labor's soft strategy lead to loss?

Could even John Howard make these men look impotent?

This is something that's been bothering me all week, mainly because the same thing happened during the disastrous 2004 election campaign: Labor clearly has the same people running their advertising campaigns as they did back then. This was worrying me back in July, and I really hoped the ALP would wake up to themselves in the meantime. What we should be doing is seeing ads putting some steel-toed boots into the ribs of the Libs while they're down in the polls. Some more anti-Workchoices ads. Some more 'John Howard has been asleep on climate change' ads. Some ads reminding people of how Howard spent $2 billion of their money on ads promoting himself and his policies (and maybe a promise to change the rules so that can't happen again? Helloooo?). Anything that will remind people of why they shouldn't be voting for Howard, and I don't mean more of those lame anti-Costello ads.

Instead we've been getting nice, bland Kevin Rudd, speaking in measured tones, soft enough to appeal to grandmas yet forceful enough to sound statesmanlike, with soft, inspirational music playing in the background. Enough, Kevin! You can be a statesman after you win the frigging election. Anything earlier is just playing make-believe. It didn't work for Mark Latham and it won't work for you. The polls are heading in Howard's favour already, and presidential-style ads aren't going to stop his $34 billion vote-buying spree having an impact on the electorate.

One positive to come out of this week is actually Rudd's response to the $34 billion in tax cuts- given his past form I expected Labor to fall for the same trick as last election, making lots of promises in support of schools, the healthcare system etc and then promising tax cuts on top of it all to match the government and consequently looking weak on their fiscal management.

Just one final note- how much of an ass is Wayne Swan? I guess there's the possibility that he's under instruction to 'stay on message', in which case he's been given the wrong message, but in interviews this week he seems to be running around trying to be Peter Costello to Kevin Rudd's John Howard, once again missing the opportunity to put the boot into Workchoices and the effect it has on ordinary people's earnings.

Oh, and you know who I think we should be seeing more of? Julia Gillard.

Somebody slap them!

Union attacks

Mr Hockey, whose Liberal Party has launched scathing election advertisements highlighting the 70 per cent of Labor frontbenchers with a union background, said it was incredible Labor intended to govern with such a high union representation.

"[The role of unions] is essentially over," Mr Hockey told ABC Radio today.

"That's because we have a system with a strong, independent umpire that is providing protections for workers.

"Because the unions do not cover 80 per cent of the workers out there, we find that people are turning to the Workplace Authority and the Workplace Ombudsman to obtain information and to get protection."

Mr Hockey said workers who were not union members could turn to the Workplace Ombudsman for advice, but the Labor Party wanted to dismantle that office.

He said Australians viewed unions as irrelevant and were choosing not to join them, a trend that started under former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke.

SMH

No, the reasons people aren't joining the unions is because they still have an old-fashioned view of them, and the government scare campaign over many years has wormed its way into the minds of the populace. The unions are not good at positive self-promotion.

Very few unions are as militant as they were. Because over the years they were achieving many of the goals they aimed for. But now, they have a higher profile because the government is systematically eroding their achievements. My grandfather must be rolling over in his grave. (He was heavily involved in unions. Actually even got a mention in a book about them - the name of which escapes me at present.) People started leaving the unions when Hawke was PM because they had yet to catch up with the general feelings of the public. But now they have.

Personally, I don't think much can be achieved nowdays by going on strike. Because unlike in my grandfather's era, there is less of a feeling of community in the population. If people went on strike back then, other people would support them and the reasons for the strike. People wouldn't become scabs because they knew they faced ostracisation, which doesn't happen so much now because big-business has such a foothold in the minds of the public and all people seem to care about is profit over the well-being of the people who help achieve that profit.

The public has become complacent. And now we are facing the consequences.

"I don't think anyone would have thought that in 2007 it would be credible for Kevin Rudd to go to an election with 70 per cent of his frontbench made up of former union officials, and that would be a dramatic increase in the number of union officials that, say, Bob Hawke had," he said.

Irrelevant. I'll keep saying it - you must be a union member to be in the ALP*. So naturally the chances of the bulk of the frontbench being former union officials is high. Being a union official is a politicised position. It is a natural stepping stone for someone in the ALP who wants to make a difference in the government. End of story.

Just because a politician is a former union official it does not mean that they will allow themselves to be unfairly influenced by the unions. They know that come the next election, if people are unhappy with their performance, they will be given the boot - so in a way, their involvement with the union movement can be seen as something that prevents them from making extreme choices.

The ACTU has hit back at a Liberal Party campaign highlighting the union affiliations of Labor's frontbench team, saying it is insulting to working families.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow said a television advertisement released yesterday by the Liberals was wrong to suggest unions were anti-business.

The ad was also insulting to the millions of Australians whose job security and living standards were protected by unions.

"The job of all unions is to protect secure, well-paid employment for Australian working families," she said.

"To achieve this we need profitable businesses that value their workers. (my empahsis)

Workers who are valued are happy. Happy workers are more productive. This means that businesses achieve more.

I'll concede that not all business will use WorkChoices as a means to take advantage of their workers. But there are those that will. And until you can guarantee that no workers will be unfairly treated, you cannot write off the unions. An agency set up by the government should not be relied on as the only organisation that will ensure that worker's rights are protected.

The government scare campaign will continue. You've probably seen the latest bit of propaganda by now. See it here if you've not.



Labor have hit back with Rudd calling out Howard's scare campaign with a "Fresh Ideas" ad.

*apparently this is untrue. As I said in my comment - a number of years ago before I'd gotten around to joining the QPSU, I rang the ALP and was informed I'd need to be a union member. Is this a recent thing? Can anyone enlighten?

But I don't believe that it makes my comments any less valid. Given that the ALP is traditionally aligned with the unions, it is hardly a surprise that most, if not all, of the pollies have union affiliations of some description.

Workers and homebuyers beware!

At his Press Conference with Costello yesterday, John Howard explained why Work Choices will keep interest rates low and contain inflationary pressure:

...one reason why we’re not concerned is that we have an industrial relations system that in fact contains wage pressure.
Coalition announces new tax package (The Australian, Press conference transcript, 15 October 2007)

That can only mean that under Work Choices wages will be lower than under the Rudd alternative. Yet he has been telling us for months that it is delivering real wage increases. He can’t have it both ways.

I’ve been doing a little Maths about interest rates using the 6.5% figure rather than Howard’s slip of 6.25%.

Firstly, before the last 5 rises of 0.25% the rate was 5.25%. That means we have had an increase of nearly 24% in mortgage payments since the last election claim that the government will keep rates at record lows.

Secondly, an increase of 0.25% on a loan of $400,000 is $1,000 per year. The 1.25% increase represents $5,000 per year. Oooops…there go our tax cuts.

No apologies if the figures are wrong. Howard didn't but then he never apologises.

Original post at: Labor View from Broome