An ACNielsen poll conducted between Thursday and Saturday has Labor leading 61-39, with 83 per cent saying the Brian Burke affair had not affected their opinion of Kevin Rudd. The accompanying Sydney Morning Herald report also says "internal Labor polling had shown the Coalition’s relentless attacks on Mr Rudd’s judgement and character had hurt the Coalition more than Labor". Perhaps one might go so far as to venture that there are signs of a trend emerging.
“old”?
robert white.
Bill has mentioned being the Green candidate numerous times. Not his fault you missed it. Or do you want him to put in EVERY post?
Chris, given that CEOs have influence over the investments of their companies, I’d reckon that it does actually matter what they think. It’s not much good for Australians if CEOs have a general impression that NZ is a much better place to invest, is it?
NZ might not be a good example due to the CER, replace it with some other country.
To Bill Weller:
Your comparison of a future Australian government with Nazi Germany is really drawing a long bow (for lots of reasons – the least of which is that ours is a very mature democracy which has not endured the years of social and economic crisis that Germnay did between 1914 and 1933).
If you are worried about a future dictatorship – you have evidently missed the elected dictatorships that the Westminster system throws up on a regular basis – the prime example being in Australia the state of queensland where absolutely nothing can stop the government of the day doing virtually anything it puts its mind to as there is nothing to check it. At federal level the senate – usually – acts as a check because it is very difficult for a government to gain a majority in both houses. Preferential voting also acts as a check as voters have a final say on where their vote finally goes.
Would Mrs Thatcher had a 144 seat majority in 1983 on 42% of the vote – I don’t think so.
On the other hand what we do have is the dictatorship of the political parties as a smaller membership base wields proportionately greater power – opening up of the political parties and a promotion of áctivity’ may bing some energy to the process. It would indeed be interseting to see who the rank and file of the political parties would throw up as leaders if they had their choice – the political leaders would then have to sell themselves to a wide audience before being thrown to the wider electorate.
Those who have responded to my post about WorkChoices seem to have missed my point, which was to say that WorkChoices is where things started to go wrong for Howard. I was not especially talking about the rights and wrongs of the legislation, but rather that WorkChoices is electoral poison for the government. They have, after all, been behind in the polls since last March (when it came in) and have taken a dip whenever the issue rises in prominence (eg, after the rallies, when the ACTU ad campaign came on). IR alone won’t win it for Labor, but it did help them get back in the game.
I suspect any discourse on the Act itself should be left for another forum, but I will say that WorkChoices does represent a huge shift in IR in this country, which has traditionally been monitored by an “independent umpire” (the IRC, Arbitration Court etc). This is what freaks people out, that there is no arbitor to consult during disputes. The great flaw of WorkChoices (both in a political and in a moral sense) is that it takes that safety catch away, leaving employees largely at the whim of their employers. This is not to say that employers are necessarily evil, but most people appreciate that their boss will shaft them if it suits the needs of the company, and the IRC (or equivalent) does give them some protection.
Oh, and can we end this cannard that “unions represent 20% of the workforce? By my (admittedly poor) maths, that means over 2 million people. Are there any other organisations in the country that have that many members?
There is a political element with this union membership, too. 40% of union members apparently voted for Howard in 2004, or about 800,000 people. WorkChoices effectively says to these people that they have to choose between Howard and their union. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that if even half these people vote against the government this year, then Howard is stuffed.
To describe the gutting of the arbitration system and the transfer of power in the workplace to the employer as a “flaw” in the IR legislation is rather to miss the point. That was the central *purpose* of the legislation – to “turn Mr Justice Higgins on his head” as Costello once said (Mr Justice Higgins being the author of the 1907 Harvester Judgement which established the principle of wage justice).
This legislation was only made possible by the Coalition’s victory in the 2004 Senate election, which was in turn made possible by the electorate’s rejection of Mad Mark. We now see Labor’s master plan in all its fiendish cunning: install a complete loony as leader, lose control of the Senate, allow Howard to pass his poisonous IR laws, sweep to victory in 2007.
Yes, I suspect you’re right Adam – a fiendishly clever plan. Let’s just hope it works, eh?
Hugo, I agree with you that the federal government overreached itself, electorally, with the Workchoice legislation – it mispredicted the response to the legislation. I would be prepared to go out on a limb and say that the coalition govt started to lose its extremely political senstive antennae once it knew it had a majority of the senate. Winning a majority in the Senate will be seen to be the Coalitions downfall – I think it would have been in a better position now if it hadnt won a Senate majority.
‘For many employers now they may be:
a) In the Federal system but unsure if they are still covered by some State laws; or
b) Unsure as to whether or not they are constitutional corporations.’
Well they are great questions shouldn’t Mr Howard have considered them before he went into to use the Corps power to steal the constitutional power over industrial relations from the States? Not only did the federal government over reach in a moral and political way it is clearly very poorly thought out and was not discussed with the electorate before the last Fed election nor with the States who were being disempowered.
If it were a Labor Government these very substantial and very basic failures would be screamed by rabbid opponents for years. But rather than attack the problem and the problems authors to try and suggest somehow fixing Howard’s mess the way Howard would want as a test for Rudd is amazing.
‘BTW – No less an authority then John Button called for a union/ ALP divorce – if No1 wife is getting to be a drag on your career why wouldnt u broom her? ‘
The political wing of the labor movement divorced from the labor movement would end up a directionless, morally bankrupt club … why would we need a second Liberal party?
Opps was that partisan?
Sacha – I think your reading is spot on. Before the Libs got their Senate majority, they were required to debate any and all legislation through the Senate. The GST, for example, had 18 months of modelling and public debate before a compromise saw us with a tax. While market fundamentalists aren’t happy with food being tax free, there’s no doubt that this makes the GST far more equitable. Likewise Howard first run of IR ‘reforms’ in 1996 – the laws had to be debated extensively, and as such, we were left with sounder law.
WorkChoices on the other hand was only thought of AFTER they got the Senate majority. Consequently, the Act is enormously cumbersome (700 page Act, 500 of explanatory notes, 500 pages regulations) and something of a lawyers picnic. It takes long-held rights away from employees, and leaves employers with great legal uncertainties and a suspicious workforce. However, WorkChoices is only part of the legacy of this illusory benefit of a Senate majority – the sale of Telstra, Welfare to work, draconian anti-terror laws etc. While on their own, these things won’t lose the government office, they add to the impression of a government out of control and drunk on absolute power.
Labor should probably start being grateful to Mark Latham!
BTW – Jasmine is right to baulk at a “divorce” between the ALP and the union movement. This has nothing to do with history (though that’s important) but with structure. If the Libs lose the Federal election this year, they will be in office precisely nowhere. This is a much bigger problem for the Coalition than Labor precisely because of the existence of the union movement. If the ALP is out of office everywhere (as was the case in 1969-70), then Labor figures can still operate within the unions. If the Libs are out of office everywhere, where do they go? To business, to be sure, but history suggests that this is not a great way to keep up political experience. This is why the Labor Party has survived largely intact since 1891, despite not being in office that often, while the conservative side of politics has splintered several times.
Sorry Robert but i have disclosed it many times i started to annoy myself adding it to every post but……
Green Candidate for Kingston
AMWU delegate
Hugo,
What “long held rights” does WorkChoices take away from employees?
And I’m sorry but I thought the ALP actually supported a national IR system, seems the Whitlam Government certainly did in the 1974 referendum.
And yes we do have a ridiculously complex system of law in this country – shock horror that the ALP should be expected to fix it if they are elected.
And of course unions are for ALP apparatchiks to shelter within – I thought they were there to represent the interests of their members, oops silly me.
The total separation of the union movement and the ALP would weaken the later to the point of never winning an election but i would expect a new or amalgamation of the left into a more ‘radical’ ( in this climate of conservatism it would look radical) party with emphasis on workers rights social justice and the environment. As the pendulum has moved so far to the right it is a natural thing to start to swing back.
bill, is there a complete list of Green candidates available somewhere yet?
What i was trying to show with the dictatorship comparison is the loss of civil liberties in Nazi Germany Stalinist Russia etc shocked the world during those times, but what we are witnessing now is again the removal of those things which i posted before. On a different note the formation of a group of environmentalists to run for the senate seems strangely out of the blue. It will be interesting to watch which party they send preferences to. The Greens or more likely a major party to counter the possible election of more Green senators and gaining the balance of power. Like i have said before when a minor party becomes a threat you remove it by stealth. eg One Nation and Democrats. This is another road to dictatorship leaving only two major parties and the removal of those pesky irritating minor parties. This leaves no chance of having to form a coalition or policies blocked in the senate and this will destroy community groups that depend on a voice in Parliament be it environmental, religious or social justice groups and yes i see Family First as a threat to the major parties and they themselves will be engulfed by either the ALP or Libs. It is interesting to note that MPs in FF strong areas like Kingston are attending AOG churches and Christianity seems to be cool again with many a budding pollie and dare i say leader coming out ( sorry had to use the pun)
Edward I know you weren’t talking to me at all but here goes.
First answer – are you kidding – it explicity took away rights to fairness and its very purpose was to take away rights to union representation, bargaining power and pay….
Secondly you are right the libs will regret for many years centralising this power because Labor will be able to use something designed for evil for good.
No Adam NSW is in State election mode we in SA are still to finalize a few seats and as for the rest i haven’t heard
“Like i have said before when a minor party becomes a threat you remove it by stealth. eg One Nation and Democrats. This is another road to dictatorship leaving only two major parties and the removal of those pesky irritating minor parties”
Bill, the Democrats have “removed” themselves as a consequence of a majority of their senators some time ago effectively not recognising that the federal parliamentary party leader was chosen by Democrats members, not the parliamentary party.
Talk of dictatorship is absurd.
In addition, the Greens will probably be around for a while, especially there isn’t any other minor environmental, left or centre party.
Sacha i do believe we will be around and grow but as i said above
‘On a different note the formation of a group of environmentalists to run for the senate seems strangely out of the blue. It will be interesting to watch which party they send preferences to. The Greens or more likely a major party to counter the possible election of more Green senators and gaining the balance of power.’
I’m sorry Bill, I havn’t understood that paragraph both times it’s appeared. Do you mean in the NSW or Federal election, and which group of environmentalists are you talking about?
In the NSW election, a group calling itself “Climate Change…” are running for the Legislative Council, but, as we all know, they can’t direct preferences – that’s up to voters, and they wouldn’t have the people on the ground to hand out the millions of HTVs to do that. I think that they would be scraping off a small number of environmental voters from other parties, mostly the Greens.
It’s quite possible to have an environmental party with different policies to the Greens – there could exist a party that advocates pro-market and pro-environmental policies – my guess is that such a party would gain a couple of percentage points (maybe 3-5%), and possibly more if the Liberal party is on the nose.
In saying that, I’m not saying that the Greens don’t promote pro-market policies, but there’s electoral room for a centre-right environmental party.
Sacha in the Federal election
What scares me with all this environmental talk is the political gains the major parties have using that word and others like green , clean etc. Its not to be used to gain power its the future or lack of it for our children. The Greens have been pushing climate change solutions for years along comes the major parties hijacking it because all of a sudden theres an urgency and promote wishy washy policy. Its just too dangerous to play politics with
I’m intrigued to know what “pro-market environmental” policies might be.
Talk of a Democracy under Howard Bush Blair and co is absurd and i hope the ALP have the ticker to change that
Yasmine,
Its nice to talk in cliche and adjectives but what rights to “fairness” does it take away?
Sacha,
In answer to your point re CEOs and investment – I hope Adam is sitting down for this one – the workers of the world have to unite; i.e., work across borders to forestall any race to the bottom in working conditions.
Workers of the world unite! touch one touch all! brings back memories
The Howard government has tried to weaken the Union movement head on and failed. After the YR@W campaign has helped to catapult the ALP into government. The next assault on the Unions will come from within the ALP. I believe Rudd will reward the ACTU by promoting a slightly watered down version of Howards IR / work choices policy. The union movement cannot rest after an ALP victory as the fight has only begun
Edward – WorkChoices (ya gotta love the Orwellian names this government uses!) guarantees only minimum conditions. These include the minimum wage, 8 days sick leave, 4 weeks annual leave and a year’s unpaid maternity leave. Before the advent of these changes, minimum conditions were set by broad-reaching Awards, most of which had superior conditions to Howard’s minimum conditions. Whereas in the past empoyees were protected by the “no-disadvantage test”, that no longer applies. Consequently, thousands of employees have lost a great many conditions, as the “floor” for such things has dropped considerably. WorkChoices also puts great emphasis on AWAs. The government has gone to some lengths to ensure that we don’t have much in the way of detailed analysis of AWAs, but that which we do have shows that 100% of AWAs do away with at least one Award condition, 64% do away with penalty rates and most also do away with several other conditions. And don’t try and say that these employees either enter this by choice or are adequately compensated – this is patently not true.
Bill – you are right to be cautious of what a Labor government will do. It’s safe to say that they will keep elements of WorkChoices in place – certainly the Federal control will stay. Areas where they might water it down will be: to reintroduce the no-disadvantage test; introduce a rule where if the majority of employees want a collective agreement, the company has to negotiate; a beefing up of the IRC; an informal model of the unfair dismissal mechanism; and a move away from AWAs. This will make it a far preferable system to what is now in place, but probably not enough to frighten the horses.
Chris Curtis, what does this:
“the workers of the world have to unite; i.e., work across borders to forestall any race to the bottom in working conditions”
actually mean and how would it happen?
Sacha,
One story of the Middle Ages is that of how the king managed to centralise power away from the local barons, so the peasants could seek justice on the royal courts not at the local manor house (emphasis on “seekâ€).
Globalisation is occurring in the economic sphere (do you like that? – globalisation, sphere), but not the political one. In essence, ordinary people’s lives are subject to the trillions of dollars sloshing around the world in monetary transactions, but they have very little say because their national governments are frightened of the damage that can be done by those with the economic clout.
We need to build up union institutions across national boundaries, so that Bill’s “touch one touch all†applies to all working people – yes, I know it’s just a slogan. We also need to democratise world institutions; e.g., time to elect the United Nations General Assembly.
This topic deserves thousands of words, but this election discussion is not the place for them
Chris, many people have the view that the “race to the bottom” may also be characterised as “pulling the people at the bottom up”. What’s your view on this?
Did you miss the right to not be unfairly sacked disappearing Edward, and I like the new name thank you. (bit of a flash back).
I just noticed at Wikipedia that the SA Libs have endorsed Grant Chapman for another term in the Senate. You have to wonder about the Liberals sometimes. Chapman has been in and out of Parliament for 32 years and has never done or said a thing that I can recall. People accuse Labor of putting too many logs and hacks into Parliament, and frequently that criticism is justified. But consider: at this election, this Libs will be running Alan Cadman (age 70, 33 years a backbencher), Stewart McArthur (70, 23 years), Wilson Tuckey (72, 27 years, failed minister) and Bronwyn Bishop (65, 20 years, failed minister). Three of them in safe seats where new talent should be promoted and one in a key marginal which the Libs could well lose.
Now, now Adam don’t be unfair. Alan Cadman was a shadow minister for a few years when the Liberals were deeply depleted in numbers so he has not been a backbencher for all his 33 years. The same may be true of McArthur. And I’m sure he did something in that time, even if not one of us political obsessives can recall it.
It’s also worth considering the question of what political talent are they supposed to be promoting. Not long ago an article was hailing Andrew Lamming as the Libs most talented backbencher and someone who deserved quick promotion to the ministry. Liberal talent outside the current leadership is not thick on the ground.
Yes I see I have grieviously misrepresented Cadman. He was Parly Sec to the PM for two glorious years, and was shadow minister for immigration 1985-89. McArthur was on the opposition frontbench 1990-93. But both are total duds in terms of their contribution to parliament. Cadman speaks a lot but just recites whatever cliches have been put in his hand by the whips office. McArthur hardly says a word. I could add to the list Joanna Gash (62, 11 years a backbencher). Alby Schulz is 68 but I wouldn’t call him a log, he does add a bit of colour to the place.
Sacha,
I am about to be deprived of internet access, but I will get back to you. Remind me if I don’t.
Regards,
Chris
Yes, it was disappointing that the talented Turnbull and King had to fight it out for a(marginal-ish) seat in 2004 when you had the likes of Bishop and Cadman uselessly occupying very safe seats. To be fair, Labor has difficulty drafting in talent in large part because of all the dead wood in safe seats. Irwin, Hatton, Hoare and Hill all come to mind. Good gried, who are these people?
Peter King is a nice bloke but I wouldn’t call him talented. I watched him at some committee hearings in 2003 and thought he was a pretty dim bulb.
As to the Labor side, preselections are on hold until after the state elections. At least a couple of those you mention will be in some trouble. But it’s true that over the past 30 years the NSW branch has had a poor record of picking talent for its safe seats, although it did better in 2004 getting Garrett, Burke and Bowen in. In Victoria of course we had a big cleanout last year, and Shorten, Marles and Dreyfus are all ministerial material, as is Feeney if he gets up, which I increasingly think he will. If the left could bring themselves to get rid of Jenkins or Vamvakinou they could bring Combet in.
Yes, and I suspect that Combet won’t be interested if he isn’t offered a safe seat. He’d certainly be a big asset for Labor. Oh, but that’s right, the unions provide nothing but a bunch of hacks, don’t they EdwardStJohn?
On another matter, I can’t help feeling that the minor parties are going to be squeezed in this year’s election. The ALP vote has been firmed up by Rudd, and the issues – Iraq, climate change, IR – are taking on quite a polarising aspect. You’d expect the Democrats to be largely wiped out, and even the Greens may see a bit of a contraction in their vote (I think Nettle will be in some trouble in NSW).
However, assuming a Labor win and a subsequent double dissolution, we can expect to see the Senate fracture again in time.
I live next to Scullin, and I’ve heard rumblings from councillors and other prominent people about a possible alliance to kick Jenkins out (so as to force the ALP to choose some one else). Not large rumblings, but something might happen.
Well preselections in Victoria happened last year already, so Jenkins can’t be forced out unless he can be persuaded to go. The problem is that the more it looks like Labor will win, the more he will want to stay, so that he can be Speaker like his father was. I imagine Kim Carr will have to go and sit on him – a terrifying fate.
As to the Senate, Hugo, I agree – I have made my prediction somewhere here already – it will be Coalition 3, Labor 3 in every state except Tas, where Brown will hold his seat. That would give a Senate of Coalition 37, ALP 33, Greens 3, Family First 1. Of course if the current level of Labor support was maintained in October, Labor could take seats from the Coalition, but I’d be surprised.