You are currently viewing the archive for July 2005.
And before we castigate the British police over the death of Mr de Menezes, it is worth acknowledging the extraordinary efficiency with which the four second-wave London bombers have been apprehended, with no innocent bystanders hurt.
The IRA recently announced that it had ordered its volunteers to “dump arms”, and that it would
verifiably put its arms beyond use in a way which will further enhance public confidence and to conclude this as quickly as possible.
We have invited two independent witnesses, from the Protestant and Catholic churches, to testify to this.
There will inevitably be some scepticism about this, but it is apparently genuine enough for the British army to dismantle more watchtowers in republican areas, as part of a “security normalisation” process. I think Maurice Hayes describes the announcement well: “not yet historic, but good enough to be going on with.”
I will not hold my breath waiting for the Loyalist terrorists to make a similar promise, even a half-hearted one. I find it disgusting that many of those who constantly criticise the IRA turn a blind eye to the crimes of the other side.
It’s all well and good for the likes of Ian Paisley to complain, but he and his followers have never done anything to support the peace process — because there can be no peace without justice, and they exist to defend the injustice of Irish dispossession. Indeed, the Loyalists will work hard to undermine the peace process because they know the IRA’s tactical shift to parliamentary struggle increases the likelihood of a future united Ireland.
So while we must look to the IRA to put its words into action — not only by destroying weapons, but also by showing that the prohibition on volunteers “engag[ing] in any other activities whatsoever” includes a ban on non-political criminality — we must also demand that the Loyalists also move towards disarmament. The time for armed struggle in Ireland is over, but so too is the time for double standards.
Justice Heydon Dyson refused an interlocutory injunction against the Government’s IR campaign, because the unions could not give an undertaking as to damages (because the cost of the ad campaign is undisclosed, but tipped to be at least $20 000 000). However, Justice Dyson agreed that the constitutionality of the propaganda expenditure was “a serious question to be tried,” and the Full Bench will hear the matter next week. If the Government continues to argue that the ACTU’s public relations campaign have created “an emergency situation” (!), next week’s hearings should be entertaining.
As Kim Beazley pointed out that even toilet breaks are on the chopping block and the RSL said Anzac Day as a paid public holiday was “non-negotiable”, the Government became very confused about what its reforms actually mean. Mark Vaile “appeared to expand the new minimum working conditions from four to seven” (which wouldn’t be the first time he’s got it wrong). John Howard also claimed public holidays would be safe, saying, “We will preserve all the protections that are there now.” These are weasel words — he means public holidays will stay in awards, but because the no-disadvantage test is going to be scrapped, public holidays can be excluded on the AWAs Howard will aggressively promote.
Dirt unit mastermind Mr Hanke is hunkering down in his new job with Kevin Andrews. They attempted to smear Kim Beazley by saying his staff were employed on AWAs — but Beazley’s staff are employed by the Department of Finance and Administration, not their political boss. DOFA sent the advisors a letter demanding they sign an AWA: “Until we receive the original signed and duly completed Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) and Filing Application Form, you will be paid a lower non-AWA salary and Ministerial Staff Allowance (MSA).” The non-AWA salary is 30-40% lower — and these inflated managerial AWAs are used by Howard to fiddle the figures in his propaganda.
In a strange op-ed for the Australian Financial Review (Friday, p27), Greg Craven suggested that widespread opposition to the proposed reforms is not because people are worried about their wages and job security, but because they are all committed States-rights conservatives: “Given a choice between the states and the HR Nicholls Society, theychoose the states, and do so with a pungent determination.” I think he’s overstated the size of that constituency, but his conclusion is spot on. He says that if the view that Howard has a profoundly radical agenda “ever comes to be the accepted wisdom Howard will face serious problems. … Honest John sounds a lot better than Radical Jack.”
Please email Kim Beazley to tell him now is not the time to go soft on industrial relations.
I’d like to remind people about my comments policy, especially as it relates to antisocial behaviour (spam, off-topic comments, abuse, threats). Unfortunately I have had to ban a number of people in the last couple of days.
The first was a woman who spammed the site, and when I informed her of the ban she said she would “work this computer big time when I get a hold of it. And I will return religiously to this site as well recommended to my associates as well.”
Before long a few other misfits turned up threatening a denial-of-service attack (a federal crime), and saying, “i hate asianz, mooslimz, wigggas, people who sympathise with this scum”. Another ranted about “muslim 3rd world scum”.
The woman who directed these delightful characters to Red Rag was a One Nation candidate in a recent election. None of them will be commenting here in future. I welcome discussion and debate, but this was utterly unacceptable.
I think it was Mark Bahnisch who said he was considering using blogs as part of his teaching this semester, but in case it wasn’t (and for the benefit of anyone else who’s interested), here’s a couple of interesting posts by James Farmer on the dos and don’ts of blogs in education. He also links to a summary of different blogging tools that can be used for the purpose.
Kevin Andrews yesterday explained meal breaks and public holidays would still be a “feature” of employment, but would not be guaranteed. Steve Fielding was not convinced: “The average Australian won’t accept the idea that people could be required to work seven days a week and not get a meal break … [a]nd they won’t accept not being guaranteed pay for taking a public holiday.” Barnaby Joyce was also unimpressed, saying, “You’d have no chance of pushing that donkey around the yard.”
The Canberra Times thinks the Government will respond to the union campaign by talking up its economic record, but isn’t convinced that strategy will work: “[W]hile most voters might intellectually appreciate the Government’s claim, the evidence is that this prosperity has not greatly enhanced feelings of job security, bargaining equality in the workplace, or confidence in the calibre or goodwill of management.” The paper notes that “a union campaign focused on that real sense of insecurity can hardly be said to be fundamentally dishonest.”
Builders in Victoria are concerned that the Government is deliberately sabotaging the industry to push its anti-union political agenda. One senior executive of an international building company told The Australian, ” hate to say this, but I feel it is almost as if the Government wants to create problems on building sites and then use them as a reason to further its agenda.” According to new rules, the Government must decide whether EBAs comply with a new code of conduct, but this process is causing unusual delays.
Last week lawyers representing Labor and the unions wrote to Kevin Andrews demanding answers about his advertising budget (pdf). The deadline having expired without a response, they have filed for an injunction against the propaganda campaign in the High Court, on the grounds that the $20 000 000 propaganda campaign was not accounted for in the budget. “We think that John Howard is spending taxpayers’ money illegally and we want it stopped,” said Nicola Roxon.
Kevin Andrews’ staff want your support for their current employment negotiations.
US military press release after a bombing on 13 July:
“The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children and all of Iraq,” said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified. “They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.”
US military press release after a bombing on 24 July:
“The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists,” said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified.
An administrative error, apparently. They’re looking into it.
In the meantime, perhaps certain people need to revise their policy of uncritically accepting news from US military press releases.
Pre-eminent labour lawyer Josh Bornstein argues (as I have) that far from being a plan for the 21st Century, the Government’s proposals will return us to the situation that prevailed in the 1800s. He explains that “freedom of contract” is based on a fictional equality between employer and employee:
In very few cases employees actually bargain over their contract of employment, because in very few cases do they have real bargaining power. … In many workplaces, this inequality of bargaining power is illustrated by the existence of identical contracts of employment signed by employees. Sceptics are invited to ask Telstra for copies of the AWAs it has with its call centre employees. The fundamental problem with these contracts is that they are pro-forma “agreements” created by the employer and unilaterally imposed on its employees.
In other words, it’s not about flexible, individual agreements at all. It’s about stripping employees of their bargaining power by making it hard for them to support each other in negotiations.
Michelle Grattan says Peter Costello’s “unfair dismissals for all” comment “could hardly have been accidental — the transcript was signed off by his office”, and wonders whether it was a smart tactical decision (outside his leadership jockeying). She points to yet another poll that reveals Australians overwhelmingly oppose the unfair dismissal plan.
There’s another voter who was certainly annoyed by Costello’s policy announcement — Barnaby Joyce, whose vote in the Senate will be crucial. He doesn’t like scrapping unfair dismissal laws for big companies because “[o]ne day you’ll turn up for work and get sacked because some middle manager doesn’t like the look on your face.” Joyce says it’s hard enough to support an exemption for companies with 100 employees, let alone scrapping workers’ protection altogether.
If Joyce decides to stand up for Queensland, the Government will have to look elsewhere for support. Fortunately, Family First’s Stephen Fielding has given an early indication that he won’t support the proposals:
I think workers and their families will be surprised and shocked to learn the Government intends to remove the guarantee that these workers will be paid on public holidays. Workers will not accept the idea that lunch breaks may not be guaranteed.
Legal experts think the Government’s draft legislation is too complex, and won’t be ready until next year. Kevin Andrews says it will be introduced to parliament in September or October.
According to The Australian, the Howard Government is going to invoke its human rights obligations to justify its latest assault on civil liberties. The basis of the argument is Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
And indeed they do. But we should remember that the terms “liberty” and “security of person” have a particular meaning in human rights discourse, and it does not include destroying the basis of our criminal justice system — quite the opposite.
Take this example from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
Article 9.
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. […, etc.]
The same goes for other human rights instruments. The Arab Charter on Human Rights says “[e]veryone has the right to liberty and security of person and no one shall be arrested, held in custody or detained without a legal warrant and without being brought promptly before a judge.”
The UN convention on the rights of non-citizens guarantees “[t]he right to life and security of person; no alien shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention; no alien shall be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.”
And the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms explicitly links the right to liberty security of person to people’s rights as they relate to arrest and detention (Article 5). So does the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
In other words, the right to liberty and security of person is about civil rights. It is designed to protect people from unreasonable actions that might be taken by a government in the name of the right to life.
Philip Ruddock knows this. He must, because his New York speech refers to Canada’s respect for life, liberty and security of person — and if you look at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it’s just like the other human rights instruments. Life, liberty and security of person is listed under the heading Legal Rights (at 7), along with freedom from unreasonable search or seizure (8) and arbitrary detention (9), as well as an extensive list of rights after an arrest has been made (11).
Philip Ruddock should by all means rely on Article 3 of the UDHR as the basis for the Government’s new security regime — but only if he respects its full intention, which was not only to protect human life, but also to protect people against the “security” regimes of police states.
“Genealogy is nothing more or nothing less than the most selfish form of history imaginable.” Yes, Liam Hogan’s stoush with the family historians continues. “What is the social benefit of giving … middle-aged retired folk [the ability] to boast at dinner parties that one of their ancestor was transported from Lancashire in 1805 for fucking a chicken, or that their other syphillitic ancestor married some bag of tuberculosis in Devon in 1590?”
Father Tony Percy explains how even tertiary-educated workers have difficulty negotiating on a genuinely equal footing with their employers: “A worker enters the room to negotiate a contract. His employers place on the desk a contract, which has been prepared by the legal department of the employer. Immediately we sense the problem. The employee has absolutely no clues about the subtlety of the contract he is signing. The employer does — his legal section or his employer group or association has had ample time to prepare it.” Online Opinion refers to Father Percy’s theology degree, but for some reason the editor removed a reference to his B Comm (Hons), which is far more pertinent to this piece.
Labor MP Justine Elliot argues that pensioners will be adversely affected by the Government’s IR reforms. Many pensions are indexed to average weekly earnings, the growth of which will slow under the new regime.
The National Party’s Queensland state conference will be held this Friday, and it will decide whether to support the Howard Government’s attempt to strip the States of their industrial relations powers. Laurence Springborg believes the conference will oppose the reforms, but says the results of such votes are “notoriously hard to predict.” Maverick Senator Barnaby Joyce will take the conference decision into account when deciding whether to cross the floor against the package.
Brisvegan bloggers Mark Bahnisch and John Quiggin have collaborated on a column about the IR proposals. They conclude: “The reforms proposed by the Howard government will tilt the balance strongly in favour of employers. The likely outcome is a substantial increase in inequality of incomes, and in day-to-day relationships within the workplace.”
The Liberal Party’s federal council recently voted against the IR reforms and in favour of States’ rights. Glenn Milne attributes this to the malign influence of Noel Crichton-Browne, though NCB disputes this and says Milne was badly briefed by Julie Bishop. But it Milne is right, then what do we make of his claim that Sophie Panopoulos worked hard behind the scenes to get the States’ rights vote up? (And according to Milne, she doesn’t deny involvement.) Howard put her in the Babysitters Club to supervise Kevin Andrews in selling the reforms — not to sabotage them.
Peter Costello has revealed that the Government’s IR plans are even bigger than those they have publicly announced. Costello says making unfair treatment of employees in small and medium businesses is the thin end of the wedge — he is “very open to the idea” that “in the years to come it should be extended to all companies.” Stephen Smith says the PM and his Treasurer are “competing on who could have the most extreme view on industrial relations.”
Business lobbyist Mark Bethwaite is peddling lies about the current unfair dismissal regime. He says:
Many [claims] relate to employees sacked for crimes against their employer, theft in particular. It is simply unacceptable that the courts should require employers to make unfair dismissal payouts to such employees because the required termination process, such as three written warnings, was not followed to the letter.
They don’t. The boss must make a reasonable effort to investigate the theft, give a reason for the termination, and give the employee an opportunity to respond (for example, by showing that they didn’t steal anything) — hardly an onerous burden when weighed against the injustice of sacking an innocent person. There is no need for three written warnings. Theft may be regarded as “serious misconduct” for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act, which means that summary dismissal (without notice or a payout) is allowed.
As it turns out, the man shot by British police was not connected with the bombings in London. I was furious when I heard this — the police are supposed to stop innocent people being killed, not shoot them in the head five times for getting on a train. Wearing dark skin and a big coat doesn’t make you a terrorist.
But because the eyewitness accounts were so confused (some people saw machine-guns, others pistols; some people saw him with a backpack that he didn’t have), I thought it would be prudent to use Google News to find the most coherent version of events. The Daily Mail provides this background:
Mr Menezes emerged from a house in Tulse Hill, south London, on Friday morning that was under surveillance because of a suspected link to the attempted bomb attacks. His clothing and behaviour added to the officers’ suspicions, police said.
He caught a bus to Stockwell Tube where he was challenged by officers, who told him to stop. The man then bolted down an escalator, according to witnesses.
He apparently tried to get on a train before he was apparently shot five times in the head by an officer with an automatic pistol.
On that basis, it’s hard to fault what the police did. He wasn’t picked out of the crowd because he was wearing a big coat, he had been followed from a house that was under surveillance as part of the anti-terrorist investigations. There was no way they could have let him get on that train, and there was no way they could have given him a chance to detonate the bomb he might have had.
Jean Charles de Menezes is, sadly, another victim of the terrorists.
Update: Hmm. Now I’m wondering why they let him catch the bus.
Update: It seems he wasn’t seen leaving a house, but a block of flats, which, combined with his bus journey, makes the police defence sound very shaky indeed. I’m not sure what to make of it any more.
Check out The UnCapitalist Journal, a new group blog looking at the world from a broadly left-wing perspective.
The NSW transport minister, John Watkins, has slammed Howard’s workplace reforms as “an arrogant abuse of power” because “[a]ll these plans were hatched after the election, when the Coalition gained control of the Senate.” His Government will provide free public transport to the Last Weekend picnic in opposition to the plans.
In last Wednesday’s New Matilda, Rich Bowden looked at “the unions’ increasingly sophisticated marketing strategy.” Phil Davey, media officer for Unions NSW, said they planned to keep up the pressure for several years: “We are hopeful the campaign will continue to build over a three to five year period and our challenge is to keep these issues before the public during this time.”
The Office of the Employment Advocate, which is responsible for approving AWAs, has come under fire for pushing a sample agreement that provides no sick leave, holidays, or weekend or overtime rates. The OEA says it meets the no disadvantage test, partly because the agreement forces people to work longer hours than the award! And it’s not just the unions who think the OEA has been shafting workers:
In a submission yet to be made to a Senate inquiry into individual agreements, an industrial officer for an employers’ association who did not wish to be named wrote: “It is abundantly clear … that the no-disadvantage test is regularly being overlooked, or perhaps deliberately avoided.”
Howard plans to scrap the no-disadvantage test altogether, which will allow employers to undercut awards without providing compensation.
The Government has been forced to explain where it will get the $20 000 000 it intends to spend on IR propaganda — it will come out of DEWR’s general budget. Shadow Attorney-General Nicola Roxon points out that other advertising campaigns have been separately itemised. The Government is hiding its ad budget from public scrutiny.
A spokesperson for Kevin Andrews says Centrelink will be used to force workers onto individual agreements. Given that business has the right to offer an AWA on a take it or leave it basis, the only people who will have a right to collective bargaining are those who already have a collective agreement. Moreover, as Liam Hogan points out, a job-seeker can’t possibly negotiate on an equal footing with their prospective employer if Centrelink will cut their payments. Bosses won’t need to coerce people — the Government will do it for them. Even those who support AWAs should not support this plan.
