Red Rag

I’ve been reading the transcripts of the ACTU’s High Court challenge to the Government’s industrial relations advertisements (day 1, day 2). At times the Court gets bogged down in specific details of documents that we mere mortals can’t see, which can be confusing, but for the most part it is a very interesting case.

Justice Gummow said the advertising “[s]ounds like a healthy bout of political free speech” and his interjections generally favoured the Government. Justice Kirby responded that such free speech is “generally is not funded from the public purse”, and later noted that

[t]he question is, if you do you use public funds, is the law of the Constitution such that we should read the Appropriation Act in a fairly strict way so that Parliament has a transparent opportunity to address itself to authorising that to be done.

Indeed, the plaintiffs do not suggest that the appropriation was invalid — they argue that the expenditure on advertising went beyond its scope and was not authorised by the appropriation. It is very interesting to see the Government’s lawyer try — unsuccessfully, in my view — to explain how the advertising fits the appropriation.

Read the rest of this entry…

This morning’s paper brings us the terrible news that John Brogden attempted suicide last night. He was found unconscious in his electorate office, suffering the effects of drugs, alcohol and self-inflicted stab wounds. Given that The Australian knew about this tragedy, perhaps it should have reconsidered the tasteless headline on Emma Tom’s column: Incorrect postage insult winds up in dead leader office.

• A senior industrial relations judge says there is “no compelling impetus in fact or in substance” for a major overhaul of Australia’s IR system. The vice-president of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, Justice Walton, told a symposium at Sydney University:

  I suspect that the true distinguishing feature of the proposed reforms is that they challenge root and branch, for the first time, the sometimes unstated philosophies and values which have underpinned the industrial model in Australia.

  It has been apparently seriously questioned that fairness is an outmoded concept and, in fact, counter-productive in employment relationships, decision making or award agreement making. This approach is the antithesis of the objectives of the current industrial systems, if not the ethos of our society.

• Tomorrow, the High Court will consider the legality of the Government’s industrial relations propaganda. Last week, it emerged that legal advice to the Government in 1998 suggested that appropriations needed a fair degree of specificity. Henry Burmester QC said there must be a “reasonable attempt to describe the purpose of the appropriation”, and that “outcomes such as ‘good government’ are, in my view, insufficiently specific.” This is the basis of the ACTU’s case: it says the item “higher productivity, higher pay workplaces” is too vague to be valid. Labor says that if the High Court decides the spending was unauthorised, the Liberal Party should repay the $5 million that’s already been spent.

• Unions are planning to levy their members to finance a new round of advertising against the Howard Government’s proposed IR changes. Members will contribute about $5.50 each. Kevin Andrews said this was “extraordinary”, because the legislation hasn’t yet been drafted — but his Government has already spent $5 million spinning his unfinished package, and is planning at least $20 million more.

• John Howard’s claim to have delivered a 14% pay rise to Australian workers is misleading. New research by acirrt shows that while the top ten percent of wage earners saw a rise of 13.8% between 1998 and last year, the median rise was 2.6%. The bottom twenty percent saw an increase of just 1.2%. Meanwhile, “over the same period the incomes of the 50 highest-paid Australian chief executives had increased by 194 per cent”, and “by up to 230 per cent if earnings from share options were taken into consideration.”

By popular request — well, by request at any rate, here is the stoush™ that’s been going on over the NUS national education email list.

From: Robert Corr

Congratulations to the WA activists, who realised who the enemy is
and marched against Liberal HQ and not Labor…

Cheers,
Rob.

From: Alex Main (Treasurer, UQ Union)

get fucked robert..

the alp has once again shown really poor form.. they should be ashamed of themselves.

I am calling on any person in the alp (student factions or otherwise) to send back their membership cards in disgust. I feel really sorry for all labor students who campaigned on a no compromise on vsu stance AND campaigned in elections and by-elections for the alp. You all worked so hard for this shithead, useless, value-less party only to be shat on from a great height.

Gay marriage,
the war,
refugees (PS its remember the tampa day today)
student unions
working class people

All issues the labor party have had a shameful stance on.

Maybe if the alp fucking stood up for something, actually followed an ideal of some sort they would have respect in this country. They support an amenities fee.. whoopie fucking doo! How this will support any kind of political activity is beyond me. This type of stance is going to crush unions in terms of what they are actually created to do.

I am so livid right now. I never write to this list and I probably never will again. The amount of hurt I am feeling is insurmountable and I wont vote for the labor party until they do the right thing (which seems like never).

No VSU in any shape or form.

Alex

From: Robert Corr

Alex:

“I never write to this list and I probably never will again.”

I can’t say I’ll miss your insightful “get fucked” contributions.

Love,
Robert.

From: Alex Main (Treasurer, UQ Union)

get fucked

Are you impressed? I was impressed. But that was just a sideshow. The real stoush is over the fold…

Read the rest of this entry…

The Howard Government is running scared on VSU. Really scared:

Australian Federal Police chiefs told Mr [Brendan] Nelson his life would be in danger if he went to the University of Technology Sydney, because it coincided with a student rally.

Did you get that? His life would be in danger — students are so angry they are prepared to assassinate the education minister.

Or perhaps not:

The peaceful protest against Government plans to make university union membership voluntary was over by the time Mr Nelson was to have taken the podium at UTS.

Far from being violent, the march had a dance party theme. Students sang union chants such as Solidarity Forever and were kept in order by self-appointed “rally marshals.”

The only time police spoke to protesters was to keep them inside the road markings on George St for their own safety.

Ooh, scary.

Brendan Nelson’s not the first minister to bottle out of a speaking event because of student protests. Tony Abbott refused to debate Julia Gillard because he’s a big chicken. Peter Ruehl explained in the Fin Review yesterday:

Abbott … said he cancelled on advice from the police. He had a letter from Bob Waites, the assistant commissioner [of NSW police], telling him it “is the only prudent course of action and any other decision will place the safety of students, members of the public, police and yourself at risk.”

[...]

Tony got cheesed and accused the police of “siding with thugs” and failing to protect the right of a “minister … to speak in public”.

[...]

Then it turned out that one of Abbott’s staff members had asked the police to put the warning to Abbott in writing “in the strongest terms” or Abbott would have gone ahead with the debate.

In other words, Abbott’s office leaned on the police to make things sound worse than they were, and to give Abbott an excuse to wuss out without losing too much face.

To give you some idea of just how little it takes to spook the cops and the Coalition these days, here’s a security bulletin circulated a few weeks ago to the SEN-Senators and SEN-Staff mailing lists by Mark Andrews, Director Security Operations, Parliament House (first published by Crikey):

Open source reporting indicates that student groups are planning a week long campaign to Dial a Senator and have published a list of conservative Senators they hope to focus their attention towards.

Yes, the AFP considers it a security risk that someone might place a telephone call to a conservative Senator. A telephone call.

• The Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, has criticised the Government’s industrial relations propaganda plans, saying they lacked transparency and accountability, and might be unconstitutional. The Government responded by suggesting — hypothetically, of course — that Evans uses amphetamines. When grilled by Coalition Senators, the Clerk explained why he raised his concerns: “Now, if you only keep Advisors to say that everything you’ve done is totally correct and perfect, then it’s not much good keeping them at all.” He says he is not partisan, and last time government advertising was a political issue, the Government relied on the advice of “one of the nation’s foremost legislative experts, Harry Evans, the Clerk of the Senate” to defend itself. Labor has proposed legislation to increase accountability.

• The Office of Workplace Services, the Government agency that will police workplaces instead of the independent Industrial Relations Commission, has no staff in Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania or South Australia. Its online services are mainly accessed by employers.

• Instead of using TAFEs to address the skills shortage, the Government is using them to enforce its ideological agenda — they will lose funding if TAFE administrations choose not to offer AWAs to their staff. And schools will be next: the Government will “play hard” in overriding State responsibilities to push AWAs.

• The Australian’s Paul Kelly suggests Howard will make a “modest concession” on IR, perhaps by “cutting from 100 to 50 employees the size of a company exempt from the unfair dismissal laws”. Industry is urging him to stand firm, to maximise “flexibility” by undermining workers’ rights.

• While the majority of Australians remain opposed to the Government’s industrial relations agenda, John Howard has the support of a multimillionaire employer who was prepared to pay $25 000 for the chance to talk to the PM about the need to squeeze workers. Hagen Stehr’s wife was impressed by how well Jeannette Howard organised the dinner (I’m sure she prepared the meal herself…) and said, “It was just like visiting friends.”

• Sixty-four national womens’ organisations have raised concerns about the impact of the proposed industrial relations changes on women, due to their relative “lack of bargaining power, bargaining confidence and information about workforce rights and terms and conditions”. Marie Coleman said, “Some are concerned by the impact for women clustered in unskilled part-time jobs, mostly paying around $13 an hour. If we don’t protect the capacity of these women to have some family life as well as earn a modest income, we are going to really damage Australian families”.

• Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has revealed the Government’s wage-cutting agenda. In an unguarded comment at the end of an interview on talkback radio, he said, “We’ve got to ensure that industrial relations reform continues so we have the labour prices of New Zealand.” Wages in New Zealand are significantly lower than in Australia. Stephen Smith said this meant John Howard’s discussion of China and India took on a new significance: “It’s now a race to the bottom, as if somehow we can compete with China or India by adopting their wage levels.”

• In a surprise move, ACTU secretary Greg Combet used a speech to the Australian Industry Group to propose a system of union recognition ballots similar to those used in England, Canada and the United States. Combet outlined the UK model:

  If more than 50% of the employees are union members, collective bargaining is automatically recognised and there can be no contest about it. If less than 50% of the employees are unionised, and there is no voluntary recognition of collective bargaining by the employer, then a ballot of the employees can be conducted by a Government agency. A ballot will only be held if at least 10% of employees are union members.

  Collective bargaining recognition occurs if a majority of those who vote, vote in favour. A good faith bargaining process then ensues. It is a breach of good faith for an employer to offer individual contracts. Once a collective agreement is reached it is binding and enforceable upon both parties for its term. The employer cannot contract out of the agreement by entering into individual contracts with employees, and the union is similarly legally bound to respect the agreement.

  The ABC’s Alison Caldwell noted the possibility that this might backfire if employees voted against the union, but Combet thinks it a risk worth taking. The CPSU has endorsed Combet’s idea: “Yes, this proposal puts pressure on unions to get out and win the hearts and minds of a majority of workers, but the CPSU welcomes that challenge.” The Government dismissed it out of hand.

Get this and get it straight! Crime is a sucker’s road and those who travel it wind up in the gutter, the prison or the grave. There’s no other way, but they never learn.

I’ve started listening to old radio plays of detective stories. They typically run for about half an hour, and they’re great for listening to on the train. I haven’t listened to all of these stories yet, but I will link to an mp3 so you can download each yourself.

• Philip Marlowe — The Bum’s Rush
• Philip Marlowe — Life Can Be Murder
• Philip Marlowe — The Anniversary Gift
• Philip Marlowe — The Golden Cobra
• Philip Marlowe — The Grim Echo
• Philip Marlowe — The Hairpin Turn
• Philip Marlowe — Where There’s A Will
• Philip Marlowe — The Dear Dead Days
• Sam Spade — The Death Bed Caper
• Sam Spade — The Maltese Falcon

Over in England, airline catering company Gate Gourmet decided to sack its unionised workforce and replace them with cheaper, non-union workers. Their plan was set out in an internal memo:

Recruit, train and security check drivers. Announce intention to trade union, provoking unofficial industrial action from staff. Dismiss current workforce. Replace with new staff.

The Daily Mirror revealed the company’s extensive plan, which involved “immediate dismissal without legal protection”, and replacement workers brought in from Eastern Europe through a labour hire firm. The guest workers would live in flats provided by Gate Gourmet, with the rent deducted from their pay. These workers were to be trained in advance, possibly at a RAF base in Kent.

After a year of planning, Gate Gourmet put their scheme into action a fortnight ago. After pushing for permanent staff to be laid off because there was not enough work, they called in 160 casuals. Naturally, the workforce was pissed off by the company’s duplicity, and a large number went out on strike. As they had planned all along, Gate sacked 670 staff — by announcing it to them over a megaphone. They also sacked several people who were on maternity leave, for “illegal union activity”.

The campaign for the staff Gate Gourmet has been running ever since. 1000 baggage handlers took sympathy action that grounded British Airways flights, and the sacked workers have maintained a community picket ever since. You can give them your support through LabourStart’s online campaign.

Unfortunately, the bullied workers’ prospects aren’t good:

The bitter truth is that it’s over. The Gate Gourmet workers are summarily sacked and there is nothing much they or their union can do about it. British Airways is back in the skies, with Gate Gourmet now providing meals assembled by a new workforce hired through the temp agency Blue Arrow.

The temps are mainly newly arrived east Europeans and Somalis. When I called Blue Arrow in Uxbridge to ask about the pay rate for catering assistants, it was £6 an hour – as expected, a lower rate than that of the sacked workers.

[...]

Gate Gourmet screws down pay in very British style while FTSE company directors pay themselves a very British 16% rise, with a typical CEO on £2.5m. So where is the indignation? Where is the leadership that dares even whisper a question about this growing social dislocation? People are left to presume that there is no alternative to some malign economic force beyond human control. The truth is that penury and greed are political choices, not economic destiny: we can be Nordic, not American, and we can be John Lewis, not Gate Gourmet, employers if we choose.

Australians need to realise that this is the choice that now faces us. We can stand back and let John Howard introduce industrial laws that are designed to bring Gate Gourmet’s tactics to Australia (the Government supported them on the waterfront, and more recently at Boeing, and Gate Gourmet is setting up here, too). Or we can fight to protect the imperfect but generally fair system we’ve got.

This post is cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Every time there is a factional ruction in the ALP, Shane Maloney’s Murray Whelan is trotted out to explain it. In 2003, for instance, it was New South Wales and this passage:

“Even now, a great white or a blue pointer was rising from the deep, circling for the kill … or something worse. Some nameless horror from the primordial depths. A creature of suckered tentacles or poisonous spines. Anyone familiar with the leading personalities of the NSW branch of the Labor Party would know exactly how I felt.” – Shane Maloney’s new book Something Fishy.

Such are the thoughts of the fictional Victorian Labor MP Murray Whelan as he seeks refuge from a human killer in Bass Strait. The author’s jarring gag has a special edge at present with the once-powerful NSW Labor Right poised for some blood-letting.

Now it’s the Victorian branch where the knives are out, and here’s Whelan in the press again:

While similar places and people probably exist in plague proportions in the Liberal and National parties, the Victorian court case, and the selection of a lifelong party professional as the new Premier of NSW, demonstrates there are many, many Murray[ Whelan]s in real-life Labor.

And their presence goes a fair way to explain the mind-set of a party that seems happier fighting over preselections for seats it already holds than worrying about winning some new ones.

When I saw Stephen Matchett’s column in The Australian yesterday, I got excited — I assumed it meant a new Whelan novel was about to hit the shelves. Alas, we’ll have to wait a bit longer, though Shane Maloney’s website reveals that “[t]he author is presently toiling on number six, with a total of seven in mind.” Happy happy joy joy! I just hope they come sooner rather than later.

It’s not surprising that Maloney’s works are called upon by columnists. They paint a very real picture of an aspect of the Labor Party — overworked electorate officers dealing with eccentric bosses and mad constituents, grey meetings where members pretend they have an influence, and secret meetings where the real decisions are made. Matchett highlights a passage from Something Fishy that must resonate with everyone who has been a member of the Party:

The Australian Labor Party is composed of two main factions. Them and us. Ideologically distinct only at their extremities, their function is the distribution of spoils. But fighting over the spoils of defeat was a ritual for which I could muster little enthusiasm.

But it’s easy to let that aspect of party politics — “politics as a trade, not a cause” — overshadow the real reason most people are involved. I get angry when I see people who join factions for their career prospects, or who hop from one to the next on the promise of some perk. Thankfully, those people are fewer than the press, or Maloney’s novels, would have you believe. I’m a proud member of a faction because I believe in its cause. If the Labor Left was a party in its own right, that’s what I would join.

I reckon outfits like Labor First and GetUp! might do more harm than good. GetUp! wants to develop a non-partisan movement, but it risks entrenching left-wing disenfranchisement with the political process. Sitting on your arse, bitching about tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, and firing off an occasional email will not fix anything. Labor First blames factionalism for the party’s woes, but what’s its solution? A new faction, with no coherent ideological or policy base beyond… well, opposition to factions.

I’ll admit that the existing factions behave badly from time to time, and they aren’t always as inclusive as they should be (my own faction recently stripped ordinary members of voting rights), but I don’t think establishing new structures is the answer. Matchett says Maloney’s novels reveal that “politicians and officials manoeuvre against each other, because that is what they do, but the members are ever fewer.” That, I think, is the problem: Labor’s structure is that of a mass political party that no longer exists.

Factions work best when they have strong (real) membership bases. If you support the ALP but don’t support the way it is run, I think you should join the party and go to meetings. Find out about the factions, identify which one holds the beliefs that most closely resemble your own, and join it. Turn up to meetings, speak your mind, and do your best to avoid getting caught up in subfactional turf wars.

It’s about time members of factions stopped being embarrassed by them. We should be telling people about the reasons we joined: I enjoy Left meetings more than branch meetings, and I enjoy caucus more than State Executive meetings. It’s about friendship, debate, drinking and, most importantly, shared values and beliefs. The factions are the life of the party, and Labor supporters should cut through the media bullshit to find out what they’re really like.

A couple of bloggers noticed the kerfuffle about parliamentary staffers calling people “mate”. They think it’s a joke, and it seems those on the hill agree. AAP reports:

There’s been an unexpected outbreak of mateship in Canberra.

Calls of “maaate” have been heard all around parliament’s hallowed halls in the wake of a laughable decision by senior public servants.

[...]

The kneejerk reaction brought a fortnight dominated by the Telstra sale to a comic end as Australians exercised their inalienable right to take the piss out of pomposity.

From coffee queues to corridor greetings, “mate” was the term of choice…

Apparently it brought out people’s sense of humour:

Liberal backbencher Mal Washer says mate is the nicest four-letter word he’s been called all year.

It turns out the police were lying about Charles de Menezes.

The building he emerged from was not the home of a suicide bomber. He was not wearing a bulky jacket; he was wearing a regular denim jacket. He was not challenged by police and he did not run away; he entered the station at a normal walking pace and descended slowly on an escalator. He only jogged on the concourse to make sure he caught the train, and when he was on board he took a seat. That’s when he was tackled by police and shot seven times in the head.

Perhaps Nic White can take out his abacus and tally up how many innocent people the police are entitled to execute in these circumstances before we should be upset by it?

• The ACTU has pounced on Kevin Andrews’ suggestion of a Senate inquiry into the industrial relations legislation, but the Government is not keen. Liberal Senator George Brandis said the idea is “stupid” because, “There’s nothing in this for us.” He’s worried that people will hear about how the changes will impact on their rights. A current inquiry into AWAs, for example, has heard from a 22-year-old Krispy Kreme employee who said, “I did not wish to be employed on an AWA but I was compelled to sign the agreement.” The deal forced her to work unsociable shifts, including long hours and split shifts with no overtime.

• Kim Beazley addressed a rally of truck-drivers at Parliament House, promising that Labor will restore their rights to collective bargaining. The Government will legislate to make collective bargaining by “independent” contractors illegal as “collusion” — a throwback to the anti-combination laws of the 18th and 19th centuries. The TWU, whose members’ rights will be severely curtailed, predicts fatal consequences: “There have already been 103 deaths in the long haul transport industry on NSW roads in the past year. We explained to Kevin Andrews that this carnage will increase if drivers are pushed to work longer hours, which they will have to under the proposed legislation.” The union will meet with thousands of truck-drivers to discuss a possible campaign of civil disobedience.

• The truckies’ plight has brought the churches back to the IR debate. Catholic priest Fr Thomas Casanova demanded, “Legislators should think first, not of profits, but of people — that’s you truck drivers and your families. Owner-drivers must retain a real ability to be represented while they’re out there on the road … carrying our clothes, our food and our nation.” Meanwhile, a delegation of Anglican clergy led by Archbishop Phillip Aspinall has promised “to keep basic principles of fairness, decency and respect for family needs at the top of our minds” as it meets MPs to discuss IR this week.

• The ACTU and the ALP won an expedited High Court hearing for their case against the Government’s IR propaganda plan, which could cost in excess of $100 000 000. The Full Court will consider the claim on 29 August. Nicola Roxon was pleased: “The court giving us a hearing date within a month of us filing the application shows that they are treating it very seriously.” Although the Democrats and Family First have not joined the case, they are trying to force the Government to have the spending brought before Parliament for consideration.

• Local governments are being asked to stand up for their communities by opposing the industrial relations package. The Gloucester Shire Council and the Tweed council are being pressed to write to the Federal Government.

• Investment bank J P Morgan predicted the IR package would lead to an increase in productivity. Apparently, its conclusion was based on New Zealand’s experience — but that doesn’t tally with the statistics. As David Peetz pointed out, “By 1998, New Zealand’s productivity was 14 per cent below what it would have been if it had kept pace with Australia. The [Employment Contracts Act] was a disaster for productivity.” Kenneth Davidson, drawing on two recents studies by the NZ Treasury, concluded that “the economic impact of the NZ reforms was plummeting productivity”.

• Sydney University’s Dr Chris Briggs says lockouts — where employees are forced out of their workplace without pay — have increased tenfold in recent years, and he places the blame squarely on the Government: “Lockouts simply would not have reappeared without Government intervention and legislative change at the federal level.” Under the proposed changes, employers will give just 3 days’ notice before a lockout, while workers will be forced to jump through bureaucratic hoops if they need to take industrial action.

• In “an attempt to reassure nervous voters”, the Government has announced it will provide more resources to the Office of Workplace Services. However, Stephen Smith dismissed the plan as irrelevant: “This is about bad policy and extreme policy, not about bad bosses.” In other words, the Office will be powerless to prevent unfair treatment that will be legal and encouraged by the Government. Labor hopes the public will see past this fig leaf.

• The Government is watering down health and safety laws so that the Commonwealth public service can cut corners and keep unions off site. The CPSU is questioning the move, because the Commonwealth OH&S system is already cheaper and safer than State systems, and has put forward a range of amendments to improve the proposed legislation. You can support their campaign here.

Kate, who regularly comments and occasionally blogs at what she calls the Purple Rodeo, has set up shop at Moment to Moment. Looks good!

Alas, Kate bears bad news: a new Pride & Prejudice film is destined to fail due to Colin Firth’s absence. (I’m sure she’s hoping he would make a new version, true to his original naked intentions.)

This new version is doubly doomed because, well… Keira Knightly.

Keira fucking Knightly.

• Alongside the Government’s major IR overhaul, it is implementing a number of other reforms with serious ramifications for workers. For example, the Government wants to “protect” independent contractors from “interfering third parties” — including unions who represent those same contractors. This will effectively ban unions in industries like the transport industry. The TWU is concerned that “[t]he introduction of the proposed Independent Contractors Act clearly says that it will be against the law for drivers to be represented by their union.” A convoy of 500 trucks will visit Parliament House today to protest against this attack on truckies’ freedom of association.

• Template AWAs promoted by the Howard Government strip workers of paid sick leave and bereavement leave — indeed, the agreements it is promoting undercut not only the award, but the legislated minimum, too. The ACTU is concerned that “where employers force people to cash-out their sick leave they’re basically saying, ‘if something happens to you or your family, you simply don’t get paid while you deal with that crisis’.”

• Kevin Andrews yesterday suggested that the IR reforms might be referred to a Senate inquiry, although the short time-frame he hinted at is woefully inadequate. Democrats Senator Andrew Murray said it would be unreasonable if an inquiry ran shorter than February or March 2006; Andrews hoped it would be finished before the end of 2005. WA employment minister John Kobelke looks forward to the hearings: “We will certainly use that opportunity to present actual examples and factual data of how wages are lowered and people exploited under that sort of a system because we had a very similar system here in Western Australia.” John Howard is not so keen. He said, “We’re running a bit ahead of ourselves” and expressed concerns about “obstruction”.

• Despite earlier indications that the Government would back down and protect more working conditions, Kevin Andrews is standing firm: “They will remain the key features of that standard. I have no intention, or no inclination, to expand them.” Only annual leave, personal leave, parental leave and ordinary hours of work will be protected; everything else can be stripped from people’s agreements, with no safety net — and the hours of work protection is a furphy because overtime loadings can also be scrapped.

• John Howard promised that “no government I lead will hurt ordinary people” — but still he won’t guarantee that workers won’t be worse off as a result of his proposals. It’s not clear who is an “ordinary person” and who is not, for the purposes of Howard’s vague commitment, but it seems likely that those who speak out about their ill-treatment at work will be demonised.

• The ACTU has unveiled a booklet that describes how workers are treated under Howard’s current regime. It was distributed to MPs and Senators yesterday, and includes the stories of workers being sacked for raising health and safety concerns, refusing to change shifts due to family commitments, refusing to sign an inferior AWA, and asking to read an AWA before signing it. Like the unions’ television ads, these stories are effective because they occur in the workplace now, before the new plans give bosses even more power.

• A date for your diaries: “For those in Perth who want to know more about the impact on women of the IR changes, UnionsWA is holding a Women’s Community Forum on Monday 12 September at 6pm at the Loftus Community Centre.”

• The president of the WA Nationals, Wendy Duncan, says the party is wary of extreme changes to the IR system. “If the dismissal is unfair then workers should have some redress,” she said after debate at the Nationals’ WA conference. “The Nationals really are wary of too much freedom in IR policy. We have to make sure that vulnerable groups like youth and women do have the protection they need.”

• The ACTU will change tactics this week, with “workplace ambassadors” from around the country set to descend on Canberra for the next sitting week. They will lobby members of parliament as ordinary workers with serious worries about the impact of Howard’s proposals. Trevor Libbis, a father of four who works for a hardware store, is concerned that “[t]he thing that could come out of this is family meltdown.”

• In answer to a Dorothy Dixer last week, John Howard predicted that his attacks on workers’ rights would lead to a new economic boom — but he had no evidence to support his claims. By contrast, a Victorian Treasury report suggests that there is no urgent need for IR reform, and identifies changes to be made in health, infrastructure, education and training, which could reap $65 billion within ten years. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks says the Howard Government is driven by ideology, not what’s best for the economy.

• In private briefings to labour lawyers, DEWR says it hopes the Government’s legislation will pass through parliament by the end of October — an extremely ambitious goal. About 100 lawyers are currently drafting the legislation, “includ[ing] specialists seconded from firms including Freehills, Blake Dawson Waldron, Clayton Utz and Minter Ellison.”

• This week the High Court will hear legal argument about the Government’s mooted propaganda campaign. Labor and the ACTU argue there has been no valid appropriation of funds to pay for the advertisements. The Government says it didn’t follow the usual procedure because there is a “state of emergency” — an idea skewered by Richard Ackland. WA Attorney-General Jim McGinty has intervened to support the challenge. The Full Bench will hear the case on 29 August.

• The head of the backbench team hand-picked by the Prime Minister to sell his IR program, Andrew Robb, admitted, “Well, we just simply don’t know” whether workers will be worse off under the proposed system.