Red Rag

In 2000, Ross Lightfoot described a group of refugees as “criminals” who might “bring with them communicable, pandemic, epidemic or parasitic diseases”. He said their “attempts to blackmail Australia into accepting these uninvited and repulsive people only serve to harden the resolve of decent, balanced Australians. One wonders just where these wretched people would be acceptable.”

This is clearly a man who believes, “We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come.” Or rather, Lightfoot thinks he will decide.

The Senator has been caught urging an Iraqi family to overstay their visas, and to make spurious asylum claims. He flew his staff overseas, at taxpayers’ expense, to help the family make a new visa application, and he managed to keep them out of the detention centres he strongly supported only a few short years ago. According to the Sunday Age:

Documents reveal Senator Lightfoot took the extraordinary step of urging members of the Aziz family, who had overstayed their visitor visas, to apply for asylum in Australia so they could spend more time visiting relatives in Perth.

His actions, recorded in immigration case notes, surprised officials handling the case because they believed the Aziz family had no grounds for claiming asylum because they had residency in the United Arab Emirates. Officials were even more alarmed when the senator sent a member of his staff, Anne Fergusson-Stewart, to Dubai — apparently at taxpayers’ expense — to help the family make a new application for a long-stay visitors’ visa after they were eventually forced to leave Australia.

After Senator Lightfoot’s intervention, an application from the family for a six-month long-stay visa was granted by the department despite serious concerns about reliability of information and guarantees supplied by the family and relatives.

The Aziz case is particularly troubling because it suggests that support from Senator Lightfoot, with the tacit approval of the Prime Minister’s office and the Foreign Affairs Department’s Iraq Taskforce, enabled these well-connected Iraqis to avoid ending up in Baxter or Villawood, where those who overstay their official welcome almost inevitably end up.

Lightfoot calls genuine refugees disease-ridden criminals, so what’s special about this family that he would encourage them to jump the queue with concocted claims of persecution? Well, they’re connected to Woodside Energy, the same company that funded Lightfoot’s last trip to Iraq, in which he helped the company smuggle cash into the country to grease some palms and get their projects approved.

In his letters in support of the family’s visa application, Lightfoot stressed their importance to Woodside, and he “made repeated phone calls [to the Immigration Department] stating his connections to Talabani and Woodside Petroleum and how much these second visas would be worth to Woodside and Australia.”

Of course, Lightfoot didn’t mention how much it would be worth to him. At the time, he owned 850 shares in Woodside, but was forced to dump them when the press started sniffing around his gun-toting, big-noting Iraq adventure. This is yet another example of Lightfoot (ab)using his parliamentary office to further his personal financial interests.

Don’t get it? Read this and this.

Update: Good news — WA education minister Ljiljanna Ravlich said, “I’m not considering bringing [creationism] in. I’m quite happy with the curriculum we’ve got.”

• Working families have won a significant case at the Industrial Relations Commission, thanks to the efforts of the union movement. New parents will now have a right to ask for up to two years unpaid parental leave, and their boss will have to genuinely consider the request. They will also be able to request part-time instead of full-time work when they return. Experts say the IRC tried to future-proof the new “family friendly” rights by linking its decision to parental leave, but Kevin Andrews won’t rule out roll-back under the new package.

• The tendering process for the Government’s mammoth IR propaganda campaign has finished and — surprise, surprise — the job has gone to Ted Horton, who has worked on Liberal Party election advertising for many years. Horton’s relationship with the Liberals is very close: “[Lib strategists] Crosby Textor, by coincidence, shares offices in Melbourne with Horton and his partner Chris Dewey in the firm Dewey Horton.” This campaign is shaping up to be blatantly political and should be paid for by the Liberal Party.

• Deputy PM Mark Vaile has again revealed his poor understanding of the Government’s IR policy. In Question Time on Tuesday, he gave a flat guarantee that public holidays, personal leave and smokos would be protected; on Wednesday, he changed his mind. His change of heart came after he was “slapped down” by the PM.

• The business lobby has been pressing for a more aggressive approach. Of protection from unfair sackings, the president of the free-market fundamentalist H R Nicholls Society says we should get rid of it “lock, stock and barrel.” Of the minimum wage, the president of the Business Council of Australia says “there’s a good argument” to scrap it altogether.

• Meanwhile, the CFMEU is preparing for the Building Industry Taskforce’s attack on Perth construction workers, with secretary Kevin Reynolds saying he is prepared to go to jail to defend his members. Despite draconian powers, the BIT has been spectacularly unsuccessful in its attempts to crush the construction unions; its prosecutions have been described by judges as “hopeless”, “without reasonable cause”, and “foreign to the workplace relations of civilised societies”, and its inspectors have been caught fabricating evidence. The Government’s solution is to give the BIT a raft of new powers that make ASIO seem like Chubb security guards.

• Democrats IR spokesperson Andrew Murray has given the strongest indication yet that his party will back Australian workers against the Howard Government: “[W]e would pretty well reject everything they are putting forward in terms of Federal Act changes. … [W]recking the Federal Act is an ideological action that will not advance the economy in the way they are asserting.”

• Family First senator Steve Fielding appears to have sniffed the wind, too, and has strongly condemned the Coalition’s subservience to market ideology. In his maiden speech, Fielding complained, “Where once the labour market respected the fact that workers had family responsibilities, today workers struggle to balance their paid work and family life. Today, sadly, what are sold as family-friendly policies are really market-friendly policies. … Imagine if workers could feel secure in their jobs and did not have to bargain for basic wages and conditions.”

• The Government might have made a significant about-face on a key element of its reform package. In an answer to a Labor question, Kevin Andrews hinted workers might keep more long service leave than his initial announcements suggested. The Age speculates that his answer represented “either a quiet decision to write the condition back into the new legislation, or a mistake on the detail” — but Andrews’ office refused to clarify the situation. They obviously have no idea what their boss is going to promise from one day to the next.

• On the subject of Question Time and slack staff, Peter Costello’s office has been sprung using Google to write the answers to his industrial relations Dorothy Dixers — inaccurately, at that.

• The Government insists that it will “preserve the right of workers to have a union negotiate a collective agreement if they wish”, but 31 Boeing workers have been on strike for 71 days because the company refuses to negotiate or bring the case before the Industrial Relations Commission. Howard told parliament Boeing was “within its rights” not to negotiate — contrary to the claims in his IR propaganda.

Update:

• A decision of the South Australian IRC demonstrates how AWAs are used to slash workers’ pay and conditions. A Bakers Delight employee was paid a wage 25% below the award, and also lost leave, overtime and other benefits. Incredibly, the Office of the Employment Advocate decided that this met the no-disadvantage test — imagine what will happen when that test is scrapped and the IRC has no power to overturn the OEA’s bad decisions?

On Sunday morning I caught the number 30 bus to meet Manas at the zoo. I sat in my usual seat, four rows back on the left-hand side. There were a couple of others riding with me; an middle-aged woman with a toddler, and a bloke who must have slept at the bus stop after a big night on the piss.

Just as we were about to pull away, a group of people ran down Platform B towards us. The driver hesitated, and they scrambled up the steps.

“Goin’ to the bus port,” the man said, hardly pausing as he slid into the priority seat at the front of the bus.

“Yeah, bus port.” The woman hustled her kid forward and they moved down the aisle towards the back.

As the bus shuddered forwards I wondered why they didn’t sit with each other. They were definitely running together, and besides, a man who wears his baseball cap sideways is out of place in the front seat of the bus.

I turned back to my puzzle, but I wasn’t making much headway. It’s five minutes to the bus port, but I’d only uncovered one new number. This one had me stumped.

We entered the strange orange light of the bus port. The man in the priority seat straightened his cap and shifted over towards the wall of the bus. The driver pulled up and waited the obligatory few moments before closing the doors and heading off again.

As we turned the corner to get under way again, I could see the driver’s face looking up at the mirror, and he pulled over again.

“Did someone want the bus port?” he asked.

No answer, so he turned his seat around and got up. It looked as if he wanted to walk down the bus, but the yellow line on the floor held him back. Leaning forward, he asked again, “Didn’t someone want the bus port?”

Still no answer. The man in the front seat pretended to look out the window, but he wasn’t fooling anyone. The bus driver said, “I thought you wanted the bus port.” Nothing.

Shaking his head, the bus driver climbed back into his seat and kept driving.

It was obvious what had just happened. The man and his girlfriend had bluffed their way onto the bus with the magic words, “bus port.” It’s still in the free transit zone, so there’s no need for a ticket, even though they were really going much further. Past the zoo, as I soon found out, and maybe as far as Cannington.

The bus driver knew their scam, but he didn’t care. I can’t say I blame him: who would want to ruin their Sunday by picking a fight over a couple of dollars? Better to just get on with things and promise yourself you’ll do it next time.

As I looked up to find the button for the bell, I noticed a little smirk on the front seat. There’s bound to be a next time.

Any Perth readers want to play zombies this Friday evening? Participants get a free Beez Neez at the Brass Monkey afterwards.

Is it just me, or do you agree that random bag searches on our trains would do precisely nothing to stop a suicide bomber?

• Catholic Cardinal George Pell and Anglican Archbishop Jensen have joined an “hallelujah chorus” against the IR reforms. Dr Jensen said the changes would “shift the differential of power in favour of employers, who can have a propensity to mistreat workers in the interests of the business.” Cardinal Pell, who had been criticised for previously refusing to speak out, said “civilised conditions” must be maintained — including lunch breaks, annual leave, long-service leave, superannuation, union access and the maintenance of quality family time. The general secretary of the National Council of Churches believes there is “a remarkable level of agreement emerging on workplace relations across the wide spectrum of Christian churches.” Kevin Rudd has picked up the ball and run with it.

• John Howard was interviewed on Insiders this morning, and revealed that he doesn’t understand his own industrial relations package. He claimed, “People will have the option … if they go to a new job, [of] either going into an award or negotiating a workplace agreement.” In fact, they will have no such choice. The boss will be able to put forward an AWA on a “take it or leave it” basis — employees will have no right to be put on the award, and they will have no right to negotiate the terms of the agreement.

• Misha Schubert picked up on another comment Howard made in his Insiders program. He said certain things would be removed from awards because they were covered by State legislation, but Schubert points out that “[i]n practice, that would mean workers who have won more generous leave entitlements would lose them.” Rather than supporting the outcomes of negotiation, Howard will force people back to the statutory minimum. He will cut long service leave and other entitlements for thousands of workers.

• Over 30 000 people turned up at a NSW protest against the IR changes (blogged at WSA Caucus). Hundreds more rallied in the Northern Territory. The ACTU expects that the public’s outrage will continue for some time, and has announced a national protest for Tuesday, 25 October. Sharran Burrow told today’s crowd in Sydney, “On October 25 you will see the biggest national protest we’ve seen in a very long time, possibly in history, when we have a community day of protests.”

• Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon announced plans to protect the working conditions of the State’s 21 000 public servants, along with 34 000 other employees. While the State legislation may not be entirely effective, it puts another barrier in the Commonwealth’s way, as they will need to challenge the law’s validity.

• Early suggestions that the Howard Government would use its postage allowance to distribute IR propaganda have proved correct. The Prime Minister posted a glossy brochure to every elector in Bennelong, and urged his colleagues to use it as a template in their own electorates. The cost of this mailout will be borne by the Australian public, on top of the more than $100 000 000 that is now expected to be spent on television, radio and newspaper advertising.

• You can get your own back by joining GetUp!’s email campaign, which, as Liberal IR hard man Andrew Robb reveals, has so far proved very effective: “There are hundreds of emails arriving in Senator’s officers. They’re beside themselves, just to clear the screen. They get back to their office from meetings looking for important communications from whoever, and they’re confronted with screen after screen of these emails, in some cases over 200 emails. This is highly irresponsible, this is spam, this is spam.” No, this is legitimate communication by the public to their elected representatives — and it’s not funded by taxpayers’ money.

• A leaked DEWR document has revealed key aspects of the Government’s coming IR propaganda blitz, including its focus on “retention of the Australian way of life.” The ACTU points out that the Australian way of life is currently supported by guaranteed minimum employment conditions, which Howard is trying to scrap. It has also been revealed that the cost of the ad campaign will probably be at least $100 000 000.

• State and Federal industrial relations ministers will meet today, to discuss the proposed reforms. Stephen Smith suggests the States will use the meeting to announce their intention to mount a High Court challenge. The Australian’s legal affairs writer Chris Merritt says the case will reveal whether the current bench is composed of “true conservatives — prepared to uphold the original intent of the founding fathers and maintain the federal-state balance”.

• Two conservative lobby groups have expressed serious concerns about the impact of Howard’s proposals on their constituencies. The National Farmers’ Federation wants its members to use the new laws to exploit their employees, but is concerned that they will have to give up lucrative tax breaks in order to do so. The tourism industry reiterated its concerns that slashing leave entitlements would devastate the domestic tourism industry: “Any move in a flat domestic market which further diminishes [annual leave] will have an impact well beyond tourism in the general economy.”

• ACTU president Sharran Burrow told a parliamentary committee on family that the Government’s proposed changes would exacerbate an already abysmal situation. She pointed out that AWAs produce family unfriendly outcomes.

• Two Queensland Government departments are threatening to force their staff to sign up to the Howard Government’s “union-busting changes to workplace conditions“. Peter Beattie says they have been “blackmailed” by threatened cuts to Commonwealth funding. Feel free to email Beattie to tell him to steel his resolve.

• A survey of 5000 young people in NSW showed that many had a poor understanding of their working rights, and were being exploited by their employers. The study found: “Half of those who thought they were in permanent work received no paid leave. Half had not received any written information about pay, hours of work or safety when they started their jobs. A quarter never got pay slips. One in seven casuals worked unpaid overtime.”

• The Hon James Macken, a retired judge of the Industrial Court of NSW, argues in New Matilda that Howard’s planned laws will “greatly strengthen the already overwhelming advantages enjoyed by employers”. He says that for many workers, “the ’suggestion’ that they might like to consider giving up half their annual leave or giving up their working conditions by going on to an AWA is equivalent to an order.”

Yeah, yeah. I’m sure many of you were glad to see the back of this thing, but stuff it. Here’s another one.

1. Tim Rogers — The Man You Want Me To Be
2. Vyvienne Long — Seven Nation Army
3. Blink 182 — A New Hope
4. Custard — Love Measurer
5. The Strokes — Barely Legal
6. Sixty Stories — Less of Me
7. Grinspoon — More Than You Are
8. Blueline Medic — Welcome Paradox
9. Harry James & his Orchestra — Crazy Rhythm
10. The Go-Betweens — Surfing Magazines

Dave on Apple’s Mighty Mouse: “I’ve never seen a mouse with a clitoris before.” $79 for a mouse whose right button is useless if you’re even barely touching the left button? No thanks.

Philip Ruddock says your terror-prevention fridge magnet is out of date — now you should be alert and alarmed.

• Steve Bracks says he will legislate to shield Victorian public servants from the Howard Government’s industrial reforms. NSW has already signalled its intention to do the same thing. Bracks’s announcement is significant because the Howard Government expects the States to surrender their residual IR powers rather than maintain a separate system. Victoria will have the fewest workers in its State system, so the decision to retain it is a symbol of the Premiers’ resolve.

• Bracks has also forced the Howard Government onto the back foot over long service leave, by pointing out that it is on the chopping block. As he did on the issue of public holidays and mealbreaks, John Howard used a talkback radio interview to contradict his workplace relations minister: “Long service leave will be preserved. Absolutely preserved.” But the experts disagree — Flinders University’s Andrew Stewart told the 7.30 Report, “As things stand, what the Government has announced is that long service leave will drop out of the award safety net. … [T]hose rights will disappear.” Even if Howard backs down and allows long service leave to remain in existing awards, he will remove the no-disadvantage test so that long service leave can be stripped from individual contracts.

• Morris Iemma announced his support for a High Court challenge to the IR package at his first press conference as NSW Premier, and Victoria will also participate. Industrial lawyer Joe Catanzariti predicts the challenge will be unsuccessful because the legislation will be drafted carefully — but his firm, Clayton Utz, is one of several involved with the drafting, so a pinch of salt is necessary. The dean of Sydney University’s law school thinks “the states have a good chance of narrowing the new laws.”

• Kevin Andrews’s bullying of churches that express concern about his IR package appears to have paid off. As “a result of a communication from the IR Minister”, Melbourne’s Catholic Archbishop Hart wrote to a number of Catholic agencies demanding that any public comment be vetted by him. A senior employee of one of the agencies told Online Catholics, “It is an attempt by the Archbishop to reign in public comment on significant social issues.” The journal also reports that Cardinal George Pell, a close political ally of the Liberal Party, would only argue for the maintenance of the minimum wage. For the Cardinal, issues like paid holidays on Christmas and Easter, meal breaks, overtime rates, long service leave and paid maternity leave are not worth the effort.

• The latest Newspoll has Labor ahead 51-49 on a 2PP basis. ACNielsen has a 52-48 split in Labor’s favour. Steve Bracks thinks the IR campaign explains Labor’s good showing. Beazley’s wishy-washy stance on AWAs certainly makes him look indecisive, and probably explains (at least in part) why his personal approval rating didn’t increase with the party’s.

• Two articles in the latest issue of the Australian Health Review argue that John Howard’s industrial relations package will hurt health services in rural and remote areas. Pauline Stanton and Tim Bartram say there is no evidence the public health sector would be improved by the reforms, and Dr John Buchanan writes tht “[m]ost regional and rural areas … will have to rely on services staffed with fewer professionals and a growing proportion of lower skilled health workers.”

• Western Australia’s CFMEU, under concerted attack by the Howard Government despite very little evidence of wrongdoing, have been forced to rely on the unusual tactic of the “blue flu.” The name comes from American police officers who, having been banned from taking industrial action, simultaneously called in sick.

• The NSW union movement has started a Workers Radio breakfast program, which will air on 88.9 FM from 5:30am to 9am on weekdays. It is also reviewing its finances to maximise the funds available for the campaign.

• Glenn Milne is not surprised that the public has rejected the Government’s IR proposals, because “believable narratives are what always sustain governments. This is not one of them.” He says “the IR reforms look like a whim, attached to a fancy”, and the current debate is fundamentally different from the introduction of the GST, because there is no compelling case for drastic reform.

• On the other hand, Ross Gittins thinks John Howard is testing the public mood: “[W]henever the unions manage to incite talkback radio’s indignation on another aspect, he’ll back off another notch.” But he warns that if Howard starts to back down, it will build the unions’ momentum so that “[t]heir ad campaign — backed up by a lot of word-of-mouth in the workplace — may yet go down as the most successful opposition to a government policy proposal in a long time.”

• Another event for Sydneysiders. The Business and Labour History Group at the University of Sydney is holding a symposium on the state industrial relations systems on Friday, 26 August.