Barbara Bennett, the head of Workplace Authority and the star of Howard government's ads singing praises to Workchoices, is doing her best to prove that the popular beliefs about Workchoices may not be as mythological as the ads would have us believe and that getting objective facts about the impact of Workchoices and the application of the "fairness test" may not be a simple matter.
One of the best ways to assess how the fairness test works in practice would be to look at the AWAs themselves and evaluate their content. But there is a little problem. Barbara Bennett refused to provide AWAs (with names of the parties masked) to the Victorian workplace advocate. The reason given? - providing access "would breach the "spirit" of the law".
No doubt, Barbara Bennett is right. Openness and accountability would certainly be against the spirit of Workchoices or the intent of the government in how the Workplace Authority should apply the legislation. We should not have any access to real information. We should just listen to the government ads and trust that the Workplace Authority, which proved that it is a political institution when Ms Bennett chose to appear in the ads, will administer the system fairly and objectively. We should just trust that backpackers sourced from nearby hostels, with a week of training, will be able to fairly and correctly administer the flawed and complicated "fairness test" (and lets remember that there is no review or appeal). We should just trust that the authority which refuses to release information on AWAs is protecting the employees, rather than pandering to the political agenda of the Howard government.
Yes, just like those Workchoices ads, the "trust me" line is a bit hard to swallow. Especially when, days after promising transparency, Barbara Bennett proved that transparency and accountability is a myth by refusing to disclose actual information behind the propaganda. Especially when this refusal is ever so convenient for the government and is reminiscent of the government's own practice of keeping information from the public. Barbara Bennett would have been aware that her conduct is likely to attract public attention. Therefore, whatever the Workplace Authority is trying to hide must be more damaging than exploding the myth of impartiality, transparency and accountability of the Workplace Authority.
There is only one myth that could be exploded by provision of the AWAs - and that is the myth that the Workchoices system is protecting the employees. No wonder the Authority and the government may want to keep it under wraps.
September 9th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Industrial relations, Democracy |
no comments
A little while ago the Howard government quietly changed electoral laws so that the electoral roll closes when the election is called. Those who are not enrolled at the time that the election is called immediately become ineligible to vote at the election. Needless to say that persons most likely to find themselves in that situation are young people who only recently turned 18. There are presently some 400,000 young people who are eligible to vote but have not yet enrolled. As soon as Howard calls an election (which can be any day now), these young people will be disenfranchised.
Why would the government pass such a law? They aren't telling, but young people are on average less likely to vote for the Coalition than older voters. I'll leave it to my readers to draw their own conclusions.
So if you are eligible to enroll to vote, please don't delay and enroll now - don't let the government to disenfranchise you. Remember - your vote counts!
August 14th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Australian election, Democracy |
no comments
The Australian newspaper claims to support free speech. Earlier this year, News Ltd (which owns The Australian), in conjunction with other media organisations launched the "Australia's Right to Know" campaign, aimed at reviewing the increasing restrictions on media freedom. The Australian even has a web page, titled "Your right to know", dedicated to freedom of speech/freedom of information articles.
But while (quite correctly) demanding that freedom of speech not be unreasonably restricted for its journalists and editors, the Australian hypocritically fails to apply the same standards to itself. When Tim Dunlop, whose excellent blog Blogocracy is on the News Ltd site, published a post containing well-reasoned criticisms of The Australian editorial, the post vanished from the site, as did Tim for almost 24 hours. Thankfully Tim is back, but his post isn't. It's content has, however, been picked up and reproduced on some other blogs, such as Larvatus Prodeo (see comment of Darryl Rosin) and the Poll Bludger.
The content of the post is reproduced below as a protest against the hypocritical and unreasonable censorship by The Australian/ News Ltd. If other bloggers are reading this - please consider also reproducing the post. Lets show the mainstream media that the one proven way to make something more popular is to try and censor it!
The content below is copyright of Tim Dunlop. Anyone citing this content, please make sure that it is properly attributed to Tim's blog - Blogocracy.
Who says the mainstream media don’t pay attention to the blogosphere? This extraordinary story relates to this week’s Newspoll results and the way The Australian reported it. Peter Brent runs the excellent psephological blog called Mumble. It’s one of a number of blogs that run analysis and commentary of opinion polls, and others include OzPolitics, Possums Pollytics, and Poll Bludger.
Yesterday, Peter Brent noted that he had fallen foul of some of those at The Australian:
A courtesy call from Editor-in-Chief Chris Mitchell this morning informed me that the paper is going to “go” Charles Richardson (from Crikey) and me tomorrow. Chris said by all means criticise the paper, but my “personal” attacks on Dennis had gone too far, and the paper will now go me “personally”.
No, I’m not making this up.
If they only get as personal as I get with Dennis, then it should be tame, as I don’t believe I’ve ever criticised anything other than his writing. And to think I described Dennis, in a chapter in a book being launched this month, as (with no sarcasm) “a fine journalist”.
All very strange. And - I’d be lying if I didn’t admit - a little stomach-churning.
The editorial is up this morning and yes, they do “go” Peter Brent. They defend themselves in the strongest possible terms and attack, specifically and generally, just about anyone who disagrees with them, particularly “Australia’s online news commentariat that has found passing endless comment on other people’s work preferable to breaking real stories and adding to society’s pool of knowledge.”
There are a number of things to say about all of this. The first is that the editorial is as much concerned about charges of bias against The Australian as anything else. This is how it begins:
THE measure of good journalism is objectivity and a fearless regard for truth. Bias, nonetheless, is in the eye of the beholder and some people will always see conspiracy when the facts don’t suit their view of the world. This is the affliction that has gripped, to a large measure, Australia’s online news commentariat that has found passing endless comment on other people’s work preferable to breaking real stories and adding to society’s pool of knowledge.
If bias is in the eye of the beholder, then there are a lot of “beholders” out there who think The Australian is biased, particularly in its coverage of polling data. The evidence for this is not just to found in the blogosphere but on their own pages where their columns and articles often fill up with criticism from their own readers accusing them of spinning information in favour of the Howard Government. In attacking the “online commentariat” they are also attacking a sizeable sampling of their own readership.
The latest bout of charges of bias were prompted by this week’s Newspoll and many people, including me, were struck by the way The Australian chose to cover the story. For instance, Bryan Palmer at OzPolitics wrote:
“When I first glanced at today’s headlines — Howard checks Rudd’s march — Kevin’s sizzle not snag-free — Howard finds fertile ground for support — I was expecting to read about a polling improvement for the Howard Government. What I found was a flat line.”
What’s interesting is that The Australian seems to believe that only they are capable of objectivity and they reject entirely any charge of bias. This is odd given that Chris Mitchell himself has said:
“Can I say something about The Australian’s contribution to the national political debate. It has made, as a newspaper, a remarkable contribution, I think back over the last 10 years that this government has been in office and I think of the positions taken by The Australian newspaper.
“It has been broadly supportive, generously so, of the government’s economic reform agenda. And it has been a strong supporter, consistently… of industrial relations reform. Its only criticism of the government is that it might not have gone far enough.”
…I think editorially and on the Op Ed page, we are right-of-centre. I don’t think it’s particularly far right, I think some people say that, but I think on a world kind of view you’d say we’re probably pretty much where The Wall Street Journal, or The Telegraph in London are. So, you know, centre-right.
It is precisely that “generous” “broadly supportive” “right-of-centre” tilt that people are responding to when they see Newspoll reported the way it was this week. For the editorial to deny that any such tilt exist seems disingenuous.
So I think the editorial is ill-conceived and way off the mark in singling out Peter Brent in the way that it does. His site largely confines itself to interpretation and in doing so, provides a great service. The idea that he can’t comment without the editor of The Australian ringing him up to say they are going to “go” him is disturbing.
Still, I think it is fair to say that News Ltd, including The Australian, has opened itself to comment and criticism from its readership more so than Fairfax, the other major news organisation. They have embraced readers comments and “blogs” more fully, and this site alone is evidence of that. So while most News news stories and columns allow reader comment, the same is not true of Fairfax. You can, for instance, comment on Dennis Shanahan’s and Paul Kelly’s columns, but not Michelle Grattan’s or Gerard Henderson’s.
But having embraced such an approach, they have to accept that not everyone is going to agree with them or buy into their particular take on a given issue or, indeed, their own self-image. The Australian is, of course, completely free to defend themselves, but it might also pay them to reflect on why so many people see them as the “government gazette” rather than just dismiss nearly all such criticism as “a waste of time”.
July 13th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Media, Democracy, Blogosphere, Freedom of speech |
2 comments
The Howard government reportedly had the audacity to "warn" the voters against giving the Greens and minor parties the balance of power in the Senate, stating that the government has used its Senate majority "responsibly" (and so presumably should be entitled to retain it).
According to the government "responsible" use of the Senate majority includes pushing through laws that strip almost all employee rights, abolition and/or stacking of Senate committees, preventing references to these committees, suppression of parliamentary debate, failure to answer questions on notice, or the refusal to provide the information to Senate committees, such as in relation to expenditure on government advertising.
But even their documented abuse of Senate majority aside, the government's statement reveals an arrogant sense of entitlement to rule. They have the power and they do not believe they should ever have to relinquish it. It also reveals a lack of appreciation for the role of the Senate in enabling minor parties and independents to counterbalance the power strangleholds created by rigid party discipline and major party domination of the lower house. Australian democracy functions at its best when neither major party holds the balance of power in the Senate. For the last three years (and in no small part thanks to Labor's idiotic preference allocations in 2004) the ability of the Senate to check major party power has been eroded.
The Howard government does not wish to relinquish its power over the Senate. It wants to rule absolutely. A healthy democracy requires the opposite outcome.
June 26th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Australian election, Democracy, Greens |
one comment
In a post yesterday I contended that the government (with the help of right-wing commentators) has manipulated public discourse to stigmatise expressions of opinion adverse to their ideology. The post contained a few examples from the day's newspapers.
Well, how about some more evidence from today's papers:
First, there's Wilson Tuckey, a Liberal party MP from WA. Tuckey came out with wild claims that unions would intimidate people into voting Labor and were "going to kick their door in and threaten their kids" and would "start elbowing the Liberal and Greens and other how-to-vote card workers" outside polling booths. "There won't be enough police in the countryside to protect them." he ranted.
It is incredible that Tuckey (who incidentally is famous for threatening to run over a union official) can make these sorts of statements without arousing public outrage or earning a reprimand from the government. That is because this sort of conduct has become entrenched in public discourse. When the electorate has been conditioned over the last decade into believing that dissent is an act of evil, this sort of baseless, hateful rant ceases to astound. It is ok to portray a legitimate democratic activity of lobbying as something dark and evil - doesn't matter that the assertions are ridiculous, doesn't matter that they are not backed up by a single fact or the most minute shred of evidence, never mind that Tuckey predicts the unions will engage in very crude public unlawful behaviour at the same time that Howard is complaining about the sophistication of their campaigns. Liberals don't need to be consistent to be a great tool for inspiring fear.
Not to be outdone by Tuckey's paranoid rant, the ultra-conservative commentator Piers Akerman had a few gems of his own. I have previously written about the depth of Akerman's delusions and so it is no surprise that the prospect of ACTU lobbying against the government (ie exercising its democratic rights) sent Akerman's conspiracy theorising into overdrive. His article, creatively titled "Bully boys and bodgie barbecues", is a prime example how far the conspiracy discourse has come.
Just consider Akerman's language:
"Union HQ has authorised its stormtroopers to zero in on the nearly quarter of a million members who live in marginal seats - and work on them to ensure they vote the union line.
Using computer programs rather than the brick-through-the-window terror favoured by groups such as Hitler's Nazis, Stalin's communists and Mao's Red Guard, union activists have been told to home in on church groups, faith organisations and family members."
Wow - in two sentences a legitimate democratic activity of lobbying has been compared to military operations, terrorism, Nazism, Stalinism and the worst excesses of Communism.
The fact that unions know the details of their members (Akerman seems surprised by the fact that unions would know the details that the members themselves volunteer to their union) suddenly becomes a threat: "We know who you are and we know where you live, we know how many are in your family and even if they are entitled to vote."
Hmm, every time I receive promotional mail from the Liberal party or have a lobbyist call at my door, I'll have to feel really threatened too. They obviously know where I live and who I am and that I'm entitled to vote. Never quite saw it that way before, but when the Liberal party pre-election propaganda arrives, instead of putting "return to sender" on it and dropping it back in the mail box, I'll take it to the police.
But sarcasm aside, how has it become acceptable for democratic activity to be portrayed as "an affront to democracy"?
Why is initiating an actual discussion about government policy offensive, when spending billions of taxpayer money on misleading advertising isn't?
Why aren't we hearing talk of conspiracies when a building group threatens Labor in an attempt to modify its policies or when big business lobby international organisations on behalf of the government or employer groups run advertising campaigns in support of the government?
When opposition to government is defined as an act of evil, democracy withers. The question is are we going to allow this erosion to continue?
June 14th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Media, Rudd and Labor, Unions, Australian election, Democracy |
6 comments
A healthy democratic society thrives on debate and discussion of the merits of different view points. In a healthy democracy a multitude of voices can clamour for attention, each as entitled to be heard as the next, each equally entitled to persuade and lobby.
There are several ways to undermine a healthy democracy. One is by crude show of force, for example a government arresting or assassinating those opposing it. A society used to democratic ideals wouldn't react very well to such an unsophisticated attack. A government that took such action would find itself facing strong and unrelenting opposition. Another way is gradual and subtle - stigmatise the opposition, demonise the opposing viewpoints, paint all opposition to your ideological standpoint as a dark shadowy conspiracy. You have to have patience, you have to do it gradually, you can't rush it or you'll give away the gameplan.
There is a highly sadistic experiment that illustrates the difference in effectiveness between the two approaches. Take one live frog. Put it in a pot of boiling water. The frog will jump out of the pot, it will know that it was in mortal danger. Now put a frog in a pot of cold water and heat up the water to a boil. The frog will sit there passively slowly boiling to death, unable to perceive the gradual temperature changes as a threat to its existence.
It is this latter approach that the Howard government has adopted. It has gradually, with great patience and subtlety boiled the Australian democracy. It has managed to stigmatise all opposing view points. Any opposition to the government or its policies has become a dark conspiracy, any lobbying opposing the government a con on the voters. Voting out the government at the next election is no longer seen as an exercise in democracy, but as an attempt to destroy Australia. The government has made itself the country and any opposition to it a hatred of Australia itself.
You can see this daily in public discourse. For example, consider the government's portrayal of the ACTU plan to campaign in support of Labor. Today's newspapers (at least the Australian) and parliamentary debate were full of claim of "secret campaigns" (how secret can it be if Hockey spent half the day waiving around the so-called campaign manual), and "dirty tricks". There was talk of "union apparatchiks" (yep, its that threatening Communist word) who would "infiltrate" community groups (like KGB agents, no doubt) so that the corrupt union bosses could seize power.
A perfectly legitimate democratic activity has become a conspiracy. Democratic discourse has been portrayed as dirty, illegitimate tricks. Unions that are the enemy of the government have been portrayed as the enemy of Australia. Similar lobbying or advertising by big business is ok. It is not a dirty trick, it is not a conspiracy. Australians can trust organisations whose only aim is increasing their profits. But organisations whose aim is to protect Australian workers must be seen as evil. Government lies, lack of transparency, scaremongering or two billion dollar taxpayer funded advertising campaigns are legitimate. Lobbying for the Labor party is not. It is a conspiracy to "trick" the voters into supporting Labor.
In the same vein, and again, today, Julia Gillard's questioning about the governments undisclosed plans to force 20% of the Australian workforce on AWAs and about the deliberately misleading economic "studies" commissioned by the government (designed to give the answers the government wants) is nothing more than "visceral hatred of AWAs". The government does not have to account for its underhanded activities or plans that it neglected to share with the electorate. The challenge to the government is nothing more than hatred, not an exercise in democracy by an elected representative of the Australian. people.
If you read the newspapers regularly, you'll see examples of this erosion of democracy almost everyday. And it is working. The government's popularity in opinion polls (for all that they are worth) is rising.
We have allowed the government to convince us that opposition to it is an illegitimate conspiracy. We have allowed the government to brainwash us into believing that exercising our democratic choice in a way it doesn't approve of is nothing more than falling victim to deception. We have allowed healthy democracy to become a taboo.
It is not my contention that we should all chose Labor, only that we should chose. That our choice should be based on merits of competing discourses and not in a deluded belief that by not supporting the government we are partaking in a conspiracy to destroy Australia.
Thanks for reading, and please jump out of the pot, before the water comes to a boil.
June 13th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Political advertising, Rudd and Labor, Unions, Democracy |
one comment
RSS
