November 2005 Archives

Heard on ABC PM program while driving home tonight ...

The National Party joined with the Labor state government in the Queensland parliament today to pass a motion calling on Australian Parliament senators to reject the new Federal IR bill.

It would appear that the Nationals think they're on an electoral 'hiding to nothing' if the bill becomes law.

The is a very interesting development. Barnaby Joyce, the Queensland National senator who effectively holds the balance of power may well be influenced by the Queensland National's sentiments.

It's going to be very interesting in Canberra next week.

I have no doubt that once these changes go through, then the experience will fall well short of the catastrophe being predicted by our opponents, and the public will, in my judgement, make appropriate assessments.

This is John Howard convincing himself that life will go on as normal after the IR changes are passed into law next week. It shows a lack of understanding of the reasons why so many people are concerned.

Howard thinks that people are opposed to the changes purely out of self interest. He can't understand why unaffected people could be worried about the bottom 30% of the population who will bear the brunt of these changes.

He hopes that this majority will be lulled when the predicted economic boost occurs at the expense of the minority who can least afford it. It shows how conservatives of his ilk are motivated only out of self interest. They can't imagine that many people could be concerned for others for solely altruistic reasons.

He thinks this indifference will get him over the line at the next election. I think he's mistaken. Many of the unaffected will know someone who is disadvantaged by the changes, be it a relative or friend, and will vote accordingly.

He disregards the votes of those who will be most effected by these changes, many who live on the city fringes where the government has won seats at the expense of Labor. Unlike in the US, from where this attempt at creating a class of working poor is modelled, the poor in Australia do vote.

For a blog that started off as political commentary, there's been a lot on sport here lately. Forgive me, my few regular readers. It's because the political scene is so depressing! The lure of recent sporting events is irresistible by comparison.

Last night I caught the replay of the Australia / Uruguay game on SBS. I was interested to see if my recollections were accurate. In the main, they were.

The SBS commentators deserve a medal for restraint. A few jaded comments regarding the whistle happy referee, and one observer got a little anguished at the Uruguay coach throwing the ball into the back of an Australian player, but that was it.

Or am I missing something? Perhaps eratic refereeing is normal for the code.

One thing that didn't come across on the TV was the crowd noise; noise made by 82,000 people who'd seen enough disappointment to last a lifetime. Ignoring the disgraceful booing that occurred during the Uruguayan national anthem, I think it is the crowd's reaction to the night's proceedings that will stay with me.

So the big question is ... will this win, the change of qualifying region, and the World Cup appearance really push out the other football codes into oblivion, as has been suggested by the code's diehards?

Twin One and I attended at the Soccer World Cup qualifier tonight at Telstra Stadium. A few observations follow.

It was the noisiest football match I've attended (all codes), and I've attended many. It made for an electric atmosphere. The crowd was well behaved and enthusiastic. Lots of Wallaby jumpers to be seen.

The visitors were experts at gamemanship. There seemed to be a ruckus about the state of the game ball at the start of the match. Am I being too cynical by thinking this was an early ploy to unsettle the home team? They continually niggled the opposition and milked every advantage they could.

The refereeing was appalling, by far the the worst I've seen. Without the benefit of watching the game on TV, it appeared that many blatant infringements by the visitors were, at best, not seen, or at worst, ignored. For example, early in the game and after an Australian corner, a Uruguayan player seemed to punch an Australian player in the jaw. He should have been sent off. Instead, no action was taken.

The old soccer tradition of taking a minor knock and going down in a screaming heap is alive and well.

The Australian goal was a wonderful thing. Great build up and execution. It was a pity they couldn't repeat it, but then they were playing against a team of 12 players.

Penalty shoot-outs are the worst way of deciding a game. My darkest fear was realised. After been entertained by watching two hours of engrossing play, and I don't state this lightly as it's not my favourite game, it came down to a few penalty shots to decide the outcome. What a shame it had to end that way. Surely there must be a better way?

So, the Australians are on their way to Germany, the soccer establishment can step up their predictions that the game will supercede all others, and SBS can look forward to high ratings next year. Interesting times ahead.

For Australian and Uruguayan soccer tragics, tomorrow Wednesday is the big day. There's a lot of optimism in the home camp that the Socceroos can qualify for the big one for the first time since 1974.

As for the rest of us who take a passing interest in other football codes, we wonder if the local team has the talent to score two goals against the South Americans. After all, the Uruguay coach only has to stand his team in the goal mouth for 90 minutes to progress to Germany next year.

Surprisingly for some, I'm attending the game with my daughter tomorrow (oops) Wednesday night. It's my first live soccer game since the Sydney Olympics. Then, Australia lost to a team (I can't remember which one!) that continually feigned injury to disrupt the flow of the game to the home team's disadvantage. It was frustrating as hell to watch. I kept on thinking that the game should just continue if a player's down and no infringement was paid as a means to end the blatant time wasting.

Oh well, different sport, different culture.

So, good luck to the Socceroos. Take some risks, you've got nothing to lose.

And ... please, PLEASE, don't let it be decided by a penalty shootout!

I was in Melbourne this week when news of the arrest of the alleged terrorist conspirators hit the airwaves. It would appear John Howard was vindicated for his conveniently timed news that there was trouble brewing and a legislative change was needed. A lot of conservative commentators thought so.

But was he?

Apparently the authorities who were monitoring the activities of the alleged conspirators were less than impressed by JWH's very public revelations.

At the highest levels of the NSW Police, there was serious concern that the Prime Minister's remarks and the media frenzy they provoked would tip off the Pendennis suspects and compromise the operation.

This begs the question why JWH thought he needed to broadcast the news when he already had agreement from the Labor opposition that they would pass the amendments.

Howard went to bed that night knowing he'd tied up support for his amendment. The next day, just before question time, he called his extraordinary press conference announcing he had "specific intelligence" and police information which gives "serious concern about a potential terrorist threat".

Surely, in the light of the sensitive investigations that were happening at the time the whole legislative thing could have been done quietly?

Did JWH jeopardise the police operation for political ends, to divert attention from the universally hated IR changes?

While doing my blog rounds I chanced on Troppo contributor Nicholas Gruen's piece asking the question "where were you on 11 November 1975?" Have to admit I was taken back; was it really 30 years ago when Gough Whitlam's government was dismissed by the then Governor General, Sir John Kerr?

The answer to Nicholas's question is easy. It was the year after I completed my HSC, and the first my first year of an engineering apprenticeship with a large government organisation. I was attending technical college full time for one semester to complete the first two years of the trade course. On the afternoon of 11 November, 1975, I was doing a practical session in the college's machine shop. It was then I heard the news.

Unlike one of my instructors who I remember being particularly incensed at the event, I wasn't particularly upset at the time as my political views were fairly conservative. Like most Australians, I didn't realise the gravity of what had happened, and was glad to see the back of the Whitlam government.

The event wasn't without personal consequence, however. The dismissal of Whitlam, and the shenanigans of Joh Bejelke-Peterson and his role in the dismissal kicked off my interest in politics. It wasn't until some time later that I realised the scope of good reform instigated by the Whitlam government, and the ramifications of Kerr's actions.

It's ironic that Whitlam's chief protagonist, Malcolm Fraser, is now the smallest of "Small L" liberals. When the drama was unfolding, he was seen as the devil incarnate by Labor supporters. Now it would seem he'd be more at home as a Labor leader than heading the group of miserable arch conservatives that are our present government.

Of course it is!

The Prime Minister has rejected suggestions his announcement that Australia is facing a possible terrorist threat has been timed to avoid scrutiny of the industrial relations and counter-terrorism laws.

There's no accounting for luck, is there?

However, Mr Howard has refused to outline the details of the threat.

Why would he tell us any details? We weren't supposed to know anything about the anti-terrorist legislation, and that obviously extends to details of threats.

Assuming that there are any details to be had, it's just bad luck that we're the ones who don't have the luxury of 24 hour protection, and are in the line of fire if this latest revelation happens to be true.