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.
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.
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.
Banner Designed By:
