[Via Frank Calabrese in comments] Beyond belief - what is this, Putin’s Russia or something?
Special Minister of State Gary Nairn confirmed last night he had referred the ACTU’s six-step election battle plan to the AEC, claiming it was an “apparent breach” of the Electoral Act.
And the Oz reports it :
As if the AEC has found there is a case to answer, not just a Nairn stunt.
Not exactly balanced and fair coverage, but what would you expect?
You would expect a major news organisation to be careful when publishing contact phone numbers in a leaked document.
That struck me as well, FdG, when I was reading it last night (via the Australian’s website).
The OZ is like FOX news Neither fair nor Balanced,if I was Rudd and Labour I would grit my teeth carry on and store all of Murdocks crappy cover away.
Then if they win its payback time, and either NEWs ltd is looking for a whole new set of people or NEWs ltd papers get shut right out.
Revenge is best served cold
I read it too Mark but your comprehension skills are way better than little ol’ mine. Maybe you can point me to the “dirty tricks” section? The “oafish and unprofessional” (to quote Matt Price today) bits? I read and read and read and just couldn’t see it.
I’m getting a bit worried about my reading skills and cognitive processing abilities. Because I had the same problem with the Dean Mighell transcript. I scoured it for the illegal or even remotely significant parts but … nothing.
Maybe I should see a doctor?
I think it’s illegal to mention churches, sporting clubs, meals on wheels and unions in the same document, Amanda!
It’s very much like Putin’s Russia, yes. I’m not sure what the AEC investigations of Liberal MPs Santo Santoro and Neil Griffiths suggest, though. Maybe ‘Castro’s Cuba’?
In related news, the Fairfax press notes: “According to a leaked copy of an ACTU election manual, swinging voters who are asked about the Coalition’s workplace laws will have their comments noted in a central database and could find their phrases repeated back to them in later calls to amplify their fears.”
Ah, the politics of fear, union-style. Very clever.
BBB
You don’t think Liberal Party campaigners might not follow a similar procedure? It’s astonishing that somehow if something is done by unions, it’s potentially horrendous, but…
All the people being called are union members!
Regardless of the politics involved in this instance, I’d actually love to see a major news organisation stripped of official recognition. Imagine having to analyse policy from the perspective of those affected by the policy, rather than a quick rehash of the minister’s press release followed by a knee-jerk from the Opposition. The pack mentality and timid reporting would fade, and you’d have to lose people like Dennis Shanahan and Glenn Milne - but we all must make sacrifices.
Who better to do that than an organisation that has the capacity to old out against a sustained campaign by the Australian government? Sweet are the uses of adversity, and all that.
Telemarketing script for Liberal phone canvassers in marginal electorates at the next election:
“Good Evening. Is that [insert voter name here]”.
On getting the voter to the telephone:
“[Insert voter name here] I’m calling on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia. I’d like to talk to you about the Government’s policies for its next term of office but first I’d like to ask you a few questions to confirm your identity for the purposes of the Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing Act 2006.
“No [insert voter name here], I’m sure you’re not a money launderer or terrorist …”
It would be interesting to know the reasons why so many ACTU members are likely to vote for the coalition.
It would be, and that’s no doubt something the ACTU is finding out about.
Worth remembering though that there’s never been a monolithic bloc vote for Labor from unionists. 60-40 in Labor’s favour is about as good as it gets.
“It would be interesting to know the reasons why so many ACTU members are likely to vote for the coalition.”
It’s always been the case that large numbers of people who belong to trade unions vote for the coalition.
One reason is that unions are successful at what they set out to do, which is to ensure that their members are well paid. The more people get paid the more likely they are to vote conservative because they think, with some justification, that a coalition government is more likely to cut their income taxes.
Another reason is that people who belong to trade unions tend to have a lower-middle class background and such people are socially conservative.
Of course these statements are generalisations but they tend to be true.
The AEC will inquire about the Prime Minister’s Kirribilli House extravaganza.
Apparently not reported on the front page of ‘The Australian’. Funny that!
Watching 7.30 report last night, I was taken with a strong urge to throw large objects at my TV when Hockey was on. His utter bullsh*t about the ACTU’s campagin as being bad versus the Constructor’s Association being good, when the former’s strategy outlined persuasion and the latter’s coercion was out-figgin-rageous. How that man kept a straight face I will never know. Disgusting.
Oh dear…. the Libs have found another way to remind the electorate about how bad the unions are… what a disaster.
I guess this shows just how ham-fisted the union movement has become (first the Dean Mighell circus and now this). What did they think the reaction would be to this election strategy if it became public? Just plain dumb.
What a clever politician Howard is.
What, now Howard himself is the subject of an AEC investigation? Putin’s Russia strikes again, Mark!
BBB
The difference is that Howard may have breached the Act by using public facilities for private campaigning purposes. The ACTU is seeking to exercise its democratic rights.
But isn’t any move to overthrow the Government illegal under the sedition laws? Wouldn’t that include even campaigning against them if a Government decided that?
I asked my local Federal MP about this and the silence was deafening.
What did they think the reaction would be to this election strategy if it became public?
I expect the public reaction to be, on the whole, a massive shrug.
As it is to most of the Oz’s beat ups on this issue.
“Campaigning against government illegal, government alleges”
Mark, isn’t it already illegal to physically protest against controversial exports such as mulesed sheep?
The Union Movement in Oz is as knackered as the poor bloody sheep, yet Team Rodent flay them still. Neutering isn’t enough, it seems, if there is a whiff of electoral advantage to be gained by going in boots-and-all. This is “Tory Mortein”, and the Libs will stick to it like the good thing it is, until it’s defused with the relentless ridicule it deserves. Team Rodent’s attack echoes the “36 Faceless Men” propaganda that Menzies used to paint Labour Red, to great effect, in the Fifties and Sixties.
“Maybe you can point me to the “dirty tricksâ€? section?”
Amanda, perhaps you could pursue this line of inquiry furthur with a certain Miss Keeler. She’s very experienced.
Because only unions can possibly be thugs, innit!
Mark,
No doubt the AEC’s investigation will arrive at the right conclusion and the ACTU will be able to campaign as it sees fit. However, you clearly suggested that the referring of a complaint to the AEC was analagous to the goings on of ‘Putin’s Russia’. Faced with multiple AEC complaints and investigations with respect to the Government’s activities and those of individual Government MPs, surely you can now acknowledge that your rhetorical question was absurd.
Steve D,
Could you enlighten us as to how the ACTU, or any other political organisation, intends to indulge in ‘force or violence’, which I understand is a key element of those particular sedition offences that relate to the overthrow of the Government? Now I’m no sedition law expert, so I’m more than happy to be corrected on that front, but perhaps your MP’s silence was a function more of the profound idiocy of the question, rather than any inability to answer it thoroughly?
BBB
“I expect the public reaction to be, on the whole, a massive shrug. As it is to most of the Oz’s beat ups on this issue.”
That’s exactly the point Amanda… it’s a beat-up… that’s what happens in politics. It’s just very silly to put yourself in a position to be ‘beaten up’. What a silly document from the ACTU… it was inevitably going to be leaked to the media and then ‘beaten up’ by the Libs. Smart politics from the Libs - more shooting own foot from the unions.
Well, Andrew, the document was produced in February so it took a long time to leak. I can’t see why it’s a “silly” document - any organisation involved in campaigning produces something similar.
BBB, consider the difference between complaints about one incident and a complaint from the incumbent government which appears to be designed to frustrate a major campaign against them.
11 years and no clue found thus far. I’m not convinced that the ACTU are engaged in a serious information-gathering exercise, or even a “listening tour”. The ACTU are transmitting, not receiving let alone interacting. If they fail to rally members to the ALP cause, there is no reason why the ALP or anyone else need listen to them about anything ever again.
If that were true, it wouldn’t explain the steady decline in union membership.
Didn’t work in 1972, didn’t work in 1983, and the fact that it is being trotted out now is a sign of panic. You didn’t see this in 1996 because the Libs had so much going for them, they didn’t need it. Same with Tampa and September 11 in 2001. There are no more rabbits in the magician’s hat, nothing at all except what comes off the top of the head of whoever’s wearing it.
There are a lot of factors operating. One big one being most employers are far less likely to accept employees becoming union members. I have to dash in a moment, but there have been attempts in the literature - for instance by David Peetz - to use regression analysis to estimate the weight of the various factors contributing to union decline. Unfortunately, it’s not a literature I’ve looked at in the last couple of years, but it’s out there, should anywone be interested.
“The 7:30 Report has obtained boardroom papers from the Australian Constructors Association, representing employers of about 50,000 workers in the construction industry, that details a strategy to “coerce” Labor Party leaders Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard to water down their opposition to WorkChoices.”
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1950602.htm
‘Associations’ are not ‘unions’ because the spelling is different and the first is part of the forces for ‘good’ and the latter controlled by ‘union bosses’ and basically ‘evil’.
Got that? Now when is Aunty going to release those boardroom papers for everyone to see?
Mark seems a bit bemused by the claim of illegality, so I’ll have a crack at explaining what the Government is alleging, and why I think it’s probably a crock.
According to press reports, Gary Nairn’s complaint relates to ss 90B, 91A & 91B of the Electoral Act, and in particular the provision of information by Magenta Linas to the ACTU. Magenta Linas runs the ALP’s voter databases. MPs and registered political parties are entitled to access AEC data that is not available to the general public. This information includes information about electors’ ages, genders, occupations,
and (where available) telephone numbers[corrected after Anna pointed out this error].It is reasonably clear that the Government is suggesting Magentas Linas has passed on some of that restricted information to the ACTU, and that the ALP’s database is being used to call people.
It is difficult to see why this would be necessary. Unions already have membership databases, and over the last decade (esp since Combet took over at the ACTU) they have been using technology to improve their records. The unions’ campaign document is quite explicit about the fact that the Magenta Linas software compares the union membership data with the roll to find matches. There is nothing wrong with this.
The only brief concern I had was that the ACTU tells unions that Magenta Linas “provide[s] the additional information, in particular telephone numbers.” I was concerned because “additional information” is the term used by the Electoral Act to describe the extra information that politicians get but others don’t.
However, telephone numbers are not part of that information. Furthermore, the detailed explanation of the Magenta Linas process says: “Some people have published mobile numbers in the directory, and if available will be supplied.” This suggests that Magenta Linas has obtained telephone numbers from the phone book. There is nothing illegal about that.
So on the evidence we’ve got, there’s no reason to think that the ACTU has done anything in breach of the electoral act.
Howard, on the other hand…
Oh Beautiful.
and then Ben Duggin of Canberra College goes in for the kill:
You can read it all here.
Relevance to this thread (sorry, but the stuff I quoted before was just too good to resist): The last paragraph (put your tinfoil hats and full canvas jackets on, pollies!)
Of course!!
These kids have been coached by TEH EVIL UNIONS (and of course, the school boards who are merely their creatures…)
Priceless! *wiping tears*
I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that the AEC doesn’t provide telephone numbers – Telstra/Sensis does. They have the white pages available electronically, and Magenta Linas have developed the software to match names and addresses on the AEC’s rolls with phone numbers from Telstra.
So, basically, information available to anyone, combined with impressive software that makes it easier to sift through.
That’s one, and I don’t discount it but indifference is proving far more potent than repression. People get payrises without overt and direct union help, and unions are bugger-all help in getting you upwardly mobile, so many consider unions in the same light as they would mammary glands on male cattle, ashtrays on motorbikes, etc.
There is a whiff of last-gasp desperation in all of this, and not just by the Howard government.
Nairn’s complaint to the AEC is reminiscent of citing George Pell for contempt of the NSW Parliament: all part of the game.
Howard, on the other hand…
Let’s see - a little matter of printers & invoices in Queensland…
Changes to the Electoral Act which will close the rolls within 24 hours for newly enrolling voters of the election being called & 72 hours for people wishing to change address details. As AEC bureaucrats have pointed out, this will cause the rolls to be LESS accurate than the Government’s claimed improvement. & will affect up to 400 000 voters..
The exclusion of prisoners from the right to vote - these new provisions will be the most draconian among liberal democracies & will discriminate against men 18-35 & young Aboriginal men in particular…
& what exactly is the Liberal Party’s relationship with the Exclusive Brethren?
None of which is illegal when you can change the law without the troubling presence of a hostile Senate, or media willing to point to the emperor’s less than democratic dress sense…
Anna, you’re dead right. As I point out later in the comment, telephone numbers aren’t part of what the AEC can provide.
Update: AEC investigation on the Kirribilly Affair now gets top billing on the ‘Australian’ online version.
First of, thanks for giving me credit for the original article
Secondly, BOTH major political parties have elector databases linked to the AEC where elected members can use as the wish - another fine example of Ratty’s hypocrisy at work.
Now, Iron Bar is at his usal high standard of work as illustrated below:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21903856-5005361,00.html
Apologies, Atticus. I missed that
OK, let’s accept that 40% of trade unionists do not vote Labor. Why is it that unions get representation to ALP conferences, preselections and other decision-making forums based on membership? If it were possible to mobilise non-Labor voters in union elections, you could make merry hell with the entire Australian Labor Party, its structures and finances. Hell, the Communists tried this and would have succeeded with a bit of focus.
Perhaps we should all be checking under our beds before we say our prayers just in case Evil Union Bosses may be lurking there with the Bogey Man, the Cookie Monster or disgruntled underemployed Satanists.
“They [union bosses] are going into churches, they’ll go into Meals on Wheels, they’ll go into any group to try and get the message out that people should vote for Kevin Rudd and Labor at the next election.”
So said “Laughing” Joe Hockey recently on the 7:30 Report.
The price of Rodentism is eternal fearfulness.
Helen, Beautiful indeed, even Ms Julie must have felt wit this barbed from one so young.
“Ben Duggin, from Canberra College, asked how she (EdMin JB) would teach the Howard Government era in 30 years. “Would you make relevance to AWB … the children overboard, Iraq, or would you say they were the greatest economic managers of this century?â€?
What a complete furphy.
No legal issues whatsoever are raised by a union having their members contact details, and using these to contact them.
Howard on the other hand, looks in trouble with the AEC
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21903734-601,00.html
A bit of focus!? It would require getting control of about 5 different unions all at the same time, getting enough members of each of those unions to vote for you, then actually, you know, running those unions in your spare time.
And here is the AEC Media Release.
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Media_releases/2007/06_14.htm
In light of the AEC’s statement and this quote from the Oz
“When contacted again by The Australian, Mr Bodel said: “Basically, I’ve been told to shut up.â€? ”
WTF ???
More “openness and transparency” I assume ?
Andrew E those unions would just disaffiliate from the ALP.
The unions have the bloc vote in the ALP because of historical circumstances. They did create the ALP you know. How the exact nature of the relationship should work or change is another debate.
Well I’m more curious as to which unions did membership fall in. There are some shit unions like the SDA but some good ones as well which most likely had membership increases.
In regards to falling membership there’s also the issue of non-union members getting the benefits of collective bargaining (and minimum wage increases) when done by a union. There’s an example of a free riding problem the government went out of its way to keep by fighting bargaining fees.
I’m a bit gobsmacked by this. The ACTU appears to be doing what any number of other organizations do in the lead-up to an election. While I’m pretty sure the AEC will clear them the electoral damage has been done, this was a dirty move by the Libs.
According to the SMH Howard has been cleared by the AEC over the party at Kirribilli house. [link]
PAUL KEATING: “Basically keep unions, look, any Labor Party that turns its back on a collective group of people is no Labor Party at all.
But that doesn’t mean to say they have to become apologists for lolling about. I mean you take the instance, the liquor allied entertainment restaurants, entertainment industry in this country since the ’80s.
It’s been massive.
Unionisation hasn’t happened.
There’s some of it there, basically hasn’t happened.
Why? Incompetence.”
A recent reflection on reasons for the “steady decline in union membership”.
Most interesting, that the new leader of the ACTU has been drafted from the hospitality industry.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21896086-2862,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21905414-5005361,00.html
Considering a Dangerous Precedent has been set, May I suggest Rudd, immediately upon becoming PM hold a “Thank You Party, for all ALP Supporters and their Guests
Yep, Frank all bases would be well covered if the invitation included …
“byo and ladies, bring a plate”.
The retro theme party would be a winner.
An invitation to an AEC representive, important.
Just make sure that the sherry is liberally available.
And keep an eye on the Hillsong happy clappers, who may piss off with the G.G.’s port.
Just to clarify things Joe2 there’s one thing you need to know about the LHMU. It’s divided into two divisions. Lawrence comes from the Miscellaneous Division which is aligned to the Labor Left. Misc Division looks after security guards, cleaners, child care workers and some other industries (some paint and bread factories)
The Liquor and Hospitality Division of the LHMU is controlled by the Labor Right and has failed to organise those areas successfully. (This isn’t to say that unions aligned to the Labor Right are all shit as the TWU is very good)
It was the result of the amalgamations that happened years ago. A similar split exists within the FSU with the division that covers the Commonwealth Bank (a historical product of when the bank was government owned).
Thanks for the clarification Oz. The hospitality industry is the area most prone to exploitation for new entrants to the workforce. Also, the most obvious doorstep for future union members.
Left and right fights there?
“Incompetance” or ‘death wish’, sounds closer to the mark.
I would ‘not’ suggest, union reps be paid an extra bonus for the number of punters they can sign up, with the banjo, guitar and harmonica at the formative, young persons’ workplace.
But what the hell are they doing?
I don’t know what the Liquor and Hospitality Division are doing but the Miscellaneous Division works their arses off, having seen it first hand after doing an internship there. They’ve been doing lots of good work, in particular with the Cleanstart campaign and trying to organise child care workers. It made me appreciate how hard many union organisers work.
There really aren’t any fights between Left and Right (to the best of my knowledge). There really is no reason for it since they cover different areas. It’s more just a general comment on how union amalgamations could’ve been done better instead of having a union which is essentially two unions.
It’s easier said than done to get people to join a union especially in areas that have casual employment and cash in hand. You could point out to a worker that they weren’t getting paid properly and not getting their basic award entitlements but it was still difficult to get them to join. I saw that firsthand with some cleaners.
Also in regards to Helen’s post, I heard that Talkback Classroom may not get continued funding after 2008 because the National Museum of Australia has discontinued its backing. It would be a shame as it’s one of the few opportunities young people actually have to directly question MPs (plus it usually results in them saying really stupid things).
Oz, do you think that it would have helped to offer a ‘free six month membership’ to the cleaners? Then show them, during that period, how better off they are.
…and then offer a membership, according to means ?
It depends. I don’t think it was so much an issue about paying money for membership dues. I suspect it was because quite a number of cleaners are international students who were getting paid cash in hand but under the award rates (at that time). They have limitations to working only 20 hours a week on their visas. If they are found to breach their visas they get deported. For others there would also be the concern about losing their job.
For example, at the same place, one of the security guards who was on patrol wasn’t able to talk about his contract because it was a AWA plus there was surveillance from CCTV so management could see where the union organiser was and who he was talking to.
It seems Ratty is fond of a drinkies occasion on the public purse.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1951846.htm
The Mad Monk has no clue.
While on the other hand:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21909294-1702,00.html
Me does think he speaketh of Double Standards.
headline in the following is rather amusing, in a sick kind of way:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1951846.htm
“Labor wants wider probe into PM’s party functions”
wider catheter?
three fingered prostate exam ?
ok….that was too crude
sorry
TEH Mad Monk, quoted by Frank Calabrese:
“there is a world of difference between someone inviting people to a private home …”
So Kirribilli is a “private home”, now?
I think I have TEH KEY to Winning Elections, Solving The Housing Affordability Crisis, and Mopping Up The Last Hints Of Underemployment.
The Next Federal Government will win power by defining “Private Homes” as residences provided, furnished and generously staffed by the taxpayer, situated in whatever prime spot you like, with free commuting to Your Job laid on, also by the taxpayer. For All Australians.