EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 16.09.09.
The dramatic announcement by Senator Stephen Conroy that Telstra will be required to separate its wholesale and retail activities has met with a mixed reaction. While competitors and consumer groups have welcomed the reform, claiming that it will promote better competition and better service for customers, shareholders might be entitled to feel somewhat upset. The immediate response in the share market was for a drop in the price of Telstra shares which wiped out almost $2 billion of value and left the shares trading at less than the price at which they were originally sold more than a decade ago.
The plan itself seems to be a circuit breaker intended to force Telstra to confront the 21st century reality of both new technology and new government policy. It is in the best interests of consumers, and the national interest, to construct a national broadband network which provides a platform for a range of service providers to compete on an equal footing, delivering the cost benefits of genuine competition. It may even be in the best interests of Telstra and its shareholders to work with the government to fold its network structure into the new National Broadband Network if it can negotiate a reasonable deal. But that is debatable, and the immediate reaction in the market would appear to indicate that investors are not looking at the plan as an opportunity, but as an obstacle.
The impact on shareholders is important for several reasons. Firstly, there are so many of them who are so called Mum and Dad investors who bought shares in good faith from a government who implied that they would be a great investment. Secondly, it’s not just direct shareholders. It’s also the millions of Australians who have some of their superannuation money invested in Telstra shares. Thirdly, this episode illustrates the inherent problem, the intrinsic conflict of interest, involved in a government selling what should be public infrastructure into private ownership. In doing so the government has an obligation to achieve the best price possible while at the same time it has an obligation not to defraud its own constituents by selling them a pup.
While Telstra hasn’t exactly been a pup for people who sold out at the right price, or even those who hung on and enjoyed very healthy dividends over the years, the point is that the process has delivered a result which has not been entirely in the public interest, nor entirely in the interest of individuals who bought the shares. But now that the government is no longer a shareholder, its only obligation is to the national interest. And since this is a new government without the political baggage of the previous government, it can rightly claim that it was not this government who caused the problem in the first place when Telstra was sold in one piece creating an inherent market imbalance which must be addressed one way or another.
Despite the concern that shareholders can justifiably feel shortchanged, the plan to force the structural separation of Telstra does provide both a remedy to the mistakes of the past, and a platform for the future. And even though Telstra may face some uncertainty, the fact is that the company was already moving away from its reliance on the old technology copper wire network, and expanding its mobile phone and internet business. Although Stephen Conroy has been accused of putting a gun to Telstra’s head, all he has really done is to accelerate the inevitable, and the sooner Telstra comes to terms with that, the better off their shareholders will be.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Is Dennis Ferguson More Important Than Pensioners?
EDITORIAL TUESDAY 15.09.09.
For many weeks now, I have been receiving correspondence from a public housing tenant who has a number of unresolved maintenance issues. The reason they are unresolved is that she suffers from a number of psychological disorders including extreme social anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, and depression. These ailments have been verified by at least two clinical psychologists who have provided written statements to the housing department, and copies of which I have received. These extreme disorders result in her inability to cope with the intrusion of strangers coming into her home to carry out the required repairs.
Having once been temporarily relocated to a motel while a bath was replaced, this public housing tenant is requesting the same relocation procedure again to allow the repairs to take place. Others, including church social workers, council officers, and even a senior federal politician have made representations on her behalf. I have been advised by representatives of the department that the nature of the repairs is such that any temporary relocation is not warranted, which may well be true, but completely ignores the mental health issues which are involved. I have been advised that the department cannot justify spending taxpayers’ money on providing motel accommodation for this tenant.
To be fair to the department, numerous attempts have been made to obtain entry to assess and carry out the repairs. The tenant has on some occasions refused entry because of her psychological condition. It would seem, however, that at some point it would actually be more cost effective to provide the temporary accommodation and finalise the repairs, rather than waste money on repeatedly engaging contractors who are prevented from carrying out their work. Or perhaps it is the principle of the matter which is at stake. Perhaps, the department officials who have decided that temporary relocation is a waste of taxpayers’ money are simply refusing to back down.
We know that the repairs need to be done. We know that the department temporarily relocated the tenant on a previous occasion, and that despite promises that the bathroom repairs would be completed while she was away, it was left half done. We know that despite repeated representations, the matter has not been resolved. We know that the mental health issues are genuine. And that is the crucial point. Despite recommendations from mental health experts, the department has indicated that it will seek to obtain an order from the Consumer Trader And Tenancy Tribunal to force access. Surely, such a step is tantamount to torture for an individual suffering from such severe psychological disabilities.
On the other hand, we have now learned that the infamous convicted paedophile Dennis Ferguson has been accommodated by Housing New South Wales at an address in Ryde. Local residents have been outraged that not only has he been allowed to live in their area, close to schools and surrounded by families, but that he has done so with the assistance of taxpayers’ money. They are wondering why taxpayers’ money should be spent on accommodating a reject from another state who is a known danger to the community. And yet, that’s the same taxpayer’s money that the department won’t spend on assisting a pensioner with severe mental health problems and a toilet that leaks all over the floor.
I can’t help but wonder just where the taxpayers of New South Wales would prefer their money to be spent.
For many weeks now, I have been receiving correspondence from a public housing tenant who has a number of unresolved maintenance issues. The reason they are unresolved is that she suffers from a number of psychological disorders including extreme social anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, and depression. These ailments have been verified by at least two clinical psychologists who have provided written statements to the housing department, and copies of which I have received. These extreme disorders result in her inability to cope with the intrusion of strangers coming into her home to carry out the required repairs.
Having once been temporarily relocated to a motel while a bath was replaced, this public housing tenant is requesting the same relocation procedure again to allow the repairs to take place. Others, including church social workers, council officers, and even a senior federal politician have made representations on her behalf. I have been advised by representatives of the department that the nature of the repairs is such that any temporary relocation is not warranted, which may well be true, but completely ignores the mental health issues which are involved. I have been advised that the department cannot justify spending taxpayers’ money on providing motel accommodation for this tenant.
To be fair to the department, numerous attempts have been made to obtain entry to assess and carry out the repairs. The tenant has on some occasions refused entry because of her psychological condition. It would seem, however, that at some point it would actually be more cost effective to provide the temporary accommodation and finalise the repairs, rather than waste money on repeatedly engaging contractors who are prevented from carrying out their work. Or perhaps it is the principle of the matter which is at stake. Perhaps, the department officials who have decided that temporary relocation is a waste of taxpayers’ money are simply refusing to back down.
We know that the repairs need to be done. We know that the department temporarily relocated the tenant on a previous occasion, and that despite promises that the bathroom repairs would be completed while she was away, it was left half done. We know that despite repeated representations, the matter has not been resolved. We know that the mental health issues are genuine. And that is the crucial point. Despite recommendations from mental health experts, the department has indicated that it will seek to obtain an order from the Consumer Trader And Tenancy Tribunal to force access. Surely, such a step is tantamount to torture for an individual suffering from such severe psychological disabilities.
On the other hand, we have now learned that the infamous convicted paedophile Dennis Ferguson has been accommodated by Housing New South Wales at an address in Ryde. Local residents have been outraged that not only has he been allowed to live in their area, close to schools and surrounded by families, but that he has done so with the assistance of taxpayers’ money. They are wondering why taxpayers’ money should be spent on accommodating a reject from another state who is a known danger to the community. And yet, that’s the same taxpayer’s money that the department won’t spend on assisting a pensioner with severe mental health problems and a toilet that leaks all over the floor.
I can’t help but wonder just where the taxpayers of New South Wales would prefer their money to be spent.
Flogging The Dead Horse Of Work Choices
EDITORIAL MONDAY 14.09.09.
It appears that the federal opposition simply cannot resist flogging the dead horse of Work Choices. Liberal Leader Malcolm Turnbull has refused to rule out a return to individual workplace contracts, saying that “By reducing flexibility in the workplace they have put, we would say, real constraints on productivity growth.” He went on to say “We believe that flexibility in the workplace is of enormous importance.” The trouble with that however is that individual contracts do not necessarily ensure flexibility in the workplace, just as Work Choices did not offer workers greater choices, but in fact reduced their choices.
That’s not to say that individual contracts are always intrinsically bad, or that they do not have a possible place in the workplace. Individual contracts can work well for workers who command a strong negotiating position. The evidence has been seen in the high rates of pay available in industries grappling with a shortage of skills and booming demand, such as the mining sector when the resources boom was running hot. However, if the individual worker does not command a strong negotiating position, he essentially has no choice at all but to sign whatever contract is offered. That’s why a return to a strong framework of award rates and conditions has been essential to guaranteeing a fair go for employees.
Yet, Mr. Turnbull persists with the argument that what he calls flexibility promotes productivity growth. The truth is that it does, but it all depends on how you define flexibility and productivity, and how you measure the economic outcome. If all that matters is that you achieve maximum output at minimum cost, then it is plain common sense to see that making employees work longer for lower pay will achieve exactly that. The company bottom line looks terrific, and the gross national product looks impressive so long as there are still enough jobs to keep unemployment under control, but one crucial factor is completely overlooked. That is the question of just who it is that enjoys the benefit of that productivity growth.
The fact that the economy might be powering along pumping out terrific growth figures doesn’t do much to reassure workers who are not participating in the benefits of that prosperity because they have been forced to sign work agreements that leave them out in the cold. Instead, it is the big companies, the directors, the executives and the shareholders who prosper because they have the benefit of the bargaining power in any contract negotiation. The idea that individual workers experience any kind of “choice” when negotiating with a corporate giant, or even a medium sized enterprise, is utterly ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that a company, whether it is a major corporation or a modest business, is a collective entity with resources much more massive than any individual. It is a different kind of collective from unions or co-operatives or other entities, but it is a collective. It might be considered collectivized capital, just as unions are considered collectivized labour. The idea that reducing the power of collectivized labour could somehow make the system fairer is just simply wrong because the individual worker is quite clearly at a disadvantage.
The idea that it is more productive is also dubious, because if the economic system hacks the heart out of workers entitlements it begins to undermine its own foundation. In a consumer economy, the consumer is himself an essential commodity. Without consumers, the consumer economy crumbles, and that leaves all those politicians, bureaucrats, directors, executives, and shareholders who thought they were being so smart cutting costs and boosting productivity with nothing to sustain their own existence. The bottom line is that if the benefits of economic prosperity are not shared among all who participate in that economy, it can only be sustained by oppression. That is not what a free and democratic society is supposed to be all about.
It appears that the federal opposition simply cannot resist flogging the dead horse of Work Choices. Liberal Leader Malcolm Turnbull has refused to rule out a return to individual workplace contracts, saying that “By reducing flexibility in the workplace they have put, we would say, real constraints on productivity growth.” He went on to say “We believe that flexibility in the workplace is of enormous importance.” The trouble with that however is that individual contracts do not necessarily ensure flexibility in the workplace, just as Work Choices did not offer workers greater choices, but in fact reduced their choices.
That’s not to say that individual contracts are always intrinsically bad, or that they do not have a possible place in the workplace. Individual contracts can work well for workers who command a strong negotiating position. The evidence has been seen in the high rates of pay available in industries grappling with a shortage of skills and booming demand, such as the mining sector when the resources boom was running hot. However, if the individual worker does not command a strong negotiating position, he essentially has no choice at all but to sign whatever contract is offered. That’s why a return to a strong framework of award rates and conditions has been essential to guaranteeing a fair go for employees.
Yet, Mr. Turnbull persists with the argument that what he calls flexibility promotes productivity growth. The truth is that it does, but it all depends on how you define flexibility and productivity, and how you measure the economic outcome. If all that matters is that you achieve maximum output at minimum cost, then it is plain common sense to see that making employees work longer for lower pay will achieve exactly that. The company bottom line looks terrific, and the gross national product looks impressive so long as there are still enough jobs to keep unemployment under control, but one crucial factor is completely overlooked. That is the question of just who it is that enjoys the benefit of that productivity growth.
The fact that the economy might be powering along pumping out terrific growth figures doesn’t do much to reassure workers who are not participating in the benefits of that prosperity because they have been forced to sign work agreements that leave them out in the cold. Instead, it is the big companies, the directors, the executives and the shareholders who prosper because they have the benefit of the bargaining power in any contract negotiation. The idea that individual workers experience any kind of “choice” when negotiating with a corporate giant, or even a medium sized enterprise, is utterly ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that a company, whether it is a major corporation or a modest business, is a collective entity with resources much more massive than any individual. It is a different kind of collective from unions or co-operatives or other entities, but it is a collective. It might be considered collectivized capital, just as unions are considered collectivized labour. The idea that reducing the power of collectivized labour could somehow make the system fairer is just simply wrong because the individual worker is quite clearly at a disadvantage.
The idea that it is more productive is also dubious, because if the economic system hacks the heart out of workers entitlements it begins to undermine its own foundation. In a consumer economy, the consumer is himself an essential commodity. Without consumers, the consumer economy crumbles, and that leaves all those politicians, bureaucrats, directors, executives, and shareholders who thought they were being so smart cutting costs and boosting productivity with nothing to sustain their own existence. The bottom line is that if the benefits of economic prosperity are not shared among all who participate in that economy, it can only be sustained by oppression. That is not what a free and democratic society is supposed to be all about.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Julia Gillard Interview
11 September, 2009
Transcript - 2SM Mornings Program 10:10AM
Julia Gillard with Leon Delaney
(ISSUES: Labour force figures, stimulus package, BER, award modernisation)
LEON DELANEY: Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, good morning.
JULIA GILLARD: Good morning.
LEON DELANEY: How are you today?
JULIA GILLARD: I’m good thanks. I didn’t hear you humming.
LEON DELANEY: Well that’s reassuring to know. Yesterday’s unemployment figures, 5.8 per cent holding steady, in some respect a good result and a little bit of a pleasant surprise but it does hide the darker secret of under employment doesn’t it?
JULIA GILLARD: You’re right Leon, you would have to say by the standards of the world with Australia at 5.8 per cent that shows we are weathering this economic storm well. You look at the United States for example, 9.7 per cent and we are holding steady at 5.8, but there are some troubling signs in these figures. Number one, we have seen the participation rate go down so the number of people who say they are looking for work has decreased and people are therefore being discouraged from looking for work. We’re continuing to see in these figures too, the substitution of full time jobs with part time jobs.
Now in some ways that means that, I think, employers and employees and unions are working together to keep people in part time work rather than losing their jobs all together, but it does mean that people want more work than they are getting now so that’s also a troubling sign in these figures. We have seen the number of part time jobs go to record levels so I think that’s part of the story here of the substitution of part time work for full time work.
LEON DELANEY: If we are seeing so much part time work and a reduction in hours for people in casual positions can we really have that much to be celebratory about? Obviously people will still find it very difficult to make ends meet.
JULIA GILLARD: Well to use a phrase that’s becoming common parlance, I think what it shows is that we are not out of the woods yet.
LEON DELANEY: Not out of the woods yet.
JULIA GILLARD: Look, we have always said that the global recession was going to hit our economy, we needed economic stimulus, we continue to need that economic stimulus and that’s what our school buildings program is all about. Real jobs doing real work building the school buildings we need for the future so we need that to keep rolling out to support jobs in our economy today. But we said to the Australian people as well, even with economic stimulus we are expecting the unemployment rate to go up.
Economists have this term where they say unemployment is a lagging indicator. That means you get a big economic shock like the global recession but it takes some time for it to show in employment and unemployment numbers. We are preparing people for the fact that we expect unemployment to continue to rise. What we do know is it would have been a lot worse without economic stimulus in the form of school buildings and investments in roads and rail and port and of course in the national broadband.
LEON DELANEY: Well the stimulus package is no doubt important but there is still quite considerable suggestion, quite considerable criticism that perhaps it could be better targeted with, not just the Opposition, but now a delegation of QLD mayors, the council of mayors of South East QLD, apparently coming forward and suggesting that it’s all very well to spend money on school halls but they’ve got shovel-ready infrastructure projects of lasting economic benefit including rail and infrastructure projects. Why shouldn’t they be given priority?
JULIA GILLARD: This is a government that has invested, as part of economic stimulus and creating real jobs, protecting and supporting real jobs during the global recession, this is a government which has invested in roads, in rail, in local government infrastructure. My colleague Anthony Albanese has run a major program to work with local governments to build the community infrastructure they have been crying out for and as part of economic stimulus and supporting real jobs we have been there working with every school around the country so that they can get the infrastructure they need. Now I know people are using the terminology school halls…
LEON DELANEY: Well the actual terminology, the Julia Gillard memorial school halls and I’m sure that tickles you quite considerably.
JULIA GILLARD: I know people are using that terminology in a pejorative sense but when I go to schools and I see kids crowded in facilities that were possible new 50 years ago but are in really not very good condition now, when I go to schools where there is no spot in the school where you can bring the whole school together, you can’t have whole school activities, when I got to libraries that look exactly like the library that was in school when I was a schoolgirl, whereas all of the world has changed about libraries through information technology, then I think we have to say to ourselves we can do better by Australian kids in every school and having good facilities makes a difference to learning. It’s part of what matters and of course in our education revolution we are also delivering more resources to combat disadvantage in education, measures to improve teaching, more investments in literacy and numeracy. But whether you end up with a good education, reading and writing, whether you’re ready for work and ready for the rest of your life, things like school libraries, the ability to have whole school activities in school halls, modern classrooms with good facilities all matter.
LEON DELANEY: Was it a little bit cheeky to put signs up outside all those schools which have now been found to be something that would constitute electoral matter?
JULIA GILLARD: Well it’s perfectly standard practice for federal government funds to be acknowledged in construction projects and that’s what the signs are about. If the Australian Electoral Commission thinks that they should be authorised then of course they will be authorised.
LEON DELANEY: Very quickly before you go there is also a question today about aged care nurses in particular suffering potentially significant pay cuts as a result of award modernisation. Now they are not the only ones who have concerns but in their case they’re talking about income losses of up to $295 a week. Is it true that aged care nurses and others could well be disadvantaged by the award modernisation process?
JULIA GILLARD: We’ve got an award modernisation process in train at the moment. It’s happening over two years overseen by the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, so we’re certainly saying to people keep working with the commission to make sure that your modern award is right, and we’re also saying to people that we have legislated - it’s the law of this country - that if a worker at the end of the award modernisation process believes that they have been disadvantaged, they are able to get a take home pay order which will guarantee their take home pay.
What’s this all part of, what’s the broader picture? Well the broader picture is killing Work Choices which meant that people’s pay and conditions could be stripped away perfectly legally and there was absolutely nothing that they could do about it, and its part of making sure that we have an award safety net that is simple and there for the future. It’s not much point having awards if employers pick them up and can’t understand them and employees pick them up and can’t understand them and everybody is confused. We want an awards system where people can find the award that applies to them, read them and understand it and make sure that it’s really living and breathing in their workplace because it’s a document that is able to be picked up and understood.
LEON DELANEY: Nevertheless, it might be seen as having an undeliverable promise, a foolish promise, to suggest that no worker will be disadvantaged and no employer will have to pay more. You can’t satisfy both promises can you?
JULIA GILLARD: Well we said to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission when we started this at the start of last year, look we are going to get rid of Work Choices. That means that people are going to have safety net in work they can rely on. We want that safety net to be a modern one and so we want you, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, to modernise awards with two objectives in mind. We don’t want employees disadvantaged, we don’t want big cost increases for employers, we are going to make sure there is a full five-year phasing period for changes so this is all sensible and measured in the transition and then we have legislated an extra reassurance for working people through our take home pay orders.
LEON DELANEY: So they’re objectives now but they were originally promises weren’t they?
JULIA GILLARD: They were always objectives of the award modernisation process and then the law guarantees through the take home pay orders that people have got an ability, if they that think there is a problem, to approach the industrial umpire and get a take home pay order.
LEON DELANEY: Thanks very much for your time today.
JULIA GILLARD: Thank you.
LEON DELANEY: Thanks very much. Julia Gillard, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for employment and industrial relations.
ENDS.
Transcript - 2SM Mornings Program 10:10AM
Julia Gillard with Leon Delaney
(ISSUES: Labour force figures, stimulus package, BER, award modernisation)
LEON DELANEY: Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, good morning.
JULIA GILLARD: Good morning.
LEON DELANEY: How are you today?
JULIA GILLARD: I’m good thanks. I didn’t hear you humming.
LEON DELANEY: Well that’s reassuring to know. Yesterday’s unemployment figures, 5.8 per cent holding steady, in some respect a good result and a little bit of a pleasant surprise but it does hide the darker secret of under employment doesn’t it?
JULIA GILLARD: You’re right Leon, you would have to say by the standards of the world with Australia at 5.8 per cent that shows we are weathering this economic storm well. You look at the United States for example, 9.7 per cent and we are holding steady at 5.8, but there are some troubling signs in these figures. Number one, we have seen the participation rate go down so the number of people who say they are looking for work has decreased and people are therefore being discouraged from looking for work. We’re continuing to see in these figures too, the substitution of full time jobs with part time jobs.
Now in some ways that means that, I think, employers and employees and unions are working together to keep people in part time work rather than losing their jobs all together, but it does mean that people want more work than they are getting now so that’s also a troubling sign in these figures. We have seen the number of part time jobs go to record levels so I think that’s part of the story here of the substitution of part time work for full time work.
LEON DELANEY: If we are seeing so much part time work and a reduction in hours for people in casual positions can we really have that much to be celebratory about? Obviously people will still find it very difficult to make ends meet.
JULIA GILLARD: Well to use a phrase that’s becoming common parlance, I think what it shows is that we are not out of the woods yet.
LEON DELANEY: Not out of the woods yet.
JULIA GILLARD: Look, we have always said that the global recession was going to hit our economy, we needed economic stimulus, we continue to need that economic stimulus and that’s what our school buildings program is all about. Real jobs doing real work building the school buildings we need for the future so we need that to keep rolling out to support jobs in our economy today. But we said to the Australian people as well, even with economic stimulus we are expecting the unemployment rate to go up.
Economists have this term where they say unemployment is a lagging indicator. That means you get a big economic shock like the global recession but it takes some time for it to show in employment and unemployment numbers. We are preparing people for the fact that we expect unemployment to continue to rise. What we do know is it would have been a lot worse without economic stimulus in the form of school buildings and investments in roads and rail and port and of course in the national broadband.
LEON DELANEY: Well the stimulus package is no doubt important but there is still quite considerable suggestion, quite considerable criticism that perhaps it could be better targeted with, not just the Opposition, but now a delegation of QLD mayors, the council of mayors of South East QLD, apparently coming forward and suggesting that it’s all very well to spend money on school halls but they’ve got shovel-ready infrastructure projects of lasting economic benefit including rail and infrastructure projects. Why shouldn’t they be given priority?
JULIA GILLARD: This is a government that has invested, as part of economic stimulus and creating real jobs, protecting and supporting real jobs during the global recession, this is a government which has invested in roads, in rail, in local government infrastructure. My colleague Anthony Albanese has run a major program to work with local governments to build the community infrastructure they have been crying out for and as part of economic stimulus and supporting real jobs we have been there working with every school around the country so that they can get the infrastructure they need. Now I know people are using the terminology school halls…
LEON DELANEY: Well the actual terminology, the Julia Gillard memorial school halls and I’m sure that tickles you quite considerably.
JULIA GILLARD: I know people are using that terminology in a pejorative sense but when I go to schools and I see kids crowded in facilities that were possible new 50 years ago but are in really not very good condition now, when I go to schools where there is no spot in the school where you can bring the whole school together, you can’t have whole school activities, when I got to libraries that look exactly like the library that was in school when I was a schoolgirl, whereas all of the world has changed about libraries through information technology, then I think we have to say to ourselves we can do better by Australian kids in every school and having good facilities makes a difference to learning. It’s part of what matters and of course in our education revolution we are also delivering more resources to combat disadvantage in education, measures to improve teaching, more investments in literacy and numeracy. But whether you end up with a good education, reading and writing, whether you’re ready for work and ready for the rest of your life, things like school libraries, the ability to have whole school activities in school halls, modern classrooms with good facilities all matter.
LEON DELANEY: Was it a little bit cheeky to put signs up outside all those schools which have now been found to be something that would constitute electoral matter?
JULIA GILLARD: Well it’s perfectly standard practice for federal government funds to be acknowledged in construction projects and that’s what the signs are about. If the Australian Electoral Commission thinks that they should be authorised then of course they will be authorised.
LEON DELANEY: Very quickly before you go there is also a question today about aged care nurses in particular suffering potentially significant pay cuts as a result of award modernisation. Now they are not the only ones who have concerns but in their case they’re talking about income losses of up to $295 a week. Is it true that aged care nurses and others could well be disadvantaged by the award modernisation process?
JULIA GILLARD: We’ve got an award modernisation process in train at the moment. It’s happening over two years overseen by the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, so we’re certainly saying to people keep working with the commission to make sure that your modern award is right, and we’re also saying to people that we have legislated - it’s the law of this country - that if a worker at the end of the award modernisation process believes that they have been disadvantaged, they are able to get a take home pay order which will guarantee their take home pay.
What’s this all part of, what’s the broader picture? Well the broader picture is killing Work Choices which meant that people’s pay and conditions could be stripped away perfectly legally and there was absolutely nothing that they could do about it, and its part of making sure that we have an award safety net that is simple and there for the future. It’s not much point having awards if employers pick them up and can’t understand them and employees pick them up and can’t understand them and everybody is confused. We want an awards system where people can find the award that applies to them, read them and understand it and make sure that it’s really living and breathing in their workplace because it’s a document that is able to be picked up and understood.
LEON DELANEY: Nevertheless, it might be seen as having an undeliverable promise, a foolish promise, to suggest that no worker will be disadvantaged and no employer will have to pay more. You can’t satisfy both promises can you?
JULIA GILLARD: Well we said to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission when we started this at the start of last year, look we are going to get rid of Work Choices. That means that people are going to have safety net in work they can rely on. We want that safety net to be a modern one and so we want you, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, to modernise awards with two objectives in mind. We don’t want employees disadvantaged, we don’t want big cost increases for employers, we are going to make sure there is a full five-year phasing period for changes so this is all sensible and measured in the transition and then we have legislated an extra reassurance for working people through our take home pay orders.
LEON DELANEY: So they’re objectives now but they were originally promises weren’t they?
JULIA GILLARD: They were always objectives of the award modernisation process and then the law guarantees through the take home pay orders that people have got an ability, if they that think there is a problem, to approach the industrial umpire and get a take home pay order.
LEON DELANEY: Thanks very much for your time today.
JULIA GILLARD: Thank you.
LEON DELANEY: Thanks very much. Julia Gillard, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for employment and industrial relations.
ENDS.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Whipping Up A Frenzy
EDITORIAL FRIDAY 11.09.09.
I’m sure it must seem strange to many people that under the recently introduced rules it is OK for a jockey to whip a horse a certain number of times in a certain number of strides in the space of the last 200 metres of a race, but a different number of times in the earlier part of the race. It certainly seems strange to me, although I will happily confess to being no expert on horseracing. Equally, it seems strange that while a padded whip must be used in a race, a more severe variation is permitted in training work. But it seems to me that even the horseracing experts are confused.
Jockeys, trainers, and many owners all seem to think that the new rules are nonsensical. The Australian Racing Board, along with animal welfare experts, believe that the rules are both workable and reasonable, and will ensure that horses are not mistreated. The dispute has led to jockeys taking industrial action, walking off the job yesterday, and considering doing the same again next week. They claim that not only are the rules nonsensical, they are unsafe. The jockeys believe that concentrating on counting the exact number of strokes of the whip is a distraction which could be dangerous in a hotly contested race. I would also imagine that in the heat of the moment it would be a simple matter to lose count.
What the jockeys have asked for is a small change to the rules to allow the jockey to use his own judgment over the last 200 metres and use the whip as often as they feel necessary. While some might feel that this would give a jockey licence to be cruel, surely it makes sense to think that a jockey isn’t going to win a race by inflicting harm to the animal. The truth is that most jockeys love horses, otherwise they wouldn’t be working with them in the first place. The truth is that jockeys are the ones putting their bodies on the line at about 80 kilomtres per hour amidst a pack of thundering hooves. You would think that they know what they are talking about and that their opinion should count for something.
I may be uninformed, but it seems to me that either whipping is OK, or it is not OK. How can it be OK some of the time, in some circumstances and not at other times in other circumstances? To restrict the number of times a horse may be struck on the grounds of prevention of cruelty would seem to imply that striking a horse any number of times at all should be considered cruel, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who do. But to introduce a regulation that says “this much and no more” is surely no different from saying that it is OK to smack somebody in the face three times but not four times.
If whipping horses is cruel, then it should be stopped altogether. Otherwise, common sense should allow the jockeys at least some discretion to exercise their own judgement, to protect both their own safety, and the wellbeing of their horses.
I’m sure it must seem strange to many people that under the recently introduced rules it is OK for a jockey to whip a horse a certain number of times in a certain number of strides in the space of the last 200 metres of a race, but a different number of times in the earlier part of the race. It certainly seems strange to me, although I will happily confess to being no expert on horseracing. Equally, it seems strange that while a padded whip must be used in a race, a more severe variation is permitted in training work. But it seems to me that even the horseracing experts are confused.
Jockeys, trainers, and many owners all seem to think that the new rules are nonsensical. The Australian Racing Board, along with animal welfare experts, believe that the rules are both workable and reasonable, and will ensure that horses are not mistreated. The dispute has led to jockeys taking industrial action, walking off the job yesterday, and considering doing the same again next week. They claim that not only are the rules nonsensical, they are unsafe. The jockeys believe that concentrating on counting the exact number of strokes of the whip is a distraction which could be dangerous in a hotly contested race. I would also imagine that in the heat of the moment it would be a simple matter to lose count.
What the jockeys have asked for is a small change to the rules to allow the jockey to use his own judgment over the last 200 metres and use the whip as often as they feel necessary. While some might feel that this would give a jockey licence to be cruel, surely it makes sense to think that a jockey isn’t going to win a race by inflicting harm to the animal. The truth is that most jockeys love horses, otherwise they wouldn’t be working with them in the first place. The truth is that jockeys are the ones putting their bodies on the line at about 80 kilomtres per hour amidst a pack of thundering hooves. You would think that they know what they are talking about and that their opinion should count for something.
I may be uninformed, but it seems to me that either whipping is OK, or it is not OK. How can it be OK some of the time, in some circumstances and not at other times in other circumstances? To restrict the number of times a horse may be struck on the grounds of prevention of cruelty would seem to imply that striking a horse any number of times at all should be considered cruel, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who do. But to introduce a regulation that says “this much and no more” is surely no different from saying that it is OK to smack somebody in the face three times but not four times.
If whipping horses is cruel, then it should be stopped altogether. Otherwise, common sense should allow the jockeys at least some discretion to exercise their own judgement, to protect both their own safety, and the wellbeing of their horses.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Keeping The Dream Afloat
EDITORIAL THURSDAY 10.09.09.
Questions are being asked about the mishap which cut short Jessica Watson’s journey from Queensland to Sydney, which was a prelude to her planned attempt to become the youngest person to ever sail single handedly around the world. Naturally there are questions about just what exactly went wrong and led to the collision between her yacht and the bulk carrier “Silver Yang” on its way to China. There are questions about whether or not the yacht is appropriately equipped. There are questions about whether the Silver Yang was in some way at fault. But by far the biggest question seems to be about Jessica herself and whether or not at 16 she is up to the task before her, or if she is simply too young to be allowed to attempt such a dangerous adventure.
While it is right and proper to place importance on the matter of safety, there is always the risk of protecting ourselves and our children from potential harm so vigorously that we and they never actually do anything. We seem to live in a world where the fear of injury, and perhaps more accurately the fear of litigation, has resulted in playgrounds without monkey bars, warning labels on everything we touch, and a generation of kids who are not allowed to play outside and so grow up in front of an xbox. The truth is that if we try to avoid all risk, we actually hinder the development of our children, and reduce our capacity to function as a society.
Of course, setting out for a solo round the world voyage in a 10 metre yacht is a little different from playing on the jungle gym at the park. But let’s look at this logically. We let our kids loose in cars from when they turn 17. Despite the obvious dangers involved, and despite the disproportionate rate of death and injury in the age group, we haven’t outlawed P – plate drivers yet, and we are not likely to. If you can afford to pay for the training you can pick up your private pilot’s licence when you are 16, and that involves flying solo in a machine which can become very dangerous if you make a mistake and it falls out of the sky. And another Australian, Jesse Martin, was 17 when he became the youngest person to sail solo around the world, and he has been much admired as a result. Why should it be different for Jessica?
Is it because we have to draw a line somewhere, and while 17 is apparently acceptable, somehow being one year younger is not? Is it because Jessica is a girl and Jesse was a boy? Or is there some other reason? Of course, in most matters, we are not considered to be fully responsible for our own actions until we reach the age of 18, but that is not a rule which we have kept hard and fast. Far from it, in a society where 15 year olds can take it upon themselves to move out of home against their parents’ wishes, and make their own decisions about where they live, who they hang out with, and what they do with their time, why should we suddenly assume responsibility for a 16 year old who is trying to achieve something outstanding?
Instead of going out and binge drinking, dealing drugs or stealing from hard working citizens, Jessica is attempting to accomplish a significant achievement. It is to be hoped that her parents have done everything that they can to ensure that she is both competent and well equipped to undertake the task. It is to be hoped that if her ambitions exceed her abilities then there is someone in her life who can tell her that. It is to be hoped that the sponsors who have supported her bid have satisfied themselves as to her qualifications. But, in the end, it is for Jessica and her family to decide if she is up to the task, and whether the risks are worth the reward.
Questions are being asked about the mishap which cut short Jessica Watson’s journey from Queensland to Sydney, which was a prelude to her planned attempt to become the youngest person to ever sail single handedly around the world. Naturally there are questions about just what exactly went wrong and led to the collision between her yacht and the bulk carrier “Silver Yang” on its way to China. There are questions about whether or not the yacht is appropriately equipped. There are questions about whether the Silver Yang was in some way at fault. But by far the biggest question seems to be about Jessica herself and whether or not at 16 she is up to the task before her, or if she is simply too young to be allowed to attempt such a dangerous adventure.
While it is right and proper to place importance on the matter of safety, there is always the risk of protecting ourselves and our children from potential harm so vigorously that we and they never actually do anything. We seem to live in a world where the fear of injury, and perhaps more accurately the fear of litigation, has resulted in playgrounds without monkey bars, warning labels on everything we touch, and a generation of kids who are not allowed to play outside and so grow up in front of an xbox. The truth is that if we try to avoid all risk, we actually hinder the development of our children, and reduce our capacity to function as a society.
Of course, setting out for a solo round the world voyage in a 10 metre yacht is a little different from playing on the jungle gym at the park. But let’s look at this logically. We let our kids loose in cars from when they turn 17. Despite the obvious dangers involved, and despite the disproportionate rate of death and injury in the age group, we haven’t outlawed P – plate drivers yet, and we are not likely to. If you can afford to pay for the training you can pick up your private pilot’s licence when you are 16, and that involves flying solo in a machine which can become very dangerous if you make a mistake and it falls out of the sky. And another Australian, Jesse Martin, was 17 when he became the youngest person to sail solo around the world, and he has been much admired as a result. Why should it be different for Jessica?
Is it because we have to draw a line somewhere, and while 17 is apparently acceptable, somehow being one year younger is not? Is it because Jessica is a girl and Jesse was a boy? Or is there some other reason? Of course, in most matters, we are not considered to be fully responsible for our own actions until we reach the age of 18, but that is not a rule which we have kept hard and fast. Far from it, in a society where 15 year olds can take it upon themselves to move out of home against their parents’ wishes, and make their own decisions about where they live, who they hang out with, and what they do with their time, why should we suddenly assume responsibility for a 16 year old who is trying to achieve something outstanding?
Instead of going out and binge drinking, dealing drugs or stealing from hard working citizens, Jessica is attempting to accomplish a significant achievement. It is to be hoped that her parents have done everything that they can to ensure that she is both competent and well equipped to undertake the task. It is to be hoped that if her ambitions exceed her abilities then there is someone in her life who can tell her that. It is to be hoped that the sponsors who have supported her bid have satisfied themselves as to her qualifications. But, in the end, it is for Jessica and her family to decide if she is up to the task, and whether the risks are worth the reward.
Women In Uniform
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 09.09.09.
In a debate that never really seems to go away, the role of women in the armed forces is once again in the spotlight. While women are already a vital and integral part of the defence force, there are still a handful of restrictions in place preventing women form performing in certain capacities. Most notably, women are precluded from combat infantry, artillery, and special forces
such as the S. A. S. While it is easily argued that in this world of gender equality there should be no obstacle to suitably qualified women performing any role, the reality is a little more complex.
In most respects, the gender argument was resolved long ago, and women are well accepted within the defence force. The remaining restrictions which do apply are based on practical realities such as the ability of individuals to carry the heavy gear, and operate the heavy equipment associated with some military roles. Indeed, despite the general perception that men are stronger than women, there are plenty of men who would be incapable of filling the requirements.
However, on average men are stronger than women, and the impact of expecting women to carry the same weight, operate the same equipment, and fight in hand to hand combat against opponents twice their size could actually place them at a disadvantage. As a result, it is likely that under such circumstances, the death and injury rate among women could turn out to be disproportionately higher than for their male colleagues. Somehow I don’t think that is the intended effect of affirmative action.
While it can be argued that any person who wishes to serve should be entitled to do so regardless of gender, the rights of the individual are not the only consideration. It is also important to consider the wellbeing of those who serve alongside women, and if there is any question of their capability compromising that wellbeing then that must be taken into account. But the heart of the matter is to be found in that word “capability”, and the real question is whether there might be some women who are capable of passing even the most rigorous physical test.
The review which has been ordered by Defence Personnel Minister Greg Combet, and which has triggered this debate, is intended to remove gender discrimination, and replace any such criteria with evidence based scientific analysis of physical requirements for the various job categories in the military. While such measures might well preclude women simply on the basis that it may be impossible for most of them to pass the test, there could well be some who can and do. When that happens, I doubt if there is there any sound reason why they should not be allowed to utililise their skills and abilities to serve their country.
In a debate that never really seems to go away, the role of women in the armed forces is once again in the spotlight. While women are already a vital and integral part of the defence force, there are still a handful of restrictions in place preventing women form performing in certain capacities. Most notably, women are precluded from combat infantry, artillery, and special forces
such as the S. A. S. While it is easily argued that in this world of gender equality there should be no obstacle to suitably qualified women performing any role, the reality is a little more complex.
In most respects, the gender argument was resolved long ago, and women are well accepted within the defence force. The remaining restrictions which do apply are based on practical realities such as the ability of individuals to carry the heavy gear, and operate the heavy equipment associated with some military roles. Indeed, despite the general perception that men are stronger than women, there are plenty of men who would be incapable of filling the requirements.
However, on average men are stronger than women, and the impact of expecting women to carry the same weight, operate the same equipment, and fight in hand to hand combat against opponents twice their size could actually place them at a disadvantage. As a result, it is likely that under such circumstances, the death and injury rate among women could turn out to be disproportionately higher than for their male colleagues. Somehow I don’t think that is the intended effect of affirmative action.
While it can be argued that any person who wishes to serve should be entitled to do so regardless of gender, the rights of the individual are not the only consideration. It is also important to consider the wellbeing of those who serve alongside women, and if there is any question of their capability compromising that wellbeing then that must be taken into account. But the heart of the matter is to be found in that word “capability”, and the real question is whether there might be some women who are capable of passing even the most rigorous physical test.
The review which has been ordered by Defence Personnel Minister Greg Combet, and which has triggered this debate, is intended to remove gender discrimination, and replace any such criteria with evidence based scientific analysis of physical requirements for the various job categories in the military. While such measures might well preclude women simply on the basis that it may be impossible for most of them to pass the test, there could well be some who can and do. When that happens, I doubt if there is there any sound reason why they should not be allowed to utililise their skills and abilities to serve their country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
