Vale, Clyde Cameron. Your like shall not pass this way again.

Undoubtedly, older AWU officials and members around Australia will have noted the passing of one Clyde Robert Cameron.

Clyde was one of the AWU's more widely known identities - and a unique one. Another great AWU identity, the beloved Mick Young, used to tell of how, when he was an AWU organiser in South Australia, there used to be two union meetings: the one which he, as organiser, held with his members and the one, held by Clyde Cameron with the same group of members, immediately afterwards.

Clyde Cameron was not always the best-beloved of the right of the AWU: and certainly not of the Queensland Branch, the most powerful section of the AWU.

Miss Eagle recalls attending her first Queensland Delegates Meeting of the AWU. Delegates meeting is an interesting concept in recent times because, during Miss Eagle's period at the AWU, there was only one occasion when a rank and file delegate was at Delegates Meeting of the AWU. Delegates Meeting - as far as Miss Eagle could tell - was usually an historic and time honoured summer holiday for AWU officials from the bush to get an all expenses paid trip to Brisbane.

When Errol Hodder was State Secretary he was a modernising influence on the AWU. Miss Eagle's first Delegates Meeting was held at Kooralbyn. Besides the innovations of the venue, and the attendance of female officials for the first time, Errol had arranged for training to be done by trainers from the Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA). As well, as conducting training within individual trade unions and travelling to various locations for training sessions involving a wide cross-section of trade unionists, TUTA had established , in Albury-Wodonga, the Clyde Cameron College.

Errol explained to the unsuspecting TUTA trainer at Kooralbyn that the reason the AWU had taken so long to avail itself of TUTA's service was the unfortunate naming of their training college in Albury-Wodonga! Memories in the AWU run long and deep and both ways!

When you can do nothing else: bear witness.

Is the ACTU under pressure?

Miss Eagle was forced to ask the question above after reading this. The ACTU is, perhaps, flinching under the fruit of success. It's wonderful Your Rights At Work campaign was central to the Rudd Labor Government's ascent to the reins of power.

We all watched open-mouthed the me-too campaign run by Labor in the lead up to the election. We wondered if this is what really had to happen to come to power and if Rudd would change his public tune when he came to power. Rudd seems set on being a promise-keeper and appears determined not to follow John Howard down the dishonest path of core and non-core promises.

Rudd and Gillard prior to the election were intent on projecting an image that was business-friendly and business wanted what they had got out of Howard. But, as the union movement is set to remind Rud and Gillard, the Your Rights At Work campaign by the ACTU delivered government. People who had never voted Labor before changed their vote. John Howard's Work Choices were, for most people, a bridge too far. Business has to face that fact. After all, they do love the benefits of a democracy governed by the rule of law, don't they?

And why this magic year of 2010 before things can really begin to change - if at all? Rudd had said that this was because business had to make forward plans. But, really, Kevin. A business that does not factor in the "change of government" risk? A business that can't figure out that industrial relations might change with Labor in power?

People are - by year's end - going to want demonstrable workplace change. They really would like it sooner, like right now. But their patience may stretch to year's end. After that, Kevin and Julia, if there is no demonstrable and meaningful change you will be seen as someone who keeps your word - to business but not to ordinary working Australians.

The left unions are restless. The Socialist Alliance - not an organisation brim-full of burgeoning membership - had a State conference here in Melbourne. The Saturday afternoon panel was devoted to the industrial relations scene and the AMWU, Textile, Clothing & Footwear Union, and the CFMEU as well as the Geelong & Region Trades and Labour Council turned up and clearly expressed their points of view.

The contribution of these unions was indicative of what could be a groundswell from the Left. The AMWU with its strong foothold in a declining Victorian manufacturing base clearly wants a return to the previous way of operating including Pattern Bargaining. While the TCFU outlined lucidly the way in which flow-ons have operated in Australia, the AMWU's dream of pattern bargaining is a wish that Miss Eagle predicts will remain unfulfilled. Somewhere, though, between the traditional flow-on practices and the rigidity and targetting of pattern bargaining there could be an opportunity for some new and negotiated thinking.

Traditionally, there have been unions like the AMWU and the Construction Unions who have set the pace. They have used their clout to progress demands and those with less clout - particularly in industries whose workforce is populated by women and the young - have, in time, been able to apply for flow-ons into their own industrial instruments.

However, back in the 1980s the AMWU and the Construction Unions overlooked one very important factor: the service sector. There was a time back then when the service sector was the one area of the economy that displayed marked growth at the same time as manufacturing entered its decline and some areas of construction were in the doldrums.

The AMWU drove through enterprise bargaining. This was a disaster for workers in the service sector such as the retail and hospitality industries. Enterprise bargaining has potential in the tradeable goods area and in construction. The economies of these industries were the meat and milk of the old Industrial Relations Club. The IR Club knew the ins and outs intimately and its people on a first name basis. The service industries were foreign to them - even to the men who ran the trade unions who serviced these industries. No thought had been given to how they operated: their culture, their economic milieu. I'm not sure that this has occurred yet. Draw an AIRC Commissioner into conversation over a coldie and he (very few she-s) would admit his ignorance.

To put it simply, dear Reader, in Enterprise Bargaining one could negotiate efficiencies in this wise:
If the business was making 500 ball bearings per day but efficiencies were negotiated and work practices not currently facilitated by the industrial award were streamlined and 750 ball bearings per day could now be made, then workers could negotiate a share of the increased productivity. Dead easy.

Then you go to the service industries. A check-out operator has no control over the number of customers served; the room attendant has no control over the number of beds made and rooms cleaned; the bar attendant has no control over the number of customers nor beers pulled. And while, in this day and age, it is possible to measure anything. When people do not want to find quantifiable or qualitative data, that data will never be forthcoming - particularly in relation to the work of women. This is why, in the end, Enterprise Bargaining became associated in these industries not with improved productivity but being forced into giving up conditions and working horrible hours without penalty rates. Of course, the more this sort of Enterprise Bargaining became the norm in these industries the fewer people joined trade unions. Mmmmm.....!

So to-day we look at the linked article which seems to be attributed more to Jeff Lawrence (himself from a Left union, the LHMU) than to the Rudd Government. It is interesting that this has come within ten days of the union panel at the Socialist Alliance. Within ten days of the panel at the Socialist Alliance saying that the current position of the ACTU was quite confused; saying that if the ACTU was to mount any sort of campaign it would be months away.

But the revival of the Australian Labour Advisory Council will hardly be a sop to disgruntled unions. This would have been likely to occur anyway. Similarly, union business committees to consult on legislation - as has been advised by Miss E's AWU contacts. This process is always likely under a Labor Government.

What Australian trade unions don't take to kindly is having a Labor government giving business its wish list or giving business an upper hand to the disadvantage of trade unions and, particularly, trade union rights as spelt out in ILO conventions.

And, as you are aware Kevin and Julia, the CFMEU want the abolition of the draconian Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner forthwith.

Up to the job? Miss Eagle thinks so

Photo: Sydney Morning Herald

Denis has posted a comment on the previous post in which he expresses his views on Jenny Macklin. Miss Eagle has commented there but gives the comment wider currency here:

~~~~~

Don't agree with you on Macklin.

In recent years in opposition, true, there was nothing much to be impressed about. But there was a time some years ago when Jenny had the scalps of Liberal ministers hanging from her belt. I think we are seeing Jenny Macklin coming into her own.

A lot of the ground work leading up to this week's Sorry was done by Jenny and her department - and it was thorough. I suspect she and others working with her put in the hard yards of discussion - and discussion in blackfella terms doesn't mean formulating a motion and asking for a show of hands.

In blackfella decision-making everyone, every last interested person, has to be spoken to and their views sought. Now I'm not saying that Jenny spoke to every living member of the Stolen Generations but there were numerous organisations and influentials involved in all this and they all had to be spoken to.

There have been other ministerial responsibilities to keep on top of as well. And a boss whose style is highly involved managerialism to satisfy. And then there was the history of the occasion to satisfy - everything had to be right. Wednesday would be no dress rehearsal. It had to be got right in terms of policy, semiotics and impact - and, if you are cynical, sheer politics. I think Jenny should have a little sign hanging around her neck saying "Watch this space". After all, she will not want to be adversely compared with Julia and nor will Julia want it vice-versa.

Rudd - and a report card

On Kevin Rudd's way to the Prime Ministership, Miss Eagle was hopeful - but with many reservations. The reservations had their genesis in too much me-too-ism. Memories of the worst of the Goss Labor Government in Queensland for which Rudd was the right hand man. These reservations led to a few posts with this picture:

While Kevin 07 performed the necessary gymnastics on the way to The Lodge, Miss Eagle wondered out loud what it was that Kevin Rudd would stand for, would not resile from.

We are now at the end end of the first parliamentary sitting week of the new Labor government. Michelle Grattan has published her review of the performance so far. Miss Eagle's report card is in the form of an edited version of the picture.

Miss Eagle remains unhappy with Rudd's decision to keep the full impact of changes to industrial relations until 2010. Similarly, she does not favour delaying changes in the excesses of private school funding until 2010. All this makes as much sense to Miss E as saying to Kevin Rudd on election night that he had been elected but John Howard would remain in power for another three years. Corporations - whether they are major employers or classy corporate schools - don't think twice about delaying their impositions on others. They - if they were bright enough, flexible enough - would have factored in their risks from a change of government. So there would have been no shocks and few surprises. But still they received the soft end of the wedge.

However - and Miss E does wince slightly at the "however" - after Wednesday's superb and visionary and inclusive performance Miss Eagle can forgive much. It is undergirded by Rudd's very first call on business - to deal with homelessness. If Rudd continues to prioritise justice in this way, Miss Eagle will be able to wear the other stuff. Miss Eagle must also comment on the manner in which Rudd is setting the pace: business-like in his attention to the tasks at hand; informed by the hallmarks of Labor in government; intent on setting fresh standards of civility and vision. And all this in a down to earth manner with few, if any signs, of pretension of office.

Miss Eagle looks forward to more of that which has made such a great beginning.

Sorry - a new and national beginning

To-day is an historic day for the Commonwealth of Australia. In the Parliament of the nation, in Canberra, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will apologise to the Aboriginal people of this nation continent for the mistreatment of Aboriginal people since European settlement began in 1788. Above all, he will apologise for the forced removal of children from their families and communities - an episode referred to as The Stolen Generations.

There has been great demand for an apology since the recommendations handed down in the Bringing Them Home report. Prime Minister John Howard, Prime Minister from 1996-2007, refused to apologise. Howard - a mean-spirited, conservative, and stubborn man - merely expressed regret but went on to promulgate the lie that no ill-treatment was carried out in living memory.

One positive effect of Howard's inaction in this matter has been to increase resolve on the part of countless Australians to see the apology carried out. Most Australians want to resolve the issues and hatreds and maltreatments of the past. We do not want the bitterness, the recrimination to continue. We want to give expression to a new way doing things which is informed by the knowledge of our history good and bad. Australians want an inclusive nation - and certainly not one where the Aboriginal people are fringedwellers socially and economically.

And so yesterday a new beginning was made with the opening of the new Parliament. For the first time in Australian history, Aboriginal people were at the centre of the ceremonial inaugurating the new parliamentary term with a Welcome to Country ceremony. Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, both made clear that as long as they had anything to do with it, Aboriginal ceremony would become an integral part of the Opening of Parliament.

To-day, Aboriginal people will stand with the Prime Minister on the floor of Parliament for the delivery of the apology. The text of the apology, set out below, was tabled in Parliament yesterday and the apology is the first item of business in the new parliamentary term.

From time to time, on this blog, Miss Eagle has discussed the topic of public forgiveness. It has been discussed in the context of public figures apologising, saying sorry. How then does the public respond to that apology and advise if there is an acceptance of the apology and whether forgiveness is the response?

After the apology to-day, Miss Eagle expects that we will enter - for a time - the realm of public forgiveness. The apology will be discussed. We will hear critiques and criticism. We will find out who is satisfied with and by it and who is not. To-day we formally enter the time of new beginnings - of repair and building. All Australians are not at the same place on this matter. But enough of us are to carry the day throughout the nation, to demand inclusion, to demand involvement so that Aboriginal people are do-ers, not done to: so that they are self-determining actors in their own story and that all Australians - settlers and Aboriginal people together - will build a new and equitable way of operating to bring that great tradition of a fair go to everyone.

THE APOLOGY

Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this blemished chapter in our nation's history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.
We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.
A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.
A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.
A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

What were we really thinking? What are Kev and Krew really thinking?

What were we really thinking all through 2007 ...

....as Kevin Rudd topped the polls

....as his me-too-ism made him a small target for the Liberal/National Coalition

....as Kevin and Julia made promises to business about AWAs

....as Kev courted people with religious affiliations who had never voted Labor - ever

....as Bill Shorten of the AWU and Greg Combet of the ACTU trumped pre-selection processes and long standing, faithful sitting members to gain pre-selection and election in safe Labor seats and then rewarded with positions as Parliamentary Secretaries

We - the trade unionists, those who cared about wage and income equity, those who marched for justice - kept putting our views forward persistently. We did not say what we really felt when the ALP policies were watered down into a new reality and The Greens put forward an industrial relations policy we found more understandable. The ACTU did not want to ruffle feathers and merely expressed disappointment.

We were realistic. We wanted Howard and his henchmen and women gone. We knew that this would be a big ask. We understood that Kev and Krew would have to play it cool to get across the line. We were not going to rock the boat. We would stay on message - even if it meant biting the anxious tips of our tongues off.

Kevin got across the line - but, just as Miss Eagle questioned during the campaign the state of Kevin's Spine, she now questions Kevin's gratitude.

There has been much watering down of industrial relations policy in an attempt to mollify business interests. Changes will not be fully in place until 2010.

Let's get frank now, Kev.

You were elected in December 2007. How would it be if we said to you, Kev, "Congratulations, Kev. You've won the election, Kev. You've beaten Howard, Kev. But, Kev, you will not take power until 2010. Until then Howard remains in power and continues to live at Kirribilli. He'll water down his behaviour and his hubris a bit. In fact, he'll try very hard not to use the numbers he has in the Senate to really rock the boat. But, Kev, go away and stay cool until December 2010."

Makes real sense, doesn't it Kev. Highly rational.

In fact, Kev, in 2010 we are due for another election and - if you lose it (I realise it is considered unlikely) - it could be that nothing of lasting consequence will have changed on the industrial front and you will go down in history as Kould-have-been, Kould-have-done Kev.

To my mind, Kev, this seems darned ungrateful and downright rude.

You see, Kev, all those corporations, business people, and corporate councils you mollified or attempted to mollify did NOT turn out the vote for you, Kev. If any of them changed their vote from Liberal to Labor for you, it was precious few and certainly not in tide-turning numbers.

Not like us, Kev. Not like us - the trade unionists, the justice seekers, the footsloggers in march after march. We worked. Agreed - some of us were in targetted electorates with huge support from the ACTU, campaign organisers, and organisations like PolMin. It was these resources - financial, organisational, and human - who turned out the vote for you, Kev. True, some of them - like Miss Eagle - gave their No. 1 to The Greens for their industrial policy while ensuring the final vote went to you. But even so, we turned out more votes for you and made the difference for you in a way that no other sector of the population did - and we did it for at least eighteen straight months.

Your Rights At Work Campaign on Election Day 2007.

So, Kev, guess what? We don't give a fig for 2010. We want industrial change now. We want equity now. We don't give a fig about what you had to say to business because we think your first loyalty is to us and not to them and that there are more of us in the Australian polity than there are of them.

I realise, Kev, that it is a long time since you and Therese felt the need to have the Union help you achieve some sort of justice for yourselves in the workplace. But perhaps you might pause to think how much Unions have helped you to Christmas Dinner at The Lodge. We ask you to think about that Kev, you and your Krew, and you might be a bit indigenous about it. It is pay back time. Time to show recipricocity, recognition and gratitude. Time to be well-mannered and acknowledge how you got to be Prime Minister. Thanks, Kev. Over to you and Krew.

Your Rights At Work Teams Celebrating Kevin Rudd's Victory, December 2007

There are two major factors in the City of Brisbane becoming the modern city it is to-day: Clem Jones and its unique system of local government wrought through the council amalgamations of 1925 which formed Greater Brisbane.

To-day we have word that Clem Jones is dead. At the height of his powers, Miss Eagle remembers Clem doing a weekly talk-back program on 4BH. People would ring up about the usual local government stuff - ditches, drains and dunnies. They would complain about an overgrown culvert on the corner of Dirt Lane and Bush Street in the suburb of Whoop Whoop and Clem would be able to give up to the minute details of planning and maintenance and the caller would go away content. What Clem didn't know about Brisbane wasn't worth knowing.

Clem was a Labor Lord Mayor and it was under Labor that Brisbane became, in 1925, the largest city in the world - in area. In these modern times of economic rationalism, conservative governments allow and Labor governments are too afraid to change the ratty little fiefdoms in places like suburban Sydney and Melbourne with their dress circle little councils in the city centres.

If people were serious about economic management and administration of major cities, they would do what Brisbane did in the first quarter of the 20th century. Brisbane is a City-State. Its aldermen service City Wards as large as State Electorates and they are remunerated at the same level.

Brisbane controls its own road transport system and controlled, for many years, its own electricity supply.

Clem brought Brisbane into modern life with sewerage. Clem is/was famous for lots of things but it was sewerage that made all the difference and for which he will be historically remembered. No more outside dunnies and la-la men picking up the cans. Brisbane went modern.

Modernisation happened again under Labor with Lord Mayor Jim Soorley in more recent times. Jim Soorley was a surprise packet. He came from almost complete anonymity to defeat the incumbent Liberal Lord Mayor Sallyanne Atkinson.

Atkinson was considered to be highly popular but turned out to be highly beatable. Late and secret polling given to the Australian Labor Party in Queensland showed she was beatable. The ever astute Wayne Swan, now Treasurer of Australia but then Secretary of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party, had next to no money for the campaign but put a last minute effort in: crumb-y black and white ads on TV, old fashioned door-knocking, old-fashioned trucks with loud speakers trawling the suburbs. It paid off and Soorley defeated Atkinson.

Under Soorley's leadership, Brisbane modernised once again. This time in its spirit - and outdoor dining became its most classic manifestation. That wonderful climate and no one had bothered before. But in the late 80s, with the Expo and the Commonwealth Games, Brisbane had a taste of something different. Under Soorley, it got it.

So for those who wonder what life will be like under wall to wall State and Federal Governments dominated by the Australian Labor Party - go north. Take a look at Brisbane - the home of the two most senior elected officials in the nation: Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister and Wayne Swan as Treasurer.

The centre of Australian gravity has moved north to Brisbane. You can even have a cabinet meeting there these days! It is helped along by the most moderately priced real estate of the eastern state capitals. But, Brisbane is what it is to-day because occasionally Labor has done its job brilliantly.

• Labor established sound municipal administration.


• Clem Jones took the reins


• Soorley brought fresh and humane eyes and ideas

These days, the Liberals have the position of Lord Mayor of Brisbane while Labor dominates the city administration with the most councillors under the leadership of Miss Eagle's old friend, David Hinchliffe. One could say that David is the de facto Lord Mayor of Brisbane.

The Lord Mayoralty of Brisbane is the only seat of government of any significance held by the conservative parties in Australia. Labor will ensure they can't muck that up as well.

Rudd's ministerial list

Gee, thanks Kev for taking Miss Eagle's advice about that superhero, Senator John. Special Minister for State and Cabinet Secretary - that will keep him at every cabinet meeting. How sweet!

The portfolio distribution looks quite artful with some ministers having plural parliamentary secretaries - is this something like plural marriage and will it require the same amount of juggling?

Here, here and here are the reports of the moment on who will be taking home every night the precious red boxes. More when the official list becomes available.

Here is the full list.

Meanwhile, across on the other side of the trenches, Brendan Nelson has just squeaked it in to the Liberal leadership over Malcolm Turnbull after silly Tony Abbott (where is Costello?) scratched himself and declared himself a future starter all at the same time. And this man wants to be taken seriously? Or doesn't he?

The exquisitely groomed but ideological right-wing Julie Bishop (now I don't think she would tolerate an earring should Nelson resume a former sartorial habit) is deputy. None of this was really surprising. Old conservatives could not vote for Turnbull - and he'd only been there five minutes anyway and his personal fortune could be scary for some.

So Brendan was probably young enough and modern enough for the progressives and sufficiently tolerable for the conservatives especially when tempered with Julie Bishop's dowry of West Australian right wing money!

Andrew Robb's political insider insight would have been handy but AR does not have sufficient flair in spite of the value of his methodical and workmanlike nature. And Christopher Pyne? You are kidding!

A mandate for intervention in the Northern Territory?

Miss Eagle has often thought that one of the difficulties for Aboriginal people goes to the very heartbeat of democracy. A simple definition of democracy which, at least in my generation, was learned at school is: government with the consent of the governed. Miss Eagle has often thought as she has seen mainstream communities battle with issues of law and order relating to the Aboriginal community that the nub of the problem was old and pervasive: how often had the Aboriginal community given its consent - been included, consulted, informed and given the privilege of having its opinion listened to? And if not - as so often has been the case - how can we expect people in such circumstances to have respect for our laws?


Behind the Howard/Brough Military Intervention in the Northern Territory were all the sins of the non-inclusive past: neglect, lack of consultation, no information, and certainly no one listening.


But Aboriginal people vote too. Out there in the bush, the planes fly in with mobile booths. If no one bothers to take any notice at any other time, then this is the time when someone CAN take notice. But will anyone notice?


In relation to whether there is a mandate for the Howard/Brough concept of military intervention in the NT, there are a few election results to be taken notice of:

• Howard's seat of Bennelong. He was defeated.


• Brough's seat of Longman. He was defeated.


• Snowdon's seat of Lingiari which contains virtually all communities affected by the intervention. Resounding vote for Snowdon and Labor.

I am indebted to Chris Graham of the National Indigenous Times writing in Crikey for the following information:

The vote for the ALP and against the Howard Government:

• Wadeye: ALP 95%. 723 voted Labor and 26 voted for Howard


• Angkarripa: ALP 99.01%. 503 voted Labor and 5 voted for Howard


• Yirrikala: (Home to Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the prominent Aboriginal leader who outraged colleagues by reversing his opposition to the NT intervention on the eve of the official start to the election campaign.) Of the 266 votes up for grabs, the Howard Government secured just two of them - 0.75 percent of the primary vote.

Many whitefellas who don't know a lot about Aboriginal matters have fallen for the Noel Pearson line. The politest public view that can be expressed was once expressed by NSW Aboriginal MLA, Linday Burney, when she said that it has to be realised that one size does not fit all. Noel is a big fella - in more ways than one - up on the Cape where there are a lot of Pearson family interests. He famously vented his spleen against the "Left" at the recent Melbourne Writers Festival. So what did people reckon electorally in Hopevale - the former Lutheran mission, pride and joy of Bjelke-Peterson regime where Bob Katter Jr negotiated the Clayton's land rights known as DOGIT (Deed of Grant in Trust).

The vote for the ALP in the booth of Hopevale was 75%.

It is going to be interesting to see what happens with Yunupingu and Pearson in relation to the new Rudd Government. Certainly, Central Land Council has some good things to say about what should be happening in relation to the intervention, the funding, and the holding of Aboriginal land to ransom.

Now Miss Eagle has never expected Aboriginals to speak with one, monolithic voice. Whitefella society doesn't. Why should it? In fact, Miss Eagle has been amazed over the decades at the united front projected by Aboriginal leadership at national level even though she was aware of undercurrents unseen. But those who have valued personal self-interest above all else have broken away for all to see. Yunupingu and Pearson are canny beings to be sure - but whitefellas have to realise how much their personal self-interest affected their actions and their decisions. Again, nothing new about that. Whitefella politicians have been hoodwinking their respective publics in exactly the same way since Moses was a boy. But let's get real.

It is time to acknowleddge the Aboriginal people and organisations who are working sensibly and in terms of sound, measured public policy and time to take note of those who have an eye to the off-chance and prepared to negotiate their own way forward when they are unable to bring their own constituencies forward with their informed consent.

So it is back to government with the consent of the governed. The Big Man role can be played irrespective of ethnicity or who was here first. The role of the inclusive, listening person is a harder role to play. Takes more time. Often there is less personal kudos. But including, listening, and acting with the consent of the people involved will always take one further. There are no guarantees that the right answers will always be there. But Aboriginal people have a right to expect the same civic rights and fulfilment of civic obligations as any other Australian. They have a right to lobby their politicians and they have a right to have their politicians consult with them.

The overwhelming vote in Aboriginal communities has been for the Rudd government. Aboriginal communities expect that with the dramatic intervention some of the drama will be retained to good effect by pouring in funding, energy, direction and policy to supplant the years of neglect. But modifications there have to be.

There is not only a mandate to get rid of Work Choices.

There is a mandate for revising the Military Intervention.

Rudd at the Rudder: measuring the homeless

At last, we have an Australian government who understands justice and equity. Earlier in the week our new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, instructed all Labor MPs to visit a public school and a private school in their electorates to inform the schools about Labor's education policy which includes a computer for every child in Grades 9-12.

Now he has instructed his MPs to undertake a second visit: to visit homeless shelters to report on the extent of the numbers of homeless people being turned away from shelters. During the campaign Rudd had declared that the numbers of homeless people would be halved under Labor. Rudd is concerned that the turn away rates may be in the vicinity of 80-90%. Just not on in a rich and comfortable nation such as Australia, says Rudd.

Looks like good news for the poor, I say!

And for more enlightenment on Rudd at the Rudder, see here.

Absentee voting in Kowloon and Hong Kong?

Was there absentee voting in Kowloon and Hong Kong for the Federal Election? Why not? How many Australians - especially those of Chinese ethnicity - commute between HK & Oz? Anyway, Labor and Kevin Rudd had the campaign covered there. It is a matter of photographic record over at club chaos.

ALL CHICKENS ARE ON THE ROOST: THE MAN OF SHAME HAS CONCEDED DEFEAT

John Howard's chickens have finally come home to roost

This morning a tune keeps coming into my mind. I hum it away but the words are a little different from the original. The tune is "After the Ball" and I apologise to Charles K Harris for the interference with his lyrics:

After the election’s over, after the votes are in,
After the worker’s leaving, after the poster’s gone,
Many a heart’s rejoicing, if you could read them all—
Many the hopes that have heightened after it all.

And here is why:

We don't know yet if John Howard has been defeated in his seat of Bennelong by Maxine McKew. But it appears more than likely. John Howard sought to make it into the history books - by longevity as Australian Prime Minister. He would have like to equalled or surpassed the long period of office of Sir Robert Menzies. He failed. He is second only to Menzies. But he will make it into the record books for another reason which he almost surely did not ever imagine - he would be kicked out by the voters of Bennelong. John Howard did not seek this record - but he will become only the second Prime Minister in Australian history to be voted out of his own seat.

As Miss Eagle's campaign against John Howard's retirement until the chickens come home to roost has shown, John Howard has meted such inhumanity out to so many people that his actions could not go unaddressed by the electorate. This has happened. The chickens have roosted. They are in the henhouse. They sit on their perch - and John Howard has been knocked off his.

John Howard was the Prime Minister for Injustice. The Minister for Injustice, Mal Brough - co-author with John Howard of the military intervention into Aboriginal life and land in the Northern Territory - has been kicked out of his seat of Longman. It is pleasing to know that the ALP has won the seat of Solomon in the Northern Territory. There are only two Federal seats in the sparsely populated NT - one was already held by Centralian stalwart Warren Snowdon for the ALP. Now the other seat has been snatched away by the ALP from the Coalition. The people of the Northern Territory have expressed their views on the military intervention at the ballot box.

Of course, a number of Liberals are in the safest of safe seats but because of their administration of injustice need to go. This raises the question of resignations and by-elections. In this category, Philip Ruddock tops the list. His horrific administration of Immigration followed by his deceptive and devious administration of the Attorney-General's portfolio has meant that he does not deserve membership in the Parliament of Australia - but the electorate of Berowra has decided to return him anyway. We look forward to his resignation from Parliament within the next twelve months.

The current incumbent in the Immigration portfolio is Kevin Andrews who has proved to have only lower-levels of competence and a complete intolerance of the heat in the political kitchen. His report card should read: Consider your future.

Another who needs to consider his future is Tony Abbott. If there is a particular hallmark in the character of Tony Abbott, it is his absolute high-level rudeness. If Tony Abbott is to continue in Parliament, graduation from a reputable charm school should be mandatory. Why should the Australian public have to witness his carry-ons?

And does Alexander Downer consider that he has a future in the Parliament? What heights of power and fame does he think he can now aspire to? Methinks, Alexander is an example of the Peter Principle. He has risen to his level of incompetence. Didn't know about the AWB corruption, Alexander? You must be incompetent then, Alexander. Otherwise, you must be telling porkies, eh?

So onto a new day...

We can't know or say what we are getting with Kevin 07 and his Krew.

We just believe that Howard & Co had to go.

We hope for a just, fair, equitable future for all.

And some of us are determined to keep Kevin and Krew to that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And - for those who might be interested in how it happened in Australian democracy yesterday - here it is

Miss Eagle did her stint at Upper Gully School.
Schools traditionally use Election Day as an opportunity for fundraising

Miss Eagle as Booth Captain was there at 5.30am setting up for Your Rights At Work. YRAW is unique in that it had no candidates of its own but it did have a voting ticket to distribute. Our organisers in La Trobe, Katie and Sam, had provided us with a huge amount of bunting and there was a huge amount of fence to take it. So YRAW won the Fence Competition!
Posters, posters all about!

Booth Workers:

The Greens; ALP, the Officer in Charge of the Polling Booth, Liberal; What Women Want; Liberal.

Within two hours, we had formed a jolly little community of civic minded people.

Election hostilities are put far away on the day.

Australia does not use computerised voting although there have recently been pilot programs for the visually impaired. We use the plain old fashioned method: pencil and paper and placing in a secure box for counting, under scrutiny of all political parties, at the close of voting. Australia does not have the big issues of electoral fraud one hears of in the U.S.A. If there are disputes arising from the polling or the counting, matters can be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns for decision.

On Election Night, there are parties - private, public, and political - so people can gather for drinks, food, and watching telecasts from the National Tally Room in Canberra. Last night, in the seat of La Trobe, Your Rights At Work and Kevin 07 people gathered in a small church hall in Tecoma and watched on the big screen - with more and more and more cheering as the night wore on. Miss Eagle was beyond applause. Euphoria would best describe her condition - sprinkled with a tear of great relief.

Howard conceding defeat - we were beginning to wonder if he every would!

Subsidies for the political parties - and the rich and enticements for voters

Are you over it, dear Reader? Well and truly over it? Miss Eagle certainly is? Last Saturday - all day - she had one recurring thought: can I vote now, can I, can I? Yes, dear Reader, I know that pre-polling is open, but I wanted desperately for last Saturday to be The Day, Election Day, the day to vote and have my vote counted and, in the best of all possible worlds, John Howard to be chucked out.

In this world of eternal polling, do you notice how we have annual buy-your-vote exercises in each Budget? This has been ably assisted by the S for Services in the GST (Goods and Services Tax). You will recall, dear Reader, that services were never taxed prior to the introduction of the GST by John Howard. This is what gives the Federal Treasurer healthy budget surpluses through which he displays a fake largesse of buying/retaining your vote annually.

You know as well as I don't you, dear Reader, that there is an alternative: salting it away to spend on infrastructure and rainy days as Norway does. Under Howard - as well as some state Labor governments - infrastructure comes a bad last. Miss Eagle does not understand why.

Conservative governments - supposedly keen on free trade and market forces - bleat about lack of subsidies to business which patently is not true. Some years ago, price-fixer Pratt and his company, Visy, received a three million dollar subsidy by the Howard Government when threats were made to take its factory to Vietnam.

It is possible to provide even-handed no-picking-winners-or-champions business subsidy which benefits not only business but the whole community including consumers and workers. This can be done by infrastructure investment. High standard efficient infrastructure - particularly in relation to ports, communications, and education - brings benefits in the form of competitive pricing, quality products, speedy delivery of exports, and jobs.

But, dear Reader, show me where this has been a high priority of the Howard government - which has been hell bent on the politics of exclusion: exclusion of the other - whether they be refugees or the peoples of the First Nations of Australia; exclusion of the majority of workers from the benefits of highly profitable employers through draconian workplace legislation.

Now, we are immersed in what could prove to be the stupidest election campaign in Australia's history because the election has been hostage to the whims of an increasingly ineffective and unpopular Prime Minister who is, arguably, the meanest person ever to lead our nation.

It is time for the common sense of the Australian body politic to intervene and call a halt. How can it do this?

The election campaign begins in earnest when Parliament is prorogued. But then there is the set piece theatre of the the official election campaign launch by the political parties involved. And when do these happen? With less than a fortnight to go, the Liberals held their launch yesterday and Labor will hold theirs to-morrow. Meaningless. Nothing but photo and pork-barrelling opportunities.

This is where some sense is needed - and we can do that by hitting the hip pocket of political parties. We can enforce short, sharp election campaigns by hitting the political purse instead of the taxpayers.

You see, dear Reader, even though Parliament has been prorogued by the Governor-General for the purpose of a general election, taxpayers are funding the campaign. To put it more accurately, taxpayers are underwriting huge amounts of dollars for the two major parties to campaign. And, dear Reader, we are not just talk about printing and mail-outs. We are talking about charter flights and accommodation - not to mention government subsidised advertising. All big ticket items.

Some taxpayers money is going to the minor parties but if they don't have many members of Parliament they are not going to get much money. It is possible for minor party candidates and independent candidates who are not members of Parliament to get some reimbursement of expenditure if they obtain a minimum amount of support at the ballot box. But the political parties have set up campaign regulations so they can milk private contributors for all they are worth - and hide and disguise who contributes to whom - and milk taxpayers at the same time.

For the past month, sitting politicians have been able to campaign the length and breadth of the country - and use the resources of their electorate and ministerial offices and staff - at taxpayers expense. Once there is an official campaign launch, then the parties have to provide all funding themselves. So this is why official campaign launches bear no relationship in time to the real campaign launch after that final sitting of Parliament. Political parties have a vested interest in staging official campaign launches as late in the campaign as possible.

It protects their funds and expends ours.

So consider this, dear Reader. What if we organised a national petition to the Federal Parliament asking that, from the time when Parliament is prorogued for the purposes of a general election, all expenses are born by political parties and candidates?

Now I reckon that would focus the debate no end. Campaigns would be short and sharp and to the point. There would still be the carry on of the election campaign you have when you are not having an election campaign which has been going on all this year. Don't see how that can be avoided. And, from here, I can't see that my suggested changes would increase the effect of that dramatically - but maybe a politician will find a way.

In the best of all possible worlds, there would be no private donations to political parties whatsoever. In fact, donations by corporations and individuals would be illegal and deemed to be corrupt. All candidates would be funded individually on an equitable basis - giving first timers a better go. At the moment, you and I, dear Reader, are funding the entrenchment of the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party as our only end-choices. It is very difficult for independent voices to enter Federal Parliament. And don't the big guys like that!

Hell hath no fury like a preference deal scorned...

Family First got one Senator up at the 2004 Federal election. With a primary vote of one-point-infinitesimal-per-cent and an array of very c-u-t-e preference deals, they got their man in Victoria up.

They were so chuffed about this that they are r-e-a-l-l-y determined to get some more of their people into the Senate - especially since s-o-o many people have tried s-o-o hard in 2007 to get the Christian vote and its family values (well, a certain brand of Christian vote and a certain brand of family values) up front and taken seriously in the political debate. Seems that there's a lot of Christians out there determined to give it to Caesar!

And Preference Deal Season - or, at this stage, its final results - is upon us. Family First is most amusing. Probably they are so amusing because they were so clever last time, their Senator so energetic and determined to be Everywhere Man on his trendy scooter, they are so publicly Good, and - it now becomes clear - so DETERMINED TO WIN AT ANY COST.

It is being reported that Family First preference deals have been made with the Liberty and Democracy Party (a bunch of libertarian nutters) and Pauline's United Australia Party. This is the evidence for Family First putting winning above anything else. Funny that. I thought Christians were against an "ends justify the means" attitude.

You see, dear Reader, Pauline Hanson's political adventures have always carried racist undertones if not, indeed, full blown overtones. Now there is a report that a Liberty and Democracy Party candidate in Tasmania has spoken out in favour of decriminalising incest. In regard to the latter, I am waiting for the jokes from all those funny people out there. You see, if you are an overseas reader, you may not know that there have long been jokes in Australia about Tasmanian family life, incest, and people with two heads. These unkind jokes relate to the fact that Tasmania is an island with a small, insular population. Now we have someone in a political party who has taken the whole thing seriously and turned it into a political policy. Wow!

Please note: If you go to the comments, dear Reader, correspondence has been entered into by Terje of the Liberty and Democracy Party. Based on his comments, Miss Eagle has issued a non-John-Howard type apology and agreed to forbear from references to nutters and the legalisation of incest in relation to the Liberty and Democracy Party. Miss Eagle has issued a full reply in the comments section. Thursday 8 November 2007 4.40pm

Well, if Pauline having another adventure and keeping her name in front of the Australian public - perhaps she wants a reprise of Dancing with the Stars - and the Liberty and Democracy Party turning an Aussie joke into political policy were not funny enough....

then amuse yourself with the idea of the good Christian supporters of Family First entering into preference deals with such racists and libertarians. OK, dear Reader, up off the floor. You are making a display of yourself.

But, on second thoughts, dear Reader, stay there a while longer while I tell you that Family First is outraged. Absolutely outraged. Its rage is out and there. Why, you ask dear Reader? Because there is a preference deal between the ALP and The Greens. Ooooh-wah! Naughty aren't they. And why, again you ask dear Reader? Because of the drug policy of The Greens!

How outrageous! Harm minimisation policies in relation to drugs are beyond the pale - but racism and incest are not! Not when it comes to Family First winning it seems.

Miss Eagle - as well as a lot of others in that tiny factional group known as Rusted-on Labor Who Vote Green - will be pleased to know that the ALP has listened and noted that the ALP constituency prefers its preferences (ok, Lexicon Harlot, I can hear you listening!) to go to parties of the left - not parties of the ultra-right. This howl of protest was heard loudly in last year's Victorian election when the Demo(n)cratic Labor Party (the dreaded, historic enemy of the ALP, the DLP) got one of theirs into the Upper House on the strength of ALP preferences.

So - if Pauline gets up - will Family First take responsibility? If people with two heads (do they get two votes), vote for the Liberty and Democracy Party will Family First publicly apologise?

What is taught at City Life Church, the second biggest Christian church in Australia after Hillsong, where Senator Steve Fielding and his family worship? Traditional Christian ethics?

The Battle for the Senate

Get Up! is masterminding the fight to keep the Senate out of the hands of one party, in particular out of the hands of the party which has control of the House of Reps. There's little doubt that Australians prefer the Senate to be a true house of review complete with Committee System (thanks and tribute to Lionel Murphy). The body politic is smarter than the major political parties give it credit for: they are able to vote one way in the Reps and vary their vote intelligently in the Senate. Long may they do so!

Family First has been reported as indulging in some classic dummy-spitting about the projected preference deal The Greens have stitched up with Labor (with the exception of Labor in Gunn's Tasmania). "Outrageous" cries Senator Fielding who holds his Senate seat on a primary vote of one point not very much per cent!

Fielding is in the Senate because of a cute preference deal at the last election and he says he's ready to talk to Pauline Hanson on preferences. Will the FF preference cuties try to come up with a deal whereby they can get anything Hanson has on offer without giving anything back? Talk about long spoons and supping with the devil!

But if venality re Hanson's preference is not enough to put FF colours on full display, get this:

"It is absolutely outrageous to think that Kevin Rudd would want to preference the Greens, knowing their stance on drugs, free injecting rooms in streets, free heroin," Senator Fielding told ABC television.

Clearly, a vote for Family First means voting for Chicken Little and his policy platform of the sky falling in. Certainly, harm minimisation is something FF finds intolerable. And injecting rooms in the streets! Well, whoda thunk it? A building with rooms in streets! Where else do rooms go? In the air so that the sky can fall on them?

But seriously, dear Reader. When all is said and done, a primary vote for The Greens in the Senate makes good sense for one very good reason - Rudd's industrial relations policy.

The electorate has not responded negatively to Rudd's "me too" political campaign. This probably means two things:

1. a lot of people swallow this and feel comforted by it
2. a lot of people don't believe the "me too" campaign and think he is doing it to get over the line and things will change in power - either of Rudd's own free will or because others will do the convincing post-election

To ensure that Rudd and Labor introduce an industrial relations program that is more accommodating to the wishes of the masses of Australians who have switched their votes to Labor on the strength of Howard's industrial relations legislation, the best bet is to vote The Greens 1,2,3 in the Senate.

The Greens industrial relations policy is more accommodating to those who have fought for the industrial rights of working people.

The best way to ensure Your Rights At Work is to have Labor in government and The Greens with the balance of power. In fact, The Greens are calling it "Third Party Insurance"!

Let Family First focus on the quality of mucus on their pacifier!

Poker Machines: Rabbitohs give the one armed bandits the flick

Congratulations to Russell Crowe and Peter Holmes a Court! Poker machines are to go from the Rabbitoh's South Sydney Club. Don't like the chances of seeing that other Souths institution, Souths Juniors, doing away with theirs.

Miss Eagle hopes that Russ and Pete find their other plans paved with integrity and gold so that other people take notice - particularly the State politicians.

Australia has wall to wall Labor governments in the states with the likelihood of making it floor to ceiling as well should Rudd win government. It is sickening to see how these supposed pillars of the working class rip off working class and welfare recipient citizens and take their cut as well. The Australian Labor Party clearly has made taking the poor an art form.

Who's missing? UR in IR

What's missing from Labor's industrial relations policy?

You - if you are on an AWA

Yahoo, Channel 7 & Kevin Rudd: masters of disrespect

Miss Eagle continues to battle back to health as the flu won't give up its grip. However, life - and blogs - go on. The email address connected to Miss Eagle's blogs has been provided by Yahoo which, in Australia, is in alliance with free-to-air media corporation, Channel 7. To-day, Miss Eagle has opened an email account with a different provider for blog readers and has spent the day transferring documents and emailing contacts with the new address.

So, dear Reader, if you have the Yahoo address for Miss Eagle but haven't had an email to-day, please contact me rather quickly while the Yahoo account remains open for just a little while longer.

Then Miss Eagle will cancel the account - and there is a reason. Or, to be more correct, there are two reasons.

Firstly, and most importantly, there are the allegations which link Yahoo in China to the imprisonment and torture of bloggers. Secondly, there is the Channel 7 malpractice in which it purchased stolen medical records relating to AFL football players. It is possible that Channel 7 may face police charges in regard to the matter. AFL footballers - except for Essendon who are sponsored by Channel 7 - are boycotting Channel 7 refusing to speak to the channel's reporters. Channel 7 is reported to be in discussion with the AFL and the AFL Players Association. No sign of an apology yet. Two items about which Miss Eagle wonders:

• about Channel 7 demonstrating a conflict of interest in relation to its sponsorship of one AFL club and reporting denigration of the members of another;
• if the Howard Government will be brave enough to try to incorporate such activity under the coverage of its recent ACCC boycott legislation.

The matters facing Yahoo and Channel 7 have one thing in common: lack of respect for the individual, in the former a right to free speech and the right to be free of torture and in the latter the right to privacy and the right to patient confidentiality. In each case, a corporate body has assumed rights for itself and made them paramount to the legitimate rights of an individual. In each case, power has been wielded well beyond the power that the individual can bring to bear. In other words, the individual has no prospect of exerting countervailing power against the corporation - public or private.

Which brings me to Kevin Rudd's backbone. You will recall, dear Reader, that Miss Eagle has taken an interest in Kevin's backbone for quite a while. Miss Eagle has wondered when curvature of Kevin's spine, under pressure, would become evident. It is now there for all to see in the form of Labor's announced IR policy.

Miss Eagle asks Rudd and Gillard and Kevin's Krew:

• how do you think you got to where you are in the polls?
• is this how you show respect for working people?
• what else will you do to show your disrespect for working people?

In case you are too middle-class and dumb to figure it out, you have done it on the backs of working people and people who care about workers' rights. These people vote and you assume they will vote for a Labor government who, supposedly, can bring them change.

Will all the executives at BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto and their $100K + a year miners vote for you, Kevin? Will they give you the numbers to govern? Or have you figured out that you can take working people for granted? Are their votes in the bag, Kevin, and you don't have to give a fig for their rights and realities?

I'd like to take you for a ride too, Kevin, when Michele O'Neil and her TCFUA officials have finished with you. Through the bleak and poor western suburbs in each of the capital cities of the eastern seaboard. You know the ones Kevin: the ones that are safe Labour seats. The ones that have a Whitlam Swimming Pool and a Wran Community Hall. The ones that are bleak and treeless. The ones that are not known as salubrious, leafy suburbs. The ones where inequity is palpable. The ones where you and Therese would never want to live - and neither would a BHP Billiton or Rio Tinto executive or their $100K+ a year miners - let alone Howard who could not tolerate Lane Cove while Kirribili was on offer.

Miss Eagle was pleased to hear Michele O'Neil on Radio National's Breakfast this morning critical of the policy and challenging Rudd to do the rounds of her members of the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union. Michele spoke powerfully of the realities of life for her members and how they could not wait the projected five years of the Rudd-Gillard policy to get out from under oppressive wages and conditions.

Miss Eagle has to-day been provided with a copy of an open letter to Rudd and Gillard by a senior union official here in Victoria. This letter is also published on Unite.

The following is an open letter to the leaders of the Australian Labor Party, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. It was written by Michele O'Neil who is the Victorian State Secretary of the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA).The TCFUA, like UNITE are extremely disappointed at Labor's latest sellout in regards to their industrial relations policy. UNITE calls on all sections of the union movement to join with us and begin to seriously discuss the question of political representation of working people. Workers deserve much better than Rudd's Labor Party.

Dear Kevin and Julia,

Don't you get it?I represent some of the lowest paid workers in the country. They sweat in backyard garages, shopfronts, and factories to make the clothes on your back. Some of our members have now faced three years without a pay increase. If they are still getting the minimum rates, and many are not, they take home about $460 each week. If they work at home as outworkers they likely get $3 to $5 an hour.

Yesterday one of the union's officials described how after a call from a worker, she went to a factory and the employer made her sit for two hours in a small room. The boss said that if any worker wanted to see her they were welcome. He didn't tell the workers the union was on site. He wouldn't let the union notice advising workers that the union was coming, go up on the notice board. And he sat a supervisor at the door of the room.

No worker came to the room. A worker rang the union describing payment of $4 an hour. For us to inspect the time and wage book in the factory I have to name the worker, something she doesn't want me to do as she says she'll be bullied and sacked. She's scared and asks me, "why can't you fix this without the boss knowing that I rang the union?" Under the Right of Entry Laws you've promised to keep, I cannot.

Earlier this year, one of my members was badly injured when the company under those same Right of Entry Laws, forced him to walk outside in the dark during a nightshift to a room 10 minutes away from where he worked to speak to his union. He fell and broke both his hands and doesn't have good prospects of returning to work.

Last week we received two calls from women workers in tears because they were being forced to give up their rights by signing an AWA in order to keep their job. They signed the AWA because they were threatened. The same AWAs which you will now leave in place for five years. Under those Right of Entry laws, because all the workers are on AWAs, we have no right to enter that workplace or visit our members.

You know that television ad from the 'Business Action' coalition with 3 thuggish blokes turning off the power in a clothing factory? Did you believe it? Would you like to meet the women who work for this union trying to get into workplaces that exploit textile, clothing and footwear workers? You could listen to our stories about what really happens when we try to use 'Right of Entry.

'My experience of violence and thuggery is of a company boss pulling a large chopping knife out of his draw and placing it on the desk between us as he explained that he didn't employ any outworkers and that I should leave his factory now.

We like other unions, have spent our hard earned union members' money on the ACTU's campaign which has increased your chances of being elected. How do I keep explaining to them what a vote for you will mean? They can't wait until 2010 for justice and fairness or rights - that's like asking them to wait for another election. They need them and deserve them right now. Stand up for the members of my union or don't expect us to stand up for you.

I invite you both to take a day to spend on the road with an official of my union visiting factories and sweatshops, so you can understand and reconsider today's announcement.

In unity,

Michele O'Neil

Victorian State Secretary, National Assistant Secretary, Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA)

http://www.tcfvic.org.au/

http://www.unite.org.au

Miss Eagle thinks that the only hope for a different Labor IR policy when Rudd is Prime Minister is another Howard copycat me-tooism.

Could it be, dear Reader, that this is Rudd's first non-core promise?

ALP : Think power. Ditch Local

It isn't in this morning's press but it appears Rodney Cocks is now, officially, the ALP candidate for the seat of La Trobe. Funny the things that pop into one's mind at times. I couldn't help thinking this morning of the environmentalist slogan "Think globally: act locally". Except. Except I altered it a bit. "Think power: ditch local". Because - unless the ALP and Rodney Cocks tell us where he lives and if he is on the La Trobe roll - Rodney Cocks has been appointed over and against the hard-working already endorsed ALP candidate, Greg Pargeter.

Of course, with Rodney overseas, is he on an electoral roll anywhere. Wouldn't be the first time a candidate has slipped up, would it?

Of course, in Queensland "Think power: ditch local" is being enacted on a broader scale in the battle to amalgamate councils and the consequent legislative battle between Peter Beattie and John Howard.

An old mate of Miss Eagle's, Brian Courtice - former ALP member for Hinkler centred on Bundaberg and who comes from a long and distinguished AWU and ALP lineage - has been vocal on Radio National's breakfast this morning outlining the federal seats which he believes the ALP has now no chance of winning when it needs Queensland seats stacking up to win government.

Courtice had a beaut quote: Beattie is Bill Clinton without the intellect. Not a bad description - but I am sure, dear Reader, you can think of a few question such a statement begs.

Kevin Rudd has publicly supported Howard against Beattie on the amalgamation issue. When the polls come in showing endangered seats endangering his Prime Ministerial challenge, will we at last see the colour of his money, the steel of his statesmanship. Will we be able to measure his true political stature? We wish. We wait to see.

This morning's The Age is related to celebrity candidature and, while not supporting the editorial in its entirety, I give it the last word with a worthwhile quote:

• The ALP does need to be mindful of the risks of parachuting in a candidate from outside the electorate. This can alienate party members who have worked for years on behalf of local candidates. The public may also see this as a trivialisation of politics.